Talk:List of military disasters

Added Battles of Pliska, Arcadiopolis and Kleidion, arguing for remival of the Siege of Viena

These 3 battles were both utter annihlations of an army, so I belive they should count. The Siege of Vienna by Suleiman was just a failed siege; an unsuccessful campaign, but not nearly a disaster. Zapcre (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Western Bias/Prespective

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

Not a military disaster

Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster for JNA as it is depicted right now. IP user first added battle on October 1st and I assume the same user is the one who added sources when there was a dispute about this entry. I think the references are wrong, IP user simply copied them from, I assume, article "Pyrrhic victory" which also mentions Battle of Vukovar (and he messed up links for those sources on this page). Problem is Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster for JNA, the battle does not meet conditions that are mentioned in the beginning of the article:

1. chronic mission failure (the key factor) - not a failure for JNA, they took over the city

2. successful enemy action - there was none, Croats lost the town and large number of troops

3. (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure - JNA did not lose its command or control

however this battle could be seen as disaster if we apply these conditions to Croats: they failed to defend and keep the city, enemy took over city and they lost complete command and control over it. They also had around 50% of their total force killed, rest wounded. After the war much effort was put into propaganda how it was a crucial battle that turned the tide of war, but the truth is international community played key role in truce which followed after the battle. I also have issue that this battle is mentioned in both "List of military disasters" and "Pyrrhic victory" pages. If there is no objections I will remove this battle from article. Istinar (talk) 11:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar is a military disaster. Definition of Pyrrhic victory from the Pyrrhic victory page :A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Winning a Pyrrhic victory takes a heavy toll that negates any true sense of achievement or damages long-term progress. JNA army and Serbian forces they lost twice as many soldiers in the conflict and lost about 110 tanks and a couple of planes. Chronic mission failure: The plan of a greater Serbia failed, and the JNA and Serbian forces no longer attacked Croatia more strongly and lost the war afterwards. Pyrrhic victory is a military disaster.151.236.17.228 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster. You are using definition from another page for another term. Croats did not inflict JNA with such losses that they were tantamount to defeat. JNA did not lose twice as many soldiers. Plan was not "greater Serbia" (term which itself is wrong translation) but to rescue surrounded JNA soldiers in Vukovar and to help citizens who were terorrised by a local Croat group. War itself ended 4 years later, when JNA did not even exist anymore and that end came in other part of Croatia. You also have not addressed the fact that this battle does not meet conditions set by this page, which I have mentioned before. If there are no reasonable counter-arguments I will be removing this battle from the list in next few days. Istinar (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no more comments I will remove the battle from the list. Istinar (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not establishing consensus. One user objected and you think that because there are no comments it means I can remove it. Wait for more people to comment. Thanks. Eyebeller 10:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have waited over a week for any other comment on this talk page. No one commented. If I remember correctly policy is if there are no other comments or objections for over a week, I can revert to my version of the article. Istinar (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Be patient. Where did you read that? WP:TALKDONTREVERT doesn't mention anything like that. Eyebeller 10:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And how long should I be patient? If there is nothing constructive added to this discussion in the following days I will remove this battle from the list. Reasons for that I have listed above. Istinar (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Wait until more people respond. Just because people didn't respond doesn't mean that they agree. Eyebeller 11:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tell me how does it work? Anonymous IP adds battle which does not meet conditions to be included in the list, and he does that without any consensus. I waited a polite amount of days for any sort of comment and the only one I get is one with arguments for a completely different article, which you can see above. And none of my arguments were refuted. I will not wait for months for someone to take a pity and comment simply for the sake of commenting without contributing to this discussion. If no valid objections along with something of substance come forward I will remove battle which does not belong in the list. Istinar (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

“ Plan was not "greater Serbia" (term which itself is wrong translation) but to rescue surrounded JNA soldiers in Vukovar and to help citizens who were terorrised by a local Croat group.” Ah no, where did you develop this theory? The plan was to conquer the territory and expand control. Incredibly wrong. Greater Serbia was an attempt. The idea was to establish areas with Serb populations and unite them. Also you left out the treatment of Croats terrorized by local Serb groups. Read the article Siege of Vukovar to get familiar with the subject. Perhaps the Vukovar massacre as well as deletion was done without fully understanding the subject. Wether it meets Criteria I will have to look into the page here. You have been reverted by multiple editors editors so it seems consensus is not there to remove it. The anti-Croat bias comes across in such claims and the account be the remover of sourced content appears to be an account made specifically to edit war on this page. I think an admin needs to step in. OyMosby (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not "develop" a theory. Claims of "greater Serbia" are a theory and it's a term wrongly translated. No, I did not left out Tomislav Merčep and his numerous killings which led to battle itself. Perhaps you should look up other massacres and crimes that are a fact but somehow not mentioned on this Wikipedia. Perhaps you need to understand that this battle does not meet requirements listed in this article at the beginning. That is something you and others conveniently skip over. The battle does not meet criteria here, that is something it takes only a minute to confirm. Or you could have simply read this take page. And I would advice you not to bait with nationalistic rhetoric such as accusing me of "anti-Croat" bias. Ridiculous. Istinar (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

And judging by the IP address I would say that the guy that called you out here [1] is the same person who included this battle on the list in the first place [2]. He went to other editors that edit Croatian pages too I see [3]. Istinar (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

How can I be that user if he doesn't have that ip address? I'm reading edits, so I told the other editors to take a look. But that is not a topic, but whether the Battle of Vukovar belongs to the list of military disasters and talk about it.93.142.78.117 (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

So, that was you. Good to know. Istinar (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Istinar:, I did not “conveniently skip over” nor am I ignoring other massacres as you claim. The topic was Vukovar. It was a Pyrrhic victory and costly to the JNA. And how the “citizens who were terorrised by a local Croat group” while ignoring actions by Serb groups interestingly, are not relevant to a massacre that took place. Also yes, I am sorry for accusing you of anti-Criat bias and bad faith, but calling Greater Serbia ambitions a simply a “myth” is wrong.

