Talk:List of military disasters/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposal for list criteria

The following discussion 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.

---

The following is proposed as an objective criterion for a battle (or like) to be included in the list:

To be included in the list, multiple (at least two) sources specifically dealing with the subject of "military disasters" have opined that a particular battle (or like) is a "military disaster".

Rationale: The recent AfD identified many (10 cited) sources dealing specifically with the subject thereby meeting WP:NLIST. However, the list has largely developed on the basis of subjective criteria and editor opinion. The list, as it stands (stood) is largely based on WP:OR or a single source. Any military loss might be described as a disaster for the loosing side. However, to be considered for inclusion in this list, the loss must (should) be exceptional; otherwise, there is not point to having such a list. It is therefore reasonable that we rely on a consensus of sources that specifically consider the subject. The proposal removes subjectivity.

Pinging participants in recent AfD: @Mztourist, Hypogaearoots, LaundryPizza03, Andrew Davidson, Alexandermcnabb, SailingInABathTub, Dream Focus, Loafiewa, Georgethedragonslayer, 7&6=thirteen, 力, TompaDompa, Onel5969, Finnusertop, K.e.coffman, Thewolfchild, Rovenrat, Eddie891, Zoozaz1, Namkongville, Clarityfiend, and Belevalo: Cinderella157 (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of military disasters Cinderella157 (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support That seems a sensible solution to me. I think we can agree that all battles are disastrous for someone, but this measure lets us parse Waterloo from a Battle of Asculum. I'd be careful of language like 'the battle was a disaster for Albuquerque, who lost the confidence of his captains as a result, leading to their mutiny', however (ie: a personal disaster for a commander). The battle or action itself needs to have been identified as a military disaster and the list should also, without fail, enumerate the reason for that definition being used. I would settle, BTW, for one RS, personally. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Calling a battle a "military disaster" is an exceptional claim. A source labeling an event as a disaster is the POV of an author - which, as you identify, they should enumerate their reasons. It is an adage that an exceptional claim requires exceptional sources. A consensus in sources (at least two) addresses the issue of WP:WEIGHT. That is an explanation of my rationale for two sources. If an event is truly a disaster, this will not be too high a hurdle (IMO). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Support per above rationale Loafiewa (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose There are several problems with the proposed form of words:

1. It's a rule and we are encouraged to ignore all rules per WP:BURO.
2. The page has survived the latest attempt to delete it and so the status quo is demonstrably adequate
3. It puts the phrase "military disaster" in quotation marks suggesting that an exact match is required. Literal-minded editors may then insist on this when there are lots of reasonable synonyms such as "debacle", "calamity" and "catastrophe".
4. It demands multiple sources for no clear reason. The list has already been pruned to ensure that each entry has a source. If the entry is uncontroversial, such as Battle of the Little Bighorn then more sources are not necessary. We will only need more sources if an entry is disputed. Are there any disputed entries now? If so, let's address them individually. When we have a list with no disputed entries then we can take stock and see what clear patterns have merged.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

To counterpoint:

1. It's a guideline to improve the article, not bureaucracy for the sake of it.
2. Page deletion is based more on whether an article should exist based on its scope, not on its current quality.
3. Agreed.
4. If an entry is uncontroversial, then finding sources for it will be easy.

(Hohum ^@) 13:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Preliminary support I quite like this suggestion, at least in theory. I would however like to note that at present, none of the entries meet the proposed criterion (since as far as I can tell only one source specifically dealing with the subject of military disasters is cited in the article, namely McNab). I think the point made by Cinderella157 about calling a battle a disaster being an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim is a fair one. Hence, I don't think a single source would be sufficient. Two might even be too few; ideally we should cross-reference the sources to see if they generally agree or if they generally don't to make sure we give appropriate WP:WEIGHT. I think the part about the sources needing to be ones that specifically deal with military disasters is indispensable as far as crafting proper WP:LISTCRITERIA goes. I also agree that the reasons for including each entry should be enumerated. TompaDompa (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support some sort of clear criteria that requires more than just one source defining it as a military disaster. Andrew's points don't really make sense in the given context: 1) It's a misinterpretation of NOTBURO to say it advocates having no rules, what it actually says is that rules document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected.-- this process right here is establishing the community consensus for what entries should be accepted and rejected. 2) The Afd was closed as 'no consensus' not "the status quo is endorsed and should not be changed" (we can ask Sandstein to clarify whether his close precludes refining the list, though his suggestion that the list be cleaned up to limit itself to events reliably sourced as a "military disaster" would seem to make it clear that the list can be refined) 3) I think it's reasonably clear that a synonym of disaster such as "catastrophe" would be accepted, and suggesting otherwise with no evidence doesn't hold water 4) If an entry is uncontroversial, it should be easy to find multiple reliable sources-- if those don't exist, it is probably not 'uncontroversial'... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Nowhere in Wikipedia do you require more than one source for something. I agree with Andrew about the quotation marks as well. Dream Focus 13:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Dream Focus Nowhere in Wikipedia do you require more than one source for something is seemingly untrue. For instance, per WP:BLPPUBLIC If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. This clearlyasks for multiple sources. And something not being done doesn't mean that it can't be or shouldn't be. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support A strong criteria is wanted for this free for all list as it currently stands. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Partial support The list clearly needs a better definition of what counts as a military disaster if it is to be meaningful - the two given in the lead are partial and, to an extent, contradictory. I like the clarity of the proposed definition but I have a problems with it.

