Talk:Military history

message: "Harassment" is what happens when one editor rides one or more editor's ass over something stupid. No one's done that yet. Now if we can return to the matter at hand, lets work through this.
In summary, here's whats happened:
# has unilaterally removed the external links section without obtaining any kind of consensus for the move, and without providing any reason for the deletion.
#Objections have been raised over the deletion, for which the deleting editor has cited parts of WP:NOT and WP:EL in his defense.
# has level accusations of harassment at a Wikipedia Wikiproject (in this case WikiProject military History)
# has opened a thread at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents here concerning the removal of the external links without any attempt to gain consensus.
Opening the ANI thread was a bad maneuver, at the moment all this is is a content dispute and therefore should remain here until something egregious occurs to promote it to admin intervention levels. Because there was no consensus to remove the external links, they should remain in the article for the duration of this discussion. Now to put us back on track, we are here to answer two questions: 
#To what extent should WP:NOT and WP:EL be applied to the external links section, and
#Is there consensus among the contributors here to remove or restore the external link section.
Lets keep our comments confined to these two questions, reply to inquires in good faith, lose the personal attack mentality, and discuss this like civilized contributors. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In this talk page Ronz said that  "such broad topics generally don't have much in the way of an External links section"  .  I tried to rebut that claim with a list of 18 relevant history pages with similar EL.  He then began erasing the EL sections of these new pages--(eg History of the United States Navy, ‎ History of medicine, Social history  etc) --with no talk page activity. Those multiple erasures were "egregious" in my opinion and not a "content dispute". They violated WP:POINTY  so I protested that new action to ANI.  From the start I argue that WP:EL gives specific permission --it states: This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.  Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

text: It is listed here factually, not judgmentally, so don't worry about it; you've clarified the position and that is ultimately all that matters. And you're right, I should have provided diffs. That's m'bad. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is factual. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Break I

message: I'm listing each link as a subsection so that we can move forward with discussing content. Please comment below each title. –dlthewave ☎ 04:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Move to bibliography with proper citation...because Wikipedia, like all other encyclopedias, provide overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. Its one of basic purposes about this endeavor called Wikipedia. Don't obstruct education  and research because  of the nature of the information. --Moxy (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , that’s not the way I read ELNO#1:  A site that is a “home for further research” is exactly the opposite of this, in my opinion, as the whole point of such a home would be to either provide, or direct readers to, information not in the article. If this site were simply a listing of sources used in the article, I would agree, but the bibliography appears to be much more comprehensive than that. I agree with , though, that this has a better home in the bibliography section, rather than external links. CThomas3 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Agree with this line of reasoning (both parts). I would exclude as well. CThomas3 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Chinese military history is an important new branch and the Chinese are pouring resources in. This is perhaps the single most useful guide to substantive articles (rather than bibliography).  There is almost no overlap with #1,Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with you about Chinese military history, but why link this here when we have an article specifically on this topic (Military history of China)? Would this not be a more appropriate link over there? CThomas3 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Brill.nl is a repository for multiple books and journals, like JStor.org. There's nothing duplicative in multiple links to the site unless they are to the same subject in the same journal. However, unless I'm missing something, both links are to paywalled documents, which does not seem desirable, right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

