This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(As background: the bulk of this comes out of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles; there is additional detail there that I won't repeat here.)
Currently, the top-level categories for military "activity" (encompassing battles, wars, operations, etc.) branch from Category:Military operations: Category:Military operations of World War II, Category:Military operations involving France, and so forth. There are at least two obvious problems with this usage:
I'd like to propose that we kill two birds with one stone by changing the top-level names to something that avoids both "military" and "operations". Some possibilities that come to mind:
The net effect will be to free up "operations" for its other usage:
Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 07:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems best to my mind. Activities just sounds a bit like a play group, and events implies lack of control. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]].
Just to let people know, there's a page set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Category restructuring for some brainstorming regarding the top-level category scheme. It's obviously just some very rough ideas, at this point—so please don't hold your breath for a formal proposal anytime soon—but if you would like to help out with the brainstorming, please feel free to drop by that page and leave some comments. Kirill 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've posted this on the Middle Ages project as well...does anyone think there would be enough interest in creating a separate crusades Project, or can the multitude of ever-increasing crusade articles be handed well enough by the general Middle Ages and Military History projects? I've been planning to create one specifically for the crusades for some time so I thought I would mention it here first. I think there are enough crusade-minded editors to keep it going. Adam Bishop ( talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears we have a need to amend the Military History Manual of Style:
As most of you are by now aware of, most of my FA-class edits have been to battleship articles, in particular the Iowa class battleships and material related to them. When the first Iowa class battleship, USS Missouri (BB-63), went featured some back in '05 we had a discussion on Missouri’s talk page about the use of "she" vs the use of "it" with regards to addressing the battleship. Since then this has come up Wisconsin’s talk page, Wisconsin’s FARC page, and on New Jersey’s FAC page. Most recently, it has resurfaced again on the Illinois FAC page.
The issue is whether the use of "she" to refer to a ship should be added as a guideline to the Military History Manual of Style. Those supporting the use of "she" have pointed out that she to refer to a ship has been a staple and traditional factor in various navies around the world for some time now, and point out that my FA-class article New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin all use she. Those opposing this view pointing to gender specificity as a violation of style guidelines, and argue that she is sexist in an article. I am getting tired of having this discussion with contributers every time a ship article comes through FAC. Tony1 ( talk · contribs) has also pointed to "Criterion 2 (MOS, which recommends gender-neutral language without insisting)" as grounds for a shift from she to it in ship articles.
Whereas both the style guide and the MoS have been used as points against calling ships, she, and whereas our project encompasses all military related vessels in a navy I have resolved to bring this up here to see if there would be consensus within our project to ammend our project's MoS to include or exclude the use of "she" to refer to ship articles that fall within our scope. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are two related MOS archive links: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 84. Maralia ( talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Source | Position |
---|---|
Chicago Manual of Style | Ships: the neuter it or its (rather than she or her) is generally preferred. |
The Times Style Guide (UK. Trad.) | Ships: should generally be treated as feminine; thus she and her rather than it and its. See warships, boat, serve in |
The Guardian (UK. Modern) | Ships: not feminine: it ran aground, not she ran aground |
Tradition national usage (though press releases are often gender-neutral) | US DoD: She UK MoD: She Canadian Navy: She Royal Australian Navy: She South African Navy: She Indian Navy: She |
American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style | Ships: The feminine pronoun forms she and her have been used since the Middle Ages to refer to such inanimate objects as the earth, the sea, and ships. The use in reference to ships still occurs in nautical contexts… |
The Columbia Encyclopedia | Ships, for example, are sometimes referred to as she. |
The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea | Ships were originally personified as masculine, but by the 16th century they had become feminine. In 2002 Lloyd's of London decided that all merchant ships should be described as ‘it’, though the British Ministry of Defence has confirmed that warships shall still be defined as feminine |
Other languages | Spanish: both French: masculine German: neutral Russian: masculine Italian: feminine |
