Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:55, 29 June 2006

Military history WikiProject
Main project page + talk News & open tasks Academy
Core work areas
Assessment Main page  → A-Class FAQ  → B-Class FAQ  → A-Class review requests  → Assessment requests  → Current statistics  → Review alert box
Contests Main page  → Contest entries  → Scoring log archive  → Scoreboard archive
Coordination Main page + talk  → Handbook  → Bugle newsroom talk  → ACM eligibility tracking  → Discussion alert box
Incubator Main page  → Current groups and initiatives
Special projects Majestic Titan talk
Member affairs Membership Full list talk  → Active / Inactive  → Userboxes Awards Main page talk  →A-Class medals  →A-Class crosses  → WikiChevrons w/ Oak Leaves
Resources Guidelines Content Notability Style Templates Infoboxes  → Command structure doc · talk  → Firearm cartridge doc · talk  → Military award doc · talk  → Military conflict doc · talk  → Military installation doc · talk  → Military memorial doc · talk  → Military person doc · talk  → Military unit doc · talk  → National military doc · talk  → Military operation doc · talk  → Service record doc · talk  → Militant organization doc · talk  → Weapon doc · talk Navigation boxes doc · talk  → Campaignboxes doc · talk Project banner doc · talk Announcement & task box  → Discussion alert box  → Review alert box Template design style doc · talk Showcase Featured articles 1514 Featured lists 149 Featured topics 41 Featured pictures 544 Featured sounds 69 Featured portals 5 A-Class articles 684 A-Class lists 40 Good articles 5,579 Automated lists Article alerts Most popular articles New articles Nominations for deletion
Task forces General topics Fortifications Intelligence Maritime warfare Military aviation Military culture, traditions, and heraldry Military biography Military historiography Military land vehicles Military logistics and medicine Military memorials and cemeteries Military science, technology, and theory National militaries War films Weaponry Nations and regions African military history Asian military history Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history Balkan military history Baltic states military history British military history Canadian military history Chinese military history Dutch military history European military history French military history German military history Indian military history Italian military history Japanese military history Korean military history Middle Eastern military history Nordic military history North American military history Ottoman military history Polish military history Roman and Byzantine military history Russian, Soviet and CIS military history South American military history South Asian military history Southeast Asian military history Spanish military history United States military history Periods and conflicts Classical warfare Medieval warfare Early Muslim military history Crusades Early Modern warfare Wars of the Three Kingdoms American Revolutionary War Napoleonic era American Civil War World War I World War II Cold War Post-Cold War
Related projects Blades Espionage Firearms Pritzker Military Museum & Library Piracy Ships
edit · changes

Using operational names

Seeing as there seems to be a growing conflict over the use of operational names in articles, I thought it might be productive to gauge general consensus on a few points:

1. When can operational names be used as the title of an article? When should they be avoided?
2. Can operational names be used in the text of an article to discuss a conflict whose own article is at a different title? When should this be avoided?

Any comments would be extremely welcome! Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say use the most common name for any such confliect. For example Dieppe Raid and Operation Jubilee are the same thing, I'd say the Operation name should redirect to the article. For example Operation BARBAROSSA should redirect to Eastern Front of WW II (or whatever the article is called). Overation OVERLORD redirects to Battle of Normandy. Operation VERITABLE redirects to Battle of the Rhineland.

Some operations were smaller in nature, Operation INFATUATE was only a part of Battle of the Scheldt, but it could still redirect there. I'd say in any case I can think of, Operation names are synonymous with a battle or part of a battle. Michael Dorosh 03:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that seems pretty consistent with the article naming guidelines (both the Misplaced Pages-wide ones and our own). What about the second issue, though? Can another article contain text like "Unit X took part in Operation INFATUATE", or must it read "Unit X took part in the Battle of the Scheldt"? And does the answer change depending on the operation? (For reference, the issue is closer to things like "Unit X took part in Operation Desert Storm" versus "Unit X took part in the Gulf War".) Kirill Lokshin 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The larger question should be, are operation names ok to be on Misplaced Pages? There is a user who is attempting to remove them from every article in which they are located. I do not want the issue blurred, the whole situation is about mass edits to remove operation names from wikipedia. --zero faults 12:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I proposed this set of guidelines on User talk:Añoranza

• Operation codenames should only be used when:
  • the specific military action is being discussed from a military perspective
  • the article is describing a person or unit that participated in specific operations
• Codenames should not be used when:
  • the action is being discussed in general terms
  • a neutral name for the action would be more descriptive than an unneutral codename
  • when there is doubt as to how to refer to the operation Joshdboz 12:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as a note, this proposal is for use of operation names in text. I agree with the above that article titles should take the most common name. If no common name is apparent, I think it should take a neutral geographic/time specific name. This should probably be left for a case by case basis. Joshdboz 14:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would slightly modify the above to point out that preference should be given to operational names during the planning stages (e.g. the OKH planned Operation Zitadelle) versus battle names for the actual combat stages (the 6th Army was destroyed in the Battle of Stalingrad). Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational names are "fact", in that a particular entity (coalition/government/military branch) uses them as the name for their particular "operation" (naturally). In the case of an active operation, it does not make sense to avoid using the operational terminology in that context. In the case that some time has passed (for example, WWII, Korea, Vietnam), history will have settled on a common name. It is POV for Misplaced Pages editors to decide in advance how history will name a conflict/operation/war. In the case of an article that is on a particular entity (usage meant as above), it is correct to use the operational name and then, if appropriate, have a footnote to direct to the general article/discuss the terminology — but only if needed to clarify the article, not as a section-sized addition. See example below. —ERcheck (talk) @ 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Operation Bar is the name used by Army of Foo for the ongoing conflict in YYY. For main article see ].

Would we even need a footnote if the operational name links to the actual article? Most (combat) operations don't (shouldn't?) have articles of their own, but get merged into whatever the actual battle/war article is. Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that a footnote is not necessary if the operational name links to the actual article. Note, my phrasing ..."if appropriate". In most case, I don't think it would be necessary. —ERcheck (talk) @ 15:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess one huge point is that Operation names are POV - ony one side in any battle used them....so an article using it as a title is probably off to a rocky start! Michael Dorosh 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

True (although sometimes they're the only thing available, or eventually become the most common name for the conflict). Kirill Lokshin 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, here's our current guideline on the issue:

Kirill Lokshin 14:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If an article is specifically written about a particular entity's operation, it would be appropriate to use the operational name as a title. A hatnote could be added to direct to the more general article. —ERcheck (talk) @ 15:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Some points:

• Sometimes operations are planned but not carried out. In which case the planning name is all that is available.
• Sometimes the operation name is the only thing there is to describe the operation e.g. Operation Hurricane (1944)
  • But as this last example shows there are disambiguation problems with operational names as the military tends to repeat certain names. e.g. Operation Matador.
• It would look odd to remove all mention of Operation Market Garden from Misplaced Pages as that is the name this attack in usually known as.
• There was discussion under Talk:Prague Offensive over the name of that page. The reason for this is because the Soviets called their planned offensives "XXX Offensive Operation", where XXX is the target not a code name. This leads to several problems. If the articles are called "Prague Operation" it looks odd because the format is usually "Operation XXX". Further in the last year of the war the Soviets had such an overwhelming superiority in men and materiel that their operations succeed. This is an area that Anglo-Saxon historians have tended to ignore, so the only names available are the Soviet ones, and because they were successful and dictated the course of the war in that theatre, the names which tend to be used are those of the Soviets because by that time the Germans were largely reactive not proactive: e.g.:
  • Belorussian Offensive Operation (June-August 1944): 770,888 casualties; 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 planes
  • Baltic Offensive Operation (September-November 1944): 280,090 casualties; 522 tanks, 2,593 artillery pieces, and 779 planes
  • Budapest Offensive Operation (October 1944-February 1945): 320,082 casualties; 1,766 tanks, 4,127 artillery pieces, and 293 planes
  • Vistula-Oder Offensive Operation (January-February 1945): 194,191 casualties; 1,267 tanks, 374 artillery pieces, and 343 planes
  • East Prussian Offensive Operation (January-April 1945): 584,778 casualties; 3,525 tanks, 1,644 artillery pieces, and 1,450 planes
  • Vienna Offensive Operation (March-April 1945): 177,745 casualties; 603 tanks, 764 artillery pieces, and 614 planes
  • Berlin Offensive Operation (April-May 1945): 361,367 casualties; 1,997 tanks, 2,108 artillery pieces, and 917 planes
  • Prague Offensive Operation (May 1945): 52,498 casualties; 373 tanks, 1,006 artillery pieces, and 80 planes

  (and the Yanks were worried about the casualties they might take landing in Japan!) So it seems to me the best thing to do with theses and the earlier Soviet operations is that unless there is another common name for one of the Operations, like the Battle of Berlin, that these Operations/Campaigns are titled: Vistula-Oder Offensive, Prague Offensive etc.