text: That’s just the first line of ELNO#10. It further talks about chat/discussion forums, Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. I interpreted this to be a discussion forum. And while it may be pitched at professors of history, it appears that anyone can sign up for an account and participate. There is nothing about numbers of users in the guideline. CThomas3 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ELNO#10  attacks open social media sites and specifies them (Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Yahoo! Groups, Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.)  Let's not read it so broadly that it includes & bans all talk pages on Wikipedia, including this one!  The actual EL rule in a nutshell is External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article --yes this one is meritable and yes it is directly relevant. The  El rule page also states: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.   Note the advice " Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense." (which is stated at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I can get behind this argument. As I said before, I find the information there to be very good and planned to subscribe to it regardless of the outcome of this. Striking my above; I'm okay to include. CThomas3 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's geared to specialists in military history and those are people we also serve. Rjensen (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Although, it may be worthwhile to include a link in "See also" as "List of professional societies in military history", or similar. Such as list can provide links to individual Wiki articles of these societies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Similar to my comment above, it may be worthwhile to include a link in "See also" as List of military history journals. This list article can provide links to individual Wiki pages of military history journals. That way, no specific society or journal is privileged by having an external link from this article.  --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  I disagree about "one extra click"  If site ABC is listed in our EL list then it's very easy to see and decide to reach. If it is erased then what?? Even if ABC is buried deep in a directory that is still listed--then the readers are lost.  They do not know ABC is useful they do not know its name ABC, and they will have to scan hundreds of entries to possibly find it--what a waste of time. No one benefits.  Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you not curate this directory yourself? If so, you have the creative license to give readers all the information they need to determine whether or not the link is valuable. You can provide far more detail than we could possibly here in Wikipedia with a short descriptive phrase. CThomas3 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: yes that's a good point. But in recent years I think my best skill is in finding sources (esp books & articles that can be cited and perhaps linked to extracts or complete text) that wiki users can use --ranging from beginning-level to advanced cites. My plan is to add them to specific Wiki articles--so that a reader interested in the war of 1812 (say) will be much more likely to find the cites by simply looking at the 1812 article rather than by browsing a directory that covers the world. The other problem is that world military history is too big for anyone. By focusing on one narrow topic at aa time I can be more confident that I am being useful.  It also much easier for me to use very powerful resources like google scholar when the topic produces 100 cites, ranked by how often cited by scholars, rather than many thousands of possibles. The books & articles most often footnoted in recent published scholarship is a great guide to useful RS.  Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The links

message: *Include - Quality bibliography for further research. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Move to bibliography with proper citation...because Wikipedia, like all other encyclopedias, provide overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. Its one of basic purposes about this endeavor called Wikipedia. Don't obstruct education  and research because  of the nature of the information. --Moxy (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , that’s not the way I read ELNO#1:  A site that is a “home for further research” is exactly the opposite of this, in my opinion, as the whole point of such a home would be to either provide, or direct readers to, information not in the article. If this site were simply a listing of sources used in the article, I would agree, but the bibliography appears to be much more comprehensive than that. I agree with , though, that this has a better home in the bibliography section, rather than external links. CThomas3 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.brill.nl/ibmh ''International Bibliography of Military History''] of the International Commission of Military History – from Brill.nl

message: *Exclude Shouldn't be included if other Brill.nl links are included. Shouldn't be included because it focuses on Chinese military history rather than military history in general. --Ronz (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with this line of reasoning (both parts). I would exclude as well. CThomas3 (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. Chinese military history is an important new branch and the Chinese are pouring resources in. This is perhaps the single most useful guide to substantive articles (rather than bibliography).  There is almost no overlap with #1,Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with you about Chinese military history, but why link this here when we have an article specifically on this topic (Military history of China)? Would this not be a more appropriate link over there? CThomas3 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Brill.nl is a repository for multiple books and journals, like JStor.org. There's nothing duplicative in multiple links to the site unless they are to the same subject in the same journal. However, unless I'm missing something, both links are to paywalled documents, which does not seem desirable, right? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.brill.nl/jcmh ''Journal of Chinese Military History''] – from Brill.nl

message: *Exclude - Self-published; no indication that this is a reputable, expert source. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://HistoryOfWar.org Military History Encyclopedia] – at the UK's HistoryOfWar.org

message: *Comment: This link is included in the AmericanHistoryProjects.com directory below. --Ronz (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s just the first line of ELNO#10. It further talks about chat/discussion forums, Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, etc. I interpreted this to be a discussion forum. And while it may be pitched at professors of history, it appears that anyone can sign up for an account and participate. There is nothing about numbers of users in the guideline. CThomas3 (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ELNO#10  attacks open social media sites and specifies them (Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, Yahoo! Groups, Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.)  Let's not read it so broadly that it includes & bans all talk pages on Wikipedia, including this one!  The actual EL rule in a nutshell is External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article --yes this one is meritable and yes it is directly relevant. The  El rule page also states: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.   Note the advice " Emphasize the spirit of the rule. Expect editors to use common sense." (which is stated at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines Rjensen (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I can get behind this argument. As I said before, I find the information there to be very good and planned to subscribe to it regardless of the outcome of this. Striking my above; I'm okay to include. CThomas3 (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [https://networks.h-net.org/h-war H-WAR, daily discussion group for historians] – from Michigan State University Department of History, H-Net Humanities & Social Sciences Online

