User:Oloddin/Proposed changes (MILMOS)

After watching several rounds of crusades "per MILMOS" against "non-standard" terms in the "result" parameter of military infoboxes, I propose to discuss some things. So my message will be multilayered.

Introduction

If I understand correctly, this issue was discussed before, for example here. This was the first time this kind of guideline appeared in the infobox documentation. A person who made this change claimed that he made it "after discussion in /Coordinators", but I couldn't find that discussion. Anyway, the discussion that followed ended without a consensus and while it remained in the infobox doc it wasn't enforced much (at least not as it is now, mainly "because infobox docs aren't guidelines"). The current wording of the MILMOS guideline appeared by the apparently during this discussion and its offshoot on the talk page of that guideline. After reading these discussions I would agree that the consensus is not that strong to justify such strict enforcement by some users (hereinafter — "The Proponents"). It is rather interesting how the discussion that started from "use of decisive" ended with the strict prohibition of anything beyond simply victory. Anyway, during the same discussion in this project the proposal of using a bot to "correct" all infoboxes according to the new guidelines was considered, but seems to have been abandoned.

Note: the actions for the enforcement have being made by different users, so I don't mean anyone exactly.

Bot vs human

If this guideline was meant to be enforced strictly, why wasn't this task directed to some bot? It can correct anything that falls outside the "standard terms" once and for all. Anyway, The Proponents don't seem to put any "human-like" consideration into any particular case and usually remove words or phrases simply "because MILMOS says so". A bot can do the same much faster.

Unequal implementation

For these five years there have been numerous comments by many users (usually newcomers or anonymous but not always) that such strict formulation of the current guideline is too narrow to cover all cases. In most cases they were suppressed... "per MILMOS", seems like without consideration of whether it made sense in each particular case. Mostly it's not about modifiers (the difference between "decisive victory" and "victory" isn't really that important), but about outcomes that are different from clear and unequivocal victory of either side. Regardless, implementation is inconsistent, and while there are articles where The Proponents actively defend MILMOS, a lot of infoboxes still have "forbidden" words (including cases where they were inserted there later).

Let's face it:  if the intention of such strict rules was to prevent conflicts, numerous discussions, edit wars, it failed .

MILMOS guidance

Moreover, actually, the current guidelines say this: "As a general rule, this guidance should only be used where it is helpful, and should not be used as grounds for extensive disruptive renovations of existing articles." So some consideration should be taken regarding each particular article.

Changing the guidelines

First of all, since consensus can change, I propose to widen the terms that are allowed. The majority of situations can roughly be divided into three categories:
 * The result is clear, and it's the victory of X. Here everything can remain as it is, but in rare cases where all main sources agree, a modifier can be used.
 * The result is ambiguous: all these (hated by many) "pyrrhic victory", "tactical victory, but strategic failure", etc. Here, I think, we should follow the way the reliable sources describe the outcome (see also about the "immediate outcome" below). If the sources (not Wikipedians) disagree, put "inconclusive". If secondary sources disagree, search tertiary sources (that summarize secondary sources). If there is any clear physical result described by the sources, like "captured/failed to capture something", it would be the preferred option.
 * The result is clear, and it is not a victory for any side. Depending on the situation and what sources say, it can be "stalemate", "ceasefire" (for minor wars/battles), "status quo ante bellum" (for wars/battles without territorial or other major changes), or similar.

Here I want to remind everybody: "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research."

This is just a draft, and details can be discussed further. If you don't want changes now, at least some clarity should be brought to the current regulations.

Eliminating the current contradictions

Even the strict guidelines that exist today have contradictions. Currently, two pieces of regulation for this issue exist: MILMOS and infobox documentation (while I can accept that we need to follow infobox doc, the wording like Documentation may give advice on the appropriate way to populate parameters and should be followed doesn't sound like infobox doc is part of the guideline). I think that such an important guideline should be in one place: MILMOS, and not in the "Templates" section (where only useful templates are listed) but in the one of the main sections or subsections. The wording should also eliminate the existing contradictions. If the result is not "victory", the template doc seems to say to put "inconclusive", while MILMOS says to put "See aftermath". The template doc discourages the use of "see aftermath" where the result is ambiguous. Finally, MILMOS doesn't explain how "far in time" we should analyze, while the template doc tells about "immediate outcome". I propose following more of the template wording and have a guideline something like this: ''The result parameter has two standard terms: "X victory" and "Inconclusive", should be used to describe the immediate outcome and should reflect what the sources say. If these standard terms don't describe the actual result accurately, a link or note may be added to the section where the result is described in detail (such as "See aftermath"). Do not use "non-standard" terms such as "marginal", "decisive", etc. Omit the parameter altogether when in doubt''.

Also, some clarification regarding the multiple results in addition to standard terms would be useful.

A case against the sole "see aftermath"

Simple. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "...the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...;...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance". So infoboxes and the information inside them are intended to give "brief", "superficial" information for those who don't want to read the whole article. Referring the reader to the section with lots of text instead of giving the reader several words of summary doesn't serve this purpose. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE implies that it is a Wikipedian editor who should go and "see aftermath", summarize what the "aftermath" says and put it in the infobox. Exceptions are possible, and I'm in no way opposed to putting "see aftermath" in addition to the main result. See also the next section.

Immediate outcome

From my experience and from the discussions I read I want to say that the "need" for this "see aftermath" often (not always!) arises from the desire to "reflect nuances". Something like: "But I can't simply put "X victory", the other side had strategic/political/long-term (in case of battles) etc. victory" -> "It's all so complicated, and there isn't much space for all of this in the infobox -> "see aftermath!". Just like: "If you don't know what to put in the infobox, put "see aftermath". But if we are not supposed to "reflect nuances" (as the current guideline discourages) we don't need to worry that we didn't mention some details in the infobox. The same applies to situations where military achievements were lost because of some political agreements/pressure. So to prevent these issues, I propose to put more emphasis on this policy in the guidelines and to give some definition or explanation, such as: ''immediate outcome means the military situation on the end day/after the end of the battle/war/operation/etc. not including long-term, strategic or political implications"''.

Multiple dots and long-term consequences

Alternatively, it is possible to allow some additional information that is worth putting in the infobox (that is concise enough). "Multiple dots" ("subsections") aren't actually prohibited (I didn't find discussions about them regarding the military infobox, and MOS:IBX doesn't have a "maximum" of allowed words per parameter), but some of The Proponents remove them. Maybe it's better to stop this practice or at least restrict it to situations where it's really too much. Or there may be an additional parameter such as "Long-term consequences" that can be used for important but distant and non-military results of a military conflict (peace treaties, regime change, dissolution of empires, impact on relationships, etc.). It can be combined with (or incorporated into) the "territorial changes" parameter.

Guidelines can be ignored

"While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures""If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". All guidelines, MILMOS included, have this sign: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply which further explains one of the main principles of Wikipedia. It means there are cases where it may be better not to follow the guidelines strictly (as shown above, even MILMOS itself allows it). Normally, a person who wants to deviate should present the arguments for this, but if these arguments really make some sense, it's not good practice to revert this person "because MILMOS says otherwise"; a discussion should start instead (see the quote above). So, in general, it's OK sometimes to ignore MILMOS. But to prevent edit wars, maybe there should be some explanations where these exceptions would be the most appropriate.

The most prominent examples of exceptions I remember are Operation Storm and the Battle of Vukovar. Since they were allowed to stay, I would like to hear from the community what would justify these "non-standard" terms in other cases.

Post Scriptum

I tried to describe my own view based on the current situation as how I perceive it, but if there is something that I don't understand or that I am not aware of, I ask some experienced people to explain it to me.