Talk:Frank Reginald Carey/Archive 1

Wording dispute

Per Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk · contribs)'s comments, no attempt on this talkpage has been made to come to a conclusion on the current dispute. I would first like to preface my concern with acknowledging that I am aware of Dapi's edits to the wiki and the numerous contributions they have made to GA articles, a process that includes constructive criticism and feedback. I would also like to note that my edits (and initial comments) to this article were in the same vein, constructive feedback on the work already done that were reverted with the insults that I am pretty much confused about everything and/or completely ignorant, never mind the complete breach of WP:OWN, the threat of admin action, and the practical breach of WP:3RR. Considering Dapi is apt at utilizing constructive feedback from registered editors, I am left with the impression that these knee-jerk reactions would not have taken place had I been a registered editor. I have now registered, and I am hoping to see the same level of respect Dapi no doubt gives to others, and in return I will also moderate my own tone here on out.

• The main dispute lays around the wording of the following sentence: "On 1 September 1939 German forces (Wehrmacht) invaded Poland."

The implication of the wording is that Wehrmacht is displayed as if it is the German translation of either 'forces' or 'German forces', both of which is incorrect. Several solutions exist to easily rectify this (not to mention, a comma is needed after the date):

1. Remove the word, to avoid the impression of it being a translation; not to mention it is a superfluous descriptive that adds nothing to the scope of the article. This has been tried, and has thus far failed.
2. Provide the correct English word in front of the translation, which would be - in this context, rather than the literal translation of 'defense force': "On 1 September 1939, German armed forces (Wehrmacht) invaded Poland." This addition has thus far failed to remain in the article.
3. Move the link, and pipe the current wording such as: "On 1 September 1939, German forces invaded Poland."
4. Or, simplify the whole sentence since it is background information anyway: "On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland."

• There was a dispute over linking to the Mediterranean and Middle East theatre article, however this seems to have been rectified. I would note to Dapi that they are one and the same, not two separate theaters. Having read both articles, I would note the current link covers the whole theatre and is a level-4 vital article comparable and on the same level to its peer theaters of war: Eastern Front, Western Front, and the Pacific War, etc.
• Lastly, and the most minor of the disputed edits, the use of term World War II or the term Second World War.

Dapi has argued that "as the original author, I can decide what format this is written" and also pointed out WP:RETAIN. For reference, it states: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change."

I would like to note that the current consensus has been challenged, and my understanding of policy is that consensus should sought out once challenged. I argue that the term "Second World War" does have a "Strong national tie" to the British, and thus should be used in this article.

I will open my support of this point by initially acknowledging that the term is not used exclusively, and there is a more modern trend of using both or either. However, the term Second World War it is very prominent throughout Britain. I shall provide just a few examples. Every village, town, and city has a war memorial that either uses the term or the dates of the conflict, but two prominent examples would be the Commando Memorial, and the Bomber Command memorial. These highlight the continued usage of the term, one memorial being built in the 50s and the other only a few years ago. In addition, there is the exclusive use of the term among the Government sponsored History of the Second World War published between 1949 and 1993, and institutions such as the Imperial War Museum (as this example shows, the museum lumps its 1939-1945 media under the "Subject period Second World War").

• I open the floor for a dialogue on the subject and the edits to the article. Very kind regards, 26001015b126631e7d146b4e50c1fa72 (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)