Talk:Military victories against the odds

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 articles

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 not met

Additional information:
/
	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

[Untitled][edit]

I think the battle of Watling Street should be considered romans were outnumber over 20 to 1 and inflicted a decisive victory on Boudica and her forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:740:8002:D450:7177:FAD5:E3EF:AC36 (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, that would appear to be the case! but I've not found any RS references that support or discuss it, and we need those. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New page[edit]

This page had been in draft form for 6 months with no one doing anything with it. I've cleaned up the grammar, and added some more references and figures.

Subjective[edit]

Completely subjective article. Should be AFDed. 107.127.46.1 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: I see you created this article. I agree with IP that this could ever only be a subjective list and would be a magnet for WP:OR. WP:LISTCRITERIA demands that all lists must have criteria that are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". I don't see that in this case.VR _talk 20:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vice regent - there are certain battles which historiography often notes as classic wins against the odds, certainly Rorkes Drift, Agincourt and Carrhae come to mind... and there are plenty of references here that discuss those particular victories against the odds, including "Outnumbered, Outgunned, Undeterred: Twenty Battles Against All Odds", "Last Stand: Famous Battles Against The Odds" and "Outnumbered: Incredible Stories of History's Most Surprising Battlefield Upsets" and others. All these discuss certain battles which were unlikely victories in the context of being won against the odds - so no, this article isn't just an unreferenced list - its supported by the sources. I agree though, perhaps the battles listed should only be the ones that are specifically mentioned in the sources, so its not a magnet for WP:OR. In any case, I've added a few more references supporting some of the battles at least, perhaps the ones that aren't clearly supported by reliable sources should be removed. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And how reliable are the sources you mentioned?

Outnumbered, Outgunned, Undeterred: Twenty Battles Against All Odds. Publisher Thames & Hudson looks like a pop history publisher as opposed to an academic one. Author is an ex-British army officer. While he is a lecturer at Oxford, he is not a professor there and I didn't find evidence of publishing peer-reviewed work.
Last Stand: Famous Battles Against The Odds. Author is another ex-soldier, no academic qualifications.
Outnumbered: Incredible Stories of History's Most Surprising Battlefield Upsets. I can't even find anything about the publisher. And the author's own website shows nothing academic about him.VR _talk 05:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly, that's just some of the references, there's quite a few more of them on the page. Also, a reference doesn't have to be written by an academic with a certain number of peer reviewed citations to be acceptable for use in Wikipedia, it just needs to be a WP:RS. If you have a particular issue with a specific source, may be it is best to discuss your particular issue with it here. My overall point is, clearly there is a body of RS published material on this topic, with discussion of particular battles, which this article reflects. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: the usual procedure for bringing sources to WP:RSN is to first discuss them on the article's talk page and only if that discussion is deadlocked to then bring it to the community's attention, so as to minimize taking up others' time. Do you think the above 3 sources are reliable? If no, then I'll remove them immediately. If yes, can you explain why you think they are reliable? VR _talk 17:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would regard them as RS. IMHO the reasoning you have advocated here for disallowing these books as RS is not Wikipedia RS policy. An author certainly doesn't need to be an academic for their book to be used as an RS. A book also doesn't have to be from an academic publisher to be RS. As you say, the author of the top book is a lecturer at Oxford....and there's no WP policy that says an author has to have X amount of citations to have their work used as RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so why do you think these sources are reliable? What is your reason for each of them? VR _talk 01:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1)"Dr Rob Johnson, a former officer in the British Army with operational experience, is Lecturer in the History of War at Oxford University. His previous books include Outnumbered, Outgunned, Undeterred, and (with Michael Whitby and John France) How to Win on the Battlefield."
(2) "Bryan Perrett was educated at Liverpool College. He served in the Royal Tank Regiment and was awarded the Territorial Decoration. A professional military historian for many years, his books include A History of the Blitzkrieg and Knights of the Black Cross � Hitler's Panzerwaffe and its Leaders. His treatise Desert Warfare was widely consulted during the Gulf War. His most recent works, including Last Stand, At All Costs and Against all Odds examine aspects of motivation. During the Falklands and Gulf Wars Bryan Perrett served as Defense Correspondent to the Liverpool Echo. He is the author of The Hunters and the Hunted (2012) and Why the Germans Lost (2013), both published by Pen and Sword Books."
(2) "Cormac_O'Brien has published books on everything from natural disasters to U.S. presidents, from ancient empires to the American Civil War, bringing a distinctive voice to the history genre. He has made appearances on NPR, CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, The History Channel, and other venues. Born and raised in western New York State, he lives in New Jersey with his wife and daughter."

Cheers - Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: do you think any of them meet WP:HISTRS? VR _talk 06:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VR that's an Essay, rather than policy - to be honest I mainly stick to policy, which is hard enough to keep up with. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also explain if you think this article is a reliable source? I can't see anything reliable about it. The website it is published on is just a website for making random "top 10" lists. I can't find any credentials on the author either.VR _talk 17:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you to take that reference off if you like, yes I agree Listverse probably isn't a sound reference. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, then can you remove that source and replace it with either another source or a ^{[citation needed]} tag? Also, for each battle there would need to be some source in which the author describes it something like "against the odds". This can be hard to discern given that there are other sources too that simply describe the battle.VR _talk 01:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, can do - I'll take that out. As mentioned before, I have already removed battles that weren't backed up by sources, otherwise this article will just become an unsubstantiated list of battles that editors themselves decide should qualify. So now, just about all the battles here have some reference indicating they were exceptional in that they were a military victory against the odds. Battle of Kapyong has no references, I can't remember how that got in there, I will remove it. The Maori battle is a clear battle won against the odds, but I'm not sure if there is a good RS reference for it, I will check, and remove it if there isn't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Kapyong was in the "Situational Conditions" section, appropriately cited, and you did NOT remove the Battle Kapyong reference from that section. For obvious reasons, namely, it was appropriately cited. The title of the citation was "Victory Against All Odds", which seems to fit into this particular article.Tennisedu (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some battles[edit]

As noted above, list articles ists must have criteria that are "unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" - I have removed the battles that didn't have substantive, reliable sources substantiating them as a military victory against the odds. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Kapyong certainly fulfills the requirements as described in the lead to this article. There has been a long-standing reference in the first section to the Battle of Kapyong as being among the famous victories against the odds, which are estimated at something like 5 to 1 or 10 to 1. This fact alone indicates the nature of this famous battle, and how it has entered the culture as an example of victory against the odds. In the military literature there is no hesitation in considering it to be an example of victory against the odds. There is no problem with adding citations, which are readily available. I will restore this paragraph and add some citations.Tennisedu (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agincourt[edit]

Deathlibrarian, this citation is to page 103, yet that page isn't even about the Battle of Agincourt, but a different battle. What text in that book says that Battle of Agincourt was won against the odds? Or is it simply the fact that it is listed in a chapter named "Against the Odds"?VR _talk 01:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the battles here, Agincourt is the one that is constantly referenced as being won against the odds, so that reference can come out if need be. There are other references in the article, indicating that it was. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kapyong[edit]

I just noticed this was added back in by user Tennisedu (after I removed it). I have not objection to that per se, but as discussed on the talk page, there needs to be good references substantiating the battle as a "victory against the odds", which should be added to the article section to substantiate and support it as such. Editors can't just decide that the battle was, and enter it... that is subjective. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see a few references have now been added, all good! Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a reference in the first section of the article to Kapyong being "Victory Against All Odds", which I did not put there. It was already approved under your criteria.Tennisedu (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]