Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history: Difference between revisions
→Articles: one assessed |
→Articles: one assessed |
||
Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
*[[Willem Benjamin Craan]] |
*[[Willem Benjamin Craan]] |
||
*[[William Leeke]] |
*[[William Leeke]] |
||
*[[Sir William Anson, 1st Baronet]] This is an article I expanded for GA in 2022 and then forgot about. It should be B now but I'll leave that for someone else to judge! [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
*<s>[[Sir William Anson, 1st Baronet]]</s> This is an article I expanded for GA in 2022 and then forgot about. It should be B now but I'll leave that for someone else to judge! [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC) Agreed, and have assessed as B-class - [[User:Dumelow|Dumelow]] ([[User talk:Dumelow|talk]]) 21:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
||
*<s>[[HMS Curlew (1812)]]</s> Missing citations. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
*<s>[[HMS Curlew (1812)]]</s> Missing citations. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
||
*[[Nicolas-François Roussel d'Hurbal]] |
*[[Nicolas-François Roussel d'Hurbal]] |
Revision as of 21:24, 10 October 2024
- Please add requests for MILHIST participation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input. This includes requests for comment, requested moves, articles for deletion, and more.
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
Requests for project input
There's a discussion at Talk:1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#RfC_–_In_the_article_section_about_"Haifa",_should_the_following_paragraph_be_added? about whether specific prose attributed to Benny Morris should be added to 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --MikutoH talk! 22:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Siege of Gerona (disambiguation)
An editor has requested that Siege of Gerona (disambiguation) be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.
FAR for Rudolf Vrba
I have nominated Rudolf Vrba for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Web-julio (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Module:Infobox military conflict has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Request for input at Talk:World War III
I would appreciate input or suggestions at Talk:World War III#War on terror as WWIV about whether the section Extended usage of the term should mention that the War on terror is sometimes called WW IV. Sjö (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I recently created a draft for Prisoners of war in World War II after I noticed that there was an article on the subject on French and German Wikipedia. It may be of interest to members of this project. Thriley (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Saint-Inglevert Airfield
An issue has been raised at talk:Saint-Inglevert Airfield which members of this WP may be able to resolve. Please feel free to voice your opinions. Mjroots (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
My rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page
I have done an expansive rewrite edit of Wikipedia’s Bombardment of Greytown page on that page’s talk page.
There, I had learned that: “This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: Military history: Maritime / British / European C‑class.”
I invite anyone associated with WikiProject: Military history to read my attempt to improve upon this Start-class article and to comment.
Thank you.
Will-DubDub Will-DubDub (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Input needed for consensus on articles
There's current discussion on Talk:War of 1812 and Talk:War of the Sixth Coalition due to disagreement with co-belligerent inclusion and the degree of relation of the two conflicts. I encourage you to pop in and join the discussion/add your input so we can reach a consensus one way or the other. Thanks! AvRand (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback from the larger community would be helpful. In essence, there are three topics to agree upon and to be discussed:
- Size, structure and content of this list
- Merging of two lists with similar scope
- Renaming the article
Please pitch in. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Capitalization of "tab" and "badge"
Having stumbled upon Tabs of the United States Army (and learning that these insignia are even called tabs), I noticed with some annoyance that the word "tab" was inconsistently capitalized in that article, sometimes as "tab" sometimes as "Tab". I was pretty confident that, when talking about tabs in general, we should use lower case. It's in no case a proper noun then. The problem was in usages like "Airborne Tab" or "Special Forces Tab", as if that's a proper noun as an official title of the thing. I looked at the main US Army source promininently used in that article, AR 670-1, and this Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia document does not use caps for the word tab, even when referring to "the airborne tab".
Badges are trickier, apparently, because the capitalization in AR 670-1 varies. Section 21, for example, leaves "badge" lowercase, as in:
- "...who have been awarded the combat infantryman badge, the expert infantryman badge", top of p.49 (PDF-page 57) or
- "...have been awarded the corresponding Parachutist or Air Assault badge", lower down on that same page.
Section 22, meanwhile, seems to cap more eagerly, as in
- "...affixed to the Parachutist Badge and the Military Free Fall Parachutist Badge", p.52 (PDF-p.60)
- "...or Naval Qualification Badges such as the Naval aviation warfare specialist" p.54 (PDF-p.62)
That section also caps "Presidential Medal of Freedom" and "Medal of Honor", with which I take no issue, but also capitalizes "Soldiers", as in "next of kin of Soldiers who lost their lives", e.g. at the top of p.51 (PDF-p.59). The 2nd page of the PDF also uses "...authorizes female Soldiers who are...", which I see as just wrong.