Implying or claiming that the Siege of Vukovar happened because of a croats terrorizing civilians despite both Serbs and Croats in the city being complicit also was highly suspect. Gunmen from both sides burned and looted hundreds of houses and farms in the area. It was not one man or group of Croats that started the siege. You left out how Serb paramilitaries expelled thousands of non-Serbs from their homes in the municipality before Tomislav Merčep and his numerous killings. Which you claim “led to” the Vukovar siege. Again, you can see why I found your comments to be biased.

In 1990, an armed insurrection was started by Croatian Serb militias, supported by the Serbian government and paramilitary groups, who seized control of Serb-populated areas of Croatia. The JNA began to intervene in favour of the rebellion, and conflict broke out in the eastern Croatian region of Slavonia in May 1991. In August, the JNA launched a full-scale attack against Croatian-held territory in eastern Slavonia, including Vukovar. The idea was expansion into Serb populated area to be integrated into Serbia. Again hence my cynicism of your comments. This is explained in the article of the event. So that made me suspicious of your comments. Both a greater Croatia and Serbia were attempted during the war to unite specific ethnic groups on various territories into one. I dont think I am inept in the subject. As for the IP that contacted me. They spoke of two different pages. One mot related to you at all. So I’m not sure if these are the same people. It told the IP to make an account if they want to be taken more seriously and I advise the IP above to do the same. OyMosby (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention you repeating claim that a group Croats terrorizing Serbs started the Siege of Vukovar is not only a biased pov not fact, how the battle started is completely irrelevant. So I don’t get the point of being this up in the first place. Other than again engage in not so innocent practices here.

Also I informed the IP I am NOT and admin and NOT an “expert”. I am highly familiar with the subject and can bring in admins who are experts on the matter. Thing is you do not have consensus for the removal as numerous editors reverted you. So a consensus needs to be reached here before we remove the contentious topic. OyMosby (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

On top of all this, is this your IP here? If so you created an account to get around a page protection and an block to continue an edit war. Which is not a proper way to go as it violates Wiki rules. Also another IP here with the same removal pattern here @Eyebeller: thoughts? I may cal in admins. OyMosby (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations. All those paragraphs and not a single word why should this battle be included in the list of military disasters. Not a single counter arguments to the ones I made. You have derailed discussion on this talk page and dragged me down with you. As for the IP, one of those might be mine and I created account so that I may do proper editing. And don't lie that I tried to "get around a page protection", I did what you advocated here [4] IPs should do - create account. Istinar (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! You employed the tactic of Psychological projection. It wasn’t very effective. In all those paragraphs which you evidently did not read or lack the ability, I explained why it should stay. The IP at the top explained it further. Go read the Siege of Vukovar article and learned about an event you want to talk about. You started going on about who started the war and derailed subjects not me. So stop moping about a discussion you started. It was a military disaster as it was a hardly victory with colossal losses. As was explained to you many times. “IDONTHEARYOU” won’t cut it on this platform. The operation was an absolute disaster for all involved including the JNA. So I see no reasoning in you removing it. “One of these might be mine” oh lordy. This is too funny. What a coincidence that multiple ips were present. And on top of that you admit to violating the rules. Great job. You dragged yourself and everyone around you down as YOU started these various topics of the battle. I advocate IPs to make an account not circumvent edit war violations. Congrats, you played yourself. You still are completely outweighed via consensus. And you displayed to everyone your agenda here through your off topic rants about “who started the war (in your eyes) or is at fault” not to mention only mentioning crimes of one group. This is an easy one for the admins. @Eyebeller: thoughts as you were in this thread? I don’t think there is much more for me to say. I think I’m done here. Other user refuses to listen or stay on topic in the first place. I have to answer all the new topics they bring up. Sorry. OyMosby (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, congratulations. First you accused me of nationalism, then you threatened me with admins and now you are implying I am not mentally well. Thank you for those kind words. All those paragraphs which you wrote clearly do not explain why this battle should be included in the list. The IP at the top explained nothing, he used arguments from the page Pyrrhic victory and derailed the conversation in another direction, when I confronted him about the cause of war, you jumped in and conversation derailed even further. He started it and you continued it, my fault is in responding to you at all. So allow me to spell it out for the n-th time to all:

This battle does not meet conditions set in the article which define what is a military disaster:

chronic mission failure (the key factor)

successful enemy action (not to the JNA)

(less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure Istinar (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the book Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990–1995, Volume 1, pp. 99-100, the Battle of Vukovar fits in the definition of a military disaster, for the JNA forces. This is the assessment of the battle on pp. 99-100: "The campaign fell apart almost immediately as JNA forces bogged down in their attempt to reduce the Croatian-held town of Vukovar. The JNA initially attacked Vukovar to relieve the barracks there and dispose of the threat the town’s defenders would pose to the rear of the main JNA operation. As Vukovar sucked in more and more JNA forces—including all of the ill-suited armor-mechanized units previously earmarked for the main operation—the battle became a political symbol to both Belgrade and Zagreb of their determination to achieve military victory. The JNA’s failure to seize the town despite its overwhelming force would be a dispiriting embarrassment to the federal cause, while the Croatian forces’ prolonged resistance became an inspiration and rallying point for the troops and people of Croatia. When the JNA finally captured Vukovar in mid-November after two months of intense fighting, theirs was a Pyrrhic victory. The siege had completely disrupted the timetable for the JNA’s strategic offensive and dissipated the last of the JNA’s prewar spirit, which had already suffered catastrophic damage in Slovenia and in the battles for the Croatian barracks." Tezwoo (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the source you posted nothing in it says it was a military disaster. That is a false quoting. "The JNA’s failure to seize the town" - as far as I am aware JNA did seize the town. Again mention of "Pyrrhic victory", conflicting two separate terms. Either you suffered military disaster or Pyrrhic victory, it can't be both. And I honestly doubt validity of the claim that it was Pyrrhic victory, not when a source you posted is using Croatian unobjective terms about the war. So again, why should this battle be included if it does not meet requirements set in the article? Istinar (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The green text I highlighted follows the factors listed in the lead of the article:

