Jump to content

Talk:List of military disasters/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Possible additions

While we're at it (see the two discussions above), I want to present some possible additions. 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)

  1. Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC)
  2. Battle of Kadesh (c. 1274 BC)
  3. Battle of Dara (530 AD)
  4. Siege of Jerusalem (1099)
  5. Battle of Crécy (1346)
  6. Battle of Grunwald (1410)
  7. Fall of Constantinople (1453)
  8. Battle of Nancy (1477)
  9. Battle of Bosworth Field (1485)
  10. Battle of Nagashino (1575)
  11. Sack of Magdeburg (1631)
  12. Battle of Breitenfeld (1631)
  13. Battle of Blenheim (1704)
  14. Battle of Culloden (1746)
  15. Battle of Rossbach (1757)
  16. Battle of Leuthen (1757)
  17. Battle of Minden (1759)
  18. Battle of Austerlitz (1805)
  19. French invasion of Russia#Retreat from Moscow (1812)
  20. Siege of Burgos (1812)
  21. 1842 retreat from Kabul
  22. Battle of Antietam (1862)
  23. Battle of Spion Kop (1900)
  24. Battle of Verdun (1916)
  25. Battle of the Somme (1916)
  26. Battle of Dunkirk and Battle of France (1940)
  27. Battle of Kiev (1941)
  28. Attack on Pearl Harbor (1941)
  29. Battle of Crete (1941)
  30. Dieppe Raid (1924)
  31. Battle of Kursk (1943)
  32. Warsaw Uprising (1944)
  33. Battle of Arnhem (1944)
  34. Korean War#The drive south and Pusan (July–September 1950)
  35. Korean War#China intervenes (October–December 1950)
  36. Bravo Two Zero (1991)
  37. Battle of Mogadishu (1993)
@Finnusertop: 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)

Chancellorsville

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)

Hi @Hog Farm:, 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)
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)
Do any RS say it was a military disaster?Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: - 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)

RFC on Battle of Vukovar

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Overall, consensus is against inclusion of the Battle of Vukovar per se. Opponents are concerned about the lack of sources explicitly calling this battle a military disaster. Some have suggested that the 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia could be used in the list instead, due to better sourcing for that. This close does not address the campaign's inclusion as there was no clear consensus in the discussion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)




Should the Battle of Vukovar be included in this list?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