--Philip Baird Shearer 00:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If the operation is so small that the operation name would be the only recognizable name or if it is almost always called by its operational name (Operation Market Garden), then using it would be the only logical thing to do. I think User:Añoranza was arguing, as well as I will, is that for well known operations, such as Operation Just Cause, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, etc., which are also readily recognizable in other forms, United States invasion of Panama, United States war in Afghanistan , Iraq War, etc., the neutral name based on participants/geography/time should take precedence when used in-text in most articles. Joshdboz 10:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This may seem US centric but since these are the names that really kicked the debate into high gear I am going to stay with them. I am of the belief that each article should be taken on its own individual merits with regards to topics like this where either side could be considered correct. Especially for terms like OIF and OEF that reference on going conflicts. If military pages say OIF and other pages say Iraq War I do not see this as the end of the world. In a few years we will be able to look back and come to a consensus. The history has not been written so let's not strangle it from the get go by demanding writ standardization. If someone goes to a page and sees OEF and does not know that it refers to the War in Afghanistan then they will learn something new when they click on the link. Just because a certain government came up with a name does not mean it should be disregarded. Their viewpoint is as valid as any other in this regard. I agree with the renaming of the Operation Just Cause to 1989 US invasion of Panama at the same time I see no problem leaving Operation Just Cause in the infoboxes of units that participated. After all military units take place in military operations.

The second point under taking each article on its own merits is that individual countries have different naming conventions. We should respect this as much as possible. If we sacrifice a little standardization to allow some freedom of manuever for individual pages I think we will be doing ourselves a favor in the long run. Anyway, these are just one user's opinions. Cheers--Looper5920 11:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually operational names are chosen so that even the name is intercepted it is not obvious what is being discussed. The well known example from World War II is the leaking of false information about Midway by Joseph J. Rochefort so he could confirm the Japanese code word for the island was AF. So with names like Operation Iraqi Freedom is that a post start of operation press release name, or is it the real operational planning name? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe its the actual operation name, considering medals are awarded for it directly and soldiers tend to refer to it as such as well. While there may be smaller operations within that operation, it seems the greater names are correct as Operation Iraqi Freedom etc. I think if we do as Anoranza is suggesting, and remove all operation names from titles and pages, we are gonig to see an encyclopedia that is generally lacking mass ammounts of information. It would be almost as if the "event" was never called Operation XYZ. Misplaced Pages has a policy on NPOV, however its not taking a point of view to say that General Z took part in Operation X. The fact of the matter is that general did take part in that operation.

There is also a larger issue, sometimes operations are not about the entire fight. By redirecting an article about an entire operation into a single war article is almost misleading. Two sides of clarity can be gained from this. First Operation Enduring Freedom is being asked to be redirected to Afghanistan War, however OEF is actually (3) seperate operations. Afghanistan was only (1) of them, and as such we would be losing information and accuracy. Another point to this is that its possible only the invasion portion of a conflict, may be the boundaries of the operation.

I want to assume good faith, but this user Anoranza is attempting to rename Operation Enduring Freedom, even after being informed the article is about (3) operations, not just Afghanistan. This same user has left sloppy edits, and told other people to clean them up after creating redundancy issues etc. I personally do not see a problem with using operation names when they are formatted to link to the articles with the more politically correct name. --zero faults 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Looper5920 that editors should have breathing room when writing an article, and also if an operation name is needed to clarify an article, by all means use it! But let me try to put this issue into the perspective of a quite politically charged debate now going on in the US. It came out a few months ago that the NSA was conducting warrantless wiretaps (NSA warrantless surveillance controversy). Now, government officials soon came out and described the program as the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Since it's classified, this might as well be taken as the official government name for the program when discussed in public. But I think many people would strongly disagree with the use of that phrase, claiming that it puts an undeniable spin on program, its reach, and its goals. If well known military actions like Operation Just Cause are referred to as such all the time, there would definitely be a POV issue. As I said above, editors should have the lattitude to decide how to refer to the action, but as a general guideline, the neutral name should be used. --Joshdboz 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be a bit more permissive than that; I would offer something like this for a guideline:

In articles on general topics, general or geographical names for conflicts should be used where available. In more technical military articles, the use of operational names may often appropriate even when a corresponding general name exists. Care should be taken, however, not to introduce undue bias; while the vast majority of operational names are quite innocuous, there are a handful of cases where the name was chosen for the purpose of propaganda, and should be avoided outside of the article on the operation itself.

This warns editors away from truly propagandistic names while at the same time stressing that most operational names are not propaganda for any meaningful definition of the term. (Do we need some examples to make things clear?) Comments? Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds reasonable.--Joshdboz 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I could get the above amended to say In more technical military articles, the use of operational names is appropriate even when a corresponding general name exists. I believe that it is appropriate to have Operational names on military pages and I also agree that many terms are propaganda and do not belong in the majority of Wiki pages as other than a side note. If individual militaries refer to operations than they should be listed on unit pages, just because they are a government entity does not mean their View should be outright discounted.--Looper5920 23:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but I don't want to get into a position where editors feel obligated to use operational names even when the general ones are far better known. In other words, if an article discusses the Battle of Iwo Jima, we don't want to force it to be changed to Operation Detachment based on a literal reading of the guideline. Any ideas how to deal with cases like that? Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is an encyclopedia based on the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view does not need to be violated anywhere. If we decide articles about the military are allowed to have more propaganda names than other articles, by using the same standards we should also allow articles about Venezuela to have more of Chavezspeak, articles about Nazis replacing holocaust with "final solution of the Jewish question" and so on. To the contrary, articles about any given topics should be especially taken care of not to overrepresent the "viewpoint" of the subject described or the people most related to it. Of course, if specifically a military operation is described, the name should be allowed, provided the reader gets what it is about. If a military action is described and not an operation as itself, a neutral title needs to be chosen. Añoranza 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling an operational name POV is in itself POV. An operational name is just that — the name that the particular entity gave to their operation. As in Misplaced Pages's description of POV:..."opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Misplaced Pages are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Misplaced Pages's official "Neutral Point of View" policy." (bold emphasis mine). And more from the same document:

"Some contributors to Misplaced Pages misuse the term POV, taking it to be the antithesis of "NPOV", implying that a particular article or passage is affected by an editor's point of view. This is not what the term POV means, and should be avoided. The term they are groping for is "biased".

Recall co-founder Larry Sanger's prescription that Misplaced Pages should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects."

And from WP:NPOV:

"...articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias... As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

So, by my read, trying to eliminate the operational names, especially/in particular from military articles (not just "technical" articles) violates NPOV — trying to suppress the name of the operation. An editor's opinion that a name is "propaganda" does not mean that the name should be avoided. —ERcheck (talk) @ 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No one tries to suppress names of operations. What should not be done is naming a conflict by the tag of one side, e.g. the tank was used in "operation we make the world a better place" rather than "X vs. Z war". Añoranza 01:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You've kept on making wild claims about "propaganda" for quite some time now. Please provide some concrete evidence that the majority—or indeed any substantial number—of operational names are "propaganda", rather than merely labels assigned to particular actions. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As you have followed the discussion at other places, you know striking examples: "peace for galilee", "just cause", "iraqi freedom"... And I noted the most notorious one above, final solution of the Jewish question. Añoranza 02:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we quite agree on those, but it is my contention that such cases form a small minority of propagandistic names (which are explicitly discouraged by the proposed guideline above). My point is that run-of-the-mill operation names (e.g. "Operation Matador", "Operation Arc Light", "Operation Linebacker", "Operation Suvorov", "Operation Balaton", "Operation Sea Lion", and so forth) are not propaganda in any real sense of the term, and need not be avoided. Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note that in all of the examples by Añoranza above, the mention of the operational names is NOT eliminated. But, handled in a neutral way. In the "most notorious", there is in fact a full article using that name. As I quoted above from NPOV and POV, the policy does NOT dictate the use of the names is prohibited. In the context of a military entity's article, NOT using the name violates neutrality. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin, of course there are more subtle cases. Often, the powers of nature are alluded to, e.g. desert storm/fox/anaconda... This is at best euphemist, it only represents one side, and most readers will have no idea what these names stand for. There needs to be a reason why you use an operation name.

