User talk:Buckshot06/Archive 11

AFRICOM
I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me for not following proper editing procedures. However, I do believe that you are inaccurate to claim I am "slanting" knowledge and "removing information that does not support your [my] view".

There were two reasons why I removed the sentence about a potential AFRICOM headquarters in Ethiopia. First, it was pure speculation. There have been newspaper articles and similar projections about the headquarters being located in nearly half dozen African countries, including Liberia, Morocco, Kenya, Algeria, and Ethiopia. Thus, I felt that it would be best to wait for more concrete information and not to give one guess (out of many) credibility.

Second, the idea that a headquarters will be on the African continent seems to be outdated, at least for the foreseeable future. In a recent Voice of America news article (VOA is funded by the U.S. government), General Ward is reported to have explained that "the United States has no plans to move its headquarters to an African location once it becomes a full-fledged command in October". http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-11-voa64.cfm Jkenne10 (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Military reseves
I agree with your additions to the military reserves force page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserve_force). I feel that

i) Military reserve force should be one page and lists of reserves a different page.

ii) more work needs to be done wrt to the paragraphs on sources, employment advantages and disadvantages.

also I have rewritten the page on military reserve (the ones who are held back from a battle) here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_reserve). Your input would be very valuable.

thanks 58.65.163.248 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Military District article
Do you happen to know why the Imperial Russian and Soviet districts were removed from the article, how and why? I don't seem to remember a discussion and there isn't one on the talk there--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I failed to make a note of this and just forgot, also forgetting to install a link!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (flags)
I wasn't aware of this, so I guess you were right in removing them off the Army articles.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

reconnaissance phrasing
Is it more correct to say "air reconnaissance mission of Paris" or "air reconnaissance mission on Paris"?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 05:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Top Ten Team
I haven't forgotten this just been monstrously busy. On top of various WP things, I have the builders in destroying about a quarter of the house. I'll formulate some ideas over the weekend. Thanks for your understanding, -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:2 star rank
Of no great importance or urgency, but I saw your edit, wondered about task forces, read a number of the linked pages, thought about it, and realised that there are still gaps in my understanding. When convenient, can you enlighten me a little as to the relationship between "2 star rank" and the "National" task force? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Armed Forces of Belarus
I know you have seen the official site of the Ministry, but you may not have seen the Russian version http://mod.mil.by/geraldika.html with all the new unit patches that just about gives you the entire OOB. I thought you may be interested. I had seen the Romanian OOB with the patches next to the unit name which looked nice.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the new reading glasses :-) and continued SF/SOF article planning
We all have individual quirks in our visual perception, although you are far more precise and diplomatic than the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Registry, whose clerks seem to want to override my opthalmologist.

In the case of Wikipedia, I have a visual or mental block on effective use of categories, and much appreciate such changes as you made to FIDscraps.

Changing the subject slightly, FIDscraps has the distinction of being semi-orphaned within my userspace, yet is one example of a notable criticism of current interpretation of U.S. special operations doctrine. We have talked about the idea of having globalised articles on the concept of certain SF/SOF roles and missions, with articles on specific national doctrines. With mild amusement, I'm watching the US UW article migrate through several variations of names, and I enjoy watching because that is a process where I have mental blocks.

FIDscraps is probably not the only legitimate topic for an article on criticism of national various doctrinal concepts. Trinquier's French writings, for example, do have a systematic discussion of what he believes is a proper role for torture. There are clearly differences between British and U.S. doctrine for urban counterinsurgency, but the doctrines in the Malayan Emergency are yet another set of ideas.

Where should criticism of doctrines go? Under the same category as the national doctrine?