Restarting RfC because previous one expired and no solution has been reached. Should the Battle of Vukovar be included in this list? Istinar (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose Phyric victory (with enemy forces and their positions annihilated all the same) can not be presented as a "military disaster". There is a lack of quality sources and academic consensus on the topic, which was brought up by fellow editor Istinar. No quotes or any additional details ore explanations were presented so that we could verify the 1 or 2 presented sources.Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as part of the inclusion of the 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia in the list. The strategic offensive against Croatia as a whole, of which the Battle of Vukovar formed the principal operation, is described on page 109 of Balkan Battlegrounds as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". So, an authoritative source on the Balkan Wars of the 90s literally describes it as a military disaster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I wrote my take in the discussion above already. The inclusion of this battle is in accordance to the Balkan Battlegrounds source, the most in-dept military analysis of the Yugoslav Wars. Including the entire JNA campaign is also fine by me. Tezwoo (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional sources for both Vukovar and the JNA campaign (although Balkan Battlegrounds is more than enough):
"The Battle of Vukovar was the key battle in Croatia’s Homeland War. By tying down the enormous Serbian military machine for several months, the defenders of Vukovar gave Croatia priceless time and space to create an Army sufficiently equipped and capable to defend newly born Croatia. And, by neutralizing enormous amounts of Serbian manpower and equipment, the defenders weakened the aggressor military, politically, and psychologically." Mario Sebetovsky: Battle of Vukovar: The Battle that Saved Croatia, p. 45
"“The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991
"For the JNA, the Croatian campaign was a disaster, with many units failing to perform effectively, and popular resistance to reserve call-ups in Serbia." John R. Schindler: Unholy Terror, p. 66 Tezwoo (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I still see no mention of the Battle being a disaster.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
What? It is a poor translation, but "The operation Vukovar" clearly refers to the JNA attack on Vukovar and is synonymous with the Battle of Vukovar. If you read the context, Nikolić clearly doesn't mean the overall strategic offensive. And catastrophe and disaster are effectively synonymous as well. Are you saying that there should be a separate List of military catastrophes? The parsing going on here is pretty fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
No, I am saying it fails wp:v because it needs there reader to "see the context" of a poor translation. Maybe it does mean that, But maybe if I read it I would see a different context, but I cannot tell that from this quote. That is because (in English) operation and battle are not wholly synonymous. operation usually refers to a larger...operation.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
"Operation Vukovar" or "Vukovar operation" ("vukovarska operacija") was the name used by the JNA for the attack on Vukovar. It followed the naming convention from WW2 when most Partisan battles were called "operations" (Sarajevo Operation, Mostar Operation, Knin Operation, Trieste operation...). Tezwoo (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
As peacemaker said "its a bad translation". And Wikipedia is not an RS and Battle of Knin, so I am not sure what we are seeing here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
What is a bad translation? The JNA used the name "vukovarska operacija" ("Vukovar Operation") for what is on Wikipedia titled "Battle of Vukovar". The entire offensive in eastern Slavonia was called "Eastern Slavonia-Baranja Operation" [1]. Tezwoo (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
You will have to ask the person who claimed it was a poor translation as part of their argument as to why it means "battle".Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
That is OR and "catastrophe" is only mentioned in the English summary of the article, not the body of the article. I found no mention of "disaster" or "catastrophe" when I read the article itself. The English summary is also different from Serbian summary which is at the beginning of the article and mentions no "disaster" or "catastrophe". Istinar (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
It is actually WP:BLUE. The English summary of the article, as published originally in Tragovi, is where the words "“The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army." comes from. Obviously referring to the JNA as "that army". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Revisionist author who is not military expert does not mention specifically that it was "military disaster". Istinar (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose So far no source has been provided which says The battle was a disaster, any other matter if for another discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Battle should not be included in the list. Not one reliable source which specifically says battle of Vukovar was military disaster has been provided. Balkan Battlegrounds which is mentioned here calls entire offensive in Croatia "military, political and public relations disaster" (but not the battle) which is rather broad description and uses unobjective, POV wording to describe this offensive. Users who repeatedly mention this source either misquote it or simply do OR. This also does not meet WP:ONUS condition that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. When users saw this source does not support their claim that battle of Vukovar was "military disaster" they started campaign to call entire 1991 Yugoslav offensive in Croatia disaster, even though article mentions no disaster at all.
