Talk:Unconventional warfare

Failing this, a secondary objective can be to emasculate the enemy before a conventional invasion. Is emasculate really the right word? I was about to link it (cause I didn't know what it meant), but decided against. You see, reading that article was a real kick in the nuts. Surely somebody can think of a word less... ballsy. Neftaly 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe that "emasculate" has remained in that place for almost six years. I am not a military expert, but I'm putting in "debilitate." Iconofiler (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't you have left it? No offense, but women aren't affected the same way as men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.28.151 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Good work, Lir. When I first made the Aaron Bank article, I wasn't disappointed that there wasn't an article for unconventional warfare. (Yes, the link was red.) Wiwaxia 14:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Source for some of the information.
I was reading this article entry while doing some research and I found the last line to be very inriguing. "Prior to World War I, the use of military aircraft was often seen as unconventional, and criminal." Might the author of this document be able to provide any references as to where this information comes from? I would really like to track down the source of this information for a paper I'm currently writing as it would be a very useful piece of information to explore for my subject. Others might like to learn more about this as well. However I can't seem to track down any documents, articles or books so far that talk about this.

Thanks

"I have also heard that snipers were considered the same during the U.S. Civil War.

UW vs. insurgency vs. guerilla warfare
I personally regard the first as US doctrine for conducting an insurgency or fighting with guerilla tactics. If that is true for this article, then I wonder if this article is properly the expansion of the UW mission for United States Army Special Forces. Is that a reasonable assumption? We seem to have quite a few articles with very closely related topics. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Globalize Tag
Howard C. Berkowitz, the things you are adding to this article are very informative but they are from a United States perspective. When people in other countries use the term "Unconventional Warfare," they are not talking about "guerilla (sic) warfare conducted by United States Army Special Forces." Please add your additional information as a section of this article on use in the United States Army. The article that existed before had been edited by dozens of contributors and had reached a stable state of consensus. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed global tag. This has been discussed at the Military History Project, where it was agreed that insurgency and guerilla warfare are properly the global articles, just as foreign internal defense is the U.S. term for counterinsurgency. Before I started working on it, there was sufficiently little content here that I first recommended merging it into the global article, but MILHIST contributors, including people from all over the world, said that UW is regarded, in militaries worldwide, as US-specific.


 * If you want global perspective, go to insurgency, where I added a great deal of material written with a global perspective. Please source that UW is indeed a worldwide term, especially in non-NATO countries. Bluntly, after 40-some years of working in the field, I need to see evidence that the preferred terms worldwide are not "guerilla warfare", "revolutionary warfare", "protracted war", etc. -- as used, respectively, by Che Guevara (Cuba) and George Grivas (Greek Cypriot), Bernard Fall (France), or Mao Zedong (China).Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you will not be able to single handedly wipe out everything that dozens of other editors have worked on and have come to a consensus about. We would be happy to discuss your proposed changes and we would be happy to incorporate any additional verifiable information that you have. Wikipedia does not work well when one person tries to use heavy handed editing techniques. Let's talk about your proposed changes on the discussion page of the article you wish to change and come to a consensus. With a little spell checking and tightening, most of the information you are providing is good, but the information that dozens of other editors provided is good also. Please discuss your proposal before wiping out the entire article. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's see. I asked about the topic coverage, on this very talk page, on the 14th, after agreeing, in the Military History Project, to update the article. After no response in around a week, I brought it back to MILHIST, and was advised that this article should represent the US doctrine. Have you looked at insurgency?


 * You must forgive me that I do not find it extremely credible to be lectured by an anonymous IP about what has gone before. I don't see dozens of editors in the article history.


 * There is an extensive globalized article on insurgency, which seems, to me, to contain a considerably expanded version of what you claim was here. You seem to be making the argument, with no sourcing, that UW is a widely used global term. I disagree. I have absolutely no intention of turning this article into a duplicate of insurgency, with U.S. Army doctrine as a section. You say that you dislike what I am doing, but I hear no proposal from you other than "globalise" and make U.S. doctrine a section.


 * This article is under the Military History Project, where it was discussed that there is a great deal of duplication in the areas of insurgency, counter-insurgency, and individual national doctrines. If I review the article history, I find it had about 5000 characters before I started working on it, so I fail to see that "dozens" of editors did a great deal on it, that there was an extensive consensus, or that the article covered the topic well and was stable. I suggest you take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and see if there are other people there that saw a previous thorough and stable article under this heading.