• chronic mission failure (the key factor) - "The campaign fell apart almost immediately as JNA forces bogged down in their attempt to reduce the Croatian-held town of Vukovar." and "The siege had completely disrupted the timetable for the JNA’s strategic offensive"
• successful enemy action - "JNA’s failure to seize the town despite its overwhelming force" (there's also "Croatian forces’ prolonged resistance")

Yes, the JNA did eventually capture Vukovar, but only after months of heavy fighting and with a complete collapse of their plans, as the above source confirms. Tezwoo (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

If campaign fell apart JNA would not take over Vukovar, again it was a heavy military and moral blow to Croats, international community pressured Milošević to halt further offensive. It was not a chronic mission failure because JNA captured Vukovar. I would not call having your entire fighting force wiped out "successful enemy action". Istinar (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention Istinar’s completely off topic comments such as “instead these conditions being a disaster only to “Croats: they failed to defend and keep the city, enemy took over city and they lost complete command and control over it. They also had around 50% of their total force killed, rest wounded.” while ignoring the fact that it was 36,000 to 1,800. That is quite humiliating for the JNA. For JNA losses: 1,103 killed, 2,500 wounded 110 tanks and armoured vehicles and 3 aircraft destroyed. So the false switcharoo falls flat. They don’t buy the “ Pyrrhic victory” definition. Alao “ After the war much effort was put into propaganda how it was a crucial battle that turned the tide of war, but the truth is international community played key role in truce which followed after the battle.” the agenda here is clear. International community didn’t prtake in the siege nor demoralize the JNA. Oh lordy. As Tezwoo demonstrated above such claims are a farce. And I always here them from a very special group. :) But ones own definitions are irrelevant. Thank you Tezwoo. Though it may fall on deaf ears.... I think we can close the books on this. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, lies. And I thought you said " I don’t think there is much more for me to say. I think I’m done here." It is not an off topic comment to point out that almost entire Croatian force was wiped out and that they lost the city. That sounds like a military disaster. I am not ignoring military size of both sides - it is not as important as you try to make it out to be. Casualties you posted is one of the estimates how many people JNA lost, there are even lover estimates than that. No, international community played a role in stopping the war and putting pressure on Milošević to halt the offensive. So again, why should this battle be included if it does not meet the three requirements set in the article? Your continued personal attacks on me and your clearly biased interpretation and argumentation is not how users are supposed to interact here. Istinar (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations again with further projections! Thank you for showing everyone who you are and what you are really all about. Calling me a “liar” along with these other conspiracy theories and provocations. It is evident to anyone I answered you off topic claims. As I said before. Nothing more to say TO YOU. I was talking to the other editor. But I see you crave my attention and want to further fight. No thanks. You haven’t brought any new or constructive arguments. And this is my last response to YOU. Learn to discern when someone is responding to you vs another editor. Haha, take care buddy. :) OyMosby (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I feel sorry for you. Istinar (talk) 09:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We feel sorry for you and lack of self reflection. I was responding to another useer and you come in. Didn’t ask for your input. You complain of “personal attacks” yet began with this from the start. Seek therapy. And reflect on how you carried yourself before admins do it for you. Anyone can see the comedy here. So I’ll leave your insults for the records. OyMosby (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

None of the provided reliable source (1 book) claim that it was "military disaster". That is WP:OR in best-case scenario. Unless other WP:RS are provided, the material is ripe to be removed.

Interpretations of events and numbers by editors who are not experts are generally not welcome, we should provide sources.