But based on this (shaky?) evidence in AR 670-1, and encouraged by the fact that Ranger tab already had a lowercase title and that other sources I quickly surveyed tended to not cap, I went about standardizing on lower-case usage, not only within Tabs of the United States Army, but with the titles and content of our other tab articles. Ranger tab, for example, had mixed-use (mostly "Tab"); other articles (Ranger Challenge Tab and President's Hundred Tab), were all "Tab".
I tried "fixing" the last article, after moving (with redirects) what I could, but Special Forces tab already exists as a redirect to Special Forces Tab. My "bold clean-up" is now stalled at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Contested technical requests. My question (finally!! is, what style policy is appropriate for article names and references to this kind of insignia?
I've found a fairly recent move discussion at Talk:Ranger tab#Requested move 10 February 2024, with arguments in favor of "Ranger tab". However, the wide use of "Tab" (even months later on that article) makes me wonder what consistent usage we want. Thanks for your time and any input you can give. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 11:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- My impression, from looking at a variety of sources, is that tab is not generally considered to be part of a proper name, but badge often is. For example, that parachutist badge is capped in almost all books (but not in Army Officer's Guide). Go figure. And qualification badges would of course be lowercase, though a minority of books cap it. Specific qualification badges can be capped. Dicklyon (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- The most appropriate guideline is generally the lead at MOS:CAPS, which relies on studying sources, even if that doesn't make it all easy or totally consistent. Dicklyon (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have a few sources about shoulder sleeve insignia or patches. When tab is used in a sentence, unconnected to a specific tab, it is not capitalized. However, I found nothing in any of them about capitalization of a specific tab, such as Ranger Tab. The tabs themselves are in all caps. That is the way the sources that I have show them in sentences or captions. That is not helpful for Wikipedia title captions, of course. Donner60 (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Source request
Hello all. Just wondering if anyone owns, or might be able to access, a copy of Breaker Morant: The Final Roundup (ISBN: 9781445659657). If so, if would help expand a FA candidate. Cheers in advance. AA (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi AA. I assume it was for filling in the missing page numbers at Robert Poore? I got lucky with Google Books preview which had the pages in question and have completed the citations - Dumelow (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was indeed for the page numbers! How did you manage it? My usual trick is to quickly flick the pages, and it usually confuses it enough to reveal the page numbers, but it didn't work this time! Much appreciated :) AA (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I usually do a search for the subject you are looking for within the book (eg. "poore"). It will give you a snippet view of each mention and the surrounding couple of sentences. If you do a fresh Google search for a particular phrase (ie. enclosed in quotation marks) on the page you are interested in it will often give you full page preview access; the url it gives you has the page number encoded into it, eg. "&pg=PT543" is page 543. Bit of a faff but works OK as long as there's not too many mentions in the book! - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was indeed for the page numbers! How did you manage it? My usual trick is to quickly flick the pages, and it usually confuses it enough to reveal the page numbers, but it didn't work this time! Much appreciated :) AA (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Goals on MILHIST main page are over 100%
Should we reset the goals listed at WP:MILHIST#What do we do? All but the B-class goal are over 100% complete. (Well done everyone!) Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Last time this came up the coordinators elected to "bask in the sense of a mission completed for a while". That was two years ago. Back in 2018, there was a proposal that we move away from long term goals towards more short-term goals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like this is being tackled at WT:MHCOORD#Suggestions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know why ShadowTZX keeps putting casualties for the Western Front 1914-1918 into the infobox? I've asked twice. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe ShadowTZX finds the infobox of Western Front tactics, 1917 as confusing as I do. It gives a date range of the entire war, lists 1917 as an Allied victory, and in the commanders box lists Foch but notes he only took command in 1918 - not really relevant/correct if this is about 1917 only. Nthep (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- You might be right, I'm not sure if other parts of the infobox have been altered too. I'll have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've edited the infobox but wonder now if it's the right one? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- You might be right, I'm not sure if other parts of the infobox have been altered too. I'll have a look. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
TZX has replied, apparently he's using the article as a sandbox so I've set one up for him. Should keep him out of trouble. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Edit screen changes?
Does anyone know of a change in the way that the edit screen looks? When I click the edit button, it looks normal, then all of a sudden, items that are links or in the lang|xx| formula etc go coloured.... It's like someone's got over-enthusiastic with crayons. Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's doing it here now. I've checked my preferences but can't see anything that would do this. {{short description|German withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line, 1917}} ('Edit screen changes?' is sans serif and in a larger font, 'short description' is violet in bold, the rest of the text is violet and not bold). Most perplexing. Even the four tildes are in blue.... Keith-264 (talk) 08:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- You turned on the syntax highlighter.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll get rid. Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Keith-264: I'd encourage you to try it out for a couple days... Syntax highlighting has really helped me parse things like complicated article source code and talk page conversations. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll get rid. Keith-264 (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
No thanks, too fussy. Keith-264 (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone need Time Life books about WWII for sourcing?