 * Failing that, I suggest you take this to mediation or arbitration. I'm sorry, but I simply do not see any evidence, in the article history, of the extensive work you say existed. I would like to see evidence of that, or the experience of people working in MILHIST that are aware of such work. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt you will find many editors outside of the U.S. Army who think unconventional warfare is the same as insurgency. It appears that we need some additional help in resolving this situation from neutral outside editors. I will submit a request for comment. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely that I will not find many editors outside the U.S. Army who think UW is the same as insurgency, and, if there are any in the U.S. Army, I hope they are passed over for their next promotion because they clearly have not read the U.S. Army doctrine that says they are not the same. I shall repeat, and again urge you to bring this up at the MILHIST talk page where it has been discussed. I said that UW is the US doctrine for the execution of insurgency, just as FID is the US doctrine for counterinsurgency. I never said UW=insurgency. You might, for example, discuss this observation with the New Zealander who made the specific suggestion of redirecting this article, and where people from many countries actively participate Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Clubs and projects are a great way to brainstorm ideas, but they do not take the place of the discussion page of the article. Before single handedly wiping out the entire definition that has slowly expanded over the past five years, it's a good idea to propose your idea on the talk page. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Request
Please help us resolve the following questions: Is the term Unconventional warfare a global term or one limited to specific operations of the US Army? Should the US Army information Hcberkowitz is providing for the article add to the existing global definition or replace it? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 04:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a fair statement of the discussion to date, as it completely ignores good-faith attempts to clarify the question on both the article talk page and the Military History Project page. MILHIST considers insurgency the global term. This anon user made no objection before I began adding more material than had been in the earlier article, in the interest of getting it out of start class. Please review the talk page and history of this article, as well as the MILHIST request for guidance and the insurgency global article. I have not said the term is "limited to the specific operations of the U.S. Army." I have said that UW is the U.S. doctrinal term for its particular approach to leading an insurgency. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We obviously have a disagreement. I'm sure the common sense of Wikipedia editors will be able to sort it out in no time. I disagree that the global definition created consensually by dozens of editors should be wiped out and replaced with your claim that, in general use, Unconventional warfare means "guerilla warfare conducted by United States Army Special Forces." I think both the global definition and the U.S. Army definition should be present. I'll make my case and you make yours. I trust that the good editors of Wikipedia will find that the term Unconventional warfare is used by more that the United States Army. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I count seventy-nine different editors who helped build the definition of Unconventional warfare from November 2003 to April 2008. Without saying a word on the article's discussion page, Hcberkowitz single handedly came and wiped out all of their contributions, replacing it with his unique point of view that the term Unconventional warfare is not used outside of the United States military. Hcberkowitz's nation-centric POV claim seems absurd to me because Conventional warfare is a global term. If people talk about Conventional warfare outside of the U.S. army, what term are they supposed to use when they are talking about the opposite of conventional warfare?

"The general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military force, thereby negating its ability to engage in conventional warfare. In forcing capitulation, however, one or both sides may eventually resort to unconventional warfare tactics." ~Wikipedia: Conventional warfare.

Does the definition of Conventional warfare make any sense if Unconventional warfare is owned exclusively by the U.S. army? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose that this version of the article be used that has all of Hcberkowitz's nation-centric US Army information as well as the global knowledge added by the seventy-nine other editors. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can do as you please under GFDL, but I totally reject that proposal. Under protest, I will suggest a compromise: moving all the US-specific material to a new article named something like "U.S. Army Special Forces Doctrine for Unconventional Warfare". I cannot put it into the framework you are proposing because I did not write it to fit with such a framework; I'd hardly write a subsection of an article whose major premise is something I find totally incorrect. I serve notice I will treat this as a temporary compromise and ask for more formal dispute resolution.


 * Further, see on this page,  yet you say:


 * Which is it? Did I not write what was at that link, or are you deliberately misquoting?


 * Further, I signed up, at the Military History Project, to improve this article from its start-class rating. If 79 authors spent several years on the article, is it not a bit strange that the relevant Project did not find it in a higher class, rather than listing it as needing improvement? On evaluating the existing article, I found it contradictory and fragmentary, and I asked for guidance at Military History.


