Talk:List of military disasters

message: These 3 battles were both utter annihlations of an army, so I belive they should count. The Siege of Vienna by Suleiman was just a failed siege; an unsuccessful campaign, but not nearly a disaster. Zapcre (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Battles of Pliska, Arcadiopolis and Kleidion, arguing for remival of the Siege of Viena 

message: How are we defining a Military Disaster? The First Gulf War for example was a triumph for the US but a Disaster for the Iraqis. What I see on this list is many examples of Imperial setbacks (Little Bighorn, Majuba Hill, Isandlwana) being labeled disasters which is fine, but not the Battle of Ommdurman or other significant defeats of non-imperial forces against Imperalist forces. Basically the problem I see with this page is it is a list of significant and "embarrassing" defeats of mostly England and the US which in the long-run didn't really have much an impact on those societies rather than a list of battles that actually destroyed a whole society. I would argue for example that the Battle of Midway was far more of a disaster for Japan than Pearl Harbor was for the US anyway something to think about. 138.28.241.32 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Bias/Prespective 

message: While there is discussion about Vukovar above, I'm challenging the inclusion of the Battle of Chancellorsville as a military disaster.  While RS acknowledge that Confederate casualties were heavy and affected the later performance of Lee's army, they generally don't deem it as a disaster, and Chancellorsville is sometimes termed "Lee's greatest victory".  Likewise, the RS don't consider it a Union disaster, as Hooker got his army out intact.  The inclusion of Chancellorsville here appears to be pure original research based on speculation of the affects of the death of Stonewall Jackson. Hog Farm  Talk 17:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , while I don’t know much about the Battle of Chancellorsville, I have a question. What is you view on this list page in general? Is it even worth having? I agree with some above that this list seems more trouble than worth maintaining. Just curious your thoughts on it. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I personally think it is a theoretically useful page to have.  But it's a huge mess right now. It's kinda like List of one-hit wonders in the United States - a valid encyclopedic topic that people want to read about, but it will also be a difficult article because there is no clear-cut inclusion criteria and it will be rife with OR.  This article will require a lot of maintenance work if cleaned up, but I think this has the potential to be a useful article if repaired. Hog Farm  Talk 17:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Do any RS say it was a military disaster?Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   - I've only read two book-length treatments and a few shorter treatments, and none of them declare it as a military disaster.  Pyrrhic victory in some, but none really describe it as a disaster.  I can't speak for all sources, but the scholarly consensus I've seen is that it isn't. Hog Farm  Talk 20:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chancellorsville 

message: While we're at it (see the two discussions above), I want to present some possible . All are from McNab's The World's Worst Military Disasters. Should some or all of the following be included or do people oppose some entries? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I’m of the opinion of as long as the source states it was a military disaster, catastrophe, tragedy, setback or mishap or whatever other synonyms, it should be fine to include. At least that’s been my criteria for inclusions. OyMosby (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible additions

message: this page is currently at AfD. As you've just made some significant content changes, you might want to contribute to the discussion, if not to !vote, then to at least
make note of your changes. (fyi) - wolf 14:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: When someone can just come along and gut more than 2/3rds of the article. And do so right after an AfD closes without the deletion they so vehemently argued for.  - wolf 23:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly appreciate being subtweeted (for lack of a better word), nor being misrepresented. I did not in fact argue for deletion, let alone vehemently.  that I would be in favour of keeping the list if we could come up with proper WP:LISTCRITERIA, and also noted the WP:Alternative to deletion of converting it to a prose article along the lines of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction.If you think the article would be better served by restoring the entries I removed, undoing my WP:BOLD edits per WP:BRD would be trivial. TompaDompa (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not referring so much to this article as I am the process in general, and as such I have no interest in reversing your edits. An AfD closes as "no consensus", keeping the article, and seven minutes later it's literally gutted, by one of the AfD participants, who commented: "" (and you certainly leaned right into it). Surely the optics of all that is not lost on you? - wolf 02:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreferenced material can be removed at any time, and there's clearly strong support in the discussion below to require good quality references. In a lot of cases it should be possible to restore the removed material once the referencing issue is sorted out. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why bother with AfD...? 

message: Unexpected and first use of massed Longbows by the Welsh.  Done against Norman heavy armored cavalry.  Yielded a totally unexpected defeat for the Normans, who outnumbered them.  Should be included.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little concrete information on this battle and certainly none of massed longbow use.  While this was clearly a heavy defeat for Norman forces, RS would be needed that described it as a "military disaster".  Monstrelet (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Battle of Crug Mawr]], 1136. Also known as the [[Battle of Cardigan]]

message: The following reference (presently 10) is cited: Beate Dignas & Engelbert Winter, Rome & Persia in Late Antiquity; Neighbours & Rivals, (Cambridge University Press, English edition, 2007), p94, p131 & p134.  A search of the source for "disaster" gives only one result (p. 320).  It occurs in the title of a work cited by Beate et al: The Battle of Carrhae: The Effects of a Military Disaster on the Roman Empire.  It does not appear that Beate et al have opined Julian's Persian War was a military disaster and the entry is not supported by sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Julian's Persian War]] (363 AD) 

