All caps for military operations, ordnance, etc.

[Aleta Curry]

I vote for NO CAPITALS, for the same reason I voted against scientific names for biology articles.  (Even though I said and still say that the biologists made really good cases for the use thereof.)

It's the same reason why medical articles should be written in plain English.

It's a general encyclopaedia, not a specialist manual.

[Paul Wormer]

2.) Caps are like SHOUTING

Odd. It's a discipline-specific notation.  I don't understand why you are not complaining, then, about mathematical or chemical notation. Look at the section "microscopic equations" at Maxwell equation. Surely that's a bit harder to read than ALL CAPS? I'm not a physicist, and, when I go through them, I freely admit I stop and mutter a lot.

With all due respect, Howard, this is a strange argument. For one,  equations are difficult to avoid when writing about Maxwell equations (and that's what they are called, I cannot help it). Second, even if math notation shouts at you and you hate it, then it still is no reason for you, or the military, or whoever, to shout too. One shouting party is bad enough.

[David H. Barrett]

May I refer interested parties to the following website, the "official web site of the United States Air Force":

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/index.asp

Their use of capitalisation mirrors exactly that which I'm calling for and serves as but one example (albeit a rather extensive one, given the number or aircraft listed there, all in upper and lower case in the body of the fact sheets) of my argument. If you're in doubt, Google some of the capitalised names of military aircraft, etc., found in CZ and check out how they're used in other military and military-related websites.

The use of initialisms is another thing entirely, and to me capitals are certainly justified (although there's a case for changing that once they move into common usage; in an Australian context, for example, ANZAC became Anzac over time), but for the types of names I'm talking about there appears to be no case at all for the use of all caps.

With eternal respect, I can't for the life of me see what it is you're calling for, Howard, when the very organisations whose interests you claim to represent don't agree with you, as demonstrated in their own practice in public (as opposed to internal) documents.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

To be quite frank, I'm not going to keep arguing about this, unless you get a consensus of Military Workgroup editors, or the Editor-in-chief, to overrule my decision. Let me say, formally, that it is my opinion, as a Military Workgroup editor, that the capitalization I am using is correct according to the relevant United States government documents that define appropriate usage.  See the article Compartmented control system (e.g., see subhead "Special Access Required") for a fair bit about understanding of the rules, with examples from specific U.S. government guides to style. In that article, I did not go into all of the differences among code names, nicknames, classification markings, but, I suppose, I can go into those nuances. I did not go into all the capitalization issues because I did not see them as the core subject of that article, but rather used them as examples, supported by references, of the standards for writing out references to the core subject. As a result of this discussion, I have added additional citations to this article.

May I refer interested parties to the following website, the "official web site of the United States Air Force":
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/index.asp

Their use of capitalisation mirrors exactly that which I'm calling for and serves as but one example (albeit a rather extensive one, given the number or aircraft listed there, all in upper and lower case in the body of the fact sheets) of my argument. If you're in doubt, Google some of the capitalised names of military aircraft, etc., found in CZ and check out how they're used in other military and military-related websites.

Your use of capitalisation (my emphasis) reflects Australian, not American, usage, and I am not complaining about that usage; CZ makes a specific distinction, in the metadata, on different usages of English. You are complaining about something not simply an example, but is a specification. Citing incorrect at one official site, or Google results, is not authoritative. I shall now give authoritative references.

You have repeatedly referred to the Air Force public site as an example of what I believe to be incorrect usage by a single U.S. government website, which does not represent itself is a specification. I am shocked, truly shocked, to hear that an individual part of the U.S. government is not following the exact guidance of a government agency that has authority for the subject. Your suggestion shocks me as much as if I found out there was gambling in Rick's Cafe.

In the subject line you chose for this thread,   "military operations and ordnance", you use terms different from what I cases where I am using all caps. I wote for eample, of the "Battle of Normandy", which certainly was a military operation, often (but incorrectly) called "D-Day". Is that not a military operation? When I refer to the code name for the actual operation, I use, as they did, Operation NEPTUNE. I do not use all caps for things such as "Fall Weiß", or "Fall Weiss" (German), "Case White" (literal English), which are German code names and the German convention was to use initial caps. I speak of that operation, in text, as the "German invasion of Poland".