The narrowing citation to a certain type of source (only those explicitly handling multiple examples of military disasters) means drawing heavily on general interest books, rather than specialist studies of particular disasters, campaigns or armies (studies of the Zulu Wars would be ruled out for Isandlhwana, for example) and secondly, those books can tend to cover a similar range of battles well-known to British or American military history. Why the Spanish Armada and not the Mongol invasion of Japan, or Isandlhwana and not Adwa, for example? I realise everyone can add extra examples - I certainly could - but are we in danger of baking in a UK/US perspective through this citation strategy? Monstrelet (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Not in my capacity as AfD closer, but as an editor: wouldn't it be more useful to structure the list such that each entry needs a reliably sourced text explaining why and by whom it is considered a military disaster? That would give the list added value beyond just a list of links to articles. Sandstein 15:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  That would indeed be more along the lines of inclusion criteria for List of ethnic cleansing campaigns. (t · c) buidhe 06:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support This is the best way to eliminate the subjectivity from the list. Two independent, reliable sources is usually enough to prevent undue coverage of opinions from creeping in. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support requiring at least 2 RS will remove the subjectivity that is the problem with this page. Mztourist (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is sensible, but the sources need to be high quality reliable sources - preferably works by historians. The term 'military disaster' tends to get thrown around a bit by non-experts, but most historians apply it carefully. A defeat isn't necessarily a disaster. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, there has been no further comment for over a week now and I doubt that further comment is likely. I intend closing this as "consensus for the proposal" - unless anyone believes there is a snowflake's chance that an independent closer would conclude otherwise. Ping Andrew Davidson and Dream Focus who opposed; and, Monstrelet and TompaDompa who provided preliminary/partial support. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Cinderella157, as the OP, is naturally keen to find in their own favour but this would be quite improper per the ancient principle, nemo iudex in causa sua. To do this properly, an RfC is required which would provide:

1. general notification
2. a 30-day period for input (the summer is a quiet time on Wikipedia)
3. a more formal process for closure.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It is rich of you to cite WP:BURO in your opposition to the proposal and then make this extremely bureaucratic argument when the WP:CONSENSUS that has emerged is plain to see. Per WP:CR, Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days [...]; if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed earlier. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion. Methinks that very obviously applies here. TompaDompa (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Not wanting to delay matters but I would still prefer clarity on the nature of the two sources. I think there is certainly consensus on the need for two RS but note comment by Nick-D about quality. Is the insistence that the sources must be works on the subject of "military disasters" , as opposed to histories of campaigns or battles, too limiting? Monstrelet (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Monstrelet, the proposal should be construed narrowly. It was written quite specifically to avoid weasel room and because any claim to be in such a list should be exceptional and with no room to invite WP:SYNTH and WP:OR ("because X calls it a set-back I think he means disaster"). As written, if a work is to be used to support inclusion of an entry, it must be an explicit tenant or hypothesis of the work that the event is a "military disaster". I wouldn't preclude a scholarly work on a specific event if it met this requirement but the bar has been deliberately set high; though, others have observed, if inclusion of the event is uncontentious it should be easy to clear.

As you have previously indicated, the whole concept of "military disasters" appears to be more of a popular rather than an academic concept that would make it a subject within scholarly military history or military science. However, The 100 Worst Military Disasters in History does appear to be the exception, written by a scholar and published by an academic publishing house. You will also see that it includes the Mongol invasion of Japan. (I was unable to see the others because of a limited preview.) Hence, we have at least one hundred potential candidates with which to populate the article. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

PS The Anatomy of Error: Ancient Military Disasters and Their Lessons for Modern Strategists is also written by a scholar. I suspect there may be a one or more other others amongst those sources listed in the recent AfD discussion - or otherwise existing. It would appear that there is a base of scholarly sources from which to work. Such a subjective label is a matter of opinion. However, such an opinion should lie with a consensus of the sources which specifically consider the question - and idealy, they should be scholarly. The rational for making the proposal states: It is therefore reasonable that we rely on a consensus of sources that specifically consider the subject [of being a military disaster]. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