ERcheck, of course notable propanda terms can have their own article. However, you would not want to move "holocaust" to "final solution of the Jewish question" just because the official side preferred that term. Likewise, you would not want to link to holocaust from articles about Nazis or there equipment writing "He/it participated in the final solution". Añoranza 02:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I take great umbrage, and in fact consider it a WP:Personal attack, that you suggest that my comments in any way imply/say that I would move "holocaust" to "final solution...". Please be more respectful. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As we discussed before, euphemisms are neither propaganda nor forbidden by WP:NPOV. I don't really think that a claim that "powers of nature are alluded to" makes the name unacceptable in any sense.

In general, though, I think that when the names are clearly propagandistic, we should be very considered in how we use them. Possibly we could avoid having this issue come up by making it clear in-text what the names refer to; rather than "X took part in Operation Just Cause", rewording it as "X took part in Operation Just Cause (the US invasion of Panama)" would eliminate the complaint of favoring propaganda (and, on the practical side, make it clearer for someone reading a printed version of the article). Would that be altogether unacceptable? Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Before settling on any guidelines, we should consider all aspects of the WP:NPOV policy, including Undue weight. We need to do what makes sense, without violating neutrality. —ERcheck (talk) @ 02:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I did in no way make a personal attack or imply that anyone would move "holocaust" to "final solution...". To the contrary, I wrote you (note: meant as a general you, not anyone personally) would not (stress added) want to link to holocaust from articles about Nazis or there equipment writing "He/it participated in the final solution".

• You prefaced the remark with my name, so it is logical to conclude the "you" was directed at me. Likewise the rhetorical nature of your comments does suggest that my statements in this thread imply that I might want to make those edits. My comment stands. Please do not preface a statement of that sort with an editor's name. —ERcheck (talk) @ 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You did see the not, did you? Añoranza 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I did read your statement and see the not. However, it is quite apparent that you were addressing a statement to me to refute something I had said earlier. The rhetorical nature of your words belie your notion that you were not directing something negative to me. (Likewise asking me if I saw the "not" — implies that my reading abilities are deficient.) Again, my statement stands. —ERcheck (talk) @ 04:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Euphemisms are not neutral. Please note that the techniques of propaganda are well explained in our article, and operation names fall under slogan, in many cases also Virtue words (Freedom, Justice), Appeal to authority, Bandwagon effect, etc.

I object to wordings like "X took part in operation y (conflict z)" unless there is a specific reason to note the operation name, e.g. someone participated in only part of a number of operations that are known to the general public only under a combined neutral name and there is some need to point this out. Using slogans made by one side of a conflict exclusively is not neutral. It disturbs me that some people here do not even see what propaganda is or that it is a problem or even say "it is official, thus it must be ok". The Nazis also once were official. Añoranza 02:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking through our propaganda article, I can find no mention of "euphemism". Ditto for the NPOV policy. You're going to need to actually provide some evidence for your assertion that a substantial portion of operational names (yes, we know about the handful of examples you found already) are propaganda, not merely insist that they are without providing better reasoning. Kirill Lokshin 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not say euphemism was in the propaganda article. Please take a look at Euphemism#Doublespeak: What distinguishes doublespeak from other euphemisms is its deliberate usage by governmental, military, or corporate institutions. Doublespeak is in turn distinguished from jargon in that doublespeak attempts to confuse and conceal the truth, while jargon often provides greater precision to those that understand it (while inadvertently confusing those who do not). An example of the distinction is the use by the military of the word casualties instead of deaths — what may appear to be an attempt to hide the fact that people have been killed is actually a precise way of saying "personnel who have been rendered incapable of fighting, whether by being killed, being badly wounded, captured in battle, psychologically damaged, incapacitated by disease, rendered ineffective by having essential equipment destroyed, or disabled in any other way." "Casualties" is used instead of "deaths," not for propagandistic or squeamish reasons, but because most casualties are not dead, but nevertheless useless for waging war.

Proper examples of doublespeak included taking friendly fire as a euphemism for being attacked by your own troops. As slogan is listed in our propaganda article, as is doublespeak, and as "neutral point of view" is not the same as "military leaders of one side's point of view" please just leave it. Añoranza 03:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And what does all that have to do with operational names?

• Slogan = "Uncle Sam Wants You!"
• Name = "Operation Desert Storm"

How exactly are you conflating the two? And are you basing this classification of operational names as propaganda on anything more substantial than your own opinions? Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation Desert Storm is a good example of a propaganda term as it clearly qualifies for several characteristics: doublespeak, appeal to fear, bandwagon effect. As I had already listed these, I am disturbed by your failure to see it, too. Also note that a slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. Desert Storm perfectly fits. Añoranza 03:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that it qualifies under any of those, please? (Bandwagon effect?!) Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, a couple of paragraphs where the Nazis or the Holocaust were not invoked. The sure fire way to determine if an argument is being lost is when one side goes to that old well that is the Nazis. When in doubt, whip them out to keep sanity from entering an argument.--Looper5920 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Anoranza is quoting the above Wikiproject guideline as policy when it hasn't even been agreed to as a Wikiproject guideline. --Habap 04:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not the guideline we're discussing above, though ;-) It's our existing guideline for article titles (which has been basically uncontested for a few years now); I haven't the faintest idea why Añoranza keeps citing it (and as policy, no less!). Kirill Lokshin 04:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Añoranza has decided to open up another Front. see Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions#Military conflicts and operational names --Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should just ignore that and refer the user here. There is no point in discussion this in another location when the user still has questions asked of them above that they have no answered. I see you have already pointed them here, thank you. --zero faults 12:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First you tell me this here is only a project guideline and it is only about article titles, not text in article, and then you complain when I go to the correct page. Añoranza 12:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. The quotation you keep using is from a WP Project Guideline specifically about article titles. A new guideline is in the process of being created related to operation names in article bodies. You started participating in it, however it seems after being asked to prove your above claims, you have instead decided to start a new discussion elsewhere. Can yuo please continue to participate in this discussion. Kirill Lokshin has asked you to elaborate on your claims above. Thank you. Starting the same discussion in numerous places is counterproductive. --zero faults 12:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that the "Naming conventions" page is also intended for discussion about article titles. Kirill Lokshin 12:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi i've just read all of the above and would like to add my two pence as a trained hypnotist and student of propaganda warfare. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a name clearly selected for its propaganda value, it is not a code name like "operation market garden" and they are not comparable. This conflation of namings has not helped this discusion in my view. "Desert Storm" could be either but it was a good soundbite as does fit the linguistic catagories that Añoranza says it does.Hypnosadist 13:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. In your opinion, what proportion of operational names is selected for propaganda value? In other words, are they exceptions to a general policy of codenames that can be dealt with individually, or is this a pervasive issue? Also, does your answer change depending on the period or conflict in question? Kirill Lokshin 13:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

They are exceptions at the moment, in fact i only think Operation Enduring Freedom and operation Iraqi freedom are true propaganda products as indicated by the use of Freedom in the name (and you would have to be mad not to want freedom). Compare this to the internal names of operations in OIF such as Operation Ivy Lightning and Operation Bulldog Mammoth which are your standard generated names and i don't think you need the language training to see the difference (Freedom is a Value).Hypnosadist 19:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that seems pretty consistent with what everyone else (with the obvious exception) is saying. As a general philosophy for a guideline on this, then, I would suggest the following:

• The overwhelming majority of operational names have no significant neutrality issues, and can be freely used as appropriate.