message: Hi , thankyou for adding pages for Willmott, which is the citation for this entry.  I have only a limited view via google books here.  It gives me a partial view of the two pages (pp 396 & 518).  (p396) and  From what I can see, these two statements are contradictory and do not reasonably support Midway's inclusion.  However, it does appear to be an entry in The 100 Worst Military Disasters in History (Kuehn, 2020) but I don't have it and can't see enough of it.  I will try to get it through the library but this will take some time - being in a remote locale.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: PS also Great Military Disasters(Paragon 2012). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I have just been advised that Great Military Disasters and The 100 Worst Military Disasters in History are not available at all through library services in Australia.  , it might be that they are held in reference sections and not available for loan.  Would you have access to either of these?  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't have either of these books, nor access to them through the libraries.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

text: On page 518, the 'narrow margin' they're referring to is the Battle of the Coral Sea:
	
Later on in the page they also mention that "The confusion of objectives and the diminution and division of force that denied the Japanese a possible victory in the Coral Sea brought them to disaster off Midway." Hope this explains things. Loafiewa (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battle of Midway]] 

message: Now that a partial resolution of the definitional rules has been achieved, how should this impact on the lead paragraph, with its alternative criteria for being included in the list? Monstrelet (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs to be re-written.  It commences with a statement that is not a summary of a consensus of the sources on the subject - it is not verifiable and it is not a summary of verifiable sources.  It then posits one definition - a POV of that author without representation of other opinions (WP:UNDUE).  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have rewritten it. It still relies mostly on McNab, as that is the source that goes into the most detail about what a military disaster is. Feel free to tweak it further. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, looking much better I think.  The limitation I have is access to appropriate sources. I might try to incorperate Kuehn, John T. (2020-01-16). "Tours". The 100 Worst Military Disasters in History - (introduction) where he talks of political ramifications.  As an observation, this seems to be a definition of decisive battles - except as seen from the loosing side? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying the lead paragraph 

message: The Battle of Maritsa has been proposed for inclusion in this list (this edit) with the following sources given.  The article for the battle makes no mention of it being a disaster.  There is no analysis through sources in the aftermath refering to it being a "particular" disaster. The list inclusion criteria are:  [empasis added]  The question is whether the sources are sufficient for inclusion in this list.  I would take the first source at face value as meeting the criteria.  However, according to deWiki, the publisher, GRIN verlag, is a self-publishing platform that exercises no editorial oversight.  It cannot therefore, be considered a reliable source.  The second source states that: .  It is not referring to the battle itself and nor is the source on the subject of military disasters (or similar).  The third ref (p 33) makes a one sentence passing reference to the battle, that it .  It makes no other reference to the battle. This appears to be but a passing reference.  It does not appear to be a source suitable for addressing the list inclusion criteria.  Consequently, it does not appear that the references supplied are sufficient for inclusion of the battle in this list.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear to me why disputing this battle as a military disaster? You have as many sources as you want it to be a military disaster. Here are some of them.
Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe, The Hardcover – May 15, 1988by Lowell Clucas [] in books write: "The attempts they directed would nevertheless end in disasters , where they lost their lives , the first in 1371 , in the battle of Maritsa , and the other...." []
one more 
In The Modern Balkans: A History Richard C. Hall says in page 33 "An attempt by various Serbian leaders to stop the Ottomans ended in disaster on the Maritsa River in 1371"  []
East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 Jean W. Sedlar says "In 1371 a major disaster for the Christians occurred on the Maritsa River" []
Byzantium: The Decline and Fall John Julius Norwich says BATTLE OF THE MARITSA ( 1371) "Here was a disaster not only for the Serbs , but for Byzantium and indeed..."
You have as many examples as you want. I couldn't ask for more. If these are not reliable sources and the writers who wrote it then it is not true that it was a military disaster and these writers are lying. 93.138.142.12 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

text: None of these sources are specifically about the subject of military disasters, which was already outlined as part of the inclusion criteria. Loafiewa (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Loafiewa Are you saying that these books are fake and that these writers are liars? 93.138.142.12 (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I am saying that the books are not about the subjects of military disasters. Making blatant strawman arguments is a form of misrepresentation, and against the civility policy. Loafiewa (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those who write those books are historians and they know best what was in history, what do you think about those people who write those books?93.138.142.12 (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. The inclusion criteria mandate that the cited sources be about the subject of military disasters. TompaDompa (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So here is politics, not what historians say in books, so then write for them. Determine what will be written and what will not. Historians have said in cited sources that it was a military disaster, but you don't like it and only you determine which battles can be written. I think it's against the rules of Wikipedia.93.138.142.12 (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Do any RS say it was a military disater?Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , the sources cited adding the battle to the list mention the word disaster, as do the sources cited herein (that I can see).  However, King Vukasin and the disastrous Battle of Marica appears to be self published (per my OP).  All of the others (to the extent I can see) make only passing references (perhaps one sentence) and not necessarily to the battle being a military disaster per se but that the result was a disaster for a party to the battle, such as the Serbian lords in consequence of the result.  Certainly, none of the sources cited deal with the battle in any depth, let alone give weight to a claim that it is a "military disaster".  None are sources dealing with the subject of "military disasters" (or similar).  None have a prevailing thesis that the battle is a military disaster.  A reasoned and rational case might be made for the battle's inclusion as an exception to the list criteria (with some stronger sourcing) but this has not been made. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I want the IP to provide the passage where it says it was a military disaster.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