You are arguing about not about large parts of articles being written in all caps, but where ALL CAPS are being used principally in titles and wikilinks for a well-defined set of terms. In an CZ example you raised, a quite lengthy article, Operation DESERT STORM, that all-cap convention is used in the title and first sentence of the introduction. There is a single use each of four aircraft CODE NAMES, as opposed to names, which are different although you seem to assume they are the same thing. Were the bulk of the text of the article in all caps, I would agree completely with you, but you are referring to a tiny fraction.

Further, I am puzzled by your reference to "ordnance", given that most reference to ordnance are in the forms such as "Mark 48 torpedo", "M107 155mm howitzer projectile",  "AGM-84 Harpoon", or "AGM-88 HARM". In the last example, HARM is an abbreviation for High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile, not a code name.

I will cite an excellent introduction to the subject by Andreas Parsch, "Code Names for U.S. Military Projects and Operations", at his website, designation-systems.net. In that article, he refers to authoritative references, some of which I've added to the Compartmented control systems article.

The definitive reference to the conventions for code names and nicknames, two words of art for which "code word" is an informal synonym, was issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Codename, Nichname, and Exercise Term Report (NICKA), CJCSM 3150.29A Unfortunately, this does not seem to be online, but a regulation from a major Air Force command, which essentially repeats the content of the JCS document, is  Administrative Practices: CODE WORDS, NICKNAMES, AND EXERCISE TERMS, NORAD REGULATION 11-3

Again, read the extensively written article on compartmented control systems.

I agree that there can be an informed editorial style decision not to use the specific all-caps conventions. Parameters, the journal of the U.S. Army War College, explains its usage, making it clear that it is an editorial style call with which some advisers disagree:

(As a general rule, it is likewise the typographic house style of Parameters to capitalize only the first letter of operation names. In addition to being "distracting," the practice of setting operation names in all capitals--while historically accurate--can be confusing, making them appear as acronyms. Our choice in this matter has been for clarity over strict historical accuracy, despite the objection of some of our historian advisors.--Editor)

In this matter, my choice, as a Military Workgroup editor, is to use strict historical accuracy over what I feel to be a minor problem of clarity.

If, David, you do not believe that this is within the authority of an Editor, please check that belief with the CZ Constabulary or the Editor-in-Chief. The procedure, at CZ, for setting a different editorial policy, when it concerns content rather than such community-wide things as the color of links, is to get the matter settled among the appropriate workgroup editors.

Would you prefer that I stopped contributing military articles? I will continue to use ALL CAPS in a narrow subset of designations, not for all "military operations and ordnance", unless the Military Workgroup editors agree that this is a problem. Repeatedly, I have explained the subset I use, and, to use a specific example, point the small percentage of ALL CAPS references in Operation DESERT STORM.

You've indicated you are new. I've tried my best to explain that CZ has a mechanism for content decisions, a different mechanism (the Constabulary) for procedural matters and the maintenance of civility. Content decisions are made by workgroup editors, a consensus among workgroup editors, or the Editor-in-chief. I consider this usage to be a content decision, and I see little point in continuing to go over the same arguments. I have given you the appeal mechanisms if you disagree with my content decision?

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

This all seems a lot of fuss about naming style for a workgroup. It's not as if the entire paragraph would be written in uppercase, or even that a Latin (formal) name is being used. On the other hand, I agree that it is a little ugly to see names all in caps...

[David H. Barrett]

Right you are, Howard. Upstairs go I.

Thank you.

 

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

This all seems a lot of fuss about naming style for a workgroup. It's not as if the entire paragraph would be written in uppercase, or even that a Latin (formal) name is being used. On the other hand, I agree that it is a little ugly to see names all in caps...

Martin, that's pretty much the core of my argument -- we are primarily talking about article titles, headings, and links. I'm not even putting every military term into caps, only certain ones where I am following a style established by a primary source (i.e., that a given military site might be using things incorrectly doesn't cancel the formal definition by their command).

