|
The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 sometimes known as the '''First Kashmir War''' was a war fought between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]] over the region of [[Kashmir]] from [[1947]] to [[1949]]. It was the first of the many wars fought among the two newly independent nations.
{{User:meelar/wel}}
==Cause==
The state of [[Jammu and Kashmir]] had been part of India since time immemorial. It was one of a number of Indian states that recognised British paramountcy. Prior to the withdrawal of the British from India, the state came under pressure from both India and Pakistan to join their states. The [[Maharaja]] of Kashmir, [[Hari Singh]] wanted to remain independent and tried to delay the issue. However at the time of British withdrawal the state was invaded by a concentrated force of Pakistani-backed irregulars and regular Pakistani soldiers. This forced him to accede Kashmir to India who promptly rushed into Kashmir and thus the war had started.
== On your listSummary of lists War==
The AZK had several advantages in the war, notably:
*Prior to the war the Jammu and Kashmir state forces had been spread thinly around the border as a response to terrorist activity, and so were badly deployed to counter a full scale invasion.
*Some of the state forces rebelled and joined the invaders.
*The AZK were also aided by regular Pakistani soldiers who manned some of their units, with the proportion increasing throughout the war.
*British officers may have helped the Pakistanis plan the attack.
As a result of these advantages the main invasion force quickly brushed aside the Jammu and Kashmir state forces. But the attacker’s advantage was not vigorously pressed and the Indians saved the country by airlifting reinforcements. This was at the price of the state formally succeeding to India. With Indian reinforcements the Pakistani / AZK offensive ran out of steam towards the end of 1947. The exception to this was in the High Himalayas sector where the AZK were able to make substantial progress until turned back at the outskirts of Leh in late June 1948. Throughout 1948 many small-scale battles were fought. None of these gave a strategic advantage to either side and the fronts gradually solidified. Support for the AZK forces by Pakistan became gradually more overt with regular Pakistani units becoming involved. A formal cease-fire was declared on [[31 December]], 1948.
==Results of the War==
The independent state of Jammu and Kashmir ceased to exist. The cease fire line has over the years became a de facto division of the country. This has given about one third of the land area to Pakistan and about two thirds to India. The Indians retained control of the relatively wealthy and populous Kashmir Valley, and a majority of the population. In [[1956]], this area became the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the India union.
==Stages of the War==
Several Wikipedians want to talk with you on the possible deletion of [[List of all Wikipedia lists that do not contain themselves]]. Here's the discussion page: -->[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_all_Wikipedia_lists_that_do_not_contain_themselves here]. [[User:Poccil|[[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]])]] 06:08, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
This war has been split into ten stages by time. The individual stages are detailed below.
===Initial Invasion 22 Oct 1947 – 26 Oct 1947 (Op Gulmarg)===
==Association of Inclusionist==
[[Image:J&K01low.jpg|Initial Invasion 22 Oct 1947 – 26 Oct 1947 (Op Gulmarg)]]<br>
A large invasion of the Kashmir valley was mounted by the irregular forces, aimed at Srinagar, the capital of Jammu and Kashmir. The state forces were defeated and the way to the capital, ([[Srinagar]]), was open. There was also a mutiny by state forces in favour of the AZK in Domel.
In desperation, Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir requested the Indian Government for Indian troops to stop the uprising. The Indians told him that if Singh signed an Instrument of Accession allowing Kashmir to join the Indian Union, only then would India rush in troops for the protection of one of its territories. This, the Maharaja promptly did. Following this accession, the Indian troops arrived and quickly blocked the advance of the invaders, preventing the imminent sacking of Srinigar.
However, many of the irregular forces went home with their loot after plundering local towns and thus failed to press the attack home. In the Punch valley the Jammu and Kashmir state forces retreated into towns and were besieged.