The above listing of style guides is sufficient to show that even the prescribers of English are divided. That should be sufficient to dismiss this; Wikipedia is not a locus standi for language reform. I deeply regret, and strongly oppose, the efforts to make it one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony1, you noted earlier that you had some issues with the proposal "articles should not have their referenced pronouns changed explicitly to please one or two people (this added to prevent commenters at FAC/FARC/GA pages from switching the text for the sake of clearing FA?FAC?FARC)". Allow me put this suggestion into context: back when USS Wisconsin (BB-64) was undergoing a Featured Article review you had objected to the use of she, and after my not changing the instatnces of "she" and "her" in the article, made multiple edits to remove the two pronouns [2], shortly after which I went and put them all back in [3]. That sort of thing leads to edit wars, and hence the proposal. I may not have worded this correctly to convey that point though, if this was the cause of the confusion I apologize. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Gender-neutral language avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes. Gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal." I’m well aware that some readers may choose to so interpret innocently intended usage of gender-specific language; I’m also aware that there are some people who are offended by the use of any gender-specific pronouns or possessives at all. Just how few do these “some” need to be that we still need to accommodate their reluctance to assume good faith? As one of the “middle ground” editors who helped establish the compromise, I think the above quote from MOS needs some context. The first sentence above is simply an explanation of what the (recommended, but non-mandatory) use of gender-neutral language offers; it is not an endorsement to use it to – utterly and without fail – avoid discomfiting those readers who choose to make that interpretation (or misinterpretation, as the case may be). Indeed, the second sentence specifically asserts that editors need not adopt gender-neutral language just to advance some editors’ desired “viewpoint, political agenda or ideal”; neither, where it is employed, is it to be taken as such promotion nor an endorsement by Wikipedia. Fundamentally, the compromise is grounded in the principle to “ assume good faith – by all sides.” While there is nothing at all wrong with encouraging the use of gender-neutral language, it should not be advocated to the point where it begins to produce disruption. After all, we’re all gentle- er, persons here. (Besides, it’s not like anyone really considers a ship or airplane to be a “sex object” in the most objectionable sense.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a look through some of the books I had about naval warfare a while back and came up with
User:The_Land/Ship_pronouns - which suggests the balance in the sources we will use for warship articles is for "she". I suggest our guideline should be that either 'she; or 'it' is acceptable for a ship. In general, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a social project. We describe, rather than change. This principle should be followed when chosing which pronouns are used to refer to ships.
The Land (
talk) 12:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As a WP:SHIPS as well as WP:MARITIME contributor, I strongly support staying with the existing position. We should not impose a standard GNL language on ship articles. The only justification for such imposition would be if there were a clear consensus in the 'real world' - and as other editors have shown, there isn't. As a career woman (professional engineer, just in case you thought I'd had a sheltered life away from men!), I think you have to have a very strong POV, to see the use of female pronouns for ships and boats as being in any way prejudicial to women, or part of a sexual fantasy by men, and it certainly isn't a mid-twentieth century orthoxy, or restricted to warships. My own historical research, which is often with smaller fishing and trade vessels, show that the female pronouns go back as far as you can find written accounts of such boats. It is just a socio-linguistic oddity of the English language that this is one place where we use the feminine rather than neuter. The English language has all sorts of other linguistic anomalies; why get het up about this one? Viv Hamilton ( talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could it be a safe bet to classify this as agreeing to disagree? It is clear that there is a split IRL, as much as there is here on Wikipedia. There are a number of publications that use the female form, as there are a number of publications that use the gender-neutral form. I agree with Viv Hamilton that is just a socio-linguistic oddity that we cannot correct. It would be very hard to justify rigorously enforcing gender-neutral pronouns across the ship articles on Wikipedia, given the split amongst academics, scholars and publications beyond the confines of Wikipedia. Woody ( talk) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Military of East Timor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A member of the project, MBK004, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Other project members who have worked with him and have an opinion of the candidate's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can I just give a farily large poke towards the outstanding featured list candidacies. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross recipients has been up for almost two weeks with no comments and the same for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Glorious First of June. Could I ask anyone with spare time to comment on these lists. Thanks. Woody ( talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the MOS doesn't endorse use of small caps when referring to operational codenames (such as DYNAMO), & I've seen some (minor) complaints & a revert or two on it. Personally, I prefer them, as distinguishing them from common usage; they are codenames, after all, & other technical terms get special attention. Comment? Trekphiler ( talk) 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Jutland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Woody ( talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not clear on how do we approve a B class for the article. I've recently finished expanding Battle of Kostiuchnówka, and I tagged it as B-class, but I'd like another editor to review if it indeed fills the necessary criteria. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For the above article ( Battle of Kostiuchnówka) I have scanned, translated and uploaded a map ( Image:Map of battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916.jpg). As far as I know, there is no online map showing that battle. If there are other printed maps of it, I am not aware of them (I'd expect there are two or three in some Polish publications). In any case, I would like to disagree with the map deletion as "easily repleacable". To replace it, one has to find a Polish source with a map, and those are not common (dare you to prove me wrong). My argument for keeping it under fair use was that even if will exists to create a free map based on fair use, it is extremely unlikely there will be anybody out there who has both the will and ability to create a map and access to one of the few Polish publications with it. Hence we should keep the fair use map until a free version can be created. Would you say that this is a valid argument for undeletion? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been a heated debate going on on Talk:Iran-Iraq War that is being driven by the use of the word “Combatants” in the Military Conflict Infobox. Iranian-based editors want to use this to add the United States as a main participant (on the Iraqi side), while most everyone else takes the term to mean “Belligerents”. (This would be per the definition in international law, which defines “combatant” as the individual fighters.) I got involved in response to an RfC, but it no longer appears that this will be settled by such a process. Since it’s “our” infobox, I think we need to clarify just what is indeed to be captured in this part of the infobox: the primary belligerents or any and all participants. If it’s the former, I suggest we replace the term “Combatants” with “Belligerents” or “Main Participants” or something similar (although “Main Participants seems to be begging for more of the same). I’ll be posting a link to this topic on the infobox’s talk page, but I think the issue deserves wider discussion than is likely to happen there. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(1) implies cobelligerency between Iraq and the US, and (2) makes the US completely the aggressor, when there were problematic actions on both sides. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg and Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg passed FPC today. There's also a new portrait at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Admiral Farragut - perhaps my most ambitious restoration so far. Feedback welcomed. Durova Charge! 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have a few suggestions for observations I had when coming across articles during the Tag & Assess Drive:
1. Roman & Ancient Greece Task Forces - There is a need for Task forces for Roman and Ancient Greek civilizations. Considering their scope and Tremendous importance in the history of warfare and technology, I think that is needed. Unfortunately, simply having a period task force does not, in my opinion, make it suitable. Considering the number of editors who are involved in editing articles related to these civilizations, its almost essential to have such a task force. The problem is compounded by the fact that the ancient roman civilization was not limited to one single country of italy, but was a pan-european empire. Second, there isn't a greek task force. I suggest that a "Rome and Ancient Greece task force" could be created.
2. South Asian task force - Right now, there is only the Indian task force. Thats not really enough for such a militarily active region, considering that there are quite a few other countries around. Perhaps a south asia task force could be created to integrate all these countries together. Theres already the Chinese and South-east asian task forces that cover the countries to the north and east, and the middle east task force that covers the west.
3. Iranian/Persian task Force - Seems funny that Iran, with its own deep history, should be clubbed into the Middle Eastern Task force, especially considering their very different cultures and history. If editors are interested, coordinators could think of creating an Iranian task force.
4. Task force scope explanations need to be expanded - In some cases, there is absolutely no explanation for the scope of the task force. This is important, especially in the case of obscure and non-obvious task forces like historiography. Examples would really help. Plus, if a list of "what the task force is not" is given, it would help. This shouldn't be done to limit the scope, but rather, to clear misconceptions, where cause for confusion might exist.
5. Battles - Considering the tactics and strategies being important in battles, would it be acceptable to include them into the military science task force? The reason I'm asking is because the battle article pages can be drastically improved by getting them into a common format and page organization, and by adding information about the tactics. For eg, see the Battle of the Hydaspes River page.