 * So, only after MILHIST had the article on the list of start-class articles did I begin work on it. I did, in fact, ask on this page, and got no response. I asked for guidance at MILHIST, and had a respected editor, not from the U.S., suggest that the way to clarify some of the overlapping articles was to restrict the UW to the US doctrinal concept. The introduction to this article is very clear in the way it says the term is being used in a restricted manner.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in the politics of the issue. I'm interested in creating a useful article for the user. Users may want to know the general definition of Unconventional warfare and/or they may want to know the specifics you have added regarding the U.S. Army. Both should be included. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please respect my intended use of the specifics I wrote. This is a matter of courtesy, not WP:OWN
I am interested in creating a useful article as well, but I disagree completely with the definitions in the text you restored, starting with the first two sentences:

Regretfully, I find the first sentence having no useful semantic content. It is rather like saying positive is the opposite of negative, without a context for either. The two most frequent uses of "conventional warfare" are warfare without nuclear weapons (or WMD if you prefer), and warfare between regular military units, typically combined arms. There is no single antonym of conventional warfare, which is why I reject this first sentence.

The second sentence appears to restrict unconventional warfare to warfare by irregular forces, when it is equally correct -- if, IMHO, useless -- to say unconventional warfare uses WMD against an organized military that only uses blast, bullets, and fire as humane means of causing the opponent to submit.

From a purely editorial and organizational standpoint, I did not write my contribution to be subordinate to the definitions you put into the lead. As a consequence, my text does not meet my own standards that say material should flow smoothly through an entire article. As long as your lead -- and I do consider it yours, since you apparently feel it's acceptable to dismiss "politics" when I offer a history of good faith effort to identify concerned editors -- is there, my material would have to be rewritten to have any chance of flowing, and I do not believe that can be done effectively. I ask you not to insert my material as a subset of yours, as it was not written with that context in mind and I believe doing so induces errors.

So far, I have suggested bringing the article controversy to the Military History Project, which rated the article as needing work. I reluctantly suggested moving all of my content to a new article with a title clearly indicating that it is restricted to the U.S. doctrine of implementing its definition of UW. There's nothing US-centric about saying that the doctrines of a major military power can be complex enough to need their own article. Were I writing on Soviet nuclear strategy, the works of Marshal Malinovsky would be a necessary part, but not necessarily the concepts of Henry Kissinger or Herman Kahn. British and U.S. strategic bombing doctrine in the Second World War were radically different, and cannot be discussed, in detail, in a single article of reasonable length for Wikipedia.

These are two options, both of which you seem to be ignoring, persisting in asking me to alter my contribution so it fits into what you feel was a stable article, although perhaps 20 percent the size of what I added. I see no way to make my material work under the assumptions you describe, and ask that you do not, as a matter of Wikiquette, not to use it in a manner that I, as its author, do not believe it will work. This seems to be a complete impasse. You did not attempt to reach any consensus on the question to be presented as an RfC.

In other words, I see no way in which we will reach agreement. Do you have any alternatives?

If you wanted to check for globalisation of insurgency, I would welcome such review, but I am not willing to rewrite the material here to fit with definitions with which I do not agree.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Luckily you don't have to. Most of it is very useful information that we will retain when we make the U.S. Army definition of Unconventional warfare a subset of the global definition of Unconventional warfare. Thank you for the time and effort you have spent in contributing this useful information. The donation of your intellect to this project gives you exactly zero right to delete relevant data provided by other editors, but it makes the world a better place. I am hereby officially entering one ZS Time Dollar in your name to the Torrent Thanks Network and I encourage other Wikipedia TTN members to do the same. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves
Hi there IP editor. It appears that you recently copied the contents of a page and pasted it into another with a different name. This is what we call a "cut and paste move", and it is very undesirable because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. The mechanism we use for renaming an article is to move it to a new name which both preserves the page's history and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself by this process, follow the instructions at Requested moves to request the move by another. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. -- B figura (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What article name are you accusing me of pasting information into? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying yet other good faith suggestions
I hope you might agree that defining "unconventional warfare" as the opposite of "conventional warfare" simply gives a circular definition. In U.S. doctrinal publications on special forces operations, the term "UW" is used more widely than "unconventional warfare", since "unconventional warfare" can describe two radically different situations: large-scale engagements between regular, often armored, armies; and wars not involving armies at all but making extensive use of "unconventional" nuclear weapons.

