→article name: spacing |
stop moving my edits and stop harassing me |
||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
== Air WACS == |
== Air WACS == |
||
The article states that Colonel (later B/Gen.) Tunner's original plan was to have the women commissioned as Air WACs. I have never seen this assertion in anything I have read in any of the offical US Army sources. Furthermore, I doubt that it is accurate since Tunner's role as commander of the Ferrying Division of the Air Transport Command was to hire civilian contract pilots to ferry aircraft. There was consideration of commissioning the WASPs late in their existence but that idea never really got off the ground. Volume VI of the history of the United States Army Air Forces in WW II, edited by Craven and Cates, covers the WAFS and the WASP program in some detail. [[User:SamMcGowan|SamMcGowan]] ([[User talk:SamMcGowan|talk]]) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
The article states that Colonel (later B/Gen.) Tunner's original plan was to have the women commissioned as Air WACs. I have never seen this assertion in anything I have read in any of the offical US Army sources. Furthermore, I doubt that it is accurate since Tunner's role as commander of the Ferrying Division of the Air Transport Command was to hire civilian contract pilots to ferry aircraft. There was consideration of commissioning the WASPs late in their existence but that idea never really got off the ground. Volume VI of the history of the United States Army Air Forces in WW II, edited by Craven and Cates, covers the WAFS and the WASP program in some detail. [[User:SamMcGowan|SamMcGowan]] ([[User talk:SamMcGowan|talk]]) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
== article name == |
|||
<small>The following discussion was started on [[User talk:Daniel Case]] and has been moved here [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 18:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC) </small> |
|||
I think the name of this article [[Women Airforce Service Pilots]] might be incorrect. I've been doing a lot of reading on this subject recently and all the official sources seem to call them the Women's Air Service Pilots.[http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/pr_100311_wasp.cfm] If that is indeed the correct name, what type of sources would we need to make the correction? And how does an article name get corrected? Thanks.[[User talk:Malke 2010|<font color="green">Malke</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|<font color="#0000FF">2010</font>]] 19:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The Air Force Historical Society pages say ''Womens'' without an apostrophe; see [http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/WASP.htm this page]. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::My question is the use of the words "Air" as opposed to "Airforce."[[User talk:Malke 2010|<font color="green">Malke</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|<font color="#0000FF">2010</font>]] 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::The answer is, what do the official USAF sources call it? [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case#top|talk]]) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's the Air Force Historical Studies Office, part of the Air Force, that I linked to up above here. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] | [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 21:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::I've sent an email to Harry Reid's office.[[User talk:Malke 2010|<font color="green">Malke</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Malke 2010|<font color="#0000FF">2010</font>]] 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Unfortunately, your Senator is not in any way the authority on this. I think the [http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/contact.htm Air Force Historical Studies Program] is much more authoritative. They refer to [http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/WASP.htm Womens Airforce Service Pilots (WASP)] as do [http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123157228 other official Air Force sites]. Mike is correct. If you still have doubts, please copy this entire thread to the article's talk page and continue there. [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::May I second this? It ''is'' my talk page, after all. [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case#top|talk]]) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:51, 22 June 2010
![]() | Military history: Aviation / North America / United States / World War II Start‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
The user Akradecki has manipulated the article, reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWomen_Airforce_Service_Pilots&diff=104916394&oldid=104814390
-Signaleer 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- How exactly has the article been manipulated? If you look at the 2 intermediate revisions, the page edits are totally in order. Tom H 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Acknowledging Akradecki's valid point concerning WP policy on the need to cite sources of WP article claims of notability, I have taken the liberty of combing through Signaleer's substantial list of citations and have selected the USAF Museum as a major reliable source, to which I have linked each additional WASP name. If other WP contributors want to add to these cites, please do so. The USAF Museum Fact Sheet citations appear to be sufficient support to justify the addition of these notable WASP names. Does this approach strike the proper balance between helpfully listing notable WASP names and honoring WP policy on verifiability? Jack Bethune 02:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Jack, those look fine (I'd prefer to see them in footnote format, because this is a formal encyclopedia and citation form does matter) but at this point I'm just happy to see them. It's too bad that Signaleer couldn't be bothered to do it himself. Akradecki 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Acknowledging Akradecki's valid point concerning WP policy on the need to cite sources of WP article claims of notability, I have taken the liberty of combing through Signaleer's substantial list of citations and have selected the USAF Museum as a major reliable source, to which I have linked each additional WASP name. If other WP contributors want to add to these cites, please do so. The USAF Museum Fact Sheet citations appear to be sufficient support to justify the addition of these notable WASP names. Does this approach strike the proper balance between helpfully listing notable WASP names and honoring WP policy on verifiability? Jack Bethune 02:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
He does not source it because the user Akradecki is a troll and thinks he knows the policy and causes disruption among Wiki articles. -Signaleer 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Poor Judgment and Reasoning
The users Akradecki and Tom Herbert have made a poor judgment to remove the names of important WASP aviators that have contributed to their story and this article. They have deleted the names claiming that they, themselves do not know them and therefore should be deleted.
I will list sources of all the women who's names were deleted and some credible sources (e.g., military, collegiate institutions, government, and other various organizations) that have recognized them by posting it on their websites.