Thanks for the space. I eagerly await your comments and suggestions. Cheers. Sniperz11 talk| edits 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm using IE 7 but when using the reflist(x) function for notes, it doesn't seem to work; I simply get a long single column of notes. It does work, however, when I switch to Firefox. Is this problem unique to me only? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.254.235 ( talk) 11:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Rebel Redcoat ( talk) 12:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Krulak Mendenhall mission is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that all rockets and missiles under the scope of this project? And they currently fall under the Military technology and engineering task force? There is an inactive project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and I'm wondering if there is enough interest here to have that project re-done as a WPAVIATION/WPMILHIST project task force, just like the Military aviation task force. Perhaps the Rocketry task force? To take a sampling of articles that link to {{ Infobox_Missile}}, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like ( B-17 Flying Fortress). - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II, do ya'll have an aircraft working group who can help evaluate the reliability of these sources? WikiProject Aircraft is involved, but I'm confused at why MilHist isn't on board, and need help with these sources. I'm concerned that most of the article may be cited to non-reliable sources; it would be helpful to hear from MilHist on the reliability of these sources.
Questionable sources found so far in F-4 Phantom II.
Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Do armed forces of successor states inherit histories of the armed forces of the predecessor states? For example, did the armed forces of the Republic of Turkey inherit the history of the units of the Ottoman Empire? -- mrg3105 mrg3105 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know: due to complaints about the effect of {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} on transclusion-heavy pages, I've changed the task force list display to render on a separate page ({{ WPMILHIST Announcements/Full}}). I've also exported the display code into a separate shell, so {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} now consists only of a meta-template call with the actual lists of announcements. I expect this will be entirely unnoticeable to the majority of people here, but any comments are welcome. Kirill 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Michael the Brave is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kirill, you have permission to flog me with spaghetti if this should be on the Intelligence Task Force page, but I think it might be more generally useful.
What I'm about to suggest I start is a page that is clearly OR/personal experience, but it would be meant as a research aid for the Project (or Task Force), not a general Wikipedia article. Does anyone know the policy on such things?
My specific proposal is that I start some text mentioning obvious, and less obvious, techniques for searching, first online, for US declassified documents. I no longer live in the Washington DC area, but I can also add guidance for researching materials from the various physical archives there.
It would be excellent if anyone could suggest this for other countries. There is an occasional special case where a government tries to make as much information available as it can, when the reports are first written. I'm thinking of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which is very good on publishing studies that, in the US, would be likely to be classified when first issued by the Intelligence Community.
Another possibility is listing some of the more useful research centers, government and non-government. For example, the US mid-level staff colleges and senior-level war colleges have one or more research institutes, which publish detailed studies that often disagree with the official national policy. Many of these colleges do offer masters' degrees, with theses that sometimes are classified, but are usually online -- and again may be strong disagreements, with thorough research, with Administration policy. One of the nice things about these theses (especially) and reports is that the author may have used classified material in the preparation, but obtained permission to have an unclassified summary in the report -- or simply wrote an unclassified report while having the knowledge of the actual situation, knowledge not available to the public.
If I do this, where should it go?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This latest restoration could be a sensitive issue, due to the fame of the original photograph. Some British editors might be offended. So before I put this up for formal peer review please have a look: is this as inappropriate as airbrushing the crack from the Liberty Bell? I've loaded a high resolution file of the original for comparison. The Roger Fenton biography (and this New York Times article) provide background. Durova Charge! 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
(As background: the bulk of this comes out of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/World War II task force#New category system needed for WWII eastern front articles; there is additional detail there that I won't repeat here.)
Currently, the top-level categories for military "activity" (encompassing battles, wars, operations, etc.) branch from Category:Military operations: Category:Military operations of World War II, Category:Military operations involving France, and so forth. There are at least two obvious problems with this usage:
I'd like to propose that we kill two birds with one stone by changing the top-level names to something that avoids both "military" and "operations". Some possibilities that come to mind:
The net effect will be to free up "operations" for its other usage:
Any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill 07:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems best to my mind. Activities just sounds a bit like a play group, and events implies lack of control. [[ Slatersteven ( talk) 20:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]].