More seriously, at the end of the foreign internal defense article, which, in the model we have been discussing, should be restricted to U.S. doctrine for counterinsurgency, there is some material on historic British and French doctrine. Are you aware of anything that sets out SF roles and missions for British or Commonwealth SF? ISTR some discussion when 14 Intelligence Company and other units were merged into Special Reconnaissance Regiment, but I didn't have the sense of that being exhaustive. I don't read French (well, I can manage an occasional cookbook), so I don't know if they have a doctrinal model; hopefully there is something more recent and appropriate than Roger Trinquier's Modern Warfare. You mentioned, I believe, that there is a NZ term as well.

Can you make any suggestions as to moving that British and French material to possibly new national doctrinal categories? I'd also appreciate any suggestions for naming those articles. Note that there is one multinational article that I believe should stay as-is because it addresses a specific historical period, Clandestine HUMINT and Covert Action. Nevertheless, that article has some bearing on these topics.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

173rd Airborne
A wuick note that the self-refs have been drastically pruned.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Boevoy Sostav
You know Buckshot06, I am learning a lot from our interaction.

The edit I made to add 42nd Army to the Narva battle and you undid pointing to the "source above", was either "Boyevoy sostav" or God.

That reference has no meaning! It is not linked, and does not specify which source of the Boyevoy sostav it refers to! However, I shall look for the right Boyevoy sostave in case you don't trust me--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprises with insurgency article
You might be surprised on what assumptions are made by people who aren't especially familiar with military history, even though they might be obvious to us. I have no problem with your deleting what indeed seems a silly point, but in various article discussions, I have run across:
 * Saying something in our country is counter-terror means we are being included in Bush's Global War on Terror
 * Insurgency is the unique term for what is being done against the Americans in Iraq

You'll see me moving things around among three articles:
 * Insurgency
 * Counter-insurgency
 * Foreign internal defense

which is quite separate from the UW work (other than UW should point to insurgency). The models should no longer be in FID, just the US doctrinal response to a model dynamic. The current counter-insurgency needs to get some material into it, point to the models, and have lots of orphaned citations either put inline or deleted.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Laughable may be the right term, but it's amazing how confused people get from listening to talking heads. My all-time favorite is the first-time "foreign correspondent" for a U.S. television station, who blurted, from Belgrade, "The former Yugoslavia is becoming balkanized!"

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Doctrine
I've withdrawn the nomination of Category:United States Department of Defense doctrine over the "doctrine" vs. "doctrines" issue. Thanks for your input; it was helpful. I think I must have missed your comments on the initial nomination (I was away for 2 days or so in between the nomination being placed and the new category being created), so I'm sorry to have made you be repetitive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat changes

 * this is Mr. Clark, borrowing my human's fingers*

What do you mean, "cat change"? Rhonda and I are the same felines we've always been, as are the other 13 resident cats, 2 kittens to be adopted, and four dogs and a squirrel who believe they are cats.


 * returning control*

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

MeeeOOOWWW! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Russian Army
Hi Buckshot, I have some days off now - so what structure graphic is next? is the Baltic Fleet data you posted on my talkpage still correct? --noclador (talk) 09:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming of operations
Test User:Buckshot06 (prof) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) Test2 Buckshot06(prof) 00:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Illythr - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Illythr#Naming_of_campaigns_on_the_Eastern_Front
 * common name
 * WP:OR
 * 'As for the rest - note the trend: the GSE, a "general" encyclopedia uses the common name, whereas the SMED, a "specialist" dictionary, uses the long one. This is probably the main point of contention here - Wikipedia is "generalist", that is, it aims for the broadest range of readers possible, and thus prefers popular names to "specialist" ones, even is the latter are more precise. Your last sentence applies 100% to the situation when common names are used as article names as well, as long as the full name used by specialists is mentioned in the first sentence of the lead section. --Illythr (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)'

