User talk:DagosNavy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello DagosNavy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing!Aucun effort n'est trop grand 02:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting help
Getting along
Getting technical

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sam Parnia[edit]


No one experienced an OBE in a research area, this Parnia has said. Keith is a nice guy but his statement about target identification failing is due only to the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, see discussion here. Though there is at least one source -an abstract- that actually supports your position, it fails WP:SOURCE. Regards--Darius (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I saw that you recently moved page Adda (river) to Adda River over a redirect, giving the reason "Unneeded disambiguation". Just a minor note about that. Adda is a disambiguation page and thus disambiguation of the river is needed. It was parenthetically disambiguated Adda (river), which I believe may sometimes be the preferred form in Europe, and maybe other places too. Then sometimes putting the river first is preferred, e.g., River Adda (Wales). You converted that to Adda River which is naturally disambiguated. That form is generally preferred in the United States. How a title is disambiguated is generally reflected in the lead sentence:

  • The Adda is a river in North Italy -or-
  • The Adda River is in North Italy

Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

That move was reverted. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) #Disambiguation:
  • Rivers, lakes and mountains often include the word River, Lake or Mount in the name; national conventions and idiom should be followed in this matter. For example, rivers in the UK and Ireland follow the pattern River Thames, while those in the United States follow Mississippi River. For many countries the additional word is used when needed for disambiguation purposes, but is otherwise omitted: compare Jade (river) or Achelous River (which require disambiguation) with Rhine (which does not). See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming.
Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine[edit]

Hello! Could you express your opinion about the organization of the Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which provoked a little controversy these days (particularly in relation to the positioning of the "Russian military intervention")? If you wish to express an opinion, there is a discussion in the Talk Page of this template. Thank you! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

General Roca and the Conquest of the Desert[edit]

You certainly know your Argentine history. I wonder if you can read this Wikipedia page in English please:

Someone has stamped it as "Genocide of Indigenous peoples". I think this is a very impartial observation considering the head of the Indian warriors was taken alive and bestowed the rank of an Argentine Army Colonel. Also the Indian warriors were supplied with rifles and horses, meaning they weren't entirely poorly armed. Roca also freed thousands of women and their very young daughters that had been forced into sexual slavery, something that is ignored by those that maintain that it was a genocide when it was not.--Waterloosunset2004 (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This issue has sparked a huge controversy between orthodox and revisionists here in Argentine since many decades ago. Both sides seem to forget that one of the few common goals of the warring parties in the Argentine civil wars since 1820 (to say the least) was to expand the country's southern frontier towards the Andes to the west and up to the Strait of Magellan to the south, no matter how many Mapuche, Ranquel or Tehuelche people would be killed in the process. Hypocrisy and croc tears were only a retroactive twenty-century view. "Genocide" was obviously a term coined by revisionists, but unheard of until the 1980s. IMHO, they tried to drawn a parallel between what they call the "Roca's massacre" and the 1970s dirty war, which supposed the physical annihilation of the enemy. The aim of the 1879 campaign, however, was to conquest the land, not to exterminate its inhabitants. I think a mention of a number of revisionist opinions on the subject is enough. I am also for moving the two last paragraphs of the lede to a section apart, leaving only a few words explaining the two positions.
The case against ethnic cleansing is harder to defend. After being military defeated, the indigenous peoples of the Pampas and the Patagonia were forcibly moved from their ancestral domains, deprived of their nomadic way of life and press into serfdom in the new landowners' ranchs. Europeans colonies were established in the former aboriginal realm, while the native culture was despised and largely forgotten by the later generations. "Ethnic cleansing" is one of the items under the scope of the template "Genocide of Indigenous peoples", thus from my own point of view its inclusion in the article is entirely justified.
It's true that a number of "Indian" chiefs (I remember right now Catriel and Namuncurá) were given military ranks inside the Argentine Army, but these people had always considered themselves indios argentinos (Argentine Indians), loyals to the Argentine government (in contrast with those who lived or were born in Chile and stole cattle in the Pampas). This kind of interaction was not unusual; a couple of decades earlier a unitarian army's officer, Manuel Baigorria, ended up as a Ranquel chieftain at the time of Rosas. In the case of chieftain Pincén, at the time of his capture in 1878 he still preserved a flag of the Argentine Confederation, a gift from Rosas in recognition for his assistance during a previous campaign (1833-34).--Darius 02:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Name changes of various articles[edit]