I could, for example, strongly claim that JNA was able to afford to lose much more men and equipment, while the Croatian army couldn't and it was, all in all, a big moral blow and a military loss for their side - and it was. On the other hand, it was also a blow to JNA in the sense that it delayed other plans and actions. All in all, provide proper non-partisan sources or the material will be deleted. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 07:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's no other source, I vote we remove this battle from the list. Istinar (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds Vol 1, p. 110 [5] says the battle "was a decisive factor in the disruption of the JNA's strategic offensive", that it "turned into a three-month, life-or-death struggle that sucked in nearly all of the combat forces earmarked for the main operation, leaving the offensive beached and gasping", "damaged the Army's already sinking morale and prestige", and that its belated capture was a "public relations disaster in the West" Finally, that it "came to symbolise the war itself, highlighting the Croatian's valiant efforts to break away from Yugoslavia". On the previous page, the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". Sounds pretty bad to me. Also, there is some coverage of the relative disaster of Vukovar for both the Serb/JNA and Croatian sides in Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies: A Scholars' Initiative, and there is also discussion of the mistake of not bypassing it. On page 247 it says that at Vukovar, "The army lost its timings and resources, but the most significant losses were its combat morale and credibility in the eyes of personnel and the public alike". I have requested access via WP:RSX. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Again this will likely fall on deaf ears as the original Ip then account holder went on about Croat forces failings rather the topic at hand. The agenda is clear here. Thank your Peacemaker for chiming in some sanity once again. I reverted the revert again. One more time and I will bring in admins. OyMosby (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You may not know, At West Point University they are learning how not to attack a city with the example of the Battle of Vukovar 89.172.24.203 (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds is the most in-depth military analysis of the 1990s wars, so certainly a reliable source for a topic dealing primarily with the military effects of a particular battle or war. There are also sources that talk about the impact on the international level of the battle, such as The Death of a City: The Yugoslav Peoples Army Siege of Vukovar, 1991, Refugee Crisis, and Its Aftermath (it's a paper from 2019, but is not available online): "Most international actors preferred to keep Yugoslavia in-tact, whether because of obligations elsewhere, a realpolitik outlook, or simply a romanticization of Yugoslavism. The JNA’s destruction of Vukovar, however, dramatically altered international opinion. The JNA and Slobodan Milosević, henceforth, were identified as the primary aggressors during the Yugoslav Wars." Tezwoo (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:FORUM and off-topic. Do you have any reliable sources which claim that the battle was a military disaster? Is it the academy consensus? That is not the case, as far as I know. What has been presented is WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and grasping at straws. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sadko: not sure if you saw @Peacemaker67: quote from a book that the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". So they are saying it was a military disasters among other disasters as well. Keep in mind, winning doesn’t mean it can’t be a disaster for your military. OyMosby (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Balkan Battlegrounds is very clear in their assessment of the battle and its impact on the JNA campaign, and the other source I mention deals with how the battle impacted international stance on the war, so I don't see what is here off-topic, OR, or whatever. Tezwoo (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sadko, not for the first time, your wikilawyering and linking of policy is completely off-base. I have provided reliable sources and provided quotes. How about you engage with the sources instead of this dismissive wikilawyering. I don't think you even understand the practical effect of the policies you so often link. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure buddy. Thank you for letting me know. It's quite simple - I did not see your message. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 09:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Several problems with arguments pointed out by people who push to include this battle in the list.

First, Balkan Battlegrounds Vol 1 which is being quoted here says "the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". The source describes entire offensive as a disaster (and that statement itself is highly questionable) not the battle itself from what I can understand. The narrative that is being pushed here is that losing Vukovar was somehow a morale boost for the Croats and military victory - it was actually opposite. The battle itself, no matter how long and hard, was not a military disaster for JNA (but it was for the Croats). Next quote "The army lost its timings and resources, but the most significant losses were its combat morale and credibility in the eyes of personnel and the public alike" - losing combat morale and credibility are not military disasters. Balkan Battlegrounds is not very clear in their assessment of the battle. It was international pressure which led to temporary end of fighting, which we can see in Vance plan.

Second, on article Battle of Vukovar end result is described as Pyrrhic victory. Users here tried to use the same source to justify outcome of this battle both as the military victory and as military disaster. It can't be both. This article focuses on disasters, military defeats, putting battle of Vukovar on this list would make it the only battle where a side which did not suffer heavy casualties, did annihilate its enemy and captured its objective has somehow suffered military disaster.

Third, so that we would not have such long discussions and dishonest arguments from clearly overemotional users who might straight out ignore what other users say, three rules were set at the beginning of this page which determined what is a military disaster. Rules were set precisely so that not every battle could be shoved in here. You are all aware of them but because users here mostly choose to ignore those when I point them out allow me to repeat them:

1. chronic mission failure (the key factor)

2. successful enemy action

3. (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure

I have argued above and already explained why this battle does not meet these requirements.

I see no reliable sources that name this battle as "military disaster", this battle was first added without sources, and when they were added they were falsely quoted. Despite concentrated effort by users who edit Croat-related articles to put this battle on the list, I see no reason for it to be added, especially not when it does not meet the three rules. Istinar (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

” so that we would not have such long discussions and dishonest arguments from clearly overemotional users who might straight out ignore what other users say” again with these hypersensitive (pot calling the kettle black) projections and insults. I pity you mate. You accuse me of being a liar and then have the gall to say you feel sorry for me. It is clear you are emotionally bothered and invested here. And I don’t understand the anger. And breaking Wiki rules on personal attacks and circumventing via IP and account creation (which you admitted you did, I did not make up). @Peacemaker67: and @Tezwoo: and I have stated information backed by RS. I answered all your off topic points hence the long responses. Sigh..... Sadko acknowledged the info as well as they missed it before hand. Stay on topic. Had you done so to begin with there would be no need to adress countless of topic points and topics of yours. Peacemaker provided sourcing. The rest of us had a productive discussion. Enough with the “overemotional” and passive aggressive comments and libel. This isn’t Reddit. This is for mature talks. Case seems closed. Sourcing calls it a Military disaster literally. So clearly this is ignoring all of us and what we said. We can move on from this discussion I think. OyMosby (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Your personal insults, threats and projections aside - you have not responded to any of three major points I raised. You simply chose to ignore them.