----
Hi, I'm [[User:Roachgod|Roachgod]], I have been notified that I am anhonorary member of the Association of Inclusionist. I have no problem with this, though I am curious as to why I was given this membership? [[User:Roachgod|ZaQ]] 15:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:It would appear that everone who was listed as an "inclusionist" on the [[m:Inclusionism]] page was made an honorary AIW member by Merovingian when he created the page. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 18:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
===Indian defence of the Kashmir Valley 27 Oct 1947 – 17 Nov 1947===
Thank you. [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards]] 16:31, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[Image:J&K02low.jpg|Indian defence of the Kashmir Valley 27 Oct 1947 – 17 Nov 1947]]<br>
Indian forces, rapidly airlifted to Srinagar managed to defeat the irregular forces on the outskirts of the town. This was partially due to an outflanking manoeuvre by armoured cars. Shattered, the AZK were pursued as far as Baramula and Uri and these towns were recaptured. In the Punch valley the sieges of the loyal Jammu and Kashmir state forces continued. Meanwhile, the troops in Gilgit (the Gilgit Scouts) mutinied and this yielded most of the far north of the state to the AZK.
----
=== Attempted link-up at Punch 18 Nov 1947 – 26 Nov 1947===
[[Image:J&K03low.jpg|Attempted link-up at Punch 18 Nov 1947 – 26 Nov 1947]]<br>
The Indian forces ceased their pursuit of the shattered AZK forces and swung south in an attempt to relieve Punch. This was less successful than hoped, because inadequate reconnaissance had underestimated the difficulty of the roads. Although the relief column eventually reached Punch, the siege could not be lifted. A second relief column reached only Kotli and was forced to evacuate its garrison. Mirpur was captured by the AZK and its inhabitants particularly the Hindus were slaughtered.
----
===Fall of Jhanger and attacks on Naoshera and Uri 25 Nov 1947 - 6 Feb 1948===
[[Image:J&K04low.jpg|Fall of Jhanger and attacks on Naoshera and Uri 25 Nov 1947 - 6 Feb 1948]]<br>
The Pakistani/AZK forces attacked and captured Jhanger. They then attacked Naoshera unsuccessfully. In both areas they killed and raped not only Hindus but any muslims who were against them. Other Pakistani/AZK forces made a series of unsuccessful attacks on Uri. In the south a minor Indian attack secured Chhamb. By this stage of the war the front line began to stabilise as more Indian troops became available.
----
===Op Vijay: counterattack to Jhanger 7 Feb 1948 - 1 May 1948===
[[Image:J&K05low.jpg| Op Vijay: counterattack to Jhanger 7 Feb 1948 - 1 May 1948]]<br>
The Indian forces launched a counterattack in the south recapturing Jhanger and Rajauri. In the Kashmir Valley the Pakistani/AZK forces continued attacking the Uri garrison. In the north Skardu was brought under siege by Pakistani/AZK forces.
----
===Indian Spring Offensive 1 May 1948 - 19 May 1948===
[[Image:J&K06low.jpg|Indian Spring Offensive 1 May 1948 - 19 May 1948]]<br>
The Indians held onto Jhanger against numerous counterattacks from the AZK, who were increasingly supported by regular Pakistani Forces. In the Kashmir Valley the Indians attacked, recapturing Tithwail. The AZK made good progress in the High Himalayas sector, infiltrating troops to bring Leh under siege, capturing Kargil and defeating a relief column heading for Skardu.
----
===Operations Gulab and Erase 19 May 1948 - 14 Aug 1948===
[[Image:J&K07low.jpg|Indian Spring Offensive 1 May 1948 - 19 May 1948]]<br>
The Indians continued to attack in the Kashmir Valley sector driving north to capture Keran and Gurais. They also repelled a counterattack aimed at Tithwail. In the Punch Valley the forces besieged in Punch broke out and temporarily linked up with the outside world again. The AZK made good progress in the High Himalayas sector and got to the outskirts of Leh and eventually captured Skardu. However an attempt to take the town of Leh itself was unsuccessful.
