Talk:Women Airforce Service Pilots: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:25, 1 February 2007

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Vandalism

The user Akradecki has vandalized the site by removing notable members of the WASPs. Please help article by preventing such vandalism.
-Signaleer 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are they notable? You have not established that, and per Wikipedia policy, uncited, non-notable material is to be removed, and that is policy, not vandalism. Further, it is your responsibility to established referenced notability (see WP:V), not mine. Akradecki 23:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable WASP names

It is unfortunate that a dispute has arisen over the notability of several names of WASP members earlier added to this article. Even though the disputed names do not as yet have their own WP pages, that by itself is not a valid test of notability. If anyone cares to do a simple Google search on any of these disputed names, there will be little doubt that all these women are indeed notable. Some have written books, some had books written about them, some were selected for special recognition in service, some had distinguished postwar careers, and all of them are included in various state or national "halls of fame." By any honest measure, all these women deserve to be included in any list of notable WASP members, and it is desirable that all of them soon receive their own WP pages as well. Jack Bethune 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I refer to policy: it is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to document notability and to cite sources. To say that "if anyone cares to do a simple Google search" is simply not the way things are done around here. You document your edits or they get removed. Again, that's not my opinion, it's not even WP "guidelines"...it's WP policy. There were well over 1,000 WASP members. We don't need a list of all 1,000+, just the notable ones, and there are clear ways of establishing notability on Wikipedia, the primary two being either by having a WP article about the person, or a citation. It's policy, it's clear, it's simple. I'm not choosing to make the edit war here, I'm not choosing to add undocumented material. To get the full story on user:Signaleer, you might want to read up on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Signaleer_--_disruptive_editing_and_sockpuppetry and find the real source of the edit war. Akradecki 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the women who I have listed are notable among the WASP community and indeed the United States Department of Defense. It is unfortunate that some users believe they have the powers and ability to revert to being "God" of the page and removing information as they see fit. -Signaleer 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until they have their own wiki pages, however, they are not notable. Rather than an edit war here, time would be better spent creating well referenced articles for these women. Then, those articles can be linked to from this page. Tom H 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you before, if the women you are adding have all that notability, document it by citing sources. It is YOUR responsibility to do that when adding the material, not another editor's responsibility who comes along later. That's policy, please incorporate it into your editing. Akradecki 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ==Notable WASP names==
 It is unfortunate that a dispute has arisen over the notability of several names of WASP members earlier added to this article.  Even though the disputed names do not as yet have their own WP pages, that by itself is not a valid test of notability. If anyone cares to do a simple Google search on any of these disputed names, there will be little doubt that all these women are indeed notable. Some have written books, some had books written about them, some were selected for special recognition in service, some had distinguished postwar careers, and all of them are included in various state or national "halls of fame." By any honest measure, all these women deserve to be included in any list of notable WASP members, and it is desirable that all of them soon receive their own WP pages as well. [[User:Jack Bethune|Jack Bethune]] 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
+:Again, I refer to policy: it is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to document notability and to cite sources. To say that "if anyone cares to do a simple Google search" is simply not the way things are done around here. You document your edits or they get removed. Again, that's not my opinion, it's not even WP "guidelines"...it's WP ''policy''. There were well over 1,000 WASP members. We don't need a list of all 1,000+, just the notable ones, and there are clear ways of establishing notability on Wikipedia, the primary two being either by having a WP article about the person, or a citation. It's policy, it's clear, it's simple. I'm not choosing to make the edit war here, I'm not choosing to add undocumented material. To get the full story on [[user:Signaleer]], you might want to read up on [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Signaleer_--_disruptive_editing_and_sockpuppetry]] and find the real source of the edit war. [[User:Akradecki|Akradecki]] 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
+::I agree, the women who I  have listed are notable among the WASP community and indeed the United States Department of Defense.  It is unfortunate that some users believe they have the powers and ability to revert to being "God" of the page and removing information as they see fit. -[[User:Signaleer|Signaleer]] 19:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
+:::Until they have their own wiki pages, however, they are not notable. Rather than an edit war here, time would be better spent creating well referenced articles for these women. Then, those articles can be linked to from this page. [[User:Tom Herbert|Tom H]] 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
+::::I've told you before, if the women you are adding have all that notability, document it by citing sources. It is ''YOUR'' responsibility to do that when adding the material, not another editor's responsibility who comes along later. That's policy, please incorporate it into your editing. [[User:Akradecki|Akradecki]] 20:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)