The second paragraph then goes into more vague definition, including such terms as blockade, the latter being a specific diplomatic term that is usually considered an act of war (see, for example, the Third Geneva Convention and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Emasculation is mentioned, which, taken literally, would fall under torture, and taken figuratively, has no substantive meaning. Comparing nuclear weapons and white phosphorus in the same sentence also makes little sense.

I am willing to suggest a disambiguation page for "unconventional warfare" that points to articles including:
 * A global term for insurgency
 * Usually when written UW, the U.S. special operations doctrine for conducting an insurgency
 * Nuclear war in contrasted to war without nuclear weapons

It might also have counterinsurgency as a global term, and foreign internal defense (FID) as the U.S. special operations doctrine for counterinsurgency.

I will, however, not accept the two sections starting this article as having any relationship to the U.S definition of UW.

Is that acceptable to you? Again, I suggest you raise these arguments at the Military History Project, which might establish these are not my unique definitions. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page is the best idea. UW as defined by the US DOD is not UW as opposed to conventional warfare. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse the proposal for a disambiguation page as well. -- B figura (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reject on grounds that the function of this resource is to convey relevant information to the user in the easiest manner possible. UW, as used in the U.S. Army, is a subset of Unconventional warfare because it fits neatly inside of that global definition. If Mr. Berkowitz failed to format his article as a subset of the broader definition, the proper course of action would be to reformat his article, not redefine the term. However, complaints about having to reformat are part of a smokescreen. Mr. Berkowitz conveys his root concern when he says, "I will, however, not accept the two sections starting this article as having any relationship to the U.S definition of UW."


 * Mr. Berkowitz apparently perceives the information he deleted as creating a pejorative connotation for this term. As such, he wants to suppress it or at least disassociate that information from the pride he obviously feels in his work with the U.S. Army.


 * Creating disassociations and suppressing information in this way is what makes a language weak and a society stupid. When we hear the term "groupthink" associated with Wikipedia, this is exactly what people mean. Wikipedia is accused of making so many compromises to keep from hurting anyone's feelings that its terms become watered down and impotent.


 * The Wikipedia definition of Unconventional warfare as of the time of this writing is a perfect example. It claims that unconventional warfare has two meanings, so using the term without clarifying the context is pointless. If we followed this definition, the term by itself would mean nothing. Without a term, the simple concept that used to be associated with Unconventional warfare no longer has a means of conveyance in our language. How do I efficiently convey the concept of war for the purpose of coercion rather than physical reduction of military forces without the term "unconventional warfare?"