- Ann Baumgartner Carl
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1531
http://www.firstflight.org/shrine/carl_hixson.cfm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/filmmore/reference/interview/carl08.html
http://www.amazon.com/WASP-AMONG-EAGLES-PB-CARL/dp/1560988703
http://www.amazon.com/Wings-Rockets-Story-Women-Space/dp/0374384509
- Nancy Batson Crews
http://www.awhf.org/crews.html
http://www.mooneymite.com/articles/crewscareer.htm
http://www.twu.edu/wasp/Crews.pdf
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1526
http://www.southernmuseumofflight.org/AAHOF_Crews.html
- Teresa James
http://www.ninety-nines.org/tjames.html
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1553
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/filmmore/reference/interview/james03.html
http://www.twu.edu/wasp/James_Teresa.pdf
http://www.janchurchill.com/on_wings_to_war.htm
- Barbara Erickson London
http://www.wai.org/resources/2005pioneers.cfm
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1539
http://www.au.af.mil/au/goe/eaglebios/91bios/london91.htm
http://www.twu.edu/wasp/London.pdf
http://www.wwiihistoryclass.com/transcripts/Erickson_B_295.pdf
- Evelyn Sharp
http://www.ninety-nines.org/sharpie.html
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/sharp.html
http://www.amazon.com/Sharpie-Story-Evelyn-Nebraskas-Aviatrix/dp/1886225168
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1560
http://www.nps.gov/home/historyculture/upload/MW,pdf,SharpBio,b.pdf
- Dora Dougherty Strother
http://www.ninety-nines.org/WWII_reunion.html
http://www.twu.edu/TWHF/tw-strother.htm
http://www.wasp-wwii.org/wasp/resources/dora.html
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1536
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flygirls/filmmore/reference/primary/b2903.html
The reasoning for the removal of their names is pure vandalism and does not make any sense. There is plenty of evidence from online and hardcopy sources, to make the accusation that because their names are not on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for deletion.
-Signaleer 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well with all these sources, you can create articles for the names - showing that they're notable, of course - and then you'll fulfill the necessary criteria, and they can be included in the article. Simple as that. Tom H 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, you went to all that trouble to dig up those references, spent the time to argue and write about it here, but couldn't be bothered to cite in the article, instead relying on Jack to do the work for you? That's really sad. You can call it vandalism all you want, but the bottom line is that policy is policy, and strictly sticking to it is what builds this encyclopedia's credibility. Akradecki 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You two are both trolls and it is obvious you both did not take the time to research the information yourself before deleting, nor are you a subject matter expert of the WASPs and should not have been manipulating the article in the first place. -Signaleer 20:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You still don't get it, do you? It's not our job to research, it's your job to do that when you add the material. Akradecki 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Some things really don't sink in, do they? This discussion is moot. -Signaleer 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
WASP and WAFS
On a happier note (;-), I'm just learning about the WAFS (ferry service) operation at New Castle Army Air Field. I note this article currently links to itself via the WAFS redirect. Is that intentional? Sdsds 03:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I have an explanation for the re-direct to this article. As I understand, the WAFS was announced under the command of Love on September 10, 1942 and the WFTD under Cochran. However, in August 1943 both organizations were merged to be the WASPS so it makes sense that both the WAFS and WFTD pages are redirected to the WASPS article, although I was not the one who made the re-directs. To me, it's reasonable to say why the re-directs goes to this page. --Signaleer 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Fifinella.jpg
The image Image:Fifinella.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Plural: WASP or WASPs?
One of the WASP websites says there should never be an 's' after WASP, as the acronym already contains the plural version of "Pilots". On the other hand, two of the referenced books have "WASPs" in their titles, so it's clear there are differing opinions. What plural form should be we using at this article? Or should we work around the question by using such constructions as "the WASP group lobbied Congress" instead of either plural form "the WASP lobbied Congress" or "the WASPs lobbied Congress"? Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- Great point, on the official United States Air Force websites, the use of WASP and WASPs is used. http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/WASP.htm http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1506 It is understood that both forms are being used both colloquially and formally, use best judgement when writing an encyclopedia article. -Signaleer (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to make this point--this is my first effort contributing to WP--but I believe the term being used in this article, Women AirFORCE Service Pilots, is factually incorrect. I've placed FORCE in caps because during WW II the organization was called the Women Air Service Pilots, and did not include the word force. Even though some of the sources/books used for this WP article use that term, during WW II it was not used. Check the Army's Official History volume, The Women's Army Corps, by Mattie Treadwell, published in 1954, for some of the background on this. If the name was changed sometime later, that ought to be clarified in the article. Dr Dan Kuehl National Defense University 202 685 2257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daninfowar (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Womens Airforce Service Pilots is the correct title. That is what they were called by the Army Air Forces. Check Craven and Cates. SamMcGowan (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Air WACS
The article states that Colonel (later B/Gen.) Tunner's original plan was to have the women commissioned as Air WACs. I have never seen this assertion in anything I have read in any of the offical US Army sources. Furthermore, I doubt that it is accurate since Tunner's role as commander of the Ferrying Division of the Air Transport Command was to hire civilian contract pilots to ferry aircraft. There was consideration of commissioning the WASPs late in their existence but that idea never really got off the ground. Volume VI of the history of the United States Army Air Forces in WW II, edited by Craven and Cates, covers the WAFS and the WASP program in some detail. SamMcGowan (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)