What about if the source says “military catastrophe”? Disaster is just one example of a synonym used. See the Siege of Vukovar example above. It became a problem with each word.OyMosby (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi OyMosby, synonyms have similar but not identical meaning. Synonyms for "disaster" include: set-back, tragedy and defeat. The sense of the discussion here is that a "military disaster" is far more exceptional than any of these. Of all of the synonyms I have seen, only "catastrophe" has a meaning near identical to "disaster". However, even though you refer to the Siege of Vukovar example above, the example is moot, since the proposal here requires a number of elements to be satisfied: there must be a consensus in the sources where the central tenant or thesis of those sources is military disasters (and that a particular battle is a military disaster). More pertinent would be the case of a potential source called: The 100 Worst Military Catastrophies in History. If such a source were found, then, we could discuss the suitability of the hypothetical source. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked it up. Catastrophe and Disaster are the same thing. By general definition. This is why deciding Disaster as the exact definition is problematic. OyMosby (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

OyMosby, I agree that there is no essential difference in the two meanings but this is certainly not the case for other synonyms. While a distinction was argued in the case of Siege of Vukovar (above) and could be seen as "problematic", a case for inclusion of Vukovar under the proposed criteria would need to be totally different; therefore, as an example of the problem you seek to identify, it is moot. However, in respect to the proposal, the problem you identify is purely hypothetical, unlikely to arise and, if it did, it could be resolved - per my reply immediately above. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Vikovar being included or not is moot. But the fact that some literally argued semantics about literal wording isn’t hypothetical. It happened. This was my point. My focus is that the criteria being strictly literally “disaster”, which is a hypothetical criteria proposed, then it is hypothetical and quite likely that we will run into alternate similar names as we are creating the criteria. Different historians will have different names for the same thing.

My issue is not “unlikely to arise” and again literally everything being proposed here or discussed is hypothetical. Including your claim that it is unlikely to happen. How do we assume 99% of the time, historians use one specific phrase for the same event? My example happened. It wasn’t an idea. And it seems a number of editors both apposed and supporting the new hypothetical guidelines have the same concerns.

I am not talking about Vukovar exclusively. I’m glad you agree that indeed it would be problematic to strictly require the literal word “disaster” and that both would mean the same. I thought you disagreed that anything but “catastrophe” would be allowed. I brought up Vukovar as an example where some used that style of argument regardless if there would be one source or many. As you can clearly see. So no not really “hypothetical” as it literally happened above. And can happen again with any other new addition. Again you may have misunderstood but I am not making an argument for including Vukovar, I used the “catastrophe” part for my devil’s advocate argument here. So being that we are coming up with ideas for the future, everything we are talking about is “hypothetical” really. I brought this up as criteria are being formed now and wanted to mention the downsides is all. This RfC is all hypotheticals as we are creating guidelines. And synonyms are a reasonable thing to anticipate as it has happened, not just hypothetically. Another user who vited above seems to have rhought the same. “ It puts the phrase "military disaster" in quotation marks suggesting that an exact match is required. Literal-minded editors may then insist on this when there are lots of reasonable synonyms such as "debacle", "calamity" and "catastrophe". As per @Andrew Davidson: and @Hohum: who agreed with him. Long story short. For the hypothetical criteria proposed in this vote, instead of requiring a source to say “military disaster” it should state “military disaster or similar terms” You may see this as as perhaps a minor thing not likely to cause confusion but I thing it is more likely than not to occur. So I think we should nip it in the bud now that we are creating an organized set of rules. Tis all I intended. :) Sorry for the large reply. I ramble in hopes to be more clear.OyMosby (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

OyMosby, I will try to address your concerns and the matters you raise. The article is a list of "military disasters". At the recent AfD the argument for retention was made that: there were many sources that listed military disasters and therefore the article satisfied WP:LISTN. At least 10 sources were given. It is clear that the article had been populated largely on the basis of editor opinion and that there is a need for objective criteria - hence the proposal. It is also fairly clear, that to populate this article, the claim of disaster must be exceptional (as Nick-D indicates, it is a term that can be bandied about too freely).

Looking at the problem, it therefore seems logical that in order to populate the article, we should draw upon the very sources that cause the subject to be notable - ie those cited in the AfD and similar. All things being equal, we can assert that the author's of these have considered many other events but have formed an opinion that those they list are particularly deserving of the title. However, the selection is nonetheless an opinion [POV] of the author. To populate the article, there should be a consensus in the sources that the event is a military disaster. Hence, the proposal is drafted so as to require multiple sources and that the sources specifically deal with the subject of military disasters as a primary tenet or thesis. Yes, it is quite specific because it does place the phase military disaster in quote marks. This does quite specifically restrict such arguments as: "because X calls it a set-back I think he means disaster". Such arguments actually wander into the domain of WP:SYNTH.

