Talk:160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne)/NPOV disputes

NPOV disputes archive for Wikipedia's '160th SOAR' article

Remember to sign your message by using 4 tildes. ( ~~~~ )

List of NPOV disputes for this article[edit]

The following is a summary for future editors of this article. The general consensus is also given as an explanation.

Craft specifications[edit]

It has been disputed that the craft specifications shouldn't be listed on the article. However, there hasn't been a general consensus yet, so please read the discussions on this page for more information. --Maio 01:42, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Copy violation?[edit]

The source of this article comes from public domain documents offered by the U.S. Army on their different websites. According to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines —and to the sources Security and Privacy Notice— this is NOT a copyright violation, as all retreived information is of public domain. --Maio

Length of article / Providing too much information[edit]

It has been disputed that the length of this article and the size of the information provided is too much. So far, the general consesus is that it is NOT too long, as all military units in the world deserve an inclusion on Wikipedia. --Maio 01:42, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Training specifics[edit]

It has been disputed that the training specifications shouldn't be listed on the article. However, there hasn't been a general consensus yet, so please read the discussions on this page for more information. --Maio 01:42, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Unit motto[edit]

The official motto of the Regiment is “Night Stalkers Don't Quit” (NSDQ). Because of this, it has been decided in general consensus that the motto is left on the article. [1] --Maio

The motto itself was never disputed, just some POV statement about it, which has by general consensus been removed. And also, because of what? Lupo 10:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moderators for this discussion[edit]

The following Wikipedians have volunteered to moderate this discussion:

Maio

Feel free to add your name to this list by using 3 tildes. ( ~~~ )

Original NPOV dispute discussion[edit]

Almost all information was copied from the U.S. Army publications (public domain). There are some points who sound to be alluding to the 'greatness' of the unit. I'm too tired to check the article, gonna check it tomorrow.
--Maio 16:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maio,

the hostage rescue operation in Iran is in WP under Operation Eagle Claw.

Fixed. "Desert One" was the military name for the operation's initial landing site. [2] --Maio 06:43, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Frankly said, I liked the previous version better — after all, it's just some military unit. I don't think it warrants such a lengthy coverage, which in itself might be considered POV. Unless, of course, you intend to cover all other military units of the U.S. Army and other armies in such detail, too.

The Night Stalkers do warrant mention in an encyclopedia, also because of "Black Hawk Down", but I think this is waaay too much.

As to POV in the text: there's a lot. Just a few points after a quick look (I don't have the time to do a full critique now):

their motto can be safely deleted.
their training specifics could go.
The whole "capabilities ... were demonstrated..." paragraph should go.

-- Lupo 17:33, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. This is not too long and the motto certaninly deserves inclusion. Every unit deserves a page this long regardless of their history. Wiki isn't paper. But certainly work to remove POV. I tried to tone down a little. Rmhermen 18:01, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I respect you and your opinions, but I must disgress. By your own words, the justification for this page is valid: all military units in the world deserve an inclusion entry on Wikipedia. If I knew about, lets say, units of Iraq, and had similar reference documents as I had with the US Army Rangers and the Night Stalkers, I would simply add them to Wikipedia. Regarding the hostage rescue, I beleive that was an error caused by insomnia. ;) --Maio 02:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Was that addressed to me? Minor nitpick just to set the record straight: that quote ("all military units in the world deserve...") isn't from me. Lupo 10:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It turns out that the entire history section is copied from http://www.campbell.army.mil/160soar.htm, which isn't a copyvio (it's public domain) but does rather tend to explain the tone and the charge of POV.

Yes, that is the very reason why I marked this article for NPOV dispute. I submitted it just when I was about to go to sleep and was too tired to rigorously edit it. IMHO, the more information the merrier, but I'm not an octopus capable of editing dozen of articles at the same time. That is why I marked it, so that other Wikipedians could help in the publishing process. --Maio 02:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For the record I don't think this is too much information. DJ Clayworth 19:07, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've now edited the history to be a bit less gung-ho. Some specific points.

What's wrong with recording the motto? I've edited so it no longer gushes about how well the unit reflects it (incidentally I've found some sites which give the motto as "Death Waits in the Night", but the official one seems to imply "Night Stalkers Never Quit" is right).
Nothing NPOV about the training specifics, unless you think they are wrong.

--DJ Clayworth 21:36, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Simply recording it is ok. I was objecting to the phrase "a motto the regiment lives by" (or some such). What do we know about that? It's just a claim found on a hardly impartial web site. But I see that this phrase has vanished already.

Oops: according to the official web site, the motto is "Night Stalkers don't quit". Changed it. Lupo 23:39, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The training specifics don't add much information unless one knows what exactly these courses are, in which case it is not improbable that one is interested in joining them. It smells "recruiting ad". I'll give it a shot, if you don't like it, change it back.

--Lupo 21:54, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, I must disgress again. If I could have training information of the units of UK I would add it also. Check out the Rangers article. It has a section named "Becoming a Ranger". To tell you the truth, I sometimes wished I had this information by hand for a few friends that wanted to become Rangers. IMO, if Wikipedians can add this information from a NPOV, and in a summarized manner, they should. For example, the Rangers article doesn't enter in details regarding the 3 weeks Ranger training program; that will be done in another in-detail article named Ranger Indoctrination Program. Nothing, but <3: --Maio 02:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For me, that's a case where an external link suffices. Lupo 10:37, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another point: do we need all these helicopter specifics? That's bound to become obsolete when they get new material. Also, how do we know that this list is correct? We only know about it what the U.S. Army deigns to reveal on their web pages — they could just as well fly other choppers, too.

Lupo 21:54, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

IMO, yes. When they get new materials, we will simply do another edit to the article. Remember that Wikipedia is an evolving and up-to-date encyclopedia. Regarding, the "other" choppers, we could add something like "the Regiment has possessed the following crafts in the past... blah blah blah". --Maio 02:18, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Someone changed the text to the following:

The regiment flies MH-6 and AH-6 Little Bird light helicopters, MH-60 Black Hawk and MH-47 Chinook heavy assault helicopters.

IMO, that is the best way to put it out.

-- Maio 03:52, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)