Since there are no more sources or arguments, or even constructive comments, I will be removing this battle from the list. Reasons are listed in discussion above. Istinar (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All I have seen is IDHT comments from you. You just ignore the sources that say it was a military disaster, like Balkan Battlegrounds. I have restored it. Get consensus here and do not edit-war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

All I see are you and two other users who IGNORE THREE RULES SET AT THE BEGINNING and also ignore arguments I put forward. There are no sourceS claiming it was military disaster, there is only ONE source source claiming entire offensive was a disaster (but not the battle itself from what I can understand and what is being discussed here), which is strange considering JNA did not suffer heavy casualties, did take over Vukovar, did nearly annihilate or capture Croatian forces and even pushed offensive further until international community stepped in. Same source is falling into narrative-building pit (just like you and other users) when claiming fall of Vukovar was somehow a victory for Croats, ignoring that it was a military defeat, a blow to Croatian morale and that city had become part of Croatia only in 1998, three years after the end of war. Istinar (talk) 08:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for this deletion. You also do not set the rules for discussion, the "criteria" you are using is not based in reliable sources. This battle was basically the main operation of the offensive, which was a failure across several areas, according to Balkan Battlegrounds. I don't care what you consider to be "strange" according to your "criteria", we use what is in reliable sources, and as far as the Balkan Wars are concerned, it is very hard to go past Balkan Battlegrounds. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have consensus because I am arguing with people who push their agenda and are not honest. The criteria I am using is set at the beginning of the page, three conditions that determine what is a military disaster. You ignoring those shows how honest your discussion here is. Yeah, apparently this battle was a "failure across several areas" you say - just not the military one (or any other if we are being honest). You are actually arguing that because JNA did not suffer heavy casualties, did capture the city and destroyed Croatian forces (while also dealing a blow to their morale) has somehow suffered a military disaster. That is just dishonest. Battle of Vukovar was not a military disaster for JNA, but it sure was for the Croats. And if you are making argument that entire offensive was a disaster, then you need to make a distinction between offensive and battle itself. I have pointed out that your only source is flawed and is contributing a lot of what happened later in the war to this battle, which is simply wrong and is ignoring many factors of that war. Istinar (talk) 09:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I could find Balkan Battlegrounds is the ONLY source on the entire internet which claims this battle (offensive to be precise) was a military disaster, and it paints that operation with a rather broad brush. Because I have received no response to numerous problems I pointed out I will remove this battle from the list. Reasons are already mentioned above. Too many issues and uncooperative editors. Istinar (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

IN fact, I am wondering about many of the entries.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

RS? There aren't any. Only one source claims that "the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA"", and I am quoting another user here, I was not able to check the source myself. Claim that offensive was a "disaster" is a stretch at best and that claim is for entire offensive, not the battle itself. Istinar (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire offensive was a disaster because this battle wrecked the offensive. An RS has already been provided, and Balkan Battlegrounds is freely available online. You don't have consensus, so drop the stick. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. I already explained to you on February 8th why this battle does not belong here. You ignored me and did not address any of my arguments. You don't have either consensus or sources to put this battle on the list, so drop the stick. Istinar (talk) 10:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Then we list the campaign, not the battle. If RS do not say the battle was a disaster it fails wp:v to say it was a disaster.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And even that claim is a stretch at best when you consider that JNA captured the town, wiped out or captured most of enemy combatants, struck a blow to enemy morale, did not suffer heavy casualties and continued offensive after that battle. Not to mention international pressure and Vance plan which led to ceasefire. Istinar (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is also wp:or, if RS say it was a disaster so do we, regardless of what we know to be the truth.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Stating facts is not OR, stretching supposed outcome of the offensive to the battle itself (after seeing sources don't say what it was claimed they say) is OR at best. There is only one source which claims this offensive was a disaster (only one I could find on the internet) and the way it is phrased makes that source suspicious. Second, you forgot three factors mentioned at the beginning of the article which battle must meet in order to be added to the list. Istinar (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not deal in fact we deal in WP:VERIFYabilty.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Any comment on the three factors I mentioned? Istinar (talk) 11:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we go with what RS say. If an RS says it was a disaster so do we, if is only one RS we might say "according to..." but as this is a list its a tad too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

According to reliable source The World's Worst Military Disasters: Chronicling the Greatest Battlefield Catastrophes of All Time by Chris McNab which set three factors as guidelines in this article - this battle does not belong on the list. Istinar (talk) 12:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

That is one set of criteria, and I said the battle does not belong here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. There is another set of criteria mentioned earlier, in previous paragraph - "can range from a strong 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". Yugoslav army did not lose a major battle against a clearly inferior force, it was not surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force nor was it a seemingly evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result. At least it was not one sided for Yugoslav army. Istinar (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Have we reached Consensus yet? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

So the proposal is to list the entire 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia, instead of just the battle of Vukovar?

Regarding Balkan Battlegrounds, that is a seminal work on the military history of the Yugoslav wars. It is misleading to call it an "only source". Keep in mind that we are not discussing a battle in, for example, the Vietnam War with dozens if not more sources of Balkan Battlegrounds' length and detail so that we can discard something if it's found in only one of them. Every article about a battle or operation from the 1990s I read on Wikipedia has that book as one of the main sources. Tezwoo (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is about right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think @Istinar: misunderstood you and thought you meant not include the camping either just a side note. Istinar can verify if I misread. Though @Slatersteven: I thought you didn’t want to include the Battle/Siege of Vukovar? Now you propose to list all the sieges by the JNA in the 91 campaign? I mean I have non issue if RS states this but I believe Istinar will take the same disagreement with that alternative as well based on the rules they mention. The battle of Vukovar in particular was basically the main operation of the offensive, which was a failure according to the source Balkan Battlegrounds. Not sure why we would ignore RS. The Army barely winning the battle or now even worse reaching a stalemate with an “inferior” or weaker army is a military disaster for that army as the sources say. This passes even the other user’s self imposed rules. I think the sources specifically say the battle. Not the entire campaign of multiple battles. The Siege of Vukovar was outlined in the source I think. Otherwise all battles would be listed from the 1991 campaign? That’s a lot....OyMosby (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think @Tezwoo: and @Peacemaker67: already went in detail about that. There isn’t consensus yet to out the whole campaign as you suggest. But if the source includes the entire JNA campaign then that is what the source says. That’s a lot of JNA sieges and battles to be included. Siege of Dubrovnik and such... Either way Vukovar is included. So it so no consensus to remove Vukovar. OyMosby (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