• Operational names should be used if there's no better name for the event (i.e. if the article is located at the operational name).
• If there is a better name for the event, operational names can still be used:

• When referring to specific elements of operational planning or components of larger engagements
• In sufficiently technical articles.
• With enough context that the casual reader can figure out what broader conflict is being referred to without having to read the individual operation articles (to avoid strings of operational names without mentioning that they're referring to actions in Iraq, for example).

• But should be avoided if the operational name is highly obscure, and is not the normal way of referring to the conflict (e.g. Operation Detachment).

• A few operational names (it seems primarily those concerning freedom and justice, if we want to give examples) are commonly viewed as propaganda terms, and should be...?

• What do we want here? A general enjoinder to follow NPOV seems rather weak, and will just lead to per-article edit wars. Some advice to avoid them? Or to give the more general names as well?

Comments? Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To make a comment on what Hypnosadist has said. The problem is that the military tends to like marshal names, Operation Hurricane rather than Operation Light Breeze, Operation Barbarossa rather than Operation Swan King (see Barbarossa, and Swan King). So the difference you are making is not quite that clear cut.

Kirill, I think the current naming guideline in this WikiProject covers this subject adequately. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that we're talking about names in text rather than the titles of articles, I don't really think it adresses the issue (as we've had to explain at some length above). Whether a separate guideline is necessary is a valid question; but let's not confuse the two issues here. Kirill Lokshin 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is not the title, then I think it has to be decided on a case by case basis and I think the the MOS and NPOV etc cover this adequately and there is no need for yet another guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the original idea of having a guideline was to avoid a massive edit war on dozens of individual pages regarding this; at the time, having a general consensus that could be referred to seemed like a good idea. (You may be right, however, in that it's likely that the outcome of the current ArbCom case will affect the necessity of having a distinct guideline on this point.) Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the general rule here should be to avoid operation code names unless there is a general consensus that there is no better name to use. The arguments made in support of keeping Operation Just Cause as the title were ridiculous. If there is a perfectly good neutral name and there is a significant degree of objection to the use of the operation name then the neutral name should be used. In the case of Just Cause it is highly unlikely that the name would be known to any non-US english speaker or that many US citizens would know what it refers to. Just Cause was not the actual operation name in any case, it was Whitehouse PR. Genuine operation code names are purposefully chosen to avoid disclosing the actual target of a military operation. The only case where using them makes any sense is in the rare case where the name chosen is neutral and widely used to refer to the operation by both sides. That is true in the case of Operation Barbarossa and Operation Ajax. It is not true in the case of Just Cause, precisely because it is a propaganda term intended to frame the debate. --Gorgonzilla 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

How do we define "better" here? It's certainly possible to create a geographic name for almost anything (e.g. "United States inderdiction operations 14 miles north of Fallujah (October 13-14, 2005)"); how contrived does this need to become before using the operational name is the more favorable option? And what about references to particular operations in articles that discuss things like a military's campaign awards (which would generally carry the associated operational name) or unit histories?

I'm hesitant to leave things entirely up to a per article discussion on these points without offering some guidance (even if it's only general advice), since we'll wind up with the same fight on dozens of different pages that we had to begin with. Kirill Lokshin 05:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Having read the various views here, I see no problem with using operational names in the title or body of articles. Pro Life and Pro Choice are blatant examples of framing by the two sides in an attempt to win support for their view, yet we keep those articles. Operational names are not a POV issue at all in comparison. Johntex\ 20:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is why the terms in favor of abortion or opposes abortion should be used instead. Pro-Life may mean something to a US citizen, it means nothing to the average English speaker who is not familiar with US political new-speak. Same for Pro-Choice. The terms should have articles precisely because they are examples of propaganda speak. But the articles should describe the introduction of the terms into the political vocabulary, they should not contain POV arguments for or against abortion which should be covered under the abortion article. --Gorgonzilla 04:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the should be disambiguation pages with the titles of the operation for both encyclopedic reasons and in cases like OEF discuss the political/propaganda nature of the names. Also operation names will be apropriate to pages that are purely historical tactical reports.But they should not be used as the name for the conflict as a whole even if it means boring between A and B at location X at Y time titles.Hypnosadist 11:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting back on track

I think that there's some confusion resulting from the fact that we're discussing two separate issues above without always making clear which one is being referred to. Let's try to sort this out:

Operational names as titles

We already have a guideline discouraging the use of operational names as the titles of articles:

Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name. This can be ignored for the most well-known operations (e.g. Operation Barbarossa), but note that even Operation Overlord redirects to Battle of Normandy.

This has generally been interpreted quite loosely, though, and with deference to the use of most common English names for events. It seems, from the discussion above, that some people would like to see this guideline changed (or not changed, as the case may be); if they could please make it explicit in their comments that they're discussing article titles, it would make it a lot easier to follow. Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, e.g. Operation Blue, it is simply impossible to come up with another name for the article, in my view. This shows also the danger of re-directing. Before I worked on the article, it was a simple re-direct to Battle of Stalingrad, which is a subset of Fall Blau, so many other battles could not be discussed in a coherent manner. As a guideline the one we have is fine, but it has to be kept clear in any revision that it will be impossible to follow it all the time, just as it states now. Andreas 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that an 'operation' and a 'battle' are related, but not the same thing. In many cases, the operation is a subset of the battle, as it is one side's planing and administration of the battle. So, I can see four (rare) cases where an Operation article should exist: 1) The widely-known name for the battle is "Operation X". 2) There is no corresponding battle, or other article (Operation Sealion). 3) The operation is, instead a super-set of any one battle (or article, really; the Italian Campaign is also a super-set of battles). 4) The battle is important enough that it has a separate page(s) on the planning for it that was done ahead of time ('operation' isn't in the title, but the general case is typified by the Schlieffen Plan). --Rindis 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Operational names in other articles

The second issue is whether the names of operations can be used to refer to events in other articles. This is complicated by the fact that many operations have no articles of their own—being only parts of larger conflicts—so it's not clear what, if not them, could be used to refer to such components in other articles. Views on this point seem to run the gamut from always permitting their use to never permitting their use, so we obviously need more discussion if we're to come to any meaningful consensus. Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, maybe the policy should be something along the lines of "Try not to use operation names, especially propagandic operation names, in circumstances where they are avoidable. However, sometimes a given military operation may be known only by its code name and not have a generic name, in which case the operational name is acceptable. Also, if the planning part of the operation is being discussed, the code name may make the most sense." Or something; that's just what I could come up with at the spur of the moment, and it seems compromise-y. UnDeadGoat 19:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with "Kosovo War" article

There is currently a revert war going on, any outside views, fact checking and additional references would be very welcome. Mieciu K 11:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Near East taskforce?

Idea popped into my head to form a taskforce to cover wars between the kingdoms of the Near East (including Ancient Egypt, but obviously NOT including Graeco-Persian wars, which stay within Classical warfare taskforce) to cover wars in that geographical area in the grey area before the Classical warfare taskforce cut-off of 700BC. Plenty to work from (Category:Battles of Egypt, Category:Battles of Babylonia, Category:Battles of the Canaanites, Battle of Megiddo....), and can draw members from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ancient Egypt and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ancient Near East, which both need revivifying. Any thoughts? Neddyseagoon 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, if anyone else can be found to work on it. What's the activity level in that area of the wiki like? Kirill Lokshin 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just looking around for that, by looking on those projects I mentioned, plus any I can find on Holy Land history. Is there some way of getting the same message to various talk-pages? I'm new at this game! :-) Neddyseagoon 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasting, basically ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As ever! These things are never easy, are they! Announcements posted up on all users of those Projects, though I baulked at doing everyone in the Classical Warfare Project and so put up something on its talk page. Now the waiting for replies! Neddyseagoon 15:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know much about those battles, but I'm interested in biblical-time warfare, so if you decide to go ahead with it, I can help, I guess. -- Миборовский 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page layout

So, we seem to have acquired a thematic organization of the talk page. Do people prefer the new layout (allowing for some minor issues to be fixed, obviously), or the old chronological organization? Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The current layout seems very workable. It keeps the discussions on a particular topic together ... the thread of thought is easier to follow. And, consensus will be easier to identify (versus reading through all prior posts on a topic.) I imagine that discussions may, from time to time, get fragmented; but, I don't think it will be a major issue. —ERcheck (talk) @

American Chinese take Mogaung, Chindits take umbrage

I am very annoyed with the editing of this page over the last hour. This is a talk page not an article page. Comments and sections should be left alone unless

1. The page is being archived
2. The author of the piece decides to edit their entry.

Kirill I am sure that the edits you are making are in good faith, but you should not be messing about with sections which have had edits made to them in the last few weeks. In the time I put composed and try to save a reply, (that because it was of some size and had involved me looking up information on other page), most of the previous entires in the section, most put in over the last 24 hours had gone!

