Talk:Corporal E

This completes the massive effort to tell the tale of the Corporal project of ORDCIT/JPL which produced the first highly successful liquid fueled ballistic rocket developed for the US Army. It also produced the first guided missile developed for the Army. Which resulted in the first guided missile to enter into US service, the Corporal. It was always being developed and the program was never to produce the ultimate goal a truly fully developed ballistic missile weapon the Corporal III. The program did deliver the first useable nuclear armed guided missile.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It the article valid?
The Wikipedia bot has suggested that "This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay." Being the sort to research things I looked up the pertinent Wikipedia page "What Wikipedia is not." I discovered that: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Does that mean only plagiarism is acceptable? It continues "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." I just read a great deal in books and published materials of serious historians research in my possession. I cited those historians extensively in the article. If official histories or other serious works of historians are unacceptable sources for historical research I must have erred. "Personal inventions." I did not invent the Corporal E. "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)." My mistake I thought the historians I cited were credible. "Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." I refer everyone to the content and citations provided in the article. "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia." Merriam Webster defines Encyclopedia as "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject." How exactly does my article fail to address that goal? At "What Wikipedia is not" I read that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion." I have not done that. I think upon careful reading and consulting the sources cited that my work may be assessed as a responsible article. From Thucydides on persons attempting to apply Historical method may have encountered skepticism. I received an A for my report on "The Military Rigid Airship" in my Historiography class at college almost 50 years ago. Read the article carefully and consider the sources cited, before opining that it is not valid work for an Encyclopedia.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Why An Article On The Corporal E Is Justified
An encyclopedia does not have the purpose or the space to tell the whole story of anything. It serves to educate as specifically as necessary to provide all essential information. Bragg spent 313 pages telling the story of developing the Corporal weapon system. Kennedy spent about ten pages telling the story of the Corporal at White Sands. In doing so they both addressed the entire ORDCIT/JPL effort to develop a liquid propelled weapon system called Corporal. They both had time and space to tell those portions of the whole story each addressed. In an encyclopedic article the subject must be dealt with more specifically and briefly. The question of perspective becomes important. When the Corporal program began during WW II it was ad hoc with the ultimate intent to produce a guided missile weapon. As the technology did not exist in the United States it had to be developed. At the end of the war the program was cut and became experimental as it's primary goal. (As did Hermes and Nike). Thus the Corporal E (and Corporal G and Corporal F, both later discontinued for cost). The Corporal E was an active research project from 1944 until it was suddenly changed to developing a weapons program in late 1949. The Corporal E was history two years later. There was very little of the Corporal E as it existed upon its first flight in 1947 left in the last round #11 fired in 1951. The first MGM-5 Corporal did not fly until a year later. The tale of the MGM-5 Corporal nuclear armed guided missile is a fitting subject for a Wikipedia article. An account of the preceding Corporal E research program which was was eventually used to test and develop the means of creating the MGM-5 is important as well. The Corporal E was conceived, developed and flown as a research missile up to its last flight. That during the Corporal E test program it was diverted into a weapons research program is both important and a deflection from the reality of the program throughout most of its existence. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As the Wikipedia says "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title' It is my contention that to fully explain with brevity the Corporal E program need be addressed for what was during the time it was rather than as a mere footnote to a weapon which was developed using the technology which the Corporal E developed. Would this controversy exist if it had ben named a Technician Fifth Grade? instead of a Corporal E?

Mark Lincoln (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of objections
I have removed the objections of others to the Corporal E article. That Corporal E was predecessor of the Corporal weapon system I do not dispute. I believe it is obvious that as a distinct stage in the development of guided missile technology in the United States it is deserving of treatment as a separate missile. It was not originally intended to become a weapon. It was, though diverted mid-program to develop technology for the subsequent system, a true prototype. As for the assertion that the Corporal E article is a "personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay" I will say that such assertion is twaddle, nothing more. It is well documented and does not contain the slightest evidence of being a "personal reflection or essay and is not argumentative. Merriam Webster defines "argumentative" as 1 : given to argument : tending to argue : having or showing a tendency to disagree or argue with other people in an angry way : DISPUTATIOUS 2 : consisting of or characterized by argument.

The Corporal E article does not meet the definition though the assertion that it does appear to meet that definition. The article does not argue with the Corporal article's assertion that the Corporal E was a predecessor of the later weapon system. Thus I have removed the objections to the Corporal E article for sound reasons.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For the Second time I have removed the silly objection. I agree that this action might be condsiderd "argumentative" but the Corporal E article itself is not "argumentative," a "personal essay," or "personal reflection." Whereas the assertion it is does constitute unjustified and unjustifiable as well as obstreperous action. Likewise I repeat that while the Corporal (SSM-A-17, M-2, MGM-5) was definitely developed through the RTV-G-2, RV-A-2 Corporal E in both concept and fact they are two entirely different though related missiles.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)