No as we go with RS, and this is not about battl34s, its about military disasters. If (as seems to be the case) RS say this was a disaster so can we. We do not have to, but we can.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep I was agreeing with going by RS from the start so I agree with you, Peacemaker and Tezwoo. You had stated you would remove The Siege of Vukovar earlier so I was confused. The RS marked it a military disaster as the others mentioned. CheersOyMosby (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole offensive (of which the Battle of Vukovar was the major action) was a military disaster, so it should be th e whole offensive, but the Battle of Vukovar should be mentioned due to its importance and role in the disaster. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yup, precisely. OyMosby (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see consensus. I see people trying to justify sourceless addition to this list and when that did not work they ask to change entry from battle of Vukovar to 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia (an article which mentions no disaster, but mentions stalemate as a result and Vance plan, the one I already mentioned in discussion here).

It is not misleading to point out fact that Balkan Battlegrounds is the only source here quoted that claims this offensive in general was a "disaster", but not the battle in question (something users here claimed source says). I fail to see how can capturing a town and annihilating enemy forces in it be a failure. I see no reliable source here which says battle of Vukovar was a military disaster (because it was not). That was already explained in this discussion.

This battle does not meet requirements set at the beginning of this article which determine what constitutes military disaster: "Military disasters in this list can range from a strong 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" - Yugoslav Army did not lose against clearly inferior force, it was not surprised and defeated by a clearly superior force and this was not evenly matched conflict with an extremely one sided result. Not when result was stalemate (in case of battle of Vukovar victory) and Vance plan. This battle ALSO does not meet another set of requirements mentioned in this article: chronic mission failure, successful enemy action, total degeneration of a force's command and control structure. If you have no sources to back up your edits and if your addition to this list does not meet requirements set than that addition should be removed.

In this case both battle of Vukovar and 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia do not meet requirements set at the beginning of this article in order to be added on the list. Istinar (talk) 09:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

No comments from other users who frequently post here or response to problems I pointed out, I see. I can only assume that by ignoring any further comments they hope to see this discussion archived which would mean no consensus and controversial addition to the list would remain. I would like to point out again that there are no sources which support the claim that battle of Vukovar belongs on this list (that was already discussed at length) and that this battle does not meet conditions set at the beginning of the article. Seeking help on dispute resolution boards was not helpful. @Nick-D: @GraemeLeggett: @Slatersteven: and @Sadko: what next? Is this highly controversial addition (at best) going to be removed from the list or not? If I receive no response does this mean consensus is to remove this battle? Istinar (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well WP:ONUS is clear, it is down to those who wish to add to convince.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep up engaging on the TP Istinar. Maybe some people are busy. I dislike using the Agency's documents as sources, they were an involved party. And there is no quote for Woodward 1995, p. 258. I am not able to verify it. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, will do. I managed to find Woodward, on p. 258 there is no mention of "military disaster", only "Pyrrhic victory" with quotation marks quoting Miloš Vasić. IP user who added this battle simply copied sources from Battle of Vukovar page and posted them here as a source.Istinar (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

One person disagreeing with the other editors makes this closer to obstinacy than controversy. A lack of comment does not mean agreement with your points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Asking someone to back up claim with a proper source is not obstinacy, trying to add content without proper sources is. Slatersteven has already said above "it is down to those who wish to add to convince". Istinar (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I put source from Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995 , page 99-100 and 110 93.138.97.159 (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

You duplicated a source, source which was already disproved in discussion you are in right now. Istinar (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven and Istinar it is not a duplicate source the other is this is from Central Intelligence Agency Office of Russian and European Analysis year 2000 ,this is Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990-1995 year 200293.138.97.159 (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Then you can provide the quote from the source (which seems to be mentioned 17 times in this thread).Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the interlocutors explained to you above that it was a military catastrophe and that is what the source says. What Pyrrhic victory than military catastrophe ? Everyone who knows military history knows that Pyrrhic victory is the definition of a military catastrophe in some battle. All that is needed is the name of the Pyrrhic victory and the source for it to be a military catastrophe, my opinion but i added more source which you deleted. 93.138.97.159 (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