Synonyms have similar but not identical meaning. Synonyms for "disaster" include: set-back, tragedy, calamity and defeat (etc). The discussion here has already identified that a military disaster is much more than just a defeat - otherwise the list would be useless. Of all the synonyms I have seen (save catastrophe) none convey the same degree of severity - many, much less. Your proposal, “military disaster or similar terms”, is therefore much more problematic than any potential benefit - particularly if your primary concern is a potential exclusion of "catastrophic".

I have previously stated that: in respect to the proposal, the problem you identify is purely hypothetical, unlikely to arise and, if it did, it could be resolved. The problem you would resolve would require an hypothetical source such as The 100 Worst Military Catastrophies in History that: exclusively refers to "catastrophies" and not "disasters"; never establishes the equivalence between the two terms; and, there is no alternative second source available for a particular event. Further, in an attempt to gain consensus to recognise the source, the substantive [and successful] argument for excluding the source is that it does not use the term "military disaster". IMHO such an argument would be pettifogging. I did opine that the example of Vukovar was moot because inclusion of Vukovar would fail under the proposal - (IMO) it would fail to meet any of the criteria of the proposal without even touching upon a claimed difference between "disaster" and "catastrophe". The likelihood of your concerns coming to fruition appear extremely unlikely. It is trying to fix something that will probably never break.

The virtues of the proposal are that it is clear, concise and unambiguous. The wording is deliberately restrictive - for good reason. There appears to be a clear support for the proposal because of this - not withstanding that there is also some objection to it. (And what have the Romans ever done for us?) Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we can now safely move to close on this basis? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Seems to me that otherwise (and I think this is the case now) it's all a bit too OR'y. If it is a military disaster RS would have said so, and if they have not we are not able to say it was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Closure requested. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:46, 20 June 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.

Hi Mikehawk10, you have given a lengthy closing statement that (IMO largely) reasonably summarises the various positions (arguments) and the matters to be considered in making a close. What is not clear to me is how you have weighed these to reach a conclusion of "no consensus" for the proposition of "military disaster" v being a military disaster. Where any dispute rests (in my understanding) it is not in the "bigram" but in "disaster" and whether this should include terms which are similar (synonyms) but not identical in meaning. Might you clarify how you have weighed the arguments and their strength to reach the conclusion of "no consensus" in respect to this particular element of the proposal. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Midway

Hi ‎Loafiewa, 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). The responsibility for the disaster that overwhelmed the Japanese has largely been placed on Nagumo ... (p396) and The margin by which such a success eluded the Japanese was narrow, but so too was the margin by which they escaped disaster. 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)[1] 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)

PS also Great Military Disasters(Paragon 2012). Cinderella157 (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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. Hawkeye7, 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)

No, I don't have either of these books, nor access to them through the libraries. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

On page 518, the 'narrow margin' they're referring to is the Battle of the Coral Sea:

The effort the Japanese expended at the Coral Sea could have been better spent preparing for the main endeavor, Operation MI, for that alone held out some hope of decisive strategic success if the Americans accepted battle. By rights, the chance to do battle with the Americans should not have arisen at the Coral Sea, and when it did the Japanese failed to make the most of it. The whole of their effort in the Coral Sea became no more than a prodigal waste when the enemy carrier force that was encountered was not annihilated. The margin by which such a success eluded the Japanese was narrow, but so too was the margin by which they escaped disaster.

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)

Clarifying the lead paragraph

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)

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)

@Monstrelet and Cinderella157: 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)

HiTompaDompa, 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)

Possible inclusion of Battle of Maritsa

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: 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) [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,[2] 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 was a disaster for the Serbian lords. 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 ended in disaster. 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)

References

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 [[3]] 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...." [[4]] 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" [[5]] 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" [[6]] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Do any RS say it was a military disater?Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, 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)

I want the IP to provide the passage where it says it was a military disaster.Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:User:93.138.142.12 reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: ) Cinderella157 (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

See my answer there93.138.142.12 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I've just fully protected the article for 24 hours to end the current edit war and allow for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Semi-protection

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 {{Edit semi-protected}} 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)

Nuclear bombings ending WWII

Perhaps these [7] 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)

"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)

Battle of Lemberg

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)

Operation Kalbajar

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)

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)

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)

Do the sources call it a "military disaster"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

The only thing that matters is whether it meets the inclusion criteria, which mandate that the event be described as a military disaster by at least two sources that are specifically on the topic of military disasters. Absent such sources, there is no point in discussing this. TompaDompa (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)