This hasn't hindered me in writing what I think is a respectable number of articles in the topic, and I hate to get distracted with what, frankly, I find a non-issue. As I've mentioned, I find some other discipline-specific terminology ugly, but it's what the discipline uses, so I settle for what the editors feel is appropriate -- I don't like some of the chemistry style, and my undergraduate work was in chemistry, but I feel no need to insist on notation that would please me better. Take a silly example of the article on the antibiotic hetacillin. The structural formula (diagram) is written quite correctly, but, if I had my choice, I'd put visual emphasis on part of the molecule. That's not a chemical convention, and I am not offended by the formal name (2S,5R,6R)-6-[(4R)-2,2-dimethyl-5-oxo-4-phenylimidazolidin-1-yl]-3,3-dimethyl-7-oxo-4-thia-1-azabicyclo[3.2.0]heptane-2-carboxylic acid. Note that there are no ALL CAPS in that name, other than single R's. I guess, therefore, it must be easier to understand than Operation DESERT STORM. 

My greatest notation challenge is Aleta's fault, when she asked me to contribute some Brussels sprout recipes, and I realized I'd actually have to write down quantities, timing, etc. "Add a sufficient amount of soy and ginger, and cook until ready" is not food-encyclopedic.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I think this is turning into a game of semantics ... 

Anti-semanticism can be an ugly thing.

Of course it's about semantics (and syntax as well). From a linguistic standpoint, when a syntactical convention conveys additional meaning, it's an efficient means of communications. HAVE BLUE and Nighthawk convey additional meaning to someone who knows the notation.

Were you planning to write some military articles? I have no idea what the Australian convention is for code names, although they probably do use the U.S. notation for joint projects. If your Department of Defence (note that I use the Australian spelling) has  a convention to call the F-111 replacement program  the platypus, the Billabong, or the NED KELLY, I shall not object, any more than I object to your spelling of what I would spell internationalization. If Australia happens to have some conventions -- and there are some superb Australian analysts on defense issues -- I intend to learn them.

Personally, I would rather go and write more content than keep arguing about generalities. It utterly mystifies me why you seem so upset about "military cant", yet, as far as I know, have not been arguing about other discipline-specific notation.

Please -- send a message to the constabulary for a clarification about an editor ruling, in the absence of disagreement from other editors, and where the reason for doing something in a domain-specific way may be ugly, but is thoroughly referenced. Yes, I have heard you and Heyford don't like the notation. This is not, however, Wikipedia, where the person that argues the longest wins. Get some other Military editors involved. Write enough military articles that you might become a recognized authority, and perhaps get editor status.

Otherwise, all I can say is that I have made a ruling that I do not intend to change, unless the relevant CZ methods for changing a ruling are invoked.  Rather than continuing to insist on having your way, go write some articles about australian army ammunition designations, if that's the preferred notation of said organization. There are some very interesting current military issues in that part of the world, if addressed, from which CZ would benefit. The F-111 replacement is one, and there are a host of regional security issues.

[David H. Barrett]

OK, Howard, I can see you think I've overstepped the mark, and I apologise for that.

I don't think being drawn into a personal slanging match in these forums is appropriate.

I do think you're attempting to impugn my intelligence and my motives, and I am sorry you felt that necessary.

I have sought advice further afield, and shall end this discussion here.

[Hayford Peirce]

Howard, you don't seem to understand the position of the other people in this discussion.  None of us are interested in writing military articles.  None of us is interested in becoming military experts. None of us is interested in becoming military history editors.  We are simply interested in the English language and the standardized formatting of CZ articles. We are not interested in what goes on in chemistry articles or any of the other red herrings you have referred to.  We are only interested in the use of capitals in the articles you have been writing.

Since you have now dogmatically and adamantly declared you will no longer consider any further arguments concerning your position, I will now, reluctantly, formally ask Dr. Sanger as Editor-in-Chief to review this entire discussion and to make a definitive ruling one way or another, one that will standardize this issue once and for all across all the articles in CZ.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

According to Editorial Council Resolution 0011, which was recently passed, every workgroup has the right to set its own style and formatting provided that it is not blatantly inconsistent with CZ style. Although there seem to be some exceptions to the usage of uppercase for military operations, clearly it is the professional view of this editor that it is a norm for US codenamed operations. If he wishes to set it as a style for the workgroup, then (along with other editors for that workgroup) he may do so. I cannot imagine that the Editor-in-Chief will intervene as there is no "legal" basis for him to do so, but Citizens have the right to request such.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

According to Editorial Council Resolution 0011, which was recently passed, every workgroup has the right to set its own style and formatting provided that it is not blatantly inconsistent with CZ style. Although there seem to be some exceptions to the usage of uppercase for military operations, clearly it is the professional view of this editor that it is a norm for US codenamed operations. If he wishes to set it as a style for the workgroup, then (along with other editors for that workgroup) he may do so. I cannot imagine that the Editor-in-Chief will intervene as there is no "legal" basis for him to do so, but Citizens have the right to request such.

