All, I was asked to have a look and offer an opinion. Having read through this conversation, I'm going to have to support (guess!) a compromise. It never gives me no joy to step in and overrule any editor, so I of course want to have a go-around or two with you, Howard, if you are willing. But you have explained yourself very well so far. I am curious if you can be prevailed upon to reply explicitly to the actual merits of the arguments I am about to make
Of course, Larry.
First, if there is question that I am following a formal set of rules, I would ask that the article, for which
is significantly a prerequsite,
compartmented control system, is read, where I would welcome specific comments that might be more detailed than here.
I would encourage looking at one of the footnotes at that article, where the editor of
Parameters, the academic journal of the U.S. Army War College, made an editorial style judgment not to use all caps, against what he considered the recommendations of advisors. That, at least, is an opinion, contrary to mine, that is from a recognized editor with specific background, rather than random websites. I disagree with his decision, but I think my citing that shows that I am not oblivious to other interpretations.
This may be superfluous, but I'd like to put to bed any impressions that I am using all caps other than quite selectively. I offer examples such as the classified code name HAVE BLUE versus the name of the aircraft for which it was the prototype, the F-117 Nighthawk, and the basic C-130 Hercules, versus specific variation code name such as COMBAT TALON.
Also, I invite any to look at the article [[Gulf War]] and the subarticles for Operation DESERT SHIELD, Operation DESERT STORM, and Operation DESERT SABRE. While I have observed, for example, that I am puzzled about the intensity of the objection when, in desert storm, the all caps name is used in the title and first sense, four all caps names of military systems used once and once only, and the only repeated all caps name is SCUD. Forgive me for suggesting this is not exactly heavy usage.
An additional proposed compromise, revisitedFurther, if you look back in the military forum, I have asked previously to find a complete and neutral alternative to the "spin" operation names, such as JUST CAUSE or IRAQI FREEDOM. I would much rather see the article titles there as "1989 U.S. military operations in Panama" and "2003 U.S. led military operations in Iraq." Yes, "Gulf War" works for the latter, but I can't think of any short name for the former.
I would prefer thee being titled "1990-1991 Coalition defense of Saudi Arabia", "1991 Coalition air operations against Iraq", and "1991 Ground operations in Kuwait and against Iraq". I would ask that I be able, in the lead, to give one all-caps designation saying "this is the formal name". I would much rather not use a propagandistic code name, which isn't even the real code name (No one ever heard of JUST CAUSE until reporters were told; BLUE SPOON) was the actual code word. I'd propose redirects to these narrative names including "Desert Shield" and "DESERT SHIELD"
It might be useful to have a subpage of code names.
Before I get into this, though, let me just remind everybody that our standards of civility here are the same as on wiki talk pages...
I will merely state, for the record, that I was not trying to make anyone look foolish, and, when I asked about Australian ship names, I don't know the conventions and thought a citizen might. It was my assumption, right or wrong, that someone who had very strong opinions on military notation might have useful general military knowledge".
As to this from Martin:
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.
Well, let's be clear. Howard has authority as an editor. But he does not singly make up a workgroup; he is one editor, and one editor does not a workgroup make. As such, I can indeed overrule him, Martin, and there are "legal" grounds for me to do so. After all, if I have any Editor-in-Chief role in the project at all, one of them must be to interpret our editorial rules when they are not clear--as our naming conventions (and our workgroup decisionmaking rules for that matter) evidently are not, in this case. Howard can try to get some other editors in his workgroup to support his position and overrule me, of course. And also, the issue might be appealed, if anyone feels that is necessary, to the Editorial Council, which can revise its own resolutions if necessary.
...
By habit (and lack of time), however, I feel it is a good idea to "pick my battles" wisely because the intrusion of "the law" into a problem, especially in a collaborative project, often creates more problems than it solves. This particular battle seems important for me to wade into, simply because so many valuable Citizens seem to need more definitive closure. Besides, I do think a reasonable compromise
might be in the offing.
WP is a mobocracy; CZ is a constitutional republic. CZ is a democracy in the traditional sense that sovereignty rests with the people, albeit in a law-governed system.
[/quote]
Did you see how I made the analogy to my own Congressman, and how, while I certainly feel my opinions are heard, if we disagree on one vote but generally disagree. I accept his choice there and move on. I do not belabor the point.