message: *Exclude A "news and views" blog format, using a simple blog format, run by Timera Media. Seems to fit ELNO#11. --Ronz (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.WarHistoryOnline.com WarHistoryOnline.com]

message: *Comment Characterizes itself as a "A webzine of community submitted articles", but I cannot find any information about who this community is, or what oversight is involved, if any. That makes me wonder if ELNO#10 or 11 apply. --Ronz (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/ MilitaryHistoryOnline.com]

message: *Exclude - This is just a set of timelines with the quality level of a grade-school essay, and there's no reason to link to a site that's less detailed than Wikipedia's coverage of the same topics. The owner, Family Media LLC, shows no sign of reliability whatsoever. –dlthewave ☎ 04:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [https://www.militaryhistory.org/ MilitaryHistory.org]

message: *Exclude Duplicate of "Journal of Military History". Although it appears to be a reputable organization, the website doesn't contain useful content for readers. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's geared to specialists in military history and those are people we also serve. Rjensen (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, it may be worthwhile to include a link in "See also" as "List of professional societies in military history", or similar. Such as list can provide links to individual Wiki articles of these societies. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.smh-hq.org American Society for Military History]

message: *Exclude per WP:ELREG. Content is only accessible through EBSCOhost paywall. –dlthewave ☎ 05:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar to my comment above, it may be worthwhile to include a link in "See also" as List of military history journals. This list article can provide links to individual Wiki pages of military history journals. That way, no specific society or journal is privileged by having an external link from this article.  --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://www.smh-hq.org/jmh.html ''Journal of Military History''], the quarterly journal of the Society for Military History

message: *Include, unless there's a more comprehensive directory to use instead. I assume the COI issues will not a problem with its inclusion. If we include this directory, then anything in the directory should not be linked directly from the External links section. I'll identify them all if no one does before I get to it. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree about "one extra click"  If site ABC is listed in our EL list then it's very easy to see and decide to reach. If it is erased then what?? Even if ABC is buried deep in a directory that is still listed--then the readers are lost.  They do not know ABC is useful they do not know its name ABC, and they will have to scan hundreds of entries to possibly find it--what a waste of time. No one benefits.  Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you not curate this directory yourself? If so, you have the creative license to give readers all the information they need to determine whether or not the link is valuable. You can provide far more detail than we could possibly here in Wikipedia with a short descriptive phrase. CThomas3 (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: yes that's a good point. But in recent years I think my best skill is in finding sources (esp books & articles that can be cited and perhaps linked to extracts or complete text) that wiki users can use --ranging from beginning-level to advanced cites. My plan is to add them to specific Wiki articles--so that a reader interested in the war of 1812 (say) will be much more likely to find the cites by simply looking at the 1812 article rather than by browsing a directory that covers the world. The other problem is that world military history is too big for anyone. By focusing on one narrow topic at aa time I can be more confident that I am being useful.  It also much easier for me to use very powerful resources like google scholar when the topic produces 100 cites, ranked by how often cited by scholars, rather than many thousands of possibles. The books & articles most often footnoted in recent published scholarship is a great guide to useful RS.  Rjensen (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://americanhistoryprojects.com/downloads/mil-2012.html Web Sources for Military History] – from AmericanHistoryProjects.com

message: *Exclude Shouldn't be included because it focuses on Canadian war history rather than military history in general. --Ronz (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: [https://web.archive.org/web/20160315142653/http://www.warmuseum.ca/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/ Online Exhibitions – The Canadian War Museum]

message: I just got through examining this page for a school assignment, and I must say that everyone involved with this did a great job! There are a wealth of sources, the links lead to reputable sources, and images are properly captioned. I also did not locate any grammatical errors. Overall, nice job!ReedP12 (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice Page! 

message: Hello everyone. We need to organize better this article, because you have two sections compromising the history of war: "Technological Evolution" and "Periods of Military war" MUST be joined together because the article has messed up 2806:102E:B:BC5E:59CB:2CCB:F036:A5F4 (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two similar sections about history of war.