Regarding other sources users have mentioned: Mario Sebetovsky does not mention term "military disaster", his wording is rather POV and his claim of neutralization of "enormous amounts of Serbian manpower and equipment" is questionable since JNA suffered less losses and unobjective since we are talking about Yugoslav army here. Kosta Nikolić published his work in hrcak.srce.hr which is Croatian site and it looks like his work is used in further building of Croatian myth when it comes to Vukovar. He was also accussed of historical revisionism. His work mentions no "military disaster" and it seems quote "became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army" is taken from summary not the body of the work. John R. Schindler does not mention specifically that battle of Vukovar was a military disaster.
Further more this battle does not meet conditions set in the second and third paragraph of this article as to what constitutes military disaster. Those conditions are: "army losing a major battle against a clearly inferior force, to an army being surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force, to a seemingly evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result" and "chronic mission failure (the key factor), successful enemy action, (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure". If this battle is added I fear it may set a precedent and lead other users to add battles which clearly do not fit the list and back them with poor sources or none at all, thus causing even more confusion on this page. Istinar (talk) 10:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Your statement re accepting this addition may create further problems is a "thin end of the wedge" (logical fallacy). Stuff being added to wikipedia without sources is an issue (feature) all over wikipedia, and we deal with it to the best of our ability. Leaving out, or including this item will not alter that on this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Of all the facts I presented you have issue with my closing comment (an opinion) about what may/may not happen? And yes, I think that on this page some users would use this battle (if it ends on the list) as a precedent for future bad entries. Istinar (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Really? So none of the sources used to support its inclusion are "credible" in your view? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
The question is of it being a military disaster, which is a classification regardless if they won or lost. OyMosby (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - A direct quite was given multiple times and even already in the RfC “described on page 109 of Balkan Battlegrounds as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA".” So a disaster on many fronts, one of them being a military one. And it is obvious that this sets a positive precedent that you can’t disregard reliable sources just because you don’t want to. You have to accept the facts as an editor. OyMosby (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
That is OR. Source does not call battle of Vukovar "military disaster". Istinar (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Look I’m sorry we got off on the wrong foot firstly. Second why is it OR if it says “ "military, political and public relations disaster”? Military is one of the disasters. I’m having trouble understanding genuinely here why it would be OR. OyMosby (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Because the source nowhere explicitly says that battle of Vukovar was a "military disaster". Istinar (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC) — Istinar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The source says it was an A) military B) political and C) public relations D) disaster. Comprehending the basic meaning of an English sentence is not OR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Already explained ad nauseam above. Source (which also has other issues) calls entire offensive ABC "disaster" and not the battle itself. There were many battles and clashes in different places in this offensive, and source does not call this battle - battle of Vukovar "military disaster". Reading comprehension is needed to understand that. Istinar (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The source literally lists military disaster for the siege among other terms for the event. I’m not sure what is missing. Also surprised the same day another Balkan topic centric account pops up on the page about this specific event. Please note to all that this isn’t a popularity vote. Arguments are needed so stating one simply agrees with someone isn’t contributing to the closing admins decision. Simply an observation. Not accusing anyone directly. Just as a disclaimer. OyMosby (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Slatersteven proposed including Vukovar among all the military events in the 91’ campaign as a entire military disaster not just removing Vukovar with no replacement. Food for thought.OyMosby (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per comments above and lack of sources. Elserbio00 (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – lack of sources stating that the Battle of Vukovar was a military disaster. Vacant0 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I don’t really see how catastrophe (an event causing great and often sudden damage or suffering; a disaster.) isn’t the same as disaster. It was already sourced above “The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991. So saying there is no source or sources are “lacking” is an invalid argument. I hope the closing admin takes note of this. Perhaps it was a language barrier issue. But Catastrophe is defined as a disaster. OyMosby (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not a fan of these lists in general, but if we are going to have them then entries should be directly supported by multiple, reliable, independent sources. A single source which says that a campaign was a disaster, with one or two others that generally indicate it went badly, is not enough to justify including an individual battle within that campaign. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I don’t see how the multiple reliable RS cited sources are not meeting criteria. Not every source for events on the list uses the same synonyms for the chosen general term of the article “Disaster”. That title isn’t sourced. It was just a general term chosen. There is more than one source defining it as one. Let alone It is not an official rule that more than one source is needed for any fact in an article. @Peacemaker67: who deals with military history on these parts typically, am I missing something here? I would think by now with all these sources this would pretty much be unanimous. :/ OyMosby (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@OyMosby: Here's the thing. It's not that multiple sources are needed for facts in every article. But with many of our lists the entries will quickly grow out of control and cease to be of any value unless we restrict them to the most noteworthy entries. The best way to do that is by requiring wide reproduction (i.e. across multiple IS/RS). The wording requirement can at times seem silly, but without it these lists tend to quickly lose focus. Like I said I'm not a fan of these kind of lists in general, largely because it's extremely difficult to keep them neutral and of reasonable length while not creating through synthesis associations of the sort that none of our sources make, and some are just plainly silly. Anyway I've said my piece, and I'm about to be on wikibreak soon here anyway. I respect your position, and also recognize that there are larger philosophical differences at play here that will not be resolved in this rfc. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Did you see my inclusion of this above? I don’t know why this source isn’t RS to some here: The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991.Bold text It’s fine if you feel this source is somehow not RS but perhaps that should be taken to the page specifically designed to get consensus if a source is usable or not OyMosby (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Multiple and reliable cited sources are not meeting criteria - because there are no multiple and reliable sources, something we covered already in discussion above. And there is official rule when it comes to exceptional claims - WP:ONUS. And I would think that by now this battle would be removed from the list since there are no reliable sources which say this battle was a disaster. Istinar (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I missed your explanation before but why are none of the sources reliable? Also would you agree that catastrophe is a synonym for disaster? I’m trying to understand your view of this. OyMosby (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
You are being disingenuous. Already explained several times in discussion above why these sources are not good, conditions that determine what is "military disaster" have not been met, WP:ONUS rule not followed. Istinar (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
No, you are. Cut the unnecessary bad faith accusations. I read what you wrote. But did you even read mine??? I can also state I said multiple times why I any many others disagreeing with you. Even an uninvolved admin explained the source. Derogatory accusations aren’t a counter argument. I am far from being the only one disagreeing with you. I have no problem bringing this to the admins’ attentions. I have been patient for weeks now. Answer the Question. Are catastrophe and disaster synonyms? Don’t ignore it again as you never answered this. YOU need to abide by WP:ONUS as YOU are the one proposing a change. But you are saying I am being dishonest in my replies. Christ almighty. So anyone that disagrees is being “disingenuous” because they don’t understand your viewpoint? If the source labels it a “military catastrophe” it is the same as a military disaster. I even posted the dictionary definition. The user below even acknowledged that the sources DO label this a military disaster but is concerned that the sohrces them self aren’t credible enough. “ I see sources calling this a disaster above” I understand that this page is a big deal with you and you are frustrated, but It’s not all because of me. Not a fair assessment of me at all. Stick to going after my arguments not me personally. If you reply with another comment like this I won’t bother answering you anymore. I plan to put all the sources above in the RS check page to see what other say. If these sources are weak or RS. @Istinar: If it matters at all, I feel this article page in general should be removed as I don’t get the point of this laundry list. I would support you if you want to submit this article for deletion. If so let me know on my talk page and I can help you set up a deletion request. Have a nice day. OyMosby (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I have nothing else to say except to repeat what I already explained in detail above. No credible and neutral sources for this exceptional claim, let alone multiple credible sources (which are required when it comes to exceptional claims). Conditions that determine what is "military disaster" have not been met. Istinar (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Kosta Nikolić and Balkan Battlegrounds are credible and neutral sources. Both sources that call the battle a disaster, sources that call the entire campaign a disaster, and sources like Sebetovsky who gives a general overview of the battle, have been presented. Per WP:POLL, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and decisions are not made based on a pure "vote" counting. Tezwoo (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose but could be convinced neutral I see sources calling this a disaster above, but the sources are exceedingly weak, and the general concept of these lists are shit. Hipocrite (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that these lists are just laundry lists and not that useful. The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991. I’m glad many have read the sources and see they do call this a disaster. But why are the sources themselves not RS? We can take this to the RS page to get wider input. I am for that. OyMosby (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD

@Belevalo: 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)

Why bother with AfD...?

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. (Yeah, I know... this comment might be considered as lacking in good faith, but it's difficult to have any faith when you see stuff like this.) - wolf 23:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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. I specifically said 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)
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: "I'm leaning delete" (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)
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)

Battle of Crug Mawr, 1136. Also known as the Battle of Cardigan

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)

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)

Julian's Persian War (363 AD)

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_military_disasters/Archive_4&oldid=1263941815"