I am currently volunteering at a book sale and we have about 40 Time Life books about WWII. Note that this is a limited time offer because other people are buying books and the sale ends today at 7PM EST. Please ping me if you need one and I’d be happy to contact you about sending it or just finding the info you need. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Tough timeline here! If that happens again, I might advise adding "URGENT" or similar to your section title. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
What was the South African Field Force?
Hello all. I have seen the term "South African Field Force" banded about in works on the Second Boer War, but I'm not entirely sure what it is. Is it another name for the South African Army, or an extension of the Natal Field Force? AA (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know a great deal about the Second Boer War but the term "field force" was used fairly often in the later 19th century to denote a group of units working together in one campaign. The British and colonial troops committed to the Second Invasion of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War were formally known as the South African Field Force (which was itself further split into two divisions) and an earlier incarnation of the Natal Field Force served in the First Boer War (1880-1881). The Peshawar Valley Field Force and Kabul Field Force were used in the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880). I don't know much about how they were formed specifically but I suspect they were an easy way to combine together units drawn from various British Army commands, armies (Natal Colony, British India etc.) and locally-raised forces under a single commander - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was (in a sense) the British term for a temporary brigade. In the Cold War, there was a formally organized field force in BAOR (8th field force as I recall). Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Field force Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you all for getting back to me on this, has helped settle a query at FAC. AA (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- Field force Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was (in a sense) the British term for a temporary brigade. In the Cold War, there was a formally organized field force in BAOR (8th field force as I recall). Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to WikiProject Council
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a "meta" WikiProject that talks about how to organize and support WikiProjects. I would love it if some of you would put that page on your watchlist and would join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Added. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: y'all may also be interested. Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Add the Battle of Muddy Flat to List of Wars Involving the USA and the Taiping Rebellion Wiki?
Hi everyone so the Battle of Muddy Flat article has been published. Should we add it to the List of wars involving the United States and the Taiping Rebellion Wiki?
Please let me know your thoughts and contribute to the conversations either here or there, preferably both. If no objects to it, I will likely do it myself at some point in the near future. Historyguy1138 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I've added this to WT:MILHIST from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input, as it may generate a conversation. cc Historyguy1138. Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Ed. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note: I've added this to WT:MILHIST from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Requests for project input, as it may generate a conversation. cc Historyguy1138. Thanks! Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Mini-drive on articles needing supporting materials
Hi all. I've been thinking recently on our backlog at Category:Military history articles needing attention only to supporting materials which currently stands at 1,337 articles. These are articles that have been assessed (either manually or by the MilHistBot) as just needing an image, infobox or similar to achieve all of the B-class criteria. I don't think it would take too much effort to clear this category if each of us does a handful. It will also help us to progress towards our top-level goal of having 15% or more of all our articles at B-class quality or above. As a trial I've listed about 100 articles from the category below, listed by our period/conflict task forces (so hopefully there will be some articles of interest to everybody). If this is successful I am happy to list more articles for another mini-drive - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Instructions
Look at one of the articles below and either:
- If you think it passes all of the B-class criteria and you haven't been involved in writing the article, assess it as B-class on the talk banner template
- If you think the article requires improvement against another of the B-class criteria, assess it as so on the talk banner template
- If you can improve the article to meet all of the B-class criteria (many hopefully will just need an image or infobox) and list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests for formal assessment
When you have done one of these actions strike through the article name and sign against it on the list below
Articles
- Classical
- Quintus Fulvius Flaccus (consul 179 BC)
- Thrasyllus
Seleucid armyfailed on B1, missing citations - Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Magister equitum
- Lost Army of Cambyses
- Siege of Tbilisi (627–628)
Servius Fulvius Flaccusreassessed as a 4-sentence stub - Dumelow (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Marinus (praetorian prefect)
- Medieval
- St Brice's Day massacre
William of Ypresinfobox and related image added, asked for assessment - Dumelow (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Military history of the Mali Empire
- Bandon (Byzantine Empire)