 * Without a term for a concept, our society becomes that much more stupid and pliable. Maybe that's where the U.S. Army wants us to be, but its not where I choose to be. The term "unconventional warfare" has a specific meaning and that meaning is not exclusively defined by the United States military. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, repeated statements that imply the suggestions posed make language or society "weak and stupid" are probably uncivil, and are certainly unproductive. Second, I think there's some sort of misunderstanding going on here. The article, as it currently stands, is largely about the US definition of unconventional warfare, which has a specific and precise meaning. However, when generically used, unconventional warfare refers to pretty much anything other than a standard conventional battle between armed forces. The solution posed would solve the issues you raise by giving the general definition at unconventional warfare, while linking to more specific meanings such as Unconventional warfare (U.S. Military Doctrine), thus eliminating any potential for confusion. Do you have a specific objection to this proposal? No one is arguing that there isn't a generic definition for unconventional warfare, merely that this article isn't about that definition. I fail how to see creating a more generalized article that links to specific definitions harms Wikipedia. This isn't about redefining the term 'unconventional warefare', it's about recognizing that this article isn't about that term, and moving it to the correct title. -- B figura (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Reject is too strong of a word. It came up as the antonym of Endorse, so I used it. Please allow me to clarify. I consent to the wisdom of the group on the matter of a disambiguation page, but I do not prefer its creation because I believe that UW fits neatly into the definition of Unconventional warfare and that creating disambiguation pages merely for political reasons is counterproductive to the purpose of this project. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By UW, do you mean the US Military version? If so, I'd agree that it is of course a subset of the more general definition. My rational for splitting it into a separate article has to do with two things. First, clarity: I think most readers looking for information on unconventional warfare would be confused if they arrived at an article primarily concerned with US Military policy. (Since I don't think that the US version is the most common usage of the term). Second, the USMil version is comprehensive enough that if we tried to go for an all-in-one solution, by placing more general information into the article, we'd have an overlong article. I agree that political concerns shouldn't force the creation of a disambiguation page (if they did, that would be akin to forking). Hope that explains my views. Best, -- B figura (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Unconventional warfare is religious, compromising, propagandistic, and a means of primitive ideologues, while conventional warfare is a means of survival. First, this is true because of religious perspectives as being the first use. Religion in Catholicism is old, yet not as old as primitive Christianity. While to the human mind Christianity is still young and Catholicism is old. Just look at the decline of the Roman Empire, the Turkish settlements at Giza or the most popularized one of all, the Civil War. Turkish Christianity, or what one calls christian life is only able to sustain itself by means of archaic spiritualism and not be a part of the physical world. Grecian Catholicism survived all of these conflicts while its orthodox Christianity did not. Christianity only thrives in complete isolation or being one with god, not in superficial nature but in the end Catholicism wins because nature wins. Christianity belongs with these ufo aliens everyone talks about and sees. Basically, the conclusion I came to is that it is way too advanced and never really came to practice in the physical world of men in union with technology or nature without dying out completely, being not proven, or returning to whence it came. The precipitous of Catholicism comes from Christianity nonetheless with the Chaldeans, Muslims and Jews to the Asian Christians, Egyptians and Arabians and can be dangerous though in reality none defer. The danger being difference in growth of a civilization. Humanity being too primitive like nature is to god, or a humble christian. Christianity still incurs the wrath of the same faith for humanity at least. --Murriemir (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft of potential disambiguation page
I thought I'd draw up a draft disambiguation page based upon Howard's suggestions in my userspace at User:Bfigura/DraftDisambig. Feel free to make whatever changes you feel are appropriate. Best, -- B figura (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When one term is a subset of another, a disambiguation page is not indicated. See Terrorism for example. Optimal size constraints indicated that State terrorism should have its own main article, but it is still listed for convenience purposes for the user as a section of the main Terrorism article with a brief overview. If we choose to include this level of detail about the U.S. Army definition of UW instead of referring users to the U.S. Army site for detailed information, there may be an argument for a separate Wikipedia entry, but it should be according to standard Wikipedia protocol. When one term is a subset of another term, it is shown as a subset, not as a disambiguation. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My issue with this is that in this case, unconventional warfare has several disparate meanings. (See the disambig draft page). While I agree that to some extent, chemical, biological, nuclear, or guerilla warfare are all forms of unconventional warfare, I'd argue that they're distinct enough to stretch the meaning of being a "subset". As a result, I'd be concerned that the resulting article placed at unconventional warfare would be a somewhat unwieldy article that attempts to summarize many different meanings of the term. However, if you want to draw up such a page, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. (I just think a disambiguation page would be a simpler and easier solution). -- B figura (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Language terms don't need to convey meaning?

 * A disambiguation page is a failure state for a language. It means that the term no longer holds any meaning by itself. It means that we can never use the term again without also applying a context to differentiate the concept we mean from the other concepts that use the same term. We should never strive to create a circumstance where we weaken the language, but only use it if nothing else will work to resolve a conflict.