----
===Operation Duck 15 Aug 1948 - 1 Nov 1948===
[[Image:J&K08low.jpg|Operation Duck 15 Aug 1948 - 1 Nov 1948]]<br>
During this time the front began to settle down with less activity by either side, the only major event was an unsuccessful attack by the Indians towards Dras (Operation Duck). The siege of Punch continued.
----
===Operation Easy. Punch link-up 1 Nov 1948 - 26 Nov 1948===
[[Image:J&K09low.jpg|Operation Easy. Punch link-up 1 Nov 1948 - 26 Nov 1948]]<br>
The Indians now started to get the upper hand in all sectors. Punch was finally relieved after a siege of over a year. The AZK forces in the High Himalayas, who had previously made good progress, were finally defeated. The Indians pursued as far as Kargil before being forced to halt due to supply problems. The Zoji-La pass was forced by using tanks (which had not been thought possible at that altitude) and Dras was recaptured. The use of tanks was based on experience gained in Burma in 1945.
----
===Moves up to cease-fire. 27 Nov 1948 - 31 Dec 1948===
[[Image:J&K10low.jpg| Moves up to cease-fire. 27 Nov 1948 - 31 Dec 1948]]<br>
Realising that they were not going to make any further progress in any sector, the Pakistanis decided to end the war. A UN cease-fire was arranged for the 31st Dec 1948. A few days before the cease-fire the Pakistanis launched a counter attack, which cut the road between Uri and Punch.
== Deletionists!!!!!! ==
After protracted negotiations a cease-fire was agreed to by both countries, which came into effect. The terms of the cease-fire as laid out in the UNCIP resolution (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/uncom1.htm) of [[August 13]], 1948 were adopted by the UN on [[January 5]], 1949. This required Pakistan to withdraw her forces, both regular and irregular, while allowing India to maintain minimum strength of her forces in the state to preserve law and order. On compliance of these conditions a plebiscite was to be held to determine the future of the territory. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war and Pakistan was able to acquire roughly two-fifths of Kashmir. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1947.htm)
==Military insights gained from the war.==
I find the deletionisnts are getting out of control :o). I voted against deletion on a highschool article that is going to be deleted, and i noticed you did as well. I see NO harm at all in having many interesting and esoteric articles on wikipedia. If these people dont want to know about that highschool then they dont have to search for it.
===On the use of armour===
The use of light tanks and armoured cars was important at two stages of the war. Both of these Indian victories involved very small numbers of AFVs. These were:-
*The defeat of the initial thrust at Srinagar, which was aided by the arrival of 2 armoured cars in the rear of the irregular forces.
*The forcing of the Zoji-La pass with 11 Stuart M5 light tanks.
This may show that armour can have a significant psychological impact if it turns up at places thought of as impossible.
It is also likely that the invaders did not deploy anti-tank weapons to counter these threats. Even the lightest weapons will significantly encumber leg infantry units, so they may well have been perceived as not worth the effort of carrying about, and left in rear areas. This will greatly enhance the psychological impact of the armour when it does appear.
The successful use of armour in this campaign strongly influenced Indian tactics in the 1962 war where great efforts were made to deploy armour to inhospitable regions (although with much less success in that case).
===Progression of front lines===
This is my reply on deletion articles:
*It is interesting to chart the progress of the front lines. After a certain troop density is reached progress was very slow with victories being counted in the capture of individual villages or peaks. Where troop density was lower (as it was in the High Himalayas sector and at the start of the war) rates of advance can be very high.
===Deployment of forces===
*The Jammu and Kashmir state forces were spread out in small packets along the frontier to deal with terrorist incidents. This made them very vulnerable to a conventional attack. India used this tactic against East Pakistan in 1971.
==References==
===Major Sources===
*“Operations In Jammu and Kashmir 1947-1948” Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Thomson Press (India) Limited. New Delhi 1987. This is the Indian Official History, and was the major source for this work.
*“The Indian Army After Independence”, by KC Praval, 1993. Lancer International, 1-897829-45-0
*“Slender Was The Thread: The Kashmir confrontation 1947-1948”, by Maj Gen LP Sen, 1969. Orient Longmans Ltd New Delhi.
