Talk:Women Airforce Service Pilots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)