If you wish to automate the archiving of this talk page then have a look at Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page#Automated archival --Philip Baird Shearer 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, what about refactoring talk pages? As far as I know, the only changes that were made was moving a few sections around, which is even on the tame side of that.

As it says "Refactoring may cause confusion if improperly applied to an ongoing discussion; an editor should take great care to preserve all such discussion and all relevent details to its context." My emphasis. Moving sections around with new text less than a day old is confusing, particularly as one can not use the page history to track changes because the changes are so large. If you are going to do this, and I would rather you did not, then perhapse you shoud create a Permanent link archive first (see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page#Permanent link archives method)

Am I to assume, incidentally, that you'd prefer the old chronological layout to the new one? Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is the usual way that talk pages are (un)structured.Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Layout "Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end". --Philip Baird Shearer 17:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Meh. You're right insofar as article talk pages are concerned; but this page tends to be closer (as far as usage is concerned) to something like WP:AN, which sees quite frequent section movement to keep discussions together.

I'm ambivalent on this layout idea, myself. (I wasn't the one to introduce it, incidentally; I merely cleaned it up somewhat once it had already been put into place.) Other people have commented in favor of structuring the page like this, though; it would be nice to have a few more opinions as to which structure we should adopt in the future (keeping in mind that the longer threads we've been seeing lately make frequent archiving, as was done in the past, increasingly impractical). Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Amusing section name aside, I think he (Philip) does have a point. Most of us are used to checking for latest developments at the bottom of a talk page. Personally, I think I might overlook new discussions in this format. -- Миборовский 20:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative idea: New topics added at the bottom. If the discussion generates a lot of interest, then the discussion can be moved above to a place in the thematic area, WITH a wikilink to its section. For example for the discussion on format:

===New discussions===

==== Talk page layout ====

• Main discussion now in thematic area.

—ERcheck (talk) @ 20:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW. It might be nice to have a "Help needed" section. See Kosovo request "above". ;-) —ERcheck (talk) @ 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, actually. We could create a section for requests of the "hey, come look at this article" type, which we tend to see a lot of; and have other discussions, which tend to be bulkier, in their own sections chronologically. Kirill Lokshin 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see two flavors of "help": (1) Urgent/help needed now — to look at edit issues/wars; and (2) Review/help expand. #2 Would be appropriate for the "Articles" section, while #1 would be in a new section. —ERcheck (talk) @ 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be somewhat confusing to have two different sections for listing article requests, though? Kirill Lokshin 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One good argument for retaining the chronological layout, incidentally, would be the way the "new section" function is set up to work; anyone using it will form a section at the bottom of the page, which would then need to be moved somewhere afterwards. I suspect we're going to wind up with a fairly confusing layout, with some sections organized topically and some trailing at the bottom of the page.

Maybe we should just have a sort of "pre-archive" section at the top where all the brief requests and discussions could be moved once they were complete (which generally takes a few days, at most) and have the longer-running threads keep their chronological order below that? Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page#Automated archival might be a solution. Once a subsection has not had a contribution for a number of days/weeks it can be archived (or so the link in that section User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Howto says. This is also how it is done on the village pump pages with User:Crypticbot. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how well that would work when you have several levels of subsections, though. Do recent edits prevent "sister" subsections under the same top-level section from being archived? If not, it'll make introducing section breaks somewhat difficult, since earlier parts of the discussion will mysteriously disappear. Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As this is a talk page, if new topics are added at the bottom as they usually are, there should be no need for many subsections. Also if automatic archiving is used then one can always reactor perform a minor edit and "fix" any subsection headings which look like causing the problems you are suggesting may occur. Further automatic archiving does away with the need to manually intervene, as subjects which have no recent edits will be removed moving the large ones you which editors are still contributing too will move up the page. It also has the advantage that there will be less chance of editors accusing one another of bad faith edits, as is happening in the spat on the link in the next section (#Request for Admin at Ilyushin Il-2). It seems to be a working solution on the village pump pages which have a large number of edits on them. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; seems like it would make things easier for everyone concerned. Anyone have particular objections to either of (a) putting the page back in chronological order and (b) turning on automatic archiving? Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in light of the various objections received, I've changed the page back to a chronological layout, at least for the time being. I'll see if I can get the automatic archiving working; maybe that will alleviate any problems with section creep that we're (potentially?) having. Kirill Lokshin 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Admin at Ilyushin Il-2

I need an admin to step in and examine the postings of a brand new user on the talk page; he is posting multiple copies of his questions and threatening to disrupt the board. I suspect he may be a sockpuppet, or at the least a very inexperienced editor. Here. Any input into the article itself is naturally appreciated also.Michael Dorosh 21:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hannibal

Could members of this project please take a look at Hannibal and respond to the Associated Peer Review. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Battle of Orleans (1870)

Anybody know enough about this to write a decent stub? Some helpful person has created this with a description of the 1428 siege ;-) Kirill Lokshin 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If nothing else, this may help Andreas 13:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maritime military history task force

Is there any interest in forming a maritime military history task force? I'm intersted in participating :) Inge 14:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Me too Neddyseagoon 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, they're muliplying! ;-)

More seriously, though, I suspect there would be a great deal of interest, and it's a small enough portion of overall military history that we could get away with having a task force for it; but, as with the aviation task force, you'd need to work things out with WP:SHIPS to make sure there's minimal stepping on each others' toes. Kirill Lokshin 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll post a heads up about this discussion on the WP:SHIPS talk page as a first move at least. Inge 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I sort of feel that such a task force would be redundant, since WP:SHIPS is dedicated to naval ships and their histories. I suppose we (at WP:SHIPS) tend to focus on individual ships and classes rather than the bigger picture, but I think you might be better served by a joint membership here and there than in forming a task force over here that is partially redundant to another Wikiproject. TomTheHand 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Studying ships is different from studying the battles that they fight in, the politics, the tactics, the strategy, etc. A Maritime Conflict task force would be in order, as a subset of the Military History task force, IMO.Michael Dorosh 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Michael Dorosh about a naval task force. While they would still deal with ships (in conjuction and co-operation with WP:SHIPS) they would also deal with topics such as naval forces (Royal Navy etc.), naval ranks, naval battles, naval strategy, naval people etc.. Oberiko 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be a good name, though? "Naval warfare"? "Maritime warfare"? "Maritime military history"? (Rather a mouthful, the last one.) Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say this is getting out of control. We are creating task forces hither and thither for everything we can imagine. And I say it is time to get a grip on ourselves. Let us be Honest with Ourselves: Most of the recently created task forces are not seeing a lot of activity going on, and frankly, many of them are superfluous. (Guilty as charged). I propose that any new task forces be created only if a minimum number of editors (say, fifteen) sign up before it is set up. Well, I said it. Fire at will. Andrés C. 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that would gain us, beyond making certain we never create another task force (let's face it: without the per-task-force advertising provided through the project banner, the odds of fifteen people simultaneously deciding to create a task force—or even of one person recruiting fifteen others independently—are pretty small). Task forces, when they were created, were meant to be informal and organic. If we create some that turn out to be unsustainable and need to be retired, that's fine; the work to mothball a task force would be minimal (particularly now that basically all visible signs of their existence are controlled centrally from {{WPMILHIST}}. It's also fine if they just take a while to get off the ground. It's not like they're really causing more work for anyone besides the putative members (and myself, since I do all the project-side setup for them), and they are doing productive things, if not as quickly as the project as a whole.