Thank you, Martin. I have tried to be discriminating. For example, while I refer to Operation DESERT STORM for a specific a part of the Gulf War, if I speak of the British policies and actions on the same subject, I refer to Operation Granby, that being the U.K. name.

I refer to the "F-117 Nighthawk" and "C-130 Hercules" as the names of aircraft, but I speak of the classified technology demonstrator that led to the F-117 as HAVE BLUE, a clandestine special operations version of the C-130 as the C-130 COMBAT TALON, but of the armed version of the C-130 as C-130 Spectre, because that is a "name" rather than a "code name".  I follow cited reference documents for the capitalization.

In such cases of apparent complaint, such as Operation DESERT STORM, that name appears only in the title and first sentence of the article. Four other code names are used once each. SCUD, indeed, is used a number of times. Still, ths is a very small part of that article. In the article on, say, RC-135 RIVET JOINT itself, I probably do use the name several times.

To take a different example of discrimination, I speak of three missiles, AGM-84 Harpoon, AGM-86 ALCM, and AGM-88 HARM, the latter two being abbreviations, respectively, for air-launched cruise missile and high-speed anti-radiation missile. Is anyone suggesting that I should not use those abbrevations, which have exactly the same number of letters, and presumably reading difficulty, as SCUD?  Note that if I did not write HARM, it's not at all implausible that people would be harmed, or Harmed, in the course of a war.

As an aside, one of my professional specialties is fault-tolerant computing and networking. The medical systems using such are called "life-critical". Should I refer to equivalent military requirements as "death-critical"?

While some tradition and accidents are involved in some designations, such as BIGOT (see explanation in Compartmented Control System), there is a reason for some of the designations, and I have sourced some of these. Were this oral rather than written military presentation, the language would sound much more unnatural -- but there are strict conventions, because certain pronunciations or homonyms can lead to disastrous consequences.

I would be delighted to have discussion on the content of the articles. It's ironic how much sound and fury is generated by capitalization, when I have posted terminology usage questions to this same forum and gotten little response.  May I get back to writing articles, and hope I can spur this much activity when I have a question of terminology? For example, the United States Navy having totally confused the meaning of "frigate", although that remains NATO usage for a lightly armed ship primarily for convoy protection, I have come up with semi-useful discussions of "cruiser" and "destroyer".

I'd like to know if, for the low-end escort ships, and not getting into the specialized cases of sloop and corvette, if "ocean escort" is preferable to "convoy escort", "destroyer escort", or "frigate'. It would be quite useful, for example, if David could explain Australian Navy usage in that area.

[David H. Barrett]

According to Editorial Council Resolution 0011, which was recently passed, every workgroup has the right to set its own style and formatting provided that it is not blatantly inconsistent with CZ style. Although there seem to be some exceptions to the usage of uppercase for military operations, clearly it is the professional view of this editor that it is a norm for US codenamed operations. If he wishes to set it as a style for the workgroup, then (along with other editors for that workgroup) he may do so. I cannot imagine that the Editor-in-Chief will intervene as there is no "legal" basis for him to do so, but Citizens have the right to request such.

Thank you for this. It's what I've been looking for all along.

I am currently seeking advice on this matter through the "correct channels", and will think twice before attempting to have open, democratic discussions on such matters in future. Apparently it may be better to keep one's head down and lobby behind doors.

And Howard, I wish you nothing but the best, despite your repeated and blatant attempts to make me look like a fool.

I know nothing about the Australian navy's definitions of fighting vessels, but then of course you know that.

You also know as well as I do that such things have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I've almost wet my trousers laughing at the notion of the "disastrous consequences" for humanity of not using all caps for the name of a bloody aeroplane! (Sweet Lord! The US Air Force website has put us all in deadly peril! Quick! Capitalise! Capitalise!)

When you belittle me, sir, you belittle yourself, and I am sorry for you.