 * Unless you want to expand the conflict, the issue in this case only involves whether or not UW as used in the US Army is a subset of the global UW definition. If there is any way to make that the case, for the sake of strengthening our language, I think we should strive for it. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but regardless of your personal views, disambiguation pages are permitted by policy. Whether or not disambiguation is a "good thing" for language in general is simply not a relevant issue here. To quote from the policy page: "When an article title could refer to several things, a disambiguation page is needed. When the title usually means one thing but also has other meanings, add disambiguation links to the primary topic's article." I've argued (and others have agreed) that there isn't a simple, fixed definition of unconventional warfare (other than the non-definition of: warfare that is a conflict between conventional armies with conventional weapons). Unless you have some evidence of the existence of a widely agreed upon definition, policy seems to suggest that disambig pages are the way to go -- B figura (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You are asserting that what is good for the language is irrelevant to a definitional resource. Correct? --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite. I'm arguing that the only "goodness" relevant here is that defined by our policies and our manual of style. However, this is something of a moot point as I've G7'd the page in question. -- B figura (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like the two of you are in agreement. The English language terms of Wikipedia, the most used definition resource on the planet, don't need to convey information. Wikipedia policies and Manual of Style weren't created to guide us in strengthening the language; they are collectively an end unto themselves. --Preston Wescott Sr. (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly!. My point was that a meta-discussion of whether disambig pages are "good" for language isn't relevant to whether or not we should use them on wikipedia. (That should be governed by WP:DISAMBIG). Although at times I would have to agree that we do verge on instruction creep. -- B figura (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Disambiguation:

User:Bfigura/DraftDisambig is not a disambiguation page, it is a definition of unconventional warfare. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, moot point, but I'm not sure if that's supposed to be good or bad. -- B figura (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Difference between Conventional and Unconventional Warfare
In conventional warfare, you physically smash your enemy, thereby reducing his physical ability to smash you. In unconventional warfare, you try to convince your enemy that even though he has the ability to smash you, it would not be in his best interests.

There are two distinct concepts conveyed with two distinct terms, the way language is supposed to be. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not sourced these definitions, other than anonymously giving your opinion of the way "language is supposed to be". Let us look at Wikipedia's definition of conventional warfare:


 * In other words, it is unconventional warfare if nuclear weapons are used. Are you suggesting that nuclear weapons do not physically smash?


 * Again, three non-anonymous authors have offered compromise positions, yet you have offered no apparent alternative. No other editors, of the 73 you claim to have come to a stable definition of a 5K or so article, have objected to the proposal placed on this page, a proposal you deny was made.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it was safe to say that having distinct concepts and terms is the way language is supposed to be, but if you disagree, that is your prerogative. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're misreading Howard's comment. Everyone agrees that there is a difference between conventional warfare and unconventional warfare. (At least, I think they do). The issue is that there isn't a simple, succinct, definition of unconventional warfare, other than an exclusionary one. Ie, conventional warfare is an armed conflict between armies using guns, planes, tanks, etc. Unconventional warfare could describe chemical/nuclear/biological warfare, guerilla warfare, psychological warfare, etc. Essentially, the only short definition is a negative one, ie, war not fought through conventional means. Conventional and unconventional warfare are clearly different concepts and terms, the issue is that one of them is rather poorly defined. (Hence the desire for some sort of disambiguation page / or general article to take the reader to the more specific term of interest). -- B figura (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about it being poorly defined. That was an extremely poor definition of Unconventional warfare, almost as poor as the definition currently sitting in the article space. For an excellent definition of Unconventional warfare, we have to go back to April 4 or, to a lesser extent, any time before that.


 * The definition had a good start in November of 2003. Seventy three different editors steadily improved the article over the following four and half years, and then Mr. Berkowitz came and wiped out everything the previous editors had built for what I believe are political reasons. Now, as you say, the term is poorly defined. I agree. The solution is to revert it back to where it was not poorly defined and let Mr. Berkowitz add his relevant information without destroying the excellent article created by consensus (not compromise) of the other seventy three editors. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * After looking at the April 4 version, I do agree that it is a good general definition. I'd ask that you refrain from characterizing the edits of others as destructive though. (The current version is a fine article, it just needs to be moved to a better name). However, this raises a new issue that I don't quite now how to solve. I.e., how do we move the current version to a new, more accurate name, and bring back the old version as a general definition. (I know it can be done, but I'm not sure what the proper way of doing it is, since we have to preserve contributions along the way). -- B figura (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will remove all my content from this article, and move it to a new article with a name agreed to by the Military History Project. I object strenuously to having any of my content kept in this article with the old definition, not due to WP:OWN, but because my material makes quite different assumptions on basic definitions. Will you, anonymous editor, agree not to include any of the material I remove? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't make contracts on behalf of anyone who will potentially edit this page. I'm sure that editors in the future will want to link the definitions and provide a summary of what you added in the main article. This is the same issue that went on for months over State Terrorism in the main Terrorism article. On behalf of all the users of this resource, I appreciate what you added, but once you add information to Wikipedia, it belongs to the community. It can't be used to create contracts limiting links and summaries. The only thing that matters to the users and most editors is that this resource is as easy to use and as informative as possible. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what I actually wrote. I did not ask you to make contracts on behalf of anyone else. I asked you to make an agreement, much as you ask me to trust you that a strong article previously existed. Do you have the integrity to make an agreement limited only to yourself?