There is, of course, another, more subtle reason at work here. One of the motivations of developing the "task force" concept to begin with was to prevent the development of entirely independent WikiProjects (which tend to do unfortunate things at times—see the WikiProject ADF discussion above) in favor of more integrated groups of editors. Placing high limits on our creation of new task forces will simply cause a resurgence in these branched-out projects, which would be (at least in my opinion) highly undesirable. Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the naval or maritime (whatever we want to call it) task force is just as important as an avation task force. As mentioned above there are many aspects about maritime warfare which are not ships. We should definately cooperate with the Ship project on the ship articles and maybe we could even motivate some of them to join us in writing about other topics of maritime warfare as well. I used the word maritime because I thought coastal forts (Coastal Artillery) could be a part of the target area. They are not part of the navy, but still a part of maritime warfare. I hope this task force could be realised. There are several editors out there working on this subject so it would be nice to have a place to meet at least. Inge 19:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've created the Maritime warfare task force. Somebody should ideally write up something similiar to what the aviation task force has, outlining the scope of this and making clear how it differs from WP:SHIPS. Kirill Lokshin 16:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

New Article

Hello, I'm not sure if members of this project would be interested in Valiant Shield? Johntex\ 05:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I made one minor edit already, to the caption on the photo where you used "operation" rather than "exercise" (I corrected it also at the Military exercise page. Otherwise, looks like a good article.Michael Dorosh 05:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you. I was not aware of the distinction in terms, but I am now. I have listed this at Misplaced Pages:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates and I am hoping it will make the Main Page. Johntex\ 05:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism task force?

I don't normally express my indignation in quite so blunt a fashion, but whose bright idea was it to create this without any discussion? Are you trying to drag the project into a bloodbath? (And, somewhat more calmly, does anyone actually think it's a good idea to have something by this name as part of the project?) Kirill Lokshin 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The guy's name is User:Rangeley (at least, he was the one to create the page). And I totally agree with you Kirill: the subject is very hot and should at least have been discussed on this very talk page. -- Grafikm 14:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to suspend this task force until we can have at least a discussion on it. Ultimately, I think we're going to need something like this, but not specifically the War on Terrorism (likely something like "Low intensity warfare task force") Oberiko 15:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Grafikm 15:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That works. I'll leave the pages intact for the time being but remove the links from the navigation template and project banner until we've resolved this. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Low intensity warfare task force? I would not categorize OEF as low intensity. I would also not cahnge the name of WW2 to "very large war that took place in many locations", its called the WOT, yet everyone is afraid of a name. --zero faults 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is low-intensity compared to a war between regular armies, no? Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What does low intensity mean? would you classify Iraq War as low intensity since they didnt put up much of a resistance? I dont understand your definition of low intensity. --zero faults 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Casualties, perhaps? The entire casualty count of the the three-year war in Iraq is less than that of the first day on the Somme, for example. (There's a separate argument to be made based on the level of weaponry possessed by one of the combatants, but that's more of a question of whether assymetric warfare can be considered low-intensity in general.) Kirill Lokshin 16:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt aware that it should be brought up here first. The idea of this came from discussions I had with Zer0faults and Haizum about working on a project that gives better coverage on the War on Terrorism. I first, however, wanted to reach a consensus over the inclusion of the Iraq War into the War on Terrorism. We reached a consensus last night so today I made the project. I am not trying to bring it into a bloodbath, but I feel that the War on Terrorism and related articles definately needs a group of people working on it. I have, for the past few months, worked on them, and so has a group of people. I thought that making it a project where we could set some goals and a to-do list would help organize this. We worked together in an effective, civil way when finding a consensus, and I feel we will work together well as a task force for other related things. Rangeley 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The "consensus" you point to is only a few hours old a this point; my personal suspicion is it'll break down as soon as all the regular participants in that edit war wake up. The issue, however, is broader than that. We should not need a per-article consensus for task force tags. Task forces are supposed to be so blatantly obvious that we cannot be reasonably accused of any impropriety by having them.

You have, instead, selected a particularly contentious topic for a task force; and, on top of that, chosen a name that a substantial number of editors regard as inappropriate. As Oberiko commented above, we likely have room for something of this sort; but we absolutely must avoid any hint of taking a political stance in our choice of terminology. Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The regular players in the edit war are Anoranza, Mr. Tibbs and Nescio. Thats really it, its odd how it could take place in so many locations and only be with 3 users. I am not stating others do not agree, but this is boardering on Super Majority, and the reason these users disagree is not even because they do not beleive its linked, but instead because they feel it was not justified. However many things that happened in WW2 were not justified, we do not exclude them however. As Nescio has even admitted Iraq had ties to terrorists, the war on terrorism is over terrorists, WMDs were feared to goto terrorists, the main reason going to war was WMDs etc etc. I mean I do not see the problem, is it really then name? Everyone seems fine with quotes, will that due to alleviate the concerns? --zero faults 16:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I will be frank here. If you are not interested in keeping this task force, so be it. I have no objections. I have worked through so much bureacracy since April in trying to reach a consensus, whether it be manouevre through accusations of rule breaking, or attempting to combat deletion attempts of the pages we worked on to reach the consensus - and this was on top of the actual discussion attempting to reach consensus. I dont want this to be another fight, just please delete it. I greatly apologize for any trouble caused, I dont want to deal with it. I would much rather spend my time working on related articles than spend it on defending a task force meant for this. It isnt productive in my eyes, and it is very stressful. I will even vote to delete it should you want to bring it up first. Rangeley 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rangeley I wont oppose it, I will just continue the work anyway. Its however more productive to have a task force. I am so tired of people complaining about a name, some users are no longer even stating they feel they arent linked, they just dont like the name. In the grand scheme of things, we are stopping facts because people do not like the name they are linked to, its silly, and I am finally happy with the Iraq War inclusion of WOT and I am also too tired to deal with a fight over a name. --zero faults 16:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, two questions:

• Is the task force meant to concentrate primarily on the military aspects or on the political ones? If it's intended to branch heavily into politics, law enforcement, etc., it's probably better suited as a separate project than being under the umbrella of "Military history".
• If the task force is meant to have a military focus, how is its scope defined? (I can see a number of possibilities here. One would be to follow the War on Terrorism article itself, which is somewhat problematic insofar as it ties the task force to future disputes there. Another would be to cover, as Oberiko suggested, all low-intensity conflict; this would cover most of the WoT, but also include a variety of other related conflicts. Third, it could be defined as a "Current events"-type of task force , which would deal with ongoing conflicts , and would be quite useful in dealing with things on the edges of the "history" label, but may also be rather broader in scope than what you envisioned.)

I'm not, a priori, trying to have anything deleted; I just think this needs to be discussed and renamed/rescoped so as to make its existence non-controversial. Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Primarily military ones, however not ignoring political topics that influence military decissions. For example the events of the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC would possibly be discussed in a larger project because they affected the Iraq War. Talibans rejection of the US proposal, Pakistan dropping them as recognized after it, these are events that lead tot he beginning of OEF. Its like discussion WW2 without stating why it happened, or WW1 without that assassination, that was 1 right? --zero faults 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The conflict is the War on Terror, you cannot rename it simply because its going on currently. Does it possibly involve future conflicts, sure, but we are not a crystal ball. We would be dealing with WOT related events, yes things in the template no and page itself. If anotehr war breaks out and the people waging it say its part of the WOT, then we will attempt to cover it. --zero faults 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In terms of if it will cover recent events, that is really up to if they affect the situation. The group would obviously not cover events not related to terrorism that affected the WOT. Meaning if a terrorist action instigated a nation becoming involved with the WOT or seeking help from the US to combat their terrorism, such as Philippines did, then its included. If the terrorist action happened and the US was not asked to help, the situation was not related to the WOT, meaning not done to be a statement against the WOT or one of the current wars etc, then its not related. Do all task forces go through this scrutiny of what it would handle, and not? --zero faults 16:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As I believe I mentioned above, it was pretty obvious what the other task forces would handle from their names. There is nothing in the least controversial about marking an event as being part of "French military history" or "World War I"; as I believe you have discovered, marking something as being part of "the War on Terror" is quite controversial. Hence, our desire to keep said controversy to the articles and to avoid having the project as a whole take part in disputes it really could avoid. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

So ignoring that its a fact is fine, as long as it doesnt bring controvery? Maybe this would be better off as a project since apparently MILHIST group is only concerned with avoiding the complaints of 3 people. --zero faults 17:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I see at least 15 people against it in the poll at the top of Talk:Iraq War; but that's really beside the point.