*“Without Baggage: A personal account of the Jammu and Kashmir Operations 1947-1949” Lt Gen. E. A. Vas. 1987. Natraj Publishers Dehradun. ISBN 81-85019-09-6.
===Other Sources===
*“The Indian Armour: History Of The Indian Armoured Corps 1941-1971”, by Maj Gen Gurcharn Sandu, 1987, Vision Books Private Limited, New Delhi, ISBN 81-7094-004-4.
*“Thunder over Kashmir”, by Lt Col Maurice Cohen. 1955 Orient Longman Ltd. Hyderabad
*“Battle of Zoji La”, by Brig Gen SR Hinds, Military Digest, New Delhi, 1962.
*“History of Jammu and Kashmir Rifles (1820-1956)”, by Maj K Barhma Singh, Lancer International New Dehli, 1990, ISBN 81-7062-091-0.
==See also==
:'''Keep''' I am becoming somewhat disturbed at the level of deletionism occuring for what I think are ''worthy articles''. There little, if any, harm in keeping interesting and esoteric material on Wikipedia. If you do not want to know about this topic then you do not be subjected to it. However, if it is kept it will be here for people who do want to know about it.--[[User:ShaunMacPherson|ShaunMacPherson]] 18:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*[[Indo-Pakistani War of 1965]]
*[[Partition of India]]
[[Category:Indo-Pakistan Wars]]
Should we make a wikiproject for inclusionists? I find deletionism is destroying good articles, and time spent deleting could be spent creating better articles. Deletionism is destructive by its very nature. See you, --[[User:ShaunMacPherson|ShaunMacPherson]] 18:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:Kashmir]]
[[Category:1947]]
* I've joined this organization as I feel it is a noble cause. I only wish I was aware of this organization last week when I found my articles under some sort of strange attack (and subsequently a sleu of retaliatory attacks for defending myself) by Meelar and RickK. -- [[RaD Man]] / [[User_talk:Radman1|talk]] 22:05, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[[Category:Jammu and Kashmir]]
== Deletionism 2 ==
Can you vote on this article [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Thames_High_School]] it is a school article that is up for deletion.
Should we make a group of wikipedians that will try and do schools? --[[User:ShaunMacPherson|ShaunMacPherson]] 19:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==My thoughts on schools, and deletion in general==
Please, by no means take this to be the opinion of the group - these are my thoughts, and my thoughts only. I'm not the most radical deletionist around.
There's very few subjects that I'll vote delete on if you hand me a really good article - with the exception that if it's a vanity biography, garage band, micronation, conlang, antipope, or some other form of vanity that's really non-notable, then I'm likely to vote delete regardless.
But then we get to areas that are distinctly borderline (in my opinion, anyway) such as schools, hospitals and major streets. With these things, I tend to judge them on a case-by-case basis. The odds of them being expanded aren't very good, so I'm prepared to err on the side of inclusion only if the article meets a basic standard. If there's some reason that makes it obviously notable, then good. If there's something there that anyone could find interesting (i.e. not just stuff that could be said for any school in the Western world), and there's more than a paragraph or so, I'll probably vote keep too. I don't judge each case specifically using it, but Dpbsmith's [[User:Dpbsmith/BEEFSTEW|BEEFSTEW]] criteria are very close to my own.