35th Iraqi Army brigade - Battle of Basra OOB
Hi, just a quick comment on your addition to the Battle of Basra (2008) participating units section. It was my understanding that the Iraqi Army had renumbered all of their brigades so that the 3rd Brigade of the 9th (Armored) Division is actually the 35th Brigade. I'm not sure how to reconcile that with my original addition that the 35th brigade is armored but the 3rd brigade is motorised. I think it could be that the "3rd motorised brigade" you're referring to is the 3rd brigade of the 1st QRF Division which was sent to Basra from Al-Anbar at the end of March, beginning of April... if that's the case, I think the 3rd brigade should be listed under the 1st Division (and replace the 1st brigade which is currently listed which would seem to be incorrect). Please double check your sources and I'll do the same. Just FYI, I'm using MNF-I/MNF-W press releases (The USMC has a number of useful releases about the 1st QRF) and the Long War Journal Iraqi Security Forces Order of Battle. Lawrencema (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian Military Directory
Frankly, I've not seen them myself, and I'm not sure there are any other volumes than those two. Last I heard, Harriet was working on family genealogy projects, and I thought Bill had passed on some time ago. I'm wondering if these might not be reprints of their 1979 work The Armed Forces of the USSR; Westview Press (their old publisher) doesn't list them, so any independent republishing would likely have required a title change. I don't follow Sovietology like I used to. After the fall of the USSR, general interest in its military history has likewise fallen off. Even well-respected and popular writers like Glantz have seen falling remuneration from their work; in fact, I've heard that he's starting up his own website for self-publishing and sales purposes. Specialist publications have become pricier as a consequence of ever smaller print runs. Your best bet would be to work with a good research librarian. I tried running down a publisher on the Net and couldn't find a reference to one. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

General of Army Baluyevsky
Have you seen anything more on the conflict between Baluyevsky and the Minister for Defence RF?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, there is too much to translate today, but the gist of this http://nvo.ng.ru/forces/2008-03-28/1_afront.html is that the Minister ordered the transfer of the HQ of the RF Naval Forces to St Petersburg. The Chief of General Staff said in a public forum that this is unnecessary. The costly transfer is unwanted in the GS, and it had been passed to Putin, and remains unresolved now that Medvedev is in. It is particularly unwelcome as far as the Black Sea and Pacific Ocean Fleets are concerned.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 06:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template Problem!
I am now! ;-) Kirill (prof) 00:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

HMS Cardiff
It's come up before, here's a list of all the online refs I could find for her. Unfortunately most of the '82 crew left after the war (a common occurence I hear), the one particluar veteran I speak to went to HMS Invincible. All I know is that she had a couple of weapons upgrades... Ryan 4314  (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At a quick glance I found some minor stuff, some guy died onboard on 83 (don't know how), and there may have been some sort of tribunal over the friendly fire incident in 86 (that'd be true, originally they thought the helo had just crashed), but I'm worried these sources aren't up to FA standard. Ryan 4314   (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am UK based, but not anywhere near Wales, I could try my public library anyway though. Ryan 4314   (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OIC, like sources in books n stuff? Ryan 4314   (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

17th Airborne Division
Hi there! Thanks for all the help on the article's project page. I think I've done all you asked, so I was wondering if you might give it a look over and see if it was up to B-Class status? Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the comment, I've added the Divisional Order of Battle and properly cited it (Well, I hope) Skinny87 (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Professionalism essay link
I'm using "Raw Signature" with  as the signature itself; you should be able to do pretty much the same thing by changing the links & formatting around. Kirill (prof) 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Special Projects Dept
Well, having resisted the temptation to call it Baron von Nuckshot's Flying Circus, it looks like "Special Projects Dept" is finally up and running. I'll probably create the home page late this arvo (UTC). Say, here WikiProject Military history/Special projects with shortcuts of WP:MHSP and WT:MHSP. There's been little discussion of the mechanics so input from you would be helpful. Anyway, in the meantime, here's something for you. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 12:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Distance in military affairs
Yes, it definitely does need some cleanup. I suspect there's a valid topic hidden under there somewhere. Perhaps Hcberkowitz would have a better idea of what to do about it. Kirill (prof) 13:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First, it's confused about presenting a U.S. or global view. Even if it's globalised, there still has to be a question of whether "distance" is regional or worldwide. For the latter, a country is going to need amphibious forces and at least S/VTOL carrier, or perhaps experienced air-refueled bombers, and transports for paratroops. How many countries can say they have this? Demonstrated capability: US and UK. Potential capability for at least brigade/regiment operations: France, Russia, India, (not sure about status of amphibs and aviation vessels for Spain and Italy), Japan if they build the ships and the political will, and, maybe for smaller units, Israel.


