This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frogman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Frogman was split to List of military diving units on 5 October 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frogman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://history.flyer.it/rebreathers/Italiano/sezioni/storia/frameset.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
B |
It has a long way to go. Many challenged claims outstanding. There are still in-line external links and editorial comments which must go. Covers the topic fairly extensively, though it is difficult to make out the limits of the scope as there appears to be some out of scope content. This may be partly due to the term being poorly defined and partly scope creep. Significant work may be necessary to tighten up the content so that it is clear what the scope is and that it is what it should be. The lead does not summarise the content. The term remains poorly defined. Scope may need to be defined before it is possible to decide. Somewhat unencyclopaedic in tone in places. Adequately illustrated. Does not seem to be a problem. |
User:Harizotoh9 has today deleted all of the Frogman#The frogman in popular culture section on the grounds that it is "Not notable. Pop culture trivia". This may well be the case, it certainly could be better referenced, but I think it only right that others should have their say first. Note that there are numerous other pages with "in popular culture" sections or indeed stand-alone articles, see this list. I have taken the liberty of reverting his deletion, pending the results of this discussion. Alansplodge ( talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The pop culture section adds nothing. It amounts to "there was a movie. It had frogmen". Remember, what is the goal of Wikipedia? It's not just to disseminate random facts of no relevance. It's to explain to readers about particular topics. It's an encyclopedia. To be notable, this pop culture has to have had some significant impact on the topic. For example: The term "mole" supposedly comes from a novel. Therefore, that novel should be mentioned in the article. That doesn't mean that the article should have a big list of media that include moles. If it did have an impact on the topic, it would work better integrated into the body of the article, rather than just part of its own section.
If the information does not have significant impact on the topic, it is by definition, trivial information. WP:TRIVIA.
The "In popular culture" sections were born out of a compromize after removing Trivia sections. However, they're poorly thought out and become magnets for non-notable pop culture. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, the "Errors about frogmen found in public media" looks like Original research. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts. The content of an article is not determined by notability, but by relevance and verifiability. It also is no place for original research. In the case of "In popular culture" sections, it is not enough that a film or a novel merely mentions a topic. It is not even enough that the pop culture had an impact on the topic. It is necessary for an account of that impact to be published in a reliable source. So in the case of the mole (espionage), it's not enough that the term was "supposedly" derived from a novel. It is necessary for a third-party to have discussed that – and in the "mole" article, there are indeed two sources that shed light on Le Carré's introduction of the term. So it should be here. If one man's trivia or cruft is actually another man's important relevant matter, then there will be independent reliable sources that show that. In the absence of such reliable sources, any such trivia is fair game for removal. It should also go without saying that the existence of trivia in other articles is no justification for trivia here. -- RexxS ( talk) 10:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danish Frogmen Corps which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraph says this:
The idea that the American military borrowed the word from Italian (Italy was an enemy in 1940) is simply ludicrous and somewhat typical of Wikipedians who want to take the United States off center stage at any cost, even if the facts have to be subverted. I hate to think of the thousands of people who are being misinformed on a daily basis because of basic negligence and apathetic disinterest. However, don't take my word for it. The refutation of the lede para is in the article itself. This from the History section:
It's time to change the opening paragraph. Dynasteria ( talk) 17:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Peter (Southwood). I hadn't got as far as sources in my thinking, though it is glaringly obvious that they are needed. I was merely trying to fix something in the lead that seemed not only counter-factual but somewhat beyond belief. I'm not much of a Wikipedian so I had thought that others more qualified than I had had already checked the article and approved. I think one generally assumes that the article is good enough to be its own source.(!) However, I certainly hope you can assume good faith on my part as I can conceive of nothing untoward about making the article internally consistent. Anyway, your criticism about sources and references is entirely valid and as far as I'm concerned unsourced material should just be eliminated to avoid the danger of misinforming the public, of which I consider myself one.
BTW, there is also a footnote link somewhere to an article in German that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with frogmen.