Just to let people know, there's a page set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Category restructuring for some brainstorming regarding the top-level category scheme. It's obviously just some very rough ideas, at this point—so please don't hold your breath for a formal proposal anytime soon—but if you would like to help out with the brainstorming, please feel free to drop by that page and leave some comments. Kirill 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've posted this on the Middle Ages project as well...does anyone think there would be enough interest in creating a separate crusades Project, or can the multitude of ever-increasing crusade articles be handed well enough by the general Middle Ages and Military History projects? I've been planning to create one specifically for the crusades for some time so I thought I would mention it here first. I think there are enough crusade-minded editors to keep it going. Adam Bishop ( talk) 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It appears we have a need to amend the Military History Manual of Style:
As most of you are by now aware of, most of my FA-class edits have been to battleship articles, in particular the Iowa class battleships and material related to them. When the first Iowa class battleship, USS Missouri (BB-63), went featured some back in '05 we had a discussion on Missouri’s talk page about the use of "she" vs the use of "it" with regards to addressing the battleship. Since then this has come up Wisconsin’s talk page, Wisconsin’s FARC page, and on New Jersey’s FAC page. Most recently, it has resurfaced again on the Illinois FAC page.
The issue is whether the use of "she" to refer to a ship should be added as a guideline to the Military History Manual of Style. Those supporting the use of "she" have pointed out that she to refer to a ship has been a staple and traditional factor in various navies around the world for some time now, and point out that my FA-class article New Jersey, Missouri and Wisconsin all use she. Those opposing this view pointing to gender specificity as a violation of style guidelines, and argue that she is sexist in an article. I am getting tired of having this discussion with contributers every time a ship article comes through FAC. Tony1 ( talk · contribs) has also pointed to "Criterion 2 (MOS, which recommends gender-neutral language without insisting)" as grounds for a shift from she to it in ship articles.
Whereas both the style guide and the MoS have been used as points against calling ships, she, and whereas our project encompasses all military related vessels in a navy I have resolved to bring this up here to see if there would be consensus within our project to ammend our project's MoS to include or exclude the use of "she" to refer to ship articles that fall within our scope. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are two related MOS archive links: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 84. Maralia ( talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Source | Position |
---|---|
Chicago Manual of Style | Ships: the neuter it or its (rather than she or her) is generally preferred. |
The Times Style Guide (UK. Trad.) | Ships: should generally be treated as feminine; thus she and her rather than it and its. See warships, boat, serve in |
The Guardian (UK. Modern) | Ships: not feminine: it ran aground, not she ran aground |
Tradition national usage (though press releases are often gender-neutral) | US DoD: She UK MoD: She Canadian Navy: She Royal Australian Navy: She South African Navy: She Indian Navy: She |
American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style | Ships: The feminine pronoun forms she and her have been used since the Middle Ages to refer to such inanimate objects as the earth, the sea, and ships. The use in reference to ships still occurs in nautical contexts… |
The Columbia Encyclopedia | Ships, for example, are sometimes referred to as she. |
The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea | Ships were originally personified as masculine, but by the 16th century they had become feminine. In 2002 Lloyd's of London decided that all merchant ships should be described as ‘it’, though the British Ministry of Defence has confirmed that warships shall still be defined as feminine |
Other languages | Spanish: both French: masculine German: neutral Russian: masculine Italian: feminine |
The above listing of style guides is sufficient to show that even the prescribers of English are divided. That should be sufficient to dismiss this; Wikipedia is not a locus standi for language reform. I deeply regret, and strongly oppose, the efforts to make it one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Tony1, you noted earlier that you had some issues with the proposal "articles should not have their referenced pronouns changed explicitly to please one or two people (this added to prevent commenters at FAC/FARC/GA pages from switching the text for the sake of clearing FA?FAC?FARC)". Allow me put this suggestion into context: back when USS Wisconsin (BB-64) was undergoing a Featured Article review you had objected to the use of she, and after my not changing the instatnces of "she" and "her" in the article, made multiple edits to remove the two pronouns [2], shortly after which I went and put them all back in [3]. That sort of thing leads to edit wars, and hence the proposal. I may not have worded this correctly to convey that point though, if this was the cause of the confusion I apologize. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Gender-neutral language avoids constructions that might be interpreted by some readers as an unnecessary reinforcement of traditional stereotypes. Gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal." I’m well aware that some readers may choose to so interpret innocently intended usage of gender-specific language; I’m also aware that there are some people who are offended by the use of any gender-specific pronouns or possessives at all. Just how few do these “some” need to be that we still need to accommodate their reluctance to assume good faith? As one of the “middle ground” editors who helped establish the compromise, I think the above quote from MOS needs some context. The first sentence above is simply an explanation of what the (recommended, but non-mandatory) use of gender-neutral language offers; it is not an endorsement to use it to – utterly and without fail – avoid discomfiting those readers who choose to make that interpretation (or misinterpretation, as the case may be). Indeed, the second sentence specifically asserts that editors need not adopt gender-neutral language just to advance some editors’ desired “viewpoint, political agenda or ideal”; neither, where it is employed, is it to be taken as such promotion nor an endorsement by Wikipedia. Fundamentally, the compromise is grounded in the principle to “ assume good faith – by all sides.” While there is nothing at all wrong with encouraging the use of gender-neutral language, it should not be advocated to the point where it begins to produce disruption. After all, we’re all gentle- er, persons here. (Besides, it’s not like anyone really considers a ship or airplane to be a “sex object” in the most objectionable sense.) Askari Mark (Talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a look through some of the books I had about naval warfare a while back and came up with
User:The_Land/Ship_pronouns - which suggests the balance in the sources we will use for warship articles is for "she". I suggest our guideline should be that either 'she; or 'it' is acceptable for a ship. In general, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a social project. We describe, rather than change. This principle should be followed when chosing which pronouns are used to refer to ships.
The Land (
talk) 12:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As a WP:SHIPS as well as WP:MARITIME contributor, I strongly support staying with the existing position. We should not impose a standard GNL language on ship articles. The only justification for such imposition would be if there were a clear consensus in the 'real world' - and as other editors have shown, there isn't. As a career woman (professional engineer, just in case you thought I'd had a sheltered life away from men!), I think you have to have a very strong POV, to see the use of female pronouns for ships and boats as being in any way prejudicial to women, or part of a sexual fantasy by men, and it certainly isn't a mid-twentieth century orthoxy, or restricted to warships. My own historical research, which is often with smaller fishing and trade vessels, show that the female pronouns go back as far as you can find written accounts of such boats. It is just a socio-linguistic oddity of the English language that this is one place where we use the feminine rather than neuter. The English language has all sorts of other linguistic anomalies; why get het up about this one? Viv Hamilton ( talk) 17:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Could it be a safe bet to classify this as agreeing to disagree? It is clear that there is a split IRL, as much as there is here on Wikipedia. There are a number of publications that use the female form, as there are a number of publications that use the gender-neutral form. I agree with Viv Hamilton that is just a socio-linguistic oddity that we cannot correct. It would be very hard to justify rigorously enforcing gender-neutral pronouns across the ship articles on Wikipedia, given the split amongst academics, scholars and publications beyond the confines of Wikipedia. Woody ( talk) 18:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for Military of East Timor is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 16:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for United States Army is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
A member of the project, MBK004, is currently a candidate to receive access to administrative tools. Other project members who have worked with him and have an opinion of the candidate's fitness to receive these tools are cordially invited to comment. -- ROGER DAVIES talk 05:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, can I just give a farily large poke towards the outstanding featured list candidacies. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross recipients has been up for almost two weeks with no comments and the same for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Order of battle at the Glorious First of June. Could I ask anyone with spare time to comment on these lists. Thanks. Woody ( talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team (United States) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 02:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the MOS doesn't endorse use of small caps when referring to operational codenames (such as DYNAMO), & I've seen some (minor) complaints & a revert or two on it. Personally, I prefer them, as distinguishing them from common usage; they are codenames, after all, & other technical terms get special attention. Comment? Trekphiler ( talk) 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Jutland has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Woody ( talk) 14:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not clear on how do we approve a B class for the article. I've recently finished expanding Battle of Kostiuchnówka, and I tagged it as B-class, but I'd like another editor to review if it indeed fills the necessary criteria. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For the above article ( Battle of Kostiuchnówka) I have scanned, translated and uploaded a map ( Image:Map of battle of Kostiuchnowka 1916.jpg). As far as I know, there is no online map showing that battle. If there are other printed maps of it, I am not aware of them (I'd expect there are two or three in some Polish publications). In any case, I would like to disagree with the map deletion as "easily repleacable". To replace it, one has to find a Polish source with a map, and those are not common (dare you to prove me wrong). My argument for keeping it under fair use was that even if will exists to create a free map based on fair use, it is extremely unlikely there will be anybody out there who has both the will and ability to create a map and access to one of the few Polish publications with it. Hence we should keep the fair use map until a free version can be created. Would you say that this is a valid argument for undeletion? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, USS Illinois (BB-65), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Illinois (BB-65). Thank you. TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been a heated debate going on on Talk:Iran-Iraq War that is being driven by the use of the word “Combatants” in the Military Conflict Infobox. Iranian-based editors want to use this to add the United States as a main participant (on the Iraqi side), while most everyone else takes the term to mean “Belligerents”. (This would be per the definition in international law, which defines “combatant” as the individual fighters.) I got involved in response to an RfC, but it no longer appears that this will be settled by such a process. Since it’s “our” infobox, I think we need to clarify just what is indeed to be captured in this part of the infobox: the primary belligerents or any and all participants. If it’s the former, I suggest we replace the term “Combatants” with “Belligerents” or “Main Participants” or something similar (although “Main Participants seems to be begging for more of the same). I’ll be posting a link to this topic on the infobox’s talk page, but I think the issue deserves wider discussion than is likely to happen there. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
(1) implies cobelligerency between Iraq and the US, and (2) makes the US completely the aggressor, when there were problematic actions on both sides. Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg and Image:Waldenburg1945edit.jpg passed FPC today. There's also a new portrait at Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Admiral Farragut - perhaps my most ambitious restoration so far. Feedback welcomed. Durova Charge! 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 05:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have a few suggestions for observations I had when coming across articles during the Tag & Assess Drive:
1. Roman & Ancient Greece Task Forces - There is a need for Task forces for Roman and Ancient Greek civilizations. Considering their scope and Tremendous importance in the history of warfare and technology, I think that is needed. Unfortunately, simply having a period task force does not, in my opinion, make it suitable. Considering the number of editors who are involved in editing articles related to these civilizations, its almost essential to have such a task force. The problem is compounded by the fact that the ancient roman civilization was not limited to one single country of italy, but was a pan-european empire. Second, there isn't a greek task force. I suggest that a "Rome and Ancient Greece task force" could be created.
2. South Asian task force - Right now, there is only the Indian task force. Thats not really enough for such a militarily active region, considering that there are quite a few other countries around. Perhaps a south asia task force could be created to integrate all these countries together. Theres already the Chinese and South-east asian task forces that cover the countries to the north and east, and the middle east task force that covers the west.
3. Iranian/Persian task Force - Seems funny that Iran, with its own deep history, should be clubbed into the Middle Eastern Task force, especially considering their very different cultures and history. If editors are interested, coordinators could think of creating an Iranian task force.
4. Task force scope explanations need to be expanded - In some cases, there is absolutely no explanation for the scope of the task force. This is important, especially in the case of obscure and non-obvious task forces like historiography. Examples would really help. Plus, if a list of "what the task force is not" is given, it would help. This shouldn't be done to limit the scope, but rather, to clear misconceptions, where cause for confusion might exist.
