Talk:United States Space Force

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jadolphe (article contribs).

Change name

Need to take out Mark Esper as Secretary of Defense and change to new Sec Def Christopher C Miller, in the current officers section, as of Nov. 9, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.73.147 (talk) 20:50, November 9, 2020 (UTC)

Should have a section for criticisms.

the whole idea sounds horrendously costly, and would probably only be good for disabling the satellites of enemies, and i'm pretty sure we don't have any enemies with satellites (except maybe china). 2600:8805:2300:31D:F5EF:7C88:C91B:C9FB (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I generally think sections for criticism are a bad idea (see WP:CSECTION). If there is legitimate criticism of the Space Force that is notable and persistent (I would assess most of the political criticism it is facing due to who the president is will likely fade, and shouldnt be covered per WP:NOTNEWS) then it can be covered in the history section. Garuda28 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism is judging the merits and faults of something, and is applied to all aspects of human endeavor, such as the arts, religion, commerce, politics, and war. Legitimate criticism of the Space Force by qualified sources helps maintain the neutral point view, which is an essential part of Wikipedia. @Garuda28: The concept of a Space Force was around before Trump. How he pushed it through a compliant Congress is irrelevant to the fact it now exists. So most the criticism has to do with wasteful spending, the myth of organizational efficiency, and the power of the defense contractors over the budget. For example this statement from the Center for Defense Information:

President Trump’s cherished Space Force is a bad idea that predated his presidency but received a major boost during his tenure. A new military bureaucracy geared up primarily to spend more money, it could cost tens of billions in the years to come while only increasing the risk of an arms race in space.

Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 12:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Senator2029, I'd be in favor of including criticisms in the article somewhere. That quote about military bureaucracy and costing billions of dollars is a great viewpoint. Because of WP:CSECTION, we should probably make a "Reception" type section that contains both positive and negative viewpoints, rather than a "Criticism" section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

As is, the article is quite positive. But about "criticsm": I'd urge editors to see it as the means to go "in depth" rather than an article only presenting "such-and-such happened" sIt isn't a bad thing that a person or organization has legitimate viewpoints from outsiders that are contrary to the one the media relations department spins to reporters. Everything has a flaw or error some place. To have that identified, and how it was responded to,—this allows our readers to gain a fuller perspective. Senator2029 ❮talk❯ 09:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Senator2029, I started a "reception" section just now. Feel free to rename it to "criticism", add a sentence about your "project on government oversight" source, etc. Whatever you guys feel appropriate. As long as reception, and some of the negative stuff, gets a little coverage, as I feel those two items are important. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it should stay as reception, as there have been both positive and negative receptions to it; it’ll keep it balanced and avoid the issues that WP:CSECTION brings up. Garuda28 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Garuda28, as usual, awesome job on responding to talk page concerns. The two paragraphs you added are really high quality and cite think tank studies. The responses section is fleshing out nicely. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Novem_Linguae Do you think we need the pop culture references in the reception section? I'm personally a fan of it, because its what most people will think of, but I do think that the Space Force's responses should also be included. I'll try to find some more serious think tank/policy ones as well, since that should be the majority of it.Garuda28 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Garuda28, thanks for the comment. I feel like the 3rd paragraph is too big, goes into too much detail, and is undue weight. I liked my first version, but as a compromise, another idea might be to trim it down to 1 sentence listing the 3 franchises, and 1 sentence concisely listing Space Force's rationale/defense. I think the other 2 paragraphs look pretty good. Thanks as always for your work on this article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Novem_Linguae What do you think? Garuda28 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Garuda28, current version looks great. I think this reception section fleshed out into a very nice addition to the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Professionals"

Perhaps there should be some mention of this designation being temporary? (unless it already is and I missed it) Just a thought. - wolf 04:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

References

That's a really good point – I've added it under the personnel section with your citation. Garuda28 (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks bro - wolf 05:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It now has a name: Guardians (of the Galaxy)! Official Twitter Account. So we would need a disambiguation link. Sebastian --188.195.224.193 (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Problems with the "Mission" section

Howdy. So I feel the "Mission" section has some issues.

• Reads like marketing material. It's a bunch of nebulous and theoretical concepts rather than encyclopedic statements of fact.
• It's big. Considering that it doesn't say much that's concrete, it is taking up a large proportion of the article.
• It uses all primary sources. This is probably why the section is so bloated. Secondary sources would probably not give these ideas nearly as much weight.