When I said democracy, I was thinking "direct democracy". What is closer is "representative democracy", or, as sometimes happens (e.g., the "Challenger" disaster), the government appoints a review commission of apparently independent experts and generally follows their recommendation. I'm not sure of an appropriate term for "advisers to an independent democracy", but that's more what I had in mind: the antithesis of a New England town meeting.
Larrry, can you accept that distinction?
May I again saying that [[Gulf War]] is now in use for the highest-level article, and the code names are only found in the links and titles to the three main subarticles? For the specialist who would look up under code name, there can be redirects, although I would prefer to see movement away from code words in operation names, going instead to generic text. I still object to initial cap other than in redirects, as I don't want to look to what is, to me, a jarring notation while I edit the article.
I freely admit that individual documents and organizations violate certain rules, but I see little choice but to use the authoritative U.S. references, as having the best chance of helping a reader read original materials, and to keep the articles here as consistent as possible.
It is irrelevant whether source documents or source organizations violate rules of ordinary publishing, because they are not ordinary publishers. If we were a military organization, we might prefer to follow the usage; but we aren't, we are a reference project. So it is perfectly acceptable that our standards be different.
This is a point others have made, obviously. It is also a point that, as far as I can tell, you have never directly responded to, Howard.
I believe I have, but, if so, I obviously haven't communicated it. There are a couple of reasons that I prefer the source rules, designating one as classified development phase and one production, why I would use both HAVE BLUE and "F-117 Nighthawk".
The two areas where you will find me most reluctant to move from all caps are in the code words assigned for weapons systems, and the various markings used in security classification. In the former, there really are no "common names". Take a reasonably random example, RIVET JOINT. I can't speak for anyone else, but if I saw Rivet Joint, I'd initially wonder which pieces of metal were being joined by a rivet, and why. If I see a (usually) TWO WORD all-cap reference, or if anyone else can get accustomed to the convention, it identifies itself as a special usage, just as do Larry or Howard. Now, some code words, such as CLARINET PILGRIM, are sufficiently unusual that there is little chance of confusion, but I'd rather use the convention that makes it clear that an artificial convention in use.
There is a not-unrelated issue with classification markings. Something called SECRET is indicated as in a particular legal and handling secret. "secret" can and should apply to my ATM password. If someone writes "acording to the Secret document", I'm not sure if someone is using the term generically or specifically.
If I am not mistaken, you will want to insist that this doesn't ultimately matter and instead that what matters is what the Experts in this case--who work for the military--say the rule is. But I want to point out carefully that this begs the question. To assume that we should follow military-employed experts in this case is to say that the usage of those experts should determine our usage. I believe I want to disagree with that, because experts sometimes do have idiosyncratic usage that does not comport with the usage of a general reference work such as CZ. In other words, if CZ were a work by and for government-employed military experts, then it would make sense for usage to be determined by those experts. But since CZ is a general reference work, our usage is determined by what is in common and recognizable currency among "peer publishers" such as other general encyclopedias, newspapers, magazines, and the like.
Larry, I hope it is realized that some of the reasons I want that usage is that there is that the U.S. military found that things can be ambigous when certain conventions are not followed. You should never see me write a British code name in other than initial cap only, because (1) initial cap only is British military style, (2) they don't have so many development programs, contingency plans, etc., such that ambiguity is likely and (3) they don't try to "spin" operation names. The Falklands operation was Operation Corporate and the Gulf War operation was Operation Granby.
The U.S. military does not use all caps on names, such as the "C-130 Hercules", or its armed variant, the "AC-130 Spectre". They do, however, use all caps when the words following the designation are a code name (see Compartmented Control System), such as MC-130 COMBAT TALON or RC-135 COBRA BALL. Those are extensive modification of the basic plane, enough that the original name of "Hercules" or "Stratolifter" would no longer apply
Perhaps one compromise is using initial cap on operation names, and trying to avoid non-neutral operations names. All caps are acceptable on non-public code names of development projects, and classification and control markings (e.g., SECRET (specific) rather than Secret (???Is this the actual classification) vs. just being non-public. A real, not spin-doctor, code name like HAVE BLUE sets itself apart as being a real code name, while Have Blue is confusing -- have a blue what? In like manner, while I have other preferences about a completely neutral, if long, name, I could live with calling something "Operation Iraqi Freedom", the "spin" name, but leaving the real code name, POLO STEP in all caps, so no one automatically tries to make sense of the application of a game on horseback and an action in walking.