 * I have removed the material that so offends you. I am removing it because I found you completely unwilling to compromise with any other current editor, and I do not need the aggravation of continuing to argue about this. Again: are you, as an individual, willing to make an agreement for yourself, or should I restore the material and have us continue to restate incompatible definitions? I will not adapt my material to the definitions that were on the article before I asked, on April 14, if anyone was working on it, because I totally disagree with them. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The material you added did not offend me. I don't want you to remove it. In fact, I would like to thank you for adding it. It is very informative. I will not agree, however, to refrain from trying to make Wikipedia the best resource possible. This project is about information, not politics. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should I not remove it?
You can certainly put it back, and, if necessary, we can get resolution of what may become a revert war. You claim that the project is "about information, not politics", but you accuse me of undefined political motives.

It is my considered opinion that what I wrote is conceptually incompatible with the definitions that were in the article, and that there is no way to rewrite that material such that it will not introduce errors if the earlier introduction is treated as axiomatic, unambiguous, and unchangeable. My intention to improve Wikipedia is at the heart of why I removed the material, citing a conceptual disconnect with what was previously there.

I have asked you, repeatedly, to see if insurgency met your concerns, but you never responded to any of those attempts. After a time, when an editor repeatedly ignores suggestions, I begin, indeed, to doubt good faith.

You are avoiding a very specific question I asked, which should be answerable with a yes or no, rather than evasions. You never discussed the substance of what I actually wrote, which really makes me wonder how you could consider it informative. You did, however, misquote me directly, such as not giving notice of intending to change.

The Wikipedia policy for such matters is bold, revert, discuss. You never entered into substantive discussion of anything I wrote, other than to complain about its being less globalised and that it did not agree with your prior, unsourced definitions. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that your feelings are hurt, and I care about that, but my first priority is to the article. When a user looks up "unconventional warfare," he should see information about unconventional warfare. That information should help him better convey what he means when he uses the term. All of this behind the scenes editorial politicking is for one purpose: delivering the most relevant information on a term to the user in the easiest to use and most concise format possible. I understand that you would like the entire article to be your army information, but others have added relevant information as well. The US Army definition isn't incompatible with the global definition, it just presents its concepts in the best light possible. Propaganda is important for troop morale, but it is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought we could end this, but apparently not. In no way am I trying to present U.S. doctrine as good, bad, or indifferent. With other editors, I wrote a very extensive globalised article at insurgency. Personally, I regard some U.S. doctrines as asinine, but I am not an authoritative source for that.


 * It is relevant, however, to have information on the specific doctrines, perhaps in different historic periods, on the doctrines of different countries. Let me change the subject from insurgency to counter-insurgency, and observe the range of national doctrines and variable results. For example, Roger Triquier, a French military officer who led the GCMA in Indochina in the early fifties, wrote a major doctrinal book, Modern Warfare. As a more senior officer in Algeria, he was a key staff planner.  Trinquier believed in the controlled use of torture, which has been repudiated by interrogation specialists from many countries. Nevertheless, without knowing about Trinquier's writing, one cannot understand the French counterguerilla activities in Algeria.


 * Other French experts, even at the time, disagreed bitterly with Trinquier. We have the historical evidence that it was not effective, although the Bush Administration apparently has not noticed.


 * Other editors and myself have every intention of developing articles on national doctrines, but I do not see any of those compatible with the definitions in your preferred version. These examples include the two most often regarded as successful counterguerillas, the Phillipines under Magsaysay and Malaya (now Malaysia) under Thompson. Magsaysay's doctrine does have many aspects useful else, while Thompson really faced a very different situation.