 * There are some fairly clear U.S. doctrines, such as Global Reach from the Air Force, From the Sea as the Navy contribution; and mundane but important things like the prepositioning ships at bases around the world.


 * I'm not sure where to start. To be honest, I'm in something of a partial Wikibreak, exploring Citizendium a bit. I've gotten very tired of the vandalism, the inability to use expertise, the POV wars and incivility. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as the distance article, I'd like to say something like delete if and only if no revision. It's the sort of thing that I'd be interested to see at CZ, where, as I understand, a capital-E Editor posts to the talk page, "this needs to be fixed. Here are some suggestions." Now, if they are ignored, there might be a reluctant deletion, or maybe some very significant rewrite if it interested the Editor.


 * I have a great deal of distaste for the PROD and even worse Speedy Delete at WP. Several times, I've been nominated either by a bot, or even instantly deleted by an admin with fairly obvious lack of subject matter knowledge (i.e., if you can't be more specific than "cruft" as why you deleted without even discussing...). In every case, I've survived the deletion, often without a rewrite but with giving context to why the article is there.


 * Unfortunately, I've gathered momentum. I'd like to take all of the article-wide-scope templates of disapproval, and, if the editor who put them there does not have the gonads to make constructive comments on fixing or the brain to say why it is an inappropriate article, I would be inclined to print the article on heavy paper, fold it until it is all corners, and present it, along with appropriate lubricants, to the author thereof.


 * As I mentioned here, there is a kernel of value to the article---you can see that I was able to scope the problem and give some suggestions for improvement just above.


 * With respect to Congo, I didn't create that article. Ernxmedia decided not enough was being done at the regional level. He asked me what I thought, and I said that it certainly made sense, within the context of the regional articles, to have sub-articles for individual countries that had entries that were far too long to be in the main article.


 * Other than for that case, I preferred, especially for the less extensive country entries, to leave them at regional level, for several reasons. Remember, this is not generally about the country, but about CIA and the country. Often, in the third world, there are regional intelligence reports that should stay near the countries, if for no other reason than ease of crosslinking. In other cases, while there are no explicit regional reports, there are border disputes and transborder issues (e.g., Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, Ethiopia, Somalia) that make more sense when you can glance back and forth in the same article.


 * As far as I'm concerned, I never suggested, agreed to, or thought it would be a good idea to take 100% of the countries down to country article, linked from the regional article. Once he did it, bluntly, I didn't care enough to go back and restore to the way it ought to be. I'm sick and tired of individuals making sweeping changes to large articles without any real attempt to gain clear consensus about what was planned.


 * Congo-CIA, in the context of CIA-Africa, made sense. As you point out, there is not really enough content to justify an article, but if it is folded into Congo Crisis, the idea of having a clear CIA hierarchy starts to break down. I'm at the antithesis of WP:OWN; I don't think that it's possible to have a comprehensive set of any fairly worldwide topic at Wikipedia. I may stop fixing vandalism to the main CIA article very soon; I just don't see it as worth the effort.


 * Please believe I'm not angry with you, but I had gone to regional level, and not lower, for a reason. Someone decided it was better to fix every pipe in the plumbing system, when there was only a few leaks. I just don't much care what happens here. If people start folding stub-level country articles into other articles, I'll just back away from CIA, because I'm certainly not motivated to try to restore the regional system, for which I agreed fully that complex country sections, and only complex sections, needed to be broken down to country level. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)