The problem with the vast amount of school submissions lately is that they've been complete garbage. Substubs and short stubs. "Anyton High School has 1000 students and a principal and some teachers. We have lots of buildings and a carpark." If it was a clearly notable topic, I'd tolerate something of that length, but on something so borderline - and on something that's so uninteresting (to anyone) and so unlikely to be expanded, then I'll vote delete. And FYI, I created [[Fitzroy High School]]. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 04:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:I guess my question would be, if they are so uninteresting, why is it that there are so many of them created? It seems like there is plenty of interest in having school articles. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 06:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::Well, we just about all went to school. My view, FWIW, is that the school articles should not be routinely deleted until a broader consensus has been reached on this issue, if it can be. However, I think a lot of the Manaloa article is spurious. It may well be factual what sports it competes in but it's dull. Yes, you can readily pad out articles on every school there is, but that doesn't make for a particularly interesting read. I think in Manaloa what has been created is a ''long'' article, not a ''good'' one. Does a great encyclopaedia include '''everything'''? I think RickK is right. This agenda does end up in including every last atom of our world in Wikipedia. That isn't what was intended by its founders. Nor, I believe, did they intended that "notability" should be a function of how many people attended an institution. And, I'm absolutely certain, they did not wish the encyclopaedia only to cover those areas people show "plenty of interest" in. Having said all that, I don't think that there is any standard here that is being applied reasonably. There are articles on Hong Kong's metro stations, towns with one inhabitant, baseball players of absolutely no note whatsoever, the third episode in the second series of South Park, the characters in Harry Potter, and what have you. Are schools more or less notable than any of those? Why? [[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 23:55, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
My opinion on your question above, and one of the main reasons behind my decisions on deleting schools, is that they are a form of vanity. Just like non-notable bands, non-notable Usenet groups, non-notable web sites. Somebody feels pumped up that this unimportant thing gets put into an encyclopedia, and it makes them feel important. I don't vote delete on all schools, just on most of them, because they are as non-notable as articles about their student body presidents and their principals. If we have an article on the school, then surely we should have one on every teacher there, right? Inclusionists say that schools are important because they're an important part of the lives of hundreds or thousands of people. Well, surely those teachers are, too, right? And then what? Articles on every prison guard? After all, they're important in people's lives. Besides, I think it's a camel's nose in the tent thing -- once schools are accepted, then the argument goes on to the next granularity of trivia -- the local post office, the local city hall. And like I said on the mailing list, then we should have articles on every building and every tree in the world. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 18:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
== Indrian comments ''(annotated by me)'' ==
I am glad you have a window into all of our souls. ''(I don't understand what you mean by this [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
To put it simply, I think that Moanalua High School should be deleted. ''(That's fine, I think you can hold that position, and in fact, need to to be consistent [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
I also think it does not have a good chance to get deleted. Why? Because you are right that many wikipedians will keep an unworthy article as long as the information is factual and the article is well-written and of decent length. ''(I think most people wouldn't consider it unworthy, but yes, I agree with you, it would survive deletion [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
I think this is unfortunate, but I will not list an article for vfd just to grandstand. I will vote for its deletion, however, if it would happen to be listed. ''(That's a fine position, I don't think you need to nominate everything you would vote for. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
As for your formal arguement, it is flawed because your assumption is flawed. The lack of a vfd notice does not inherently imply that an article should be kept; it just means that no one has brought it up for a vote yet for some reason. ''(I think that the reason it hasn't been nominated is because the majority of users don't think it should be deleted; but this is, in fact speculation. As I said before though, my argument was meant to illustrate that you either have to be against Moanalua (conceptually), or can't use the non-notability argument [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
Even if such an article were to be put up for deletion and survive, it would not automatically make it encyclopedic based on a standard other than popularity. My standard is my own; your standard is your own; it is all subjective. ''(Wikipedia policy is determined by majority opinion. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