Unless you mean to suggest that there isn't significant controversy surrounding whether particular events are included under the War or not, as well as the use of the term in general—and I should hope you're not going to do that—then it is not the place of this project to take sides in the dispute. Hammer it out on the talk pages of the relevant articles to your satisfaction; but please don't, by the adoption of such a name for the task force, proclaim that the project as a whole supports your view on what these articles should contain. (I'll add that even if you succeed in achieving consensus on a particular article, that consensus may change over time as editors join and leave the discussion; the project's internal structures really shouldn't be held hostage to this type of never-ending debate.) Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 people against it. I am not sure what you are reading. Debate over the name does not stop it from being factually the name. You do not rename Vietnam War to American War, you simply state its not the name the Vietnamese call it. Controvery over the name involves Crystal Ballism, somethnig we do not do here at Misplaced Pages. THe controvery is over the name creates a war that goes on forever, hence why its not appropriate to discuss it here. Also one of those votes against has stated they accept the compromise and moved their vote to agree if you did not notice. --zero faults 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I see where your mistake is, you are basing your information over a poll about the infobox, not about if the WOT and Iraq was are linked. That poll was over if the term should be in the infobox. It was specifically asked that way to garner more votes against it, then simply asking what the facts are. --zero faults 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue seems to have been resolved by the creation of a separate WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism. I think that leaving things at the status quo for the time being might be the best option here, but I'll leave it up to the editors working on these articles to determine if the creation of a task force (for whichever scope) on our part would be desirable. Kirill Lokshin 17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The need to be politically correct makes me feel that will not happen. However that project that was created is not one I am interested in. --zero faults 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the political issues are under the purview of a separate project now, though, is there necessarily a need for a strictly separate task force for the WoT? Or might it be sufficient to have it covered by one that's slightly broader in scope (e.g. "Ongoing conflicts" or something like that)? Kirill Lokshin 18:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Krill; this particular topic isn't really ours. Things like suicide bombers definitely fall under terrorism, but would be sticky to handle as part of military history. Though it's probably to late, I'd like to again state my objection against using "War on Terrorism". That'd be like using "Great Patriotic War" as the name to define the conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in WWII; it is laden with policital bias. Oberiko 18:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost like calling something a World War when the whole world wasnt involved, or a Cold War when there was 2 or more major wars in it. --zero faults 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute the relevance in the cases you bring up. WWII, if you check the map, involved all of the major military powers and roughly 90% of the total nations on Earth, not including those who were officially declared neutrals. The Cold War was so named not for policital/propoganda reasons, but because it was a war fought by other means (economic, proxy wars etc.) other then direct, potentially nuclear, conflict (which would have made it "hot"). Here, in this War on Terrorism, the name applies to only one side and is used, IMO, to define it as a battle between "Terrorists" and "Us", making one side the "good guys" by default. This is inherently non-neutral.

But that's besides the point. The main issue was if this qualifies as military history and, while I believe that some actions do (the 2003 invasion of Iraq etc.), things like kidnapping, suicide bombers etc. I don't think qualify. Oberiko 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the task force is called, there should be one very clearly created for the wars following September 11th (currently, OEF and OIF). It is troubling that there is no neutral term for refering to these wars, but the solution is not to give up on such a term. Perhaps I am just stuck in the moment, but whether this these wars are really about terrorism, I suspect they have been branded and will go down in the history books as the (First?) Global War on Terrorism. If you think that is a loaded term, then you are right. But wikipedia doesn't choose the names for the content of the world, it just tries picking the most neutral term it can. In this case... I can't think of one. Maybe if we can do something with the word "on" in the title. The Global War regarding Terrorism? Ha! Well, the name is stupid but who can deny that the war involves terrorism as a cental and defining feature. Now maybe it isn't a war 'on' terrorism, but that certainly a central characteristic of this war. Lastly, the title should relate specifically to the OEF, OIF and related wars. The title shouldn't be so general as 'Terrorism Task Force' or 'Low-Intens. Conflict'. (Atfyfe 21:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

Hi everyone(my first post on this talk) first let me say i do think the WOT is as much a POV name as al-quaida's name for it which is "The 10th Crusade", even the war on al-quaida would be more factual and less POV. Second we could change tack and discribe the conflic by tactics rather than geopolics, ie call it 21st century Asymetric warfare taskforce (sounds sooooo cool you have to want to be a member!). On a personal note i'm interested in informational warfare(is there a taskforce for that?) and web based conflicts such as the hacker battles between Japan and S.Korea, check out my page for the articles i've started.Hypnosadist 10:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why specifically 21st century? That would, IMO, make the project small to the point that a task force would be unwarranted. Oberiko 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Should the WikiProject Military history be directly involved articles about a war which is current and not yet history? This seems to me very similar to the argument that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military and this one be combined. I think all of military history is enough for this project.

Perhaps the best thing to do is for those who would like to take this further, is for revitalise the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military and set up task forces there to deal with current military conflicts. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

History begins yesterday, no? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Kirill thats one of my points, the other is calling it 21c means its not POV about some VERY POV issues!Hypnosadist 20:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also its said that it does not cover much history, but it includes 911 and the two following wars, isreal/palestine conflict, insurgencies in nepal and other countries. The WOT covers countries from canada to thailand and on to russia. Issues including ethnic cleansing in iraq(really sectarian) and sudan, fake dollar bills from N.Korea and organised drug crime. I think that either "21c asymetric warfare" or "21c unconventional warfare" would be the best names for this taskforce. As i say above it really helps reduce the POV right from the start which means we get much more done.Hypnosadist 23:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. How would it deal with something like 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was (briefly, to be sure) a conventional, though assymetric, war? Kirill Lokshin 01:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi kirill, The military build up and first 3 weeks of convensional warfare would not be in the remit of the taskforce in my view. But every IED,suicide bomber and militia activity after that point would be in the remit, very little of the war in iraq was uniform on uniform a-la the geneva convetions.Hypnosadist 13:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

MIA Category

I've created this new category.--James Bond 16:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Would we want to limit it to current MIAs, or include people who were notable for being MIAs but whose fate was later confirmed? Kirill Lokshin 16:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting question. Maybe we should only list the current ones in that category and add a list of notable MIA's in the Missing In Action article..--James Bond 16:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging discussion underway

Not sure what to make of this and this.--James Bond 18:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Good articles (again!)

Since the previous discussion seems to have died an untimely death, I'm wondering if we've come to any sort of consensus regarding the use of {{GA-Class}} in our assessment scale.

My feeling is that, insofar as GA review is not particularly rigorous, and is often performed by people who may not have the best knowledge of the subject area, we shouldn't be relying on it for our own ratings. I would suggest that we remove the class=GA option from our scale and classify existing GA-Class articles as either A-Class or B-Class, depending on their real quality. (WP:GA would still continue to flag articles as "good" at its own discretion; but this wouldn't necessarily affect the project's assessment of them.)

What does everyone think? It would be especially valuable to have comments from anyone who didn't participate in the original discussion. Kirill Lokshin 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What I've seen of the GA process hasn't led me to believe that the articles that pass conform to a particularly uniform standard of quality, so I suspect its usefulness as an article-rating tool is highly limited. I would support dropping it from the MILHIST classification scale. --Robth 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

US Iraq War Veterans

I see that the category for Iraq War Veterans includes fatal casualties from the war (ie Casey Sheehan. How can you be a veteran if you're dead? Should these not be culled out? What purpose does it serve to include them? I'd suggest a separate category for those killed on active duty in Iraq.Michael Dorosh 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest Category: American Iraq War fatalities, keeping in line with Category: American Iraq War veterans.Michael Dorosh 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the general consensus in the category discussion above was that we should abandon using "Veterans" in category names entirely, in favor of the more general "US military personnel of the Iraq War" (or something of that sort); but, due to a whole bunch of other things that have come up recently, we haven't had time to move forward on any actual renaming yet. Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can recat these, if there is a consensus as to what the new category should be called.Michael Dorosh 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox for Military Award

There are info boxes for battles, people, locations, etc. Why not for awards? It would be particularly nice if I could go to the U.S. Medal of Honor entry and have a link to the next highest (i.e. none) and next lower (i.e. Service Cross) award.