5. Battles - Considering the tactics and strategies being important in battles, would it be acceptable to include them into the military science task force? The reason I'm asking is because the battle article pages can be drastically improved by getting them into a common format and page organization, and by adding information about the tactics. For eg, see the Battle of the Hydaspes River page.
Thanks for the space. I eagerly await your comments and suggestions. Cheers. Sniperz11 talk| edits 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm using IE 7 but when using the reflist(x) function for notes, it doesn't seem to work; I simply get a long single column of notes. It does work, however, when I switch to Firefox. Is this problem unique to me only? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.254.235 ( talk) 11:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Rebel Redcoat ( talk) 12:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Krulak Mendenhall mission is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 13:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that all rockets and missiles under the scope of this project? And they currently fall under the Military technology and engineering task force? There is an inactive project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry and I'm wondering if there is enough interest here to have that project re-done as a WPAVIATION/WPMILHIST project task force, just like the Military aviation task force. Perhaps the Rocketry task force? To take a sampling of articles that link to {{ Infobox_Missile}}, V-2 rocket and AGM-65 Maverick are currently tagged under the Military history project (just like ( B-17 Flying Fortress). - Trevor MacInnis ( Contribs) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II, do ya'll have an aircraft working group who can help evaluate the reliability of these sources? WikiProject Aircraft is involved, but I'm confused at why MilHist isn't on board, and need help with these sources. I'm concerned that most of the article may be cited to non-reliable sources; it would be helpful to hear from MilHist on the reliability of these sources.
Questionable sources found so far in F-4 Phantom II.
Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Do armed forces of successor states inherit histories of the armed forces of the predecessor states? For example, did the armed forces of the Republic of Turkey inherit the history of the units of the Ottoman Empire? -- mrg3105 mrg3105 01:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know: due to complaints about the effect of {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} on transclusion-heavy pages, I've changed the task force list display to render on a separate page ({{ WPMILHIST Announcements/Full}}). I've also exported the display code into a separate shell, so {{ WPMILHIST Announcements}} now consists only of a meta-template call with the actual lists of announcements. I expect this will be entirely unnoticeable to the majority of people here, but any comments are welcome. Kirill 04:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The A-Class review for Michael the Brave is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 14:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Kirill, you have permission to flog me with spaghetti if this should be on the Intelligence Task Force page, but I think it might be more generally useful.
What I'm about to suggest I start is a page that is clearly OR/personal experience, but it would be meant as a research aid for the Project (or Task Force), not a general Wikipedia article. Does anyone know the policy on such things?
My specific proposal is that I start some text mentioning obvious, and less obvious, techniques for searching, first online, for US declassified documents. I no longer live in the Washington DC area, but I can also add guidance for researching materials from the various physical archives there.
It would be excellent if anyone could suggest this for other countries. There is an occasional special case where a government tries to make as much information available as it can, when the reports are first written. I'm thinking of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which is very good on publishing studies that, in the US, would be likely to be classified when first issued by the Intelligence Community.
Another possibility is listing some of the more useful research centers, government and non-government. For example, the US mid-level staff colleges and senior-level war colleges have one or more research institutes, which publish detailed studies that often disagree with the official national policy. Many of these colleges do offer masters' degrees, with theses that sometimes are classified, but are usually online -- and again may be strong disagreements, with thorough research, with Administration policy. One of the nice things about these theses (especially) and reports is that the author may have used classified material in the preparation, but obtained permission to have an unclassified summary in the report -- or simply wrote an unclassified report while having the knowledge of the actual situation, knowledge not available to the public.
If I do this, where should it go?
Howard C. Berkowitz ( talk) 15:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This latest restoration could be a sensitive issue, due to the fame of the original photograph. Some British editors might be offended. So before I put this up for formal peer review please have a look: is this as inappropriate as airbrushing the crack from the Liberty Bell? I've loaded a high resolution file of the original for comparison. The Roger Fenton biography (and this New York Times article) provide background. Durova Charge! 19:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The peer review for HMAS Melbourne (R21) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill 06:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)