Majority rule in this case does not lead to what is "right" (if such absolute truth even exists in regards to what should be in an encyclopedia), only to what the most people believe is the correct path. There is no fundamental truth involved in deciding what is notable, and it would be arrogant for anyone to claim that their idea of what is notable has some higher value. ''(That's true, but, logic requires that people at least have consistency for their own opinions [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
The vfd process is just a way to see which viewpoint is embraced by the community as a whole, not a way to discover a greater truth. If the majority finds that a school is notable, I will accept the will of the community because it is a community project. I would hope you would do the same if the opposite occurred, though sometimes I doubt it. ''(While I vote for schools to be kept, argue vehemently for their support, I do not interfere with the wiki process, I do not recreate deleted articles, and I do not disrupt the process, I just try, as hard as I can, to get people to come around to what I see as the only reasonable stance to hold regarding wikipedia. I don't think that there is any evidence to support the accusation that I would not accept the will of the community. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
Finally, Trying to catch me in a contradiction based on your formal arguement does not work because it is possible to both believe an article should be deleted and not actually bring it up for deletion. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 22:40, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
''(Again, as I said to Intrigue, I do not think that you have to nominate everything you would vote to delete for deletion. My point, and I think this still stands, is that you all know that if every school article was like Moanalua, you'd never get enough votes to delete. Because people want articles like that, its part of the unique service that wikipedia can provide, a reason to use wiki instead of Britannaica. And I don't understand why you are all so vehemently against making wikipedia compete with actual encyclopedias not just in price, but in scope of coverage as well. I cannot imagine why you wouldn't want wikipedia to eventually contain every piece of factual information it can. And that was all I was saying. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 00:55, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC))''
*I really do see where you are coming from and I think it is a good goal to strive towards in principle. The problem is that it is impossible to include everything, both for space reasons (limitations are slight, but the project probably could not handle five billion articles) and because too much passes by that is not recorded by anyone for posterity. Circumstances force us to be selective; even if we keep every school article there is stuff that we will not be able to record. As a result, I choose to draw the line at a more selective point in the belief that wikipedia is more useful if it is not bogged down with factual information that is unlikely to be useful to many people. It is important to remember that an encyclopedia's primary purpose is as a reasearch aid; it is meant to summarize and to distill and serve as a starting point for greater discovery and is not meant to be a substitute for other sources. Other people are probably more selective than me; plenty of people are less selective; that is fine. My only problem with you, Shaun and Anthony is that you refuse to accept that we have this position and move on. Instead, you attempt to make formal arguements showing why we are being idiots. I do not think you are idiots for your position; I hope that you can come to realize the same thing about us. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 02:20, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
**The thing is that, in many cases, this so called "useless information" does not "bog down" Wikipedia. It is accurate and easy to find for those looking for it, but in a place where it would not cause confusion to those not looking for that information. Deletion should be used as a tool for improvement, but I believe that Wikipedia should not be improved towards some aesthetic standard of what is "worthy" for an encyclopedia, but rather a usefulness standard of the greatest usefulness for the greatest number. If an obscure article does not provide confusion to those who do not care about it or misinformation to those who do, it is a benefit to Wikipedia, and deleting it would not improve Wikipedia. --[[User:L33tminion|L33tminion]] 17:16, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
**I'm not sure if I've fully understood the lengthy arguments above, but it doesn't look as though Posiduck is attempting to show that people opposed to including schools are idiots. His summary says "Either you (deletionists in general) oppose the current Moanalua Entry as non-notable or you stop using notability as a claim on VfD." It seems as though you fall into the first category, and that he recognizes that position as perfectly consistent. Neither of you are meaning to call the other an idiot, and I'd hate to see this sort of misunderstanding continue. If I've misunderstood either of your positions, feel free to correct me. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 04:43, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
***First, just to make things perfectly clear I am not calling anyone names (and I am not saying you accused me of that, because you did not). "Idiot" may have been to strong a term, but Posiduck did seem to be intent on discrediting some people. I think Posiduck has been very civil throughout, however, and that our dialogue has been meaningful; I hope he agrees. Shaun has been quite a bit less hospitible, and I do believe that he may consider some deletionists idiots. I suppose the above comment was more directed at his actions than Posiduck's. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 04:55, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
****I proudly admit that I make formal arguments designed to show flaws in general deletionist reasoning. Because there are some topics on which I think reasonable people cannot disagree. I think that if you start from the a set of premises, and are consistent in your reasoning, there is but one reasonable stance to take. Now, many deletionists and I differ on one crucial premise; should an informative, NPOV, verifiable article about a subject of admittedly very limited interest/importance be included in the wikipedia. They say, "No" and I say "Of Course." Now, I can have a certain sort of respect for the stance that wikipedia ought to exemplify some sort of quality standards. I think it would reflect poorly on us if many of our articles were stubs and vanity pages. However, I don't think deletionism will solve that, and I think, if anything, it will hold us back. You want a compromise solution; here's a suggestion: Let's create a page to list school stubs on, before people nominate them for VfD, and I (and many other inclusionists, I imagine) will go through that list, and try expanding those stubs into the beginnings of a real article. And instead of having school stubs all over VfD, people will only be nominating schools in general on the grounds that they are not notable, and I think that, given a well written school article, very few schools would actually get deleted for non-notability. I also have a different suggestion on my user page, though I'm not sure how much work it would take for the software to support this idea. Basically, have a single wikipedia with two tiers of articles. One tier will contain only those articles that succeed in putting the right kind of face on wikipedia, and that tier can have severe notability requirements, and stringent format specifications (i.e. no stubs would be on this tier). The other tier would be all of the rest of wikipedia, from stubs to B-movie actors, etc. And thus, rather than forking the project, or asking anyone to give up their idea of what wikipedia ought to be, we could have all of us working together on a common goal. [[user:Posiduck|posiduck]] 16:49, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== On Schools ==
I apologise in advance for ripping your reasoning to shreds - pulling things apart and putting them back together again is something of a hobby ;-)
'''I have added comments in bold. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 06:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)'''
:# ''Articles about schools would contain factual verifiable NPOV content.''
:#: Ultimately, the phrase "William Hague is male" contains facutal, verifiable, NPOV content. Most articles that don't can usually be changed to fit as such. This is no more than one of the baseline requirements for an article.
::'''True. I was pointing out that school articles would meet that baseline requirement.'''
:::And I was pointing out that said requirement is not a major thing - I imagine it's there to stem teh bias and the nonsense, nothing more.
::::'''It is there because it is a fundamental aspect of being a repository of information.'''
:# ''There is evidence of how robust an article about a "non-notable" school can become.''
:#: Wrong. That school has achievements which make it notable, unlike other schools branded as "non-notable" which really don't have any, and whose "extended" article is no more than "X is a school in the Y area of Z" coated in a few hundred words of bullshit. Rather like some biographical pages which turn out to detail a perfectly normal person with a perfectly uninteresting life.
::'''Many other deletionists have confirmed that they consider Moanalua non-notable. I think that all but one or two of the things about Moanalua are not-specific to Moanalua, and save a couple of alumni and it's rank as one of Hawaii's leading schools, I'm not sure how you'd ground a notability claim. If "top school in state X" is a good enough reason, then there are at least 49 more schools notable enough in the U.S. alone, not to mention schools in other nations and provinces.'''
:::As I have said elsewhere, I am not a deletionist. For its main achievement to have been as significant as that (Remember the joke? ''How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, and lots of it.'') I consider the school to be notable. It's not radically different, but it can claim to have dome something a good many other schools haven't. My old school orchestra never managed to play the [[Royal Albert Hall]], so in that respect, Moanalua beats it.
:::::'''You favor the deletion of a broad range of potentially informative, factual NPOV articles, I consider anyone with that view a deletionist.'''
:# ''Many, many newcomers seem to create articles about schools.''
:#: Substitute "schools" for "themselves", "clubs", "websites", "specialist fields", or indeed anything you like, and the statement still holds true, even the bit about staying and becoming more active. I've seen poorly-writte ntechnical articles turn up on VfD simply because the author didn't know that we had an article already (at a slightly different name).
'''I see that you've ignored the point which is that, when combined with reason 1, we might be able to draw new editors by allowing school articles.'''
:::Well, I hate to be the one to say this, but that would be equally true of the other things. Take the Dartmouth fratcruft for instance. In many cases, the information would be verifiable, and if not NPOV then at least NPOVable. The same goes for obscure individuals - it just takes a little more work to verify in those cases.