My final word on this, as a professional editor, is that we have a very, very long way to go if we presume to compete with the likes of Britannica in terms of quality and consistency of writing and presentation, particularly if authors and editors are going to throw over perfectly reasonable and widely used conventions that are to be found in myriad style manuals in favour of usage from internal institutional documentation. The reasons for such usages in military documents are clear, but they simply do not exist in Citizendium.

What bollocks!

I await the knock of the constabulary ...

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

David: you are perfectly correct in having the debate in public, and it has probably had more impact than any private communications would have had. The point is that the Editorial Council agreed to a revised set of rules that allows for different styles between disciplines. Obviously, this means that there is not a uniform CZ style in certain respects.

What are the implications for comparisons with EB, I do not know. All I can say is that EB adopts a very different approach in many respects, and it is not always clear that CZ is the loser in such comparisons. Although I take no sides in this specific debate about uppercase names for military operations, I do think that a lot of energy has been expended by all parties on a relatively trivial matter. If you are not actually involved in writing military articles, I urge you to respect the principle of devolution of powers that has been granted by the Editorial Council. If you are contributing to such articles, by all means continue to fight your corner: this is quite appropriate and a reasonable way for CZ to improve.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

According to Editorial Council Resolution 0011, which was recently passed, every workgroup has the right to set its own style and formatting provided that it is not blatantly inconsistent with CZ style. Although there seem to be some exceptions to the usage of uppercase for military operations, clearly it is the professional view of this editor that it is a norm for US codenamed operations. If he wishes to set it as a style for the workgroup, then (along with other editors for that workgroup) he may do so. I cannot imagine that the Editor-in-Chief will intervene as there is no "legal" basis for him to do so, but Citizens have the right to request such.

Thank you for this. It's what I've been looking for all along.

I am currently seeking advice on this matter through the "correct channels", and will think twice before attempting to have open, democratic discussions on such matters in future. Apparently it may be better to keep one's head down and lobby behind doors.

Please, if you don't think Martin understood you, say so. If, also, you think that he did not describe a clear process for workgroup editorial decisions, says so.

Martin, if you found I was trying to make a fool of David, I have no problem with that being said in public. If you don't think I explained my reasoning, say so.

Indeed, this has improved the Compartmented Control System article in a bit, in that some things that I said to begin with now have confirming citations.

While he has been somewhat heated about it, I believe that the crux of David's position is that general references, such as the Chicago Manual of Style, should be followed uniformly across all workgroups. My understanding is that is not a CZ requirement. Even bibliographic citations differ among disciplines; an American Psychological Association cite does not look like the MEDLINE style used in Health Sciences.

In much of my life, I've found it quite useful to know how discipline specialists express themselves. If, for example, I want a new physician to take serious notice of my observations and recommendations, it works best if I express myself not only with the correct vocabulary, but, including in writing, with the conventions used in medical reports. Personally, I ''want'' to know how domain specialists present things, because become more credible in communicating with one.
[/quote]
David, I really am curious. Why are you pushing this so hard?  Now, Wikipedia is not a democracy; it is an anarchy. No matter how many people reach a consensus on something, a new person may arrive and immediately change what has been done. 

Wikipedia has an Arbitration Committee, but it strictly limits itself to procedure and behavior. As a consequence, there is no way to have content decisions stay consistent.

One of the conscious differences between Citizendium and Wikipedia is that Citizendium is not, in a general sense, a democracy. That is not to say that every contributor's positions should not be heard, and understood.  Nevertheless, one of the fundamental principles of Citizendium is that it is possible to get decisions made on content and domain-specific matters. Citizendium would be absolutely delighted to get more of the pople that make such decisions, who, beyond real name, have to demonstrate some type of real-world credentials in the area where they make content decisions. 

I can't speak to the Australian political process, but I have a representative, in the lower house of Congress, with whom I generally agree. He is exceptionally good in running a responsive office staff, so I'm comfortable that my views will, at the least, be known to the appropriate person on Delahunt's staff. When it comes time for voting, however, the reality is that he has a vote on legislation and I do not. I might decide that even though we disageed on one issue, he and I agree on enough things that I will vote for his reelection. Perhaps I will work for his opponent in the next election.