I'd be in favor of deleting its sub-headings, and trimming the whole section down to a summary that is 2 paragraphs.

I have a feeling this idea won't be popular. I'm sure there's an editor that wrote all that and won't want it shortened/deleted. But I figured I'd throw it out there. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I'm personally in favor of keeping it (at least the general skeleton), specifically the section on the core capabilities (and what they are), because it describes, in essence, what the Space Force does. If you look at the U.S. Air Force or U.S. Coast Guard pages you'll see very similarly structured sections. That being said, I do think there’s a way to reword and cut it down since much of it is taken from primary sources. If you don't mind, I'm gonna take a stab at it today and see how much of the fat I can trim off it. I think we can probably consolidate the core capabilities into a single subsection. I'm on the fence if the congressional mandate needs to be in there, since a lot of it is redundant with the core capabilities (which really is the heart of a trimmed mission section). Garuda28 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Garuda28, Thanks for the quick response and (since you're the original writer) being so open-minded about reducing its size. I think any attempt to reduce its size and increase its clarity is an excellent idea. I would suggest using lots of paraphrase, to express the ideas more clearly than the Space Force's original marketing tone. I look forward to seeing what we come up with. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Of course! When I first wrote the section really the only thing out there was the capstone document (which you’re right, it is very wordy and ambiguous), but since then there’s been a lot more details about the who, how, and what. It should be pretty simple to move those in, condense, and remove a lot of the ambiguous doctrinal terms. Give me around six hours, I think I’ll have it done by then. Garuda28 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Okay, I think I've cut it down to a manageable amount. I'm going to start to think about how to expand on it with secondary sources - I have a feeling some of that will come with time. Thoughts? I think this better mirrors what we have at the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps page. Garuda28 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Garuda28, Perfect. Beautiful. Well done and thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

"Readiness"

Dear Garuda28 you've just reverted this edit of mine. Can you tell me what "readiness" means? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Combat readiness, in this context and the context of STAR Delta, goes beyond the training and education aspect of STAR Delta (533 TRS, 319 CTS, Weapons School, NSSI). Rather readiness, in this context, is the aspect of STAR Delta that focuses on enhancing, testing, and evaluating capabilities (3 SES, 17 TS, 25 SRS, etc). In essence, the aspect that is focused keeping and developing the operational combat readiness of the Space Force, if that makes sense. Garuda28 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

So "readiness", mostly = test and evaluation? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be components beyond TES, such a doctrine development, but T&E seems to be the majority function outside of training and education. If you want to change the description from readiness to "test and evaluation, and doctrine development" I think that could work. Garuda28 (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Space Staff vs OCSO

CSO has asked to change his staff name from OCSO to Space Staff. I have updated what I could, please make any changes you find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash-Ashley (talk • contribs) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dash-Ashley: I have noticed space staff does seem to be used more frequently than OCSO. In the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, I really don’t see an issue with replacing the more cumbersome OCSO with Space Staff, especially since that’s the most common term. Garuda28 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dash-Ashley and Garuda28:, jooc, what are these changes based on? Thanks - wolf 21:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I can't speak to Dash-Ashley's specific claims, but recent references in space force press releases primarily refer to the Space Staff rather than the Office of the Chief of Space Operations, including the new Space Staff Badge (OCSO is mentioned in this one, but it is clear that the primary name is Space Staff now) (https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2448510/space-force-updates-uniform-policy-guidance/) and inclusion of the Space Staff in HAF regulations (https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/saf_ig/publication/hafmd1-20/hafmd1-20.pdf). These both support a name change having occurred. It doesn’t particularly surprise me, as the Air Force counterpart is the air staff. I would say the inclusion of Space Staff in a HAF regulation is the most compelling information I’ve found. Garuda28 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes

There is a sentence in the last paragraph "...while in reality it was first proposed by Democratic repetitive Jim Cooper and Republic Representative Mike Rogers in 2017.[122]" with two spelling mistakes that need to be corrected by someone who can edit.

73.254.192.168 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Change start_date = 20 December 2019 (2019-12-20) (as an independent service) to start_date = 4 years, 6 months (as an independent service) like the other branches 69.116.73.107 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)