 * The American Revolution was a successful insurgency, while the Confederate States of America failed. Lenin and Mao succeeded, while Guevara and Guzman did not. While Lenin and Mao both were Marxists, their national doctrine for insurgency was radically different. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are primarily concerned with detailed content while I am primarily concerned with providing one concept for every term and one term for every concept. Both concerns are required for a good definitional resource. Millions of people use Wikipedia to research detailed content, but the most used function of this resource is to define words. Wikipedia has become the standard definition resource of the English language. The strength of our communication and ability to communally form ideas relies on our ability to not only provide detailed data, but to also provide an efficient way for people to convey that data.


 * When someone is talking about the type of warfare where a win requires the other side to acquiesce, they need a term for that concept. Destroying someone's military capability is different. The enemy doesn't have to acquiesce if you've blown them back to the Stone Age.


 * When you send in UW teams, you are not trying to achieve a conventional victory by destroying the enemy's military capability. The victory you are trying to achieve with UW teams is unconventional; you are trying to get the enemy to surrender or to come over to your way of thinking even though it still has the physical capability to hurt you. This is the larger context that your army definition fits so neatly inside.


 * We can achieve both the detailed information you want and the strong English language I want without compromise because these things are not at odds with each other. As long as the common denominator is concern for what the Wikipedia user would find most useful, we're on the same team. --71.89.59.150 (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, my feelings are not hurt. I simply concluded that your approach is incompatible with mine, and I can spend my time more usefully in producing Wikipedia articles that fit my understanding of its purpose. Apparently, the best approach for me is to continue to improve globalised articles such as insurgency, and, once the Military History Project agrees on the best term for the multiple national doctrines, creating new articles for that. Your comment about "my army" is gratuitous at best, since I just used ten national doctrinal examples above, and the U.S. military in that list was the American Revolution.


 * We seem to have utterly different concepts of how and why one fights guerilla warfare, and the relationship of special operations forces to conventional large-scale forces. I disagree that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to have a "strong English language". "Providing one concept for every term and one term for every concept" is, to me, completely unrealistic, speaking from a linguistic standpoint. Real-world languages are not context-free, they overload symbols (i.e., words) with multiple meanings, and the ambiguity thereof often adds useful flexibility. You say that your goal is efficient conveyance of information, yet you say you want unambiguous terms. Unfortunately, the most efficient conveyance is often with very high context language, as between physicians. Context-free languages have a role in computational linguistics, but not in human communications.


 * Ironically, unconventional warfare, in the existing definition that was circular, but then encompassed guerilla warfare, blockades, countervalue civilian devastation attacks, emasculation, and white phosphorus is so ambiguous that the only way, in my opinion, is to narrow it to a very specific definition, rather than the broad one you seem to endorse. It is merely coincidental that the U.S. Army chose to call guerilla warfare UW; many believe that the term guerilla warfare was entirely appropriate and unambiguous. Nevertheless, since the US has chosen to use UW, I find there is a reason to explain what is meant by it. This has nothing to do with propaganda; there are quite a number of questionable things, in terms of resource use, being done with U.S. special operations forces.


 * So, I am trying to establish some sense of completion. We don't have to be enemies, but I'm afraid that our concepts are so different that I see no opportunity for reaching any consensus. You have made unsupported allegations that I have political motives and that I am trying to be US-centric; that latter is especially ironic given that while your article now has no inline citations, the only reference you give is to an unspecified U.S. Department of Defense source, which, without checking the exact language, looks like JP1-02. The JP3-05 and FM31 series are likely to be a good deal more precise. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a psychologist, I've been watching this conversation with some interest. I find it gratifying to see that a resolution can be reached as long as one of the parties remains focused on the issue and refrains from personal attacks. --Preston Wescott Sr. (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Split
I've split Howard's excellent contributions to Unconventional warfare (U.S. Department of Defense doctrine) and placed the appropriate links per WP:SUMMARY. There seemed to be consensus that this material would be a good article in its own right, so I've placed it at what is hopefully a more precise name. -- B figura (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

International conventions
Opening paragraph contains line: "This is typically done to avoid escalation into conventional warfare as well as international conventions."

Apologies, but I don't understand how this should be read, or quite what the final reference to international conventions is trying to say. Does it mean "This is done to avoid international conventions"? Or does it mean "This is done (because of) international conventions"? In either case, I don't really understand what is being said.

As I say, it's really very unclear. Can someone who grasps the thrust of it perhaps look at re-writing for greater clarity? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:F8C8:7D23:4D83:ACC2 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)