There is a parallel here. On matters that are generally considered content -- and you heard from Martin that this point falls into the general area of content -- editors have a vote, but others do not. There have been editors that were discourteous, and treated authors, and indeed editors, as if they were fools. Can you really say I did not hear your argument, and explained that I understood that you felt something was stylistically desirable, went against my judgment? I went to considerable effort to offer sources as to why I had that opinion. I gave counterexamples to show that the ALL CAP convention was for a subset of military references.

Nevertheless, at this point, I regret to say that you seem unwilling to accept the process that is in place. I am more than welcome, privately or in public, to be corrected by a Constable or member of the Editorial Council that I did not give you a fair hearing and explained why I disagreed with you.

And Howard, I wish you nothing but the best, despite your repeated and blatant attempts to make me look like a fool.

I'm sorry, but I can't imagine how I have attempted to do that. I freely admit that I said that you were using incomplete sources. I admitted, and even gave an example, that there was an editorial judgment call involved, and cited one external editor that recognized the convention I was using was technically correct, but that he chose to use a different house style. I can also point to other professional journals that use the same conventions I was using -- and were not the majority of references to things military.

I know nothing about the Australian navy's definitions of fighting vessels, but then of course you know that.

I know that  I know nothing about what you know about the Australian navy. That was an honest request for information. Even if you did not, you might know an member of the Australian navy who could give a reference.

Since you have been adamant that I am wrong about proper U.S. usage, and, apparently, the criteria for accuracy and style in the Military Workgroup, I would tend to assume that you have some exposure to military matters and the translation of technical material to a more general audience. I asked that question not to make you a fool, because I thought, since you seem to feel so strongly about this matter, that you might have some broad subject matter knowledge.

Apparently, that is not the case, and your opinion is purely based on your perception of writing style.

You also know as well as I do that such things have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I've almost wet my trousers laughing at the notion of the "disastrous consequences" for humanity of not using all caps for the name of a bloody aeroplane! (Sweet Lord! The US Air Force website has put us all in deadly peril! Quick! Capitalise! Capitalise!)

Please show where I said that. What I did do was draw a distinction that the artificiality of spoken military terms is far greater than in writing. Letters are spelled out in a phonetic alphabet. Numbers are spoken in a stylized when, so it is impossible to confuse "five" with "nine" -- and people have died because a target reference was misunderstood.

When you belittle me, sir, you belittle yourself, and I am sorry for you.

My final word on this, as a professional editor, is that we have a very, very long way to go if we presume to compete with the likes of Britannica in terms of quality and consistency of writing and presentation, particularly if authors and editors are going to throw over perfectly reasonable and widely used conventions that are to be found in myriad style manuals in favour of usage from internal institutional documentation. The reasons for such usages in military documents are clear, but they simply do not exist in Citizendium.

What bollocks!

"Bollocks" is not American slang, but I have the impression that it is a fairly strong epithet. If I have its flavor correct, I would not use a comparably intense epithet in anything that I considered a professional discussion; and I try to behave professionally.

I was not aware I was competing with Britannica. I believed, however, that I was participating in a new approach to reference writing. Is Wikipedia competing? If they have, they have failed.

Larry Sanger mentioned that Britannica will allow Citizendium access to, or fair use of some of their materials, although I don't have the complete details. If my understanding is at all correct, that would suggest that Britannica believes that Citizendium is complementing, not competing with them.

I was not a founder of Wikipedia, but I believe I have spent enough time, had my own editorial disagreements, and learned from feedback, such that every day, I gain better understanding of the process. You, I believe, have been participating for a relatively short time, and, for your frequently trumpeted experience as a professional editor, have not been recognized as such here. Indeed, I had a disagreement shortly, very shortly, after starting, but I did not go hammer-and-tongs with the individual editor, but, in part, was able to get some distance both by calling the Constabulary for unprofessional behaviior, and also soliciting and receiving some guidance by email. 

I await the knock of the constabulary ...

And if I have dealt unfairly or unreasonably with you, Sir, I hope for such a knock, as I've found some wise advisers among the Constabulary and Editorial Council.

I'd much rather spend time in contributing content to rehashing a decision that I believe I had the authority to make, have explained my reasoning, and tried to be professional in saying "I hear you, but I do not agree."  As an author of several books from recognized publishers,  contrubutor to others, and technical editor for quite a number, I'm not exactly unfamiliar with editing convention; a simple search for my sole-authored books on Amazon will show that, and I can cite specific credits I've been given elsewhere.