It's an idea that's been brought up several times now, but has never gotten any significant discussion. I have no objections to an award infobox per se, but I have very little knowledge of them; what fields would be appropriate (keeping in mind that this should be applicable across national lines)? Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Name, type (order/medal/other...), year of creation/revocation, country, type of award (military/civilian), awarding conditions, link to next highest/next lowest awards, number of recipients... I'm forgetting some of them for sure but that would be a start. -- Grafikm 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a great start. I might not use the term "revocation", maybe "Current Status." Also some awards (service awards) have periods of eligability that should be included in the box. Secondly, sometimes the award may be awarded by one country, but commonly worn by soldiers in another. Like the Kuwaiti Liberation Medal is issued by the country of Kuwait, by mainly awarded to soldiers of the U.S. Military. (Atfyfe 22:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

Types of award, too, I think - some were for service, some for bravery, some like the Bronze Star are awarded for both. Nazi Germany had two separate streams of awards - the War Merit Cross and the Iron Cross, one for non-combat service, another for combat service and/or bravery. I think there are enough exceptions to prevent a graceful handling of "next highest" award, particularly given the dual nature of some awards. But one doesn't know until one tries. What about service medals? The 1939-45 Star would feature differently in a Canadian lineup of order of precedence than in a British one (because Canada had the CVSM, mainly). Lots of issues to think about - it might behoove us to do some group planning on this page or a separate Sandbox to work the kinks out first in the planning stage.Michael Dorosh 23:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Army makes a distinction between meritorious awards (for service, sometimes even in combat) and valor awards (for a specific action or specific set of actions in combat). As you report, Nazi Germany makes a distinction between non-combat and combat awards. The different ways in which goverments handle such distinctions might be difficult to handle, but perhaps worth it. I certainly thing next highest and next lowest is something worth having, simply for ease of surfing all the awards for a military. However, it too comes with problems. Often there are equal awards above or below, and often different services offer the same award in different forms (Navy Cross and the Army's Distinguished Service Cross). Perhaps in addition to next highest and next lowest, there ought to be a 'award version in other branches'? (Atfyfe 00:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

As mentioned by Atfyfe, even within a particular country's military, various branches have difference medals, so order of precedence would require distinguishing between service branches, etc. —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've started a (rough) draft at Template:Infobox Military Award; comments are very welcome! I have no idea how to properly set up the order of precedence at the moment, so I'll give that some further thought. In the meantime, what other fields could be useful? Kirill Lokshin 01:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps something like this --

Higher Awards: Nothing Lesser Awards: Service Crosses (Army, Navy, Air Force)

Then on those awards you would need the additional section for eqivalent awards. (Atfyfe 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

I know it is a military infobox Kirill, but do you mind adding a "type" field that would be either military or civilian. I think it would be nice to have it in civilian awards' pages too.. :)) -- Grafikm 10:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Will try to do that later today. Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill :) Oh, and we will need two image and description fields too: one for the pic and one for the ribbon.... :)) -- Grafikm 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why the images can't just be stacked in the single field? The ribbon one would usually be too narrow to work on its own, I think. Kirill Lokshin 15:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know it was possible... *blushes* sorry about that... -- Grafikm 15:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added an "eligibility" field and three fields to use for the order of precedence. Any other ideas? Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, looks like the infobox is starting to be used on actual pages. Comments and further ideas for improvement would be very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 20:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a medals and decorations task force... :) -- Grafikm 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually suggested it about a month ago, but there didn't seem to be any (and I do mean any) interest. I have no objections to creating one if you can round up a few editors who'd be willing to be part of it, though. Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that, I was just thinking aloud... -- Grafikm 20:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To see the award box in systematic use, I've added it to most all of the entries for unit awards in the U.S. Military. I intive everyone to surf around the U.S. military unit awards and see if you have any ideas for improving the infobox, you might start at the highest unit award: Presidential Unit Citation (US). (Atfyfe 08:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC))

OK I'm seriously confused

2003 Invasion of Iraq & Iraq War

Same topic, two articles? They seem to contradict themself in some areas. I'm also very concerned about the poor NPOV of the two. --James Bond 23:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Iraq covers the first few days of tomahawk rain and bombing, while the whole war article covers that and the resultant suicide bombing, alley fighting etc. That's my guess. -- Миборовский 18:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks to be the case, at least at the moment. Kirill Lokshin 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

New weapon infobox

The new {{Infobox Weapon}} is now capable of replacing most of the commonly-used weapon infoboxes; see Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force for more details. Does anyone have further comments on the design, or should we go ahead and start rolling this out? (And is there anyone who would be interested in helping to convert existing templates to this form?) Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Very complete, if I visit any that are unchanged in my wikitravels I'll convert them.Dryzen 13:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet aircraft carrier Kuznetsov

I had stumbled upon this article while I was under the impression that Kuznetsov class aircraft carrier was our only article on this particular ship of war. I tried my best to read the guidelines for deletion, but alas I'm tired and quite groggy, thus it is all lost on me. Perhaps someone who knows what he is doing could give me a hand with this, it would be much appreciated. (USMA2010 17:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

I would ask at WP:SHIPS first; they have some standards on how articles on ship classes versus individual ships should be named, so they'll probably be able to determine what the idea behind having separate articles is. Kirill Lokshin 17:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

June newsletter

The June issue of the newsletter is basically ready to go; hence, the usual questions:

• Is there anything significant I missed?
• Is anyone available to work on delivering it?

Any other comments are, of course, quite welcome! Kirill Lokshin 16:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So, no takers? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can probably deliver it... but not today. -- Миборовский 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you have some time tomorrow or Wednesday, that'd be great! If not, I'll probably just do it myself, unless somebody else comes forward. Kirill Lokshin 02:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I recently failed Mirko Norac for GA status, needs more citations and citations summary at bottom of article. Alvin6226 16:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

USMC oral history unit

This topic is not in my area, but it is not in Misplaced Pages yet as an article. It is not in the USMC article and there is not yet a History of the USMC article. So for what it's worth, I just heard about

• Dr. Gary Solis, the U.S. Marine Corps’ Chief of Oral History
• U.S. Marine Corps' oral history unit, which has recorded more than 1,500 interviews with Marines in Iraq.
• There is a protocol for each field historian embedded with a unit, according to Colonel Nicholas Reynolds (US Marine Corps, Oral History Unit), author of Basra, Baghdad and beyond: the U.S. Marine Corps in the second Iraq War ISBN 1591147174

--Ancheta Wis 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's made by the USMC, and contains material from Marines, would the interviews be public domain? If we could get transcripts of these on WikiSource or something, it might be quite useful. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration candidates needed

Our Collaboration of the Fortnight is down to two (about to be one, in a few hours) candidates. If anyone has some articles they think need to be worked on, now would be a great time to list them! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, plenty... -- Grafikm 22:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Added new label on a war

Hi, I added the WikiprojectWars label for the Nagorno-Karabakh War. If I did this in the wrong procedure, please inform me, thanks. --MarshallBagramyan 23:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Would like some eyes on Talk:F-14 Tomcat, also re TFX project and Mcnamara's history

I have already made the request at Wikiproject:Aircraft, and I am making this request as the dispute is largely historical. User:Wiarthurhu is inserting edits that proclaim that the F-14 was designed from the outset. In addition, he made the following edit to the Robert McNamara article which, while rooted in truth, is a gross oversimplification of the matter . I apologize as the Talk:F-14 Tomcat page is quite large, but I would welcome anyone with knowledge of the 1960/70's U.S. fighter acquisitions process, and in particular the TFX/FX/VFX programs.

I am gravely concerned about the editor, he has started pumping up his credentials on his talk page, but has made grave errors that he's been unwilling to retract. In the talk page he's proclaimed that the most important design aspect of the F-14 was maneuverability, and among the edits he's inserted into the McNamara page was the assertion that maneuverability was the "the decisive factor in all previous air battles" which is also grossly wrong and a grossly amateurish point of view. I have pointed this error out to him on his talk page, only to get a boastful recitation of his resume. Any WWII aviation experts are welcome to weigh in and point out his errors - hopefully we can convince him to step back and reexamine the evidence. --Mmx1 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

1. : Operation Bar is the name used by Army of Foo for the ongoing conflict in YYY. For main article see ].