How (we) define it. chronic mission failure (the key factor) (does not fit that, after all it is a victory), successful enemy action, (does not fit that, after all it is a victory), (less significant) total degeneration of a force's command and control structure (which (as we say) is less significant, and thus is not a given, and even if it did, we say two of these are needed, not just one). Sp no, it is not clear that a Pyrrhic victory is the definition of a military catastrophe. This has (also) been explained many times, you need a source that says this was a catastrophe (see wp:v), not that you infer to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay it's your opinion is Pyrrhic victory is not a military disaster, my opinion is Pyrrhic victory is a military catastrophe. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. So we need to ask who knows military history to tell us if Pyrrhic victory is a military disaster93.138.97.159 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Well one answer to that is do RS call a specific battle a military disaster. Which is what you are being told, do RS say it?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I will no longer post the source that you deleted. My starting point is that Pyrrhic victory is a military catastrophe and that is enough, but I still put a source that describes that military catastrophe. I will not write anymore, let someone who knows military history join the conversation and explain it to us. Greetings93.138.97.159 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There are alrwady two different sources backing the claim thisnwas a military disaster. It was not disproven it was quoted above by Peacemaker67 and Tezwoo. Balkan Battlegrounds is biased? Also why is the other source in the article ignored? There isn’t really much more to cover here. OyMosby (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Then maybe you would care to repeat it, as I do not see any quote saying this battle was a military disaster (or to put it another way, no quote that contains the word "disaster"). What I see quotes saying it was a Pyrrhic victory.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Only one source claims it was "Pyrrhic victory" with quotations and it quotes a journalist not a military expert. Istinar (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And what are those two sources which specifically say this was a military disaster? Balkan Battlegrounds uses term " disaster" for the whole offensive not battle and it paints it with broad brush calling it "military, political and public relations disaster", the same source which uses such POV words as "Croatians' valiant effort" and other over the top descriptions. Once it was established this source does not back up the claim that this battle was a military disaster users here wanted to switch this battle with 1991 Yugoslav campaign in Croatia which was a stalemate and mentions no disaster. If second source you speak of is Woodward she mentions no disaster at all, which I already explained. If by second source you meant The Death of a City that paper also mentions no "military disaster" specifically as was quoted here by other user. Istinar (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly to both of you I am not using “ Pyrrhic victory” as the logic even though Vukovar was definitely a Pyrrhic Victory. Came at a big cost. Correct @Istinar: Battlegrounds says the campaign of 91 by JNA was a disaster with Vukovar being a critical part of it. Hence a proposal to include the entire JNA campaign as Slatersteven suggested. And here is a quote from @Peacemaker67: “[the strategic offensive as a whole is described as a "military, political and public relations disaster for the JNA". Sounds pretty bad to me. Also, there is some coverage of the relative disaster of Vukovar for both the Serb/JNA and Croatian sides in Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies: A Scholars' Initiative, and there is also discussion of the mistake of not bypassing it. On page 247 it says that at Vukovar, "The army lost its timings and resources, but the most significant losses were its combat morale and credibility in the eyes of personnel and the public alike". I have requested access via WP:RSX. ]” This was easily found by me in a few seconds skimming above. @Slatersteven: not sure if you missed Peacemaker’s entry. Also Steven you were in favor of including the entire campaign by the JNA as a disaster and I agree. I also agree with Peacemaker that Vukovar is a worthy mentioned highlight of the listed campaign. Being it was a critical moment in the campaign. @Tezwoo: am I interpreting the Balkan Battlegrounds source you provided correctly? I hope this clears things up a bit. Stay well everyone. OyMosby (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have reliable source which specifically says that battle of Vukovar was a military disaster (in those words)? Istinar (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I will check both “reliable” sources. They are reliable they seem RS. Unless you see that they ate biased or bad sources? One states the entire Campaign a disaster highlighted Vukovar in that camping. The other by PM Vukovar directly based on his entry. I will take a second look at the source if I can since PM says it may be limited academic access. I’ll bring whatever excerpts along with page numbers that way we have references everyone agrees on to point to. Will get back to you. Though not immediately. OyMosby (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

So, you don't. Balkan Battlegrounds is being misquoted here (or OR take your pick) and I do find its POV wording biased. Woodward mentions no "military disaster". You had since December last year when this discussion started to put forward reliable sources, no one is going to wait for you, until reliable sources are here this battle should be removed from the list. Istinar (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion then all the battles that are here that are Pyrrhic victories should be removed from the list and half of them are without sources (because you are strictly asking in the source "battle vukovar is military disaster" that someone has to write just like that in order for you to believe that it was a military disaster, maybe someone will find it in the source), and all who put them are wrong, only you are right, who claim that Pyrrhic victory is not a military disaster. You are talking about the "key factor", the fact is that after the battle for Vukovar all the stronger attacks on Croatia stopped in the following years there were no more attacks on Croatia. Everything was stopped because the battle for Vukovar with heavy losses stopped the further advance of the army and military units from Serbia to Zagreb, which was the ultimate goal of the army. Which can be seen from various maps in the article battle for Vukovar which was the main target of the jna. It was like the battle of Sigetvar that stopped the 1566 Ottoman Empire towards Vienna, so they withdrew and did not attacked Vienna for the next 100 years. Now tell me, was that not a military catastrophe for the Ottoman Empire? It is also a Pyrrhic victory.93.138.97.159 (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I said there are serious issues here with the inclusion of battles that are not called by RS military disasters. Again a source must say it is such a way that it is not open to interpretation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Istinar:. So I do. Read. Enough with the twisted belittling. No one here seems to be sharing your views on this matter. I have not been on this page that often yet you speak to me like I spend 24/7 on this subject as your account does. You asked right now to verify a quote from a book by PM. What are you talking about???? I’m not focused on just one article in Wikipedia. Peacemaker67 apparently does have the quote. Look up further. I even quoted him. I literally showed you what he quoted from the book. I am not the sole admin of this page. I said I would verify the source he presented. This was brought this year. This was presented only a few weeks ago not “since December” It’s not about me. Two other editors provided their sourcing. Have at em while I verify your claims and theirs. I don’t need these demands. @Slatersteven: saw it notable to include the camping on the list. Yet you don’t confront them???OyMosby (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave you sources which you deleted that speak of a military catastrophe for JNA , it would be right for you to put sources that say that it was not a military catastrophe for JNA and there is none here 93.138.97.159 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Is this you [6]? Istinar (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time for an RFC, we need fresh eyes to look at this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is getting nowhere and just aggressive. RfC with neutral parties would help. Just be watchful of canvasing that always happens with Balkan RfCs as you know. Many treat RfCs as a “greater number of votes wins” when really it’s the closing admin that decides what makes most sense based on evidence and such presented. OyMosby (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: should the 91 JNA Campaign be an option as well as you and most of us agreed would be a good alternative? OyMosby (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Not yet, lets no complicate matters. Keep the RFC simple. We can discuss the campaign after.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for setting it up by the way! OyMosby (talk) 17:23, 7 March 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" [7]. 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)

• Oppose There is no any credible source that can prove the battle wasn't a success.Sea Ane (talk) 16:41, 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)

• Oppose, due to lack of sources describing the battle as a disaster per Slatersteven Idealigic (talk) 12:45, 22 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.

