Talk:List of military disasters

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of military disasters article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 12 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

No consensus, 16 May 2021, see discussion.
keep, 23 May 2017, see discussion.
keep, 9 March 2015 (UTC), see discussion.
Keep, 17 February 2007, see discussion.

Military history CL‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

CL

This article has been rated as CL-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Additional information:
/
	No existing task force includes this article in its scope; to propose a new one, please leave a message on the main project talk page.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible inclusion of Battle of Curupayty

During the Paraguayan War there was the battle of Curupayty (1866) where Paraguayans were outnumbered 4 to 1 but suffered only 54 losses whereas the alliance forces suffered 4227 losses. The battle had about 5000 Paraguayans fighting a total of 20000 Brazilians and Argentine soldiers.

It was the biggest defeat of alliance forces in Paraguayan War and it served no purpose to the alliance forces.

There's no source I know that includes this battle specifically in discussion of military disasters like it's the case for every other battle in the 19th century section, but the scale of the defeat is larger than those.

Sources from the Battle of Curupayty article would be included as reference. This is the first time I make any significant edit to Wikipedia so I'm asking here first. 179.217.1.98 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO we need a source saying it was a disaster. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]