Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Women in the military

Women in combat
I have (I feel) re-written this article to a reasonable extent after it was flagged for "attention needed". I have made the changes I believe to be useful, and now would appreciate further input in order to improve this article more. --SGGH 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Next goal is to re-write the arguements section, see discussion page for details --SGGH 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * this section has been re-written

Kirill Lokshin
It's rather better than it was before, certainly. I think there are some broad issues that need resolving, though: I would also suggest asking Asarelah and Durova to take part in this review, as they are among the project members who've expressed an interest in this topic. Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Too heavy a focus on specific modern militaries may not be the best way to organize. I would start the article out with the philosophical concerns, followed by a (substantially lengthened) section on history (which I would run up to WWII), and finally wrap up with a set of sections discussing the modern militaries.
 * There should be (many!) more citations, and, if possible, some more scholarly reference works used as sources.
 * There may be other countries not mentioned which allow women into combat roles (e.g. Basij).

UberCryxic
The article as an idea is superb, but right now the major flaw (read: major) is what Kirill already talked about: dividing this into contemporary country-specific sections does a complete disservce to the topic at large. In fact, the very basic structure of the article is naive and seems to presume women have become prominent in combat only in modern times. This is clearly not the case. They have rarely been active in field combat, but they have often taken leading roles during sieges (see the Maid of Saragossa in the Peninsular War for a famous example). What's with the Ancient History section covering Joan of Arc and the Dahomey Amazons? From a chronological perspective, historians traditionally conclude ancient history in 476 after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Moreover, who's to say where you should stop with modern militaries? Why not do them all? Anything else would be a breach of the global perspective that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in. But obviously you can't do that because this article would just be silly (it already is). Sorry for my harsh language but the message clear: this article needs a complete makeover that will involve massive deletions. I like Kirill's guidelines for how the article should look; follow those if you need inspiration. Also try and find scholarly material about this subject specifically (or something like the history of women in combat) so it can give a broader perspective.UberCryxic 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletions??? I hope not, because the present timelines are an excellent reference to major examples of the important role that women have played in the past (most are linked to specific articles). I do agree that the discussion about attitudes towarsd women in the military, should be separated from the purely historic aspect.

Syrenab 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Myers
One suggestion for making this article better would be, rather than to expand the scope as recommended above, is to narrow it. Right now there are two related subjects in the article which could be two different articles. One is the History of women in combat. That's a massive subject which needs lots of old-fashioned book research to adequately cover. The other topic, which is perhaps what this article really wants to be, is the contemporary debate about the role of women in combat. Such an article would be called, perhaps, the Women in combat debate. That article would require somewhat different sources than the former topic, using more periodicals than books. Both topics are worthy of individual articles. Covering them in a single article is a tall order. —Kevin 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear
First, the article needs to be sourced - it lacks sourcing and citing to an alarming degree. There is way too much information without proper citation. Secondly, I agree with Kevin that it needs to be split into two articles, or at the least, see the history portion - up to WWII - more heavily developed, and the debate over the contemporary role of women in combat should be far more heavily sourced, and I think we need to face what the real issue is: a philosophical debate over women's roles rather than a purely military issue. old windy bear 14:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think I have the wiki skills to devealop to that kind of extent successfully, not yet anyway, I'm sure someone would like to devealop further, I think I gave it a kick in the right direction though .--SGGH 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Scratch that, I'd like to give it a try if one of you users doesn't mind giving me a little bit more advice, specifically...


 * Split into two articles? 'The debate of women in combat' and 'women in combat roles today' or something along those lines, with the modern army parts in the latter, and a much expanded history in the former?
 * More sources, how exactly does this work (i mean sourcing the info in the article, not just researching, i can do that.
 * philosophical side? could you give me some advice about what further info in this area should be included outside of what is mentioned in the arguements section?

I have asked Asarelah for advice also, hope you appreciate that I'm still learning :D --SGGH 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * SGGH Good morning!  First, you are doing quite well, and will get better. I don't mind at all giving whatever advice I am able - first of all, all of us started somewhere, and if it was not for people like Essjay, or Kirill, I would not have developed into a half decent wiki-editor.  Now to specfics on your article:


 * I would divide it into two articles, or two parts of one very large article; "history of women in combat," and "the contemporary debate on women's roles in the military."
 * In the history of women in combat article or section, I would try to expand it to include the Mongols, Japanese, and perhaps American Indians. (We want to present a diverse selection of cultures!)  This is just a straight history section, involving research - which you are doing very well.  The only caveat I make is that you need to source your research, meaning literally whatever book you took it from, you need to cite that book.  For instance, a very good book - and part of it is online - on women's roles in the American Civil War is "They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the American Civil War" by Lauren M. Cook and DeAnne Blanton.  Another good book "Women and the Military: Over 100 Notable Contributors, Historic to Contemporary" by John and Maria Dever.  You just have to go to your local library, and you will find a surprising amount of material on women and the military, historically.
 * As for the philosophical debate on the current role of women in the military, I would concentrate on the literal philosophical debate, such as "Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster" by Brian Mitchell. That is one of a number of good books out on the philosophical debate which is ongoing on the role of women in the military.
 * You are doing very well - the secret of this is simply research, writing, and sourcing your writing so that it is not your opinion, or original research. There are plenty of books, articles, etc., out there on this subject, you won't have any trouble on getting plenty of source material.  old windy bear 14:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have split the articles into "contemporary debate on women's roles in the military" and "history of women in combat" At the moment it is only a cut and paste job, while i think on how to organise the latter.--SGGH 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should merge Female roles in the military and my new History of Women in Combat to serve as the history of women in combat (up to 1900) with Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military serving as the article on the debate, with a run down on the recent history of the role of women in combat in several of the major military countries. If we choose this plan, on of the two 'history' articles needs to be deleted and the information copied across into the surviving article.

I don't have the experience to decide which one to delete, though personally i think its easier to write new passages than convert a HUGE list into passages, and would thus choose to remove the older article. Though I'd rather the decision was made by a more experienced user.

Then end result that I'm hoping for, is an article on the debate (and most recent changes in the topic, in the form of Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military and a history of women in combat built from History of Women in Combat and Female roles in the military. I would greatly appreciate the assistance of helpful users in this mission! --SGGH 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion, for what it is worth, is an article on the debate in the formatt of Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military for the United States, with comparision to the rest of the world built into the article so it is geopolitical, and a history of women in combat built from History of Women in Combat and Female roles in the military I would advise you to email Kirill on exactly how to proceed, since this is a major change, and he is project coordinator.  old windy bear 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd simply merge them both to History of women in the military, but maybe there's some obvious problem with that thitle that I'm just not seeing. Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, one article, History of women in the military, with two main sections, the first a literal history, a perspective, which needs three things:


 * to be vastly more detailed, with much more information;
 * to accentuate more cultures, and not be so eurocentric;
 * to cite everything!
 * The second section would then:


 * go directly from the past, and say well, this is what is and was - now what should be? This can be a sumnation of the fierce debate on women in combat roles - are there any real physical reasons women cannot fight alongside men?  Women are smaller, generally, and only mass 70% of the muscle mass men do, pound for pound - but does that mean anything in an age of automatic rifles and lasers?
 * cite all of that, and I named just a few of the many books, (and articles), which debate this topic endlessly!
 * The first section, the history, just gives us historical perspective to flow into the second section, the debate of today, what has yesterday taught us about today, as we make decisions about tomorow! old windy bear 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * so the first step is to move Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military to History of women in the military and delete both History of Women in Combat and Female roles in the military? I'll rename the first one to the name of the new History of women in the military but someone will have to delete the other two, as i don't think I can. --SGGH 18:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't need to be deleted; once you've merged the material, just redirect them to the new article. Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how to do that, I'm afraid. Sorry to ask, but would you mind merging them into History of Women in the Military?--SGGH 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I did a (very crude!) merge; you'll probably want to combine all the duplicated sections, and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks kirill, I've meshed them together now and sorted out the headings. I think the next job is to change the MASSIVE list into regular passages? sub-group under nationalities or some other common factor as well as the period groups they are already in?
 * You know, the list isn't as bad as I thought it could be, what do people think? A combination maybe, or group the lists up by some sort of common factor. --SGGH 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh. In the long run, the lists should be turned into normal prose; but that's a pretty significant project, given the scale here. Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a shot at it, over time we'll get it done. Thanks for your help guys or girls.... users!--SGGH 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Change the lists into prose??? I think not. The lists are REFERENCE material, and most entries are linked to longer articles  about the specic era or person. I think that serves the needs of a reference book such as an Encyclopedia. Syrenab 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, well-written encyclopedia artices should not contain extensive lists. A List of women in combat or something of the sort would be different; but I don't see how it would be any more useful than the applicable categories. Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * ..............?? I would personally rather it in prose, because this prose can still link to longer articles just as well as a list, and it sculpts the story more than a list. --SGGH 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The prose would be an excellent idea for the sections on the World Wars, but not for the other sections, which are merely a timeline of different and unrelated events pertaining to women in combat. Putting them in prose format would result in a paragraph jumping from century to century without an cohesive context. It isn't really so much of an extensive list as it is a timeline. Asarelah 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring
We could make even a three article split:
 * History of women in combat (until contemporary times, perhaps split in major cultural areas and we give a brief overview of the development in each; Sub-Saharan Africa for example is notorious for women in combat)
 * List of noteable women in combat (a long list with many names, heroines and commanders + a short report on their respective roles)
 * Debate on Women's Roles in the Military (Their role in combat has not only been debated today, so we could orient this article on History of women in combat and provide for each section there a section about the philosophical background) Wandalstouring 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)