I am inclined to agree with your first sentence when the emphasis is on "in a discipline-specific article." But what is a discipline-specific article? Is "Operation DESERT STORM" a discipline-specific article? No, it is not, not if by that phrase you mean a topic that is only treated within the field of military operations, analysis, or what have you. I would not have any objection whatsoever to your using the specialist usage if the topic really is so specialized. But let us be clear: merely because the leading experts about a topic are military experts who use all caps in their own documents, it does not follow that the topic is a "discipline-specific topic" in the sense you mean.
You would not hear the slightest complaint from me if that which is called "Operation DESERT STORM" were titled "1991 US-led coalition air campaign against Iraq", or words to that effect, although there should be a note in the introduction that it was code named Operation DESERT STORM. While DESERT STORM isn't as bad as JUST CAUSE, I intensely dislike propagandistic code names. Nevertheless, when I have to use them, not having accepted, neutral generic language, I prefer to see them in a manner that doesn't seem jarring.
Discipline-specific? One is things that are clearly spin, partisan, and after-the-fact, such as DESERT SHIELD and IRAQI FREEDOM. I would prefer, for the former, to use DESERT SHIELD (all caps) once, identify it as the U.S. code name, and go on to speak of "Coalition defense of Saudi Arabia" The other are "proper" code names such as HAVE BLUE,deliberately meaningnless, and frankly, find easier to use because the typography clearly sets them as specific terms, rather than English words that could be distract with thying to fit them into context. Have a blue what?
I can't agree, for reasons I've outlined. David gave the perfect reply to this, by the way: the military itself does not use the all-caps convention in its own public communications. If that's correct, it really defangs your main argument, Howard.
If you'll allow a bit of military whimsy, it is said, in the U.S. military, that the difference between the Cub Scouts and the U.S. Air Force is that one has adult supervision. David has cited one and only one source, USAF public "factsheets". If it came to it, and I really hope it does not, I suspect I could find a substantially greater number of military communications to the public in the manner than the example David selects, all from Air Force public data sheets at one website
David, in calling for "debate", who do you expect to participate?...
Well...if you mean to lay down the law, then I think you should make it absolutely clear as soon as possible that you are doing so. Then you should stop debating after concisely explaining your reasons, once.
I accept that criticism. It had been my hope, especially with a newcomer like David, not to just say "We (imperial) have decided, but to give some background that indicated that my ruling was not
ex cathedra from my navel;
Then, if David or anyone else has an objection, they can appeal to another authority. ... But the fact that you are willing to argue at very great length indicates that you trying to persuade, not to force. You should make up your mind about whether you are trying to persuade, or instead to force. Just to be clear: I myself am engaging in persuasion (of you) at present. I have not definitely resolved to overturn your decision.
I was trying to persuade; I was not doing this merely because I could. I'll simply say that there are additional but obscure reasons that I find this notation useful.
(1) For military code names that refer to things that are virtually never discussed outside of military circles, we may indulge the experts by allowing them to use whatever convention they want to follow, on the theory that only those experts, or people who want to get similar expertise, will care about those articles.
Is it fair to say that would cover specific weapons systems? For example, is it acceptable to have the article RC-135 RIVET JOINT, a communications intelligence aircraft? HAVE BLUE when one is talking about the classified prototype, and, as I have done, "F-117 Nighthawk" once a public announcement is made? Would that also apply to security markings such as TOP SECRET/RD/SIOP/ESI?
(2) For military code names that do have currency in encyclopedias, newspapers, and other peer publishing sources, we should use conventions similar to theirs--just initial caps. And this is because we are a general reference work, not a work "by and for" military experts.
I have never gotten a response going about trying for neutral names that use neither classified code words or spin line "Operation Iraqi Freedom". POLO STEP makes no sense, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is biased, but what about "2003 U.S.-led conventional invasion of Iraq", and "Post-invasion U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq?"
I hope you will agree with me that this is a reasonable compromise. David et al. get (2), while Howard gets (1). I hope we might agree on this and not appeal to anybody's authority unnecessarily.
I will, however, try even harder to use neutral language such as "US-led coalition defense of Saudi Arabia" then Operation Desert Shield. The former is even more informative to a nonspecialist. It is less concise, but is easier for me, since I write enough discipline-specific material that I don't want to get into the habit of writing Desert Storm and annoying my customer.