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)[8] 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,[9] 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 [[10]] 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...." [[11]] 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" [[12]] 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" [[13]] 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 [14] 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)

Gettsyburg

Would Gettsyburg fit this list? I'm specifically asking because of Pickett's Charge, which was undoubtedly a massive, costly mistake. Delukiel (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Only if it can meet the criteria. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Two sources denoting it as a disaster, right? I'll keep my eyes peeled. I have a scholarly Civil War book I've been meaning to read. Delukiel (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

St. Clair's Defeat

Curious why the info on St. Clair's defeat was removed, since it was one of the worst military defeats in U.S. Army history, was a complete rout, had citations, and is described as a "disaster" in multiple sources. Is there more criteria for inclusion on this list that I missed? Canute (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Per the WP:LEAD: 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). So the sources used have to be sources that are specifically about the overarching topic of military disasters. TompaDompa (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I thought I read the criteria correctly, but obviously I missed some of the revisions. So if I understand correctly, it doesn't matter how many sources about a specific topic refer to it as a military "disaster," (i.e. the U.S. Army Center of Military History or the U.S. Army Museum), it has to be named in one of the sources listed on this page? If that's the case, I'll withdraw the entry on St. Clair's rout (although there's an entire chapter devoted to this in Perry, James M. (1996). Arrogant Armies - Great Military Disasters and the Generals Behind Them. Turner Publishing Company. ISBN 0471119768. ).

Does this also exclude Naval "disasters" such as the sinking of the MV Wilhelm Gustloff or the USS Indianapolis (CA-35), since they are not on those lists? Canute (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a source already listed on the page. Your James Perry source seems exactly the type of book intended by the qualification. "Military" is used in the wider sense of involving armed services, rather than just armies, so naval disasters would not be excluded. Whether the criterion really should just include books on military disasters, which are often popular history, at the expense of more academic military history about particular wars, campaigns or battles is a fair question, but those are the current criteria.Monstrelet (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair. Thanks again. I appreciate the trouble everyone has taken to establish some standards so this list doesn't get out of hand. You raise a good question about limitations in books. I could see how that would greatly reduce the items included on this list, and lends itself to giving a Western, coffee-table perspective on military history. (For example, there's only one military disaster currently listed for the entire 18th century, and it's a U.S. victory in the American Revolution.) I think I may have waded into some deep water with this article, though, so I will withdraw. Best of luck, sincerely. Canute (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan

Do we really not think of the War in Afghanistan as an insane military disaster? 20 years. Billions of dollars. A military trained by the best that couldn't hold a single city in the last days of the conflict. No will power to fight back and 20 years of preparing just down the drain. The Outcome exactly the same as if US would never interfere. I don't know I think everyone would call this a disaster. But I guess I just need to find reliable sources and I am good to go? Mikimannen (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

If you get the references required. Until then, please abide by WP:BRD and remove your contested addition instead of edit warring. (Hohum ^@) 21:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I was probably editing the article at the same time as you removed my edit didn't even see that you removed it, my bad. Also do I just post again after I get the sources or should I post my changes here? So you can see if it's all good? Mikimannen (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I'd suggest putting the sources here first. Bear in mind they need to be "multiple sources dealing with the subject of military disasters [that] have deemed the event in question to be a military disaster (or an equivalent term)." A general history book or news report describing it as a disaster doesn't qualify. The existing sources used in the article show the type meant. (Hohum ^@) 22:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if a documentary would be a good source? This documentary FRONTLINE DOCUMENTARY showed american and taliban perspective on the conflict and maybe nowhere it said it was a disaster. But, many times it is said the the Afghanistan was failed by America and so on. Would I need to give timestamps etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikimannen (talk • contribs) 09:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

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

I think it's unlikely that we'll find sufficient sources designating it a military disaster. In my experience, those who consider it a disaster more commonly view it as such in political terms than military ones. For that matter, it seems to me that "failure" is a much more common description than "disaster", likely at least in part due to the Taliban actually being overthrown and out of power for almost 20 years until they retook control of the country. TompaDompa (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Napoleon's retreat from Russia

I was going over this list and noticed that the French retreat from Russia is not included. This struck me as something that would be obvious to include on this list—I imagine sources referring to it as a disaster are numerous—but I assume it's not included for some reason I'm not aware of. Anyone know why? Delukiel (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Per the article inclusion criteria given in the lead (see also RfC above), the inclusion criteria are quite specific. Do such sources exist? Cinderella157 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It's two sources that refer to it as a military disaster, right? A quick look on the page for the French invasion has:

• Grant, R. G. (2009). Battle: A Visual Journey Through 5,000 Years of Combat. New York : DK Pub. ISBN 9780756655785. Page 212: "Napoleon's Russia disaster encouraged Sweden..."
• Chandler, David G. (2009) [1966]. The Campaigns of Napoleon. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9781439131039. Page 858: "Napoleon was already decisively beaten before the serious frosts began; they served only to increase the scale of his disaster..."

Is it specifically "military disaster?" Because that would make sense.

Edit: Looking over the criteria is looks like neither of these sources fit. Oh well.

Delukiel (talk) 00:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No they won't, Delukiel. The subject of the work must be military disasters. Compare with the sources used in the article for example. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)