text: See my answer there93.138.142.12 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said everything there, but no one answered me why these writers Caroline Finkel, John Julius Norwich, Richard C. Hall, Sedlar Jean W are not reliable as a source. Only that battle cannot be written here, but there is no answer as to why. Unfortunately such is the policy and these historians are worth nothing here. Then write what you want I will never read Wikipedia again. Goodbye93.138.142.12 (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has said most of them are, they have said they do not say it was a military disaster (see wp:v). You have e not made a case that they do in fact say it was.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible inclusion of [[Battle of Maritsa]] 

message: This article has been semi-protected. Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. Such users can request edits to this article by proposing them on this talk page, using the  template if necessary to gain attention. New users may also request the confirmed user right by visiting Requests for permissions. De728631 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Perhaps these 
should be included in military disasters of WWII era.  They included a large loss of life (mostly civilians), promptly led to defeat of one side, and were caused by inferior technology, since at that time only the US had nuclear weapons.CharlesHBennett (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Entries on this list are those where multiple sources dealing with the subject of military disasters have deemed the event in question to be a military disaster (or an equivalent term)." (Hohum @) 01:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear bombings ending WWII 

message: Really surprised Battle of Lemberg isn't already included already, but I guess Austro-Hungarian history isn't very known. If for not the sheer fact the casualties and losses of Austro-Hungary were a third of their army. The historian, Graydon Tunstall, points out that they lost the core of their officers, and had to essentially rebuild their army.-Go-Chlodio (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Lemberg 

message: I think Operation Kalbajar was a military disaster for Azerbaijan. Because one party of the war tried to take land from the other party and not only failed to do so but also took multiple times heavier losses than the defenders. A reliable source is a journalist named Thomas de Waal.
I tried to edit it but I was nearing the three-revert rule so I am willing to discuss now. 77.248.247.89 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You may do, but others clearly disagree, so you need to make a case why your wp:or trumps theirs. The source (by the way) has to say it was a military disaster, your interpretation of the source is not good enough (and nor was https://allinnet.info/history/the-battle-of-omar-pass/, the source you used). Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But the original Wikipedia page already has sources listed under it, so why is there need to double it? The battle happened and it was the deadliest of the whole war. 77.248.247.89 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the sources call it a "military disaster"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no, but when you plan to take a certain territory and fail to take a single inch while losing your whole attacking force, then that's something bigger than a military defeat, that's more than just losing, think about it. 77.248.247.89 (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the parent article both sides lost about the same number of men (during the whole operation) so am unsure it was a disaster. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Kalbajar 

message: Would Gettsyburg fit this list? I'm specifically asking because of Pickett's Charge, which was undoubtedly a massive, costly mistake. Delukiel (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it can meet the criteria. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Two sources denoting it as a disaster, right? I'll keep my eyes peeled. I have a scholarly Civil War book I've been meaning to read. Delukiel (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gettsyburg 

message: Do we really not think of the War in Afghanistan as an insane military disaster? 20 years. Billions of dollars. A military trained by the best that couldn't hold a single city in the last days of the conflict. No will power to fight back and 20 years of preparing just down the drain. The Outcome exactly the same as if US would never interfere. I don't know I think everyone would call this a disaster. But I guess I just need to find reliable sources and I am good to go? Mikimannen (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If you get the references required. Until then, please abide by WP:BRD and remove your contested addition instead of edit warring. (Hohum @) 21:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I was probably editing the article at the same time as you removed my edit didn't even see that you removed it, my bad. Also do I just post again after I get the sources or should I post my changes here? So you can see if it's all good? Mikimannen (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I'd suggest putting the sources here first. Bear in mind they need to be "multiple sources dealing with the subject of military disasters [that] have deemed the event in question to be a military disaster (or an equivalent term)." A general history book or news report describing it as a disaster doesn't qualify. The existing sources used in the article show the type meant. (Hohum @) 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Please read the inclusion criteria, which is given in the lead of the article. Sources (plural) must deal with the subject of military disasters (plural). A source that deals with a particular battle/war and describes it as a disaster is not dealing with the subject of "military disasters" (or similar). If you look at other entries in the article, you will see that they are supported by sources that specifically deal with the subject of "military disasters" and they are the type of source required. Short answer is no. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  War in Afghanistan