- Yang Chongben
- Fortifications of Famagusta
- Thomas Harrington (died 1460)
- Manx revolt of 1275
- Early Muslim
- Tughj ibn Juff
- Turabay ibn Qaraja
- Ubayd Allah ibn Umar
- Siege of Jerez (1261)
- Al-Husayn ibn Ali al-Abid
- Fadala ibn Ubayd
- Moroccan invasion of the Songhai Empire
- Ghurid campaigns in India
- Crusades
- Anthony le Flamenc
- Massacre at Béziers
- Albert of Schwarzburg
- History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick
- William of Santo Stefano
- Matthew Orsini
- Battle at Gaza (1239)
- Henry Fitzcount
- Early Modern
George Anson's voyage around the worldB5 met, but not B1. Reassessed as start. Zawed (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- John Smith (British Army officer, born 1754)
- Pavliuk uprising
- HM galley Pigot
- Kingdom of Ardra
- Peñol de Cerquín
- Avranches massacre
- John Spratt Rainier
- Three Kingdoms
- Anthony Hungerford (Roundhead)
- Anthony Hungerford (Royalist)
- Worcestershire in the English Civil War
- Tinker Fox
- Edward Burghall
- Sir John Heydon
- Gilbert Gerard (Governor of Worcester)
- Edmund Verney (soldier)
- American Revolutionary War
- Lazarus Stewart
George Johnstone (British Army officer)Assessed as b-class. Hog Farm Talk 20:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- John Pigeon
- Henry Sherburne (colonel)
- Pierre Gibault
- Nero Hawley
John StormDoesn't seem notable; listed at AFD. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Nicholas-Hyacinthe de BotderuThe only positive here is that it has citations. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Napoleonic
- Willem Benjamin Craan
- William Leeke
Sir William Anson, 1st BaronetThis is an article I expanded for GA in 2022 and then forgot about. It should be B now but I'll leave that for someone else to judge! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC) Agreed, and have assessed as B-class - Dumelow (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)HMS Curlew (1812)Missing citations. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Nicolas-François Roussel d'Hurbal
- Hired armed lugger Nile
- Prince Friedrich Franz Xaver of Hohenzollern-Hechingen
- James Hamilton Stanhope
- American Civil War
- Isaac Sears
- Peace Conference of 1861
Shaler BatteryStub with no inline citations; reassessed b1, b2, and b3. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Hines' Raid
- Pleasant J. Philips
- Shelton Laurel massacre
- Joseph N. G. Whistler
- Texas Marine Department
- World War I
- Eric Poole
Royal Hellenic Navy in 1917Stub - Dumelow (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- William Denis Browne
- Ninoshima
- Chambeshi Monument
- William Wright (Indian civil servant)
- No. 135 Squadron RAF
- Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control
- World War II
- Nakajima Aircraft Company
- Tikka Khan
Irish Republican Army–Abwehr collaborationB1=n lacks citations - Dumelow (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force
George Unwinreassessed as start for now, but will work on it to get it up to B. Zawed (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Nakajima G10N
- Oslo Report
- Havana Conference (1940)
- Cold War
Peter Tapsell (British politician)Removed banner, out of scope per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history#cite_note-3 - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Vin americanii!Reassessed as B class by bot - has an image now Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)Teddy GueritzAdded image to infobox - reassessed as B class by bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)- Bill Young (CIA officer)
- Sigma I-64 war game
- Neville Alexander Odartey-Wellington Needs a reference to make it to B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Operation Paul Revere
295th Rifle DivisionNeeds a reference to make it to B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC) - I've assessed it as B after rescuing the ref (looks to have been lost in a paragraph split) - Dumelow (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Post-Cold War
Discussion
Should we add any of the U.S. Labor Wars (especially the Coal Wars) to the List of wars involving the United States?
List of wars involving the United States
Not sure if we should count them or not? I'm having a hard time with this one. On the one hand we could consider them as regular conflicts like the List of conflicts in the United States. Although the top of this list does not say wars, it says the US was involved in 113 military conflicts. But it does not stop short of conflicts outside the USA, because it includes Bleeding Kansas. It does seem to stop short of wars where the U.S. military is not involved, but then again the U.S. miliary could be said to include the U.S. miliary on two points. 1. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry did involve the U.S. military, and 2. it involved them as Bleeding Kansas bleed into the Civil War (pun intended).
So in like manner should we open up this list to the Coal and Labor wars where the U.S. military fought in? Here is a few key ones to consider The Coal Wars (think of the Battle of Blair Mountain), the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, the 1811 German Coast Uprising.
Many of them included the national guard at the very least, If we stop there what about Shays' Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, or Fries's Rebellion?
If we went this route, maybe we should only include the Labor Wars, Rebellions, and Slave Rebellions where the United States military fought in.
So for example we would not include Slave rebellions such as the 1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation?
Also if we do the Coal Wars should we divide them up based off of Wars involving the U.S. Military or just leave them as the Coal Wars in general and adjust the dates and casualties based on all the Coal Wars combined where the USA fought? My hunch is no since we did not do this with the Banana wars or the American Indian Wars, but its fine with me either way.
Thanks. Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)