The change of names of these articles make no English sense. It is correct English that a 'proper name' is capitalized and a 'proper name' is the name of a particular person, place of event. These articles are about, and thus the names must so reflect, that these are names of a particular events. These name changes need to be reverted. Thank you. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"War", "incident", "riot", "massacre", et alia are not proper names, as far as I know. The bulk of the articles in WP follows this pattern.--Darius (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Where are you obtaining these wrong ideas in the Manual of Style? And you should not be making any more such changes until this is resolved by consensus. Hmains (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Since when in the English language are these changes correct. A 'proper name' is the name of a particular person. place. or event. For proper names, correct English language capitalization is that each word in the proper name is capitalized except for little connection words like 'the', 'in', 'a' and so on. I am still waiting for the justification for these changes from the Manual of Style so that I can check it out. In the meantime, all these name changes are wrong and should not continue. Hmains (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Darius, your edit summary on the moves of Springfield Race Riot of 1908, Cicero Race Riot of 1951, and Charleston Riot was "Rm capital per MoS." Thank you for the edit summaries. Can you please be more specific about what subsection within WP:MOS justifies these moves? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Hugh. Well, I concede that the right edit summary should have been "Rm capital per naming conventions", not MoS.
WP:NCCAPS is pretty clear about capitalization of titles: "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun. For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence." At the end of the page, there is a section showing examples of correct capitalization. I think all the articles I renamed recently are what the guideline describes as "Multiword articles", this is, a title which combines proper names (like the places where the riots occurred) and common names ("race riot", "riot", "war", "massacre").--Darius (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the cite. That helps me understand. Certainly the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis multiword title example seems very close to the titles currently at issue. However, the lead paragraph of WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) includes the exception "unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized" which I read to exhort us to consult reliable sources as to whether the subject of the article is a thing with a proper name, like World War I. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
It's OK for me, we should search what reliable sources say about these issues. IMHO, however, besides literature works, book titles and movies, there is little chance for an event to be an exception to multiword phrases. The example you provide is a good one, but it applies only to subjects widely known and coined by scholars (we can add "Spanish Civil War", "Wall Street Crash of 1929" or "Cold War"). Less well-known but equally important topics like the Waco siege or the 1969 Northern Ireland riots follow the multiword rule. Regards.--Darius (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree you were somewhat shall we say fastidious in keeping a tidy talk page in the middle of an ongoing discussion of article-space with fellow editors. Why did you not respond on the article talk page? Hugh (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We accommodated you by coming to your talk page to discuss multiple article-space edits of yours with you after you chose not to respond on article talk. This is your talk page but please defer editing this discussion until we achieve some resolution. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, no problem.--Darius (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"It is also clear from the content of Know-Nothing Riot that particular riots are being discussed, not riots in general". Good point, but instead of breaking WP:NCCAPS by capitalizing common nouns, it would be more wise to have the year of the event attached to the title.
"X is capitalized in the references provided in the article". No matter how many sources capitalize common names, Wikipedia has specific naming conventions (read citation above), and the only phrases that can be treated as proper names are books' titles, artistic works and movies. The only exceptions could be notable historic events widely known by their capitalized form ("French Revolution", "Paris Commune", as Hugh mentioned "World War I" or "Sicilian Vespers"), not minor, local incidents.--Darius (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"No matter how many sources capitalize common names, Wikipedia has specific naming conventions..." All the specific naming conventions in WP:NCCAPS occur after noting the exception of proper names. The exception is mention in the lede sentence of WP:NCCAPS and clarified in the second sentence. If a thing has a name we are supposed to use that name for the title of its article. Hugh (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We should request then the opinion of an administratror or something like that in order to establish if local issues such as race riots are or not an exception to the rule.--Darius (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"local issue" May I ask, what is your basis for bringing this local dimension into our discussion? I find no reference to this local criteria in WP:NCCAPS. All of the recent moves at issue here are specific events at specific places and times. Are you positing a category of "local" events which cannot have proper names? To me the issue of local is more related to whether a topic is notable. Are you arguing that the topics of the articles you renamed are not notable because they are local? Hugh (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Iam not arguing nor asserting anything, I simply said that we should request a third-part opinion about what is the rule and what the exception.--Darius (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"widely known" Preponderance of reliable sources is exactly what widely known means on Wikipedia. Hugh (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What made an issue widely known to the point of becoming a proper name is not mere reliable sources, but the scholars' opinion, who focus particularly on major historic events, not minor ones.--Darius (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"...with Ruby Murders, a particular set of murders is being discussed not all murders that have occurred in the town of Ruby..." Thank you for the reply. This post helped me understand. I think we should be careful not to run afoul of WP:NOR by naming things that do not have names, but if a thing has a name we should use that name as the title of its article. Hugh (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"The Lager Beer Riot, Springfield Race Riot of 1908, Chicago Race Riot of 1919 Lombard Street Riot, Hough Riots, Glenville Shootout, and Gwangju Uprising are capitalized in the references provided in their articles. Philadelphia Election Riot is capitalized in the reference..." Hmains, thank you for your time on this issue and for your research and post. Darius, you posted "we should search what reliable sources say about these issues." A fellow editor has taken the time to investigate RS and share the findings. We should respect that. My understanding is this is determinative. Can you please respond to Hmains' review of RS? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
We should rely on the good faith of Hmains, as himself acknowledged in his original post. This fails WP:V. Furthermore, although the titles of the cited references are capitalized (see the articles you mentioned above), remember that book's titles in English are always treated as proper nouns, here in Wikipedia and elsewhere. I insist, Iam for a request for comment.--Darius (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I find a mix of upper case and lower case in the online references in Chicago race riot of 1919. Significantly, Encyclopedia Britanica refers to the "Chicago Race Riot." The criteria for a proper noun in WP:NCCAPS is very strong: "...a proper noun that would always occur capitalized..." (emphasis added). Hugh (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I see that you are completely ignoring our concerns and are back at lower- casing article names and text that are names of particular/specific/unique events. These are proper names and lower case is in violation of standard common English and is in violation of MOS:CAPS and MOS:NAMECAPS. The MOS does not let you invent your own rules or sub-rules and then enforce that rule on WP. WP is a system of rules and guidelines to be followed, not to be worked around. Your editing is disruptive and your attempts to justify your work are unworthy of any WP editor. Hmains (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Chicago Race riot of 1919‎[edit]

Please join our discussion at Talk:Chicago Race riot of 1919‎. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

MAS vs MS[edit]

Hello. Thanks for correcting my mistake, I had indeed confused the MAS and the MS. That episode was already cited in the proper article. --Italianhistorian88 (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi man, you're welcomed. Best Regards.--Darius (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)