Thanks again. I'll wait to see what happens and perhaps take it upon myself to remove the entire passage if no one else does the proper research. Dynasteria ( talk) 18:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frogman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I always thought that "frogman" was a (rather old-fashioned) term for a SCUBA diver. This article is the first time I've heard that it just means a military diver or "combat swimmer". Not only that, but the article includes numerous dictionary definitions that treat it as a general term for scuba-diver. Would it not be better to rename this article to "combat diver" (or whatever military term covers all military frogmen), and update Frogman (disambiguation) to link to both here and Scuba diving? Iapetus ( talk) 10:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Frogman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material from Frogman was split to List of military diving units on 5 October 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frogman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://history.flyer.it/rebreathers/Italiano/sezioni/storia/frameset.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
B |
It has a long way to go. Many challenged claims outstanding. There are still in-line external links and editorial comments which must go. Covers the topic fairly extensively, though it is difficult to make out the limits of the scope as there appears to be some out of scope content. This may be partly due to the term being poorly defined and partly scope creep. Significant work may be necessary to tighten up the content so that it is clear what the scope is and that it is what it should be. The lead does not summarise the content. The term remains poorly defined. Scope may need to be defined before it is possible to decide. Somewhat unencyclopaedic in tone in places. Adequately illustrated. Does not seem to be a problem. |
User:Harizotoh9 has today deleted all of the Frogman#The frogman in popular culture section on the grounds that it is "Not notable. Pop culture trivia". This may well be the case, it certainly could be better referenced, but I think it only right that others should have their say first. Note that there are numerous other pages with "in popular culture" sections or indeed stand-alone articles, see this list. I have taken the liberty of reverting his deletion, pending the results of this discussion. Alansplodge ( talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
The pop culture section adds nothing. It amounts to "there was a movie. It had frogmen". Remember, what is the goal of Wikipedia? It's not just to disseminate random facts of no relevance. It's to explain to readers about particular topics. It's an encyclopedia. To be notable, this pop culture has to have had some significant impact on the topic. For example: The term "mole" supposedly comes from a novel. Therefore, that novel should be mentioned in the article. That doesn't mean that the article should have a big list of media that include moles. If it did have an impact on the topic, it would work better integrated into the body of the article, rather than just part of its own section.
If the information does not have significant impact on the topic, it is by definition, trivial information. WP:TRIVIA.
The "In popular culture" sections were born out of a compromize after removing Trivia sections. However, they're poorly thought out and become magnets for non-notable pop culture. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, the "Errors about frogmen found in public media" looks like Original research. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 09:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of random facts. The content of an article is not determined by notability, but by relevance and verifiability. It also is no place for original research. In the case of "In popular culture" sections, it is not enough that a film or a novel merely mentions a topic. It is not even enough that the pop culture had an impact on the topic. It is necessary for an account of that impact to be published in a reliable source. So in the case of the mole (espionage), it's not enough that the term was "supposedly" derived from a novel. It is necessary for a third-party to have discussed that – and in the "mole" article, there are indeed two sources that shed light on Le Carré's introduction of the term. So it should be here. If one man's trivia or cruft is actually another man's important relevant matter, then there will be independent reliable sources that show that. In the absence of such reliable sources, any such trivia is fair game for removal. It should also go without saying that the existence of trivia in other articles is no justification for trivia here. -- RexxS ( talk) 10:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danish Frogmen Corps which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 03:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The first paragraph says this:
The idea that the American military borrowed the word from Italian (Italy was an enemy in 1940) is simply ludicrous and somewhat typical of Wikipedians who want to take the United States off center stage at any cost, even if the facts have to be subverted. I hate to think of the thousands of people who are being misinformed on a daily basis because of basic negligence and apathetic disinterest. However, don't take my word for it. The refutation of the lede para is in the article itself. This from the History section:
It's time to change the opening paragraph. Dynasteria ( talk) 17:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, Peter (Southwood). I hadn't got as far as sources in my thinking, though it is glaringly obvious that they are needed. I was merely trying to fix something in the lead that seemed not only counter-factual but somewhat beyond belief. I'm not much of a Wikipedian so I had thought that others more qualified than I had had already checked the article and approved. I think one generally assumes that the article is good enough to be its own source.(!) However, I certainly hope you can assume good faith on my part as I can conceive of nothing untoward about making the article internally consistent. Anyway, your criticism about sources and references is entirely valid and as far as I'm concerned unsourced material should just be eliminated to avoid the danger of misinforming the public, of which I consider myself one.
BTW, there is also a footnote link somewhere to an article in German that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with frogmen.
Thanks again. I'll wait to see what happens and perhaps take it upon myself to remove the entire passage if no one else does the proper research. Dynasteria ( talk) 18:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frogman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
I always thought that "frogman" was a (rather old-fashioned) term for a SCUBA diver. This article is the first time I've heard that it just means a military diver or "combat swimmer". Not only that, but the article includes numerous dictionary definitions that treat it as a general term for scuba-diver. Would it not be better to rename this article to "combat diver" (or whatever military term covers all military frogmen), and update Frogman (disambiguation) to link to both here and Scuba diving? Iapetus ( talk) 10:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)