::::'''I've noticed the Dartmouth Fancruft Problem myself, it seems as though I can't read any article without some dartmouth fancruft creeping in. But I jest. My point is, I have no problem with every episode of gilligan's Island having its own page, or a page for every professor and teacher in the country (maybe there could be a page of teachers from each school rather than an individual article, but that's splitting hairs really). My point is, if someone adds a page on their high school, and it gets fixed up instead of deleted, maybe that person will be more inclined to go around fixing up other articles, and I'm not one to turn away potential editors, since the project depends on its ability to attract volunteers.'''
:# ''... but given practically any stub, someone can add a little bit to it at a time;''
:#: Indeed. So much so in fact that it will reach the point where 6-12 months later it's still formed of "X is a school in Y" and its address.
'''I believe these comments come from a fundamental lack of faith in the wiki process.'''
:::Well excuse me for being an atheist ... Actually, this comes not from a lack of faith in wiki, but from proven case history. Annoyingly, the evidence has been deleted, but then stubs which haven't grown in a year tend not to survive VfD.
::::'''This Wikatheism (for lack of a better neologism) is very disturbing. A stub on High School X is about on par with the "This page doesn't exist yet, would you like to create it" page in terms of how it looks when someone tries to go to the page. It's way easier to add a sentence to a stub (especially if you're a newbie) than to create an article.'''
:# ''A growing number of wikipedians consider schools to be, on the whole, notable merely in virtue of being schools.''
:#: So, I am notable just by virtue of my being a person? How can a school in and of itself be notable, especially when there are millions like it around the world? People become notable by doing things differently. Companies become notable by getting rich, and they get rich by doing something other companies can't. Societies become notable through making something of their members (not to be confused with their members making something of themselves independently). Products become notable through common use in the household. Schools are merely entities on the same level as people, societies, products, companies, etc. There's no reason why they should not have to meet the same notability criteria as everything else. Towns and villages are on the same level as countries, regions, etc. as geographical entities that should be documented.
::'''Here's where I say, Wikipedia is not paper. Also, see my argument against the use of the notability claim.'''
::: So, Wikipedia is not paper, so I can go create a page about myself. I've done lots of things other people haven't, and evidently you're against the idea of "non-notable" as a reason for deleting, so that should mean I get to stay in, right?
::::'''I don't think my other reasoning commits me to that claim. I think that my argument against the notability claims is based on the existence of the Moanalua article, a well written article on a school of what I consider to be limited notability. There is no equally well written article about a non-notable person, and even if there was, I'm less sure that wikipedians on the whole would support its inclusion. Thus, my argument is limited to schools. However, I personally have no objections to factual NPOV articles on any individual person.'''
:# ''There is currently no better place for articles on schools than Wikipedia.''
:#: "I've got nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?" Compare "There is currently no better place for terrorists than Afghanistan." That doesn't mean that we in the Western world or the Afghans themselves want them there.
::'''Yes, because school articles are perfectly analagous to terrorists. Fine, let me change the claim to suit you. The type of articles on schools I would like to see are ''very well suited'' to wikipedia.'''
:::I would agree, though perhaps "articles you would like to see" has a broader scope than "articles I would like to see". Again, subjectivity contaminating a good argument.
::::'''Subjectivity has yet to ruin any of my arguments. I think there has been some misunderstanding in what I was saying. Imagine if every school article was as complete and well written as the Moanalua article. That is how I envision ideal school articles. Those articles are formatted as encyclopedia entries and contain factual information. Therefore, articles of that sort are well suited to wikipedia. Now I've removed the deceptive use of the "articles I would like to see" which merely meant to pick out a certain style of article writing, and not introduce a subjective element of my personal anything.'''
:# ''unless there are very good reasons to eliminate an article on a school, it should be kept.''
:#: Given that we probably have articles about generic types of school, why do we need articles on instances of those schools that are no different from the generic? Anyone can get an article on Wikipedia, but to get it kept in, they have to get of their proverbial and do something different which gets them in. For schools, "educating generations of children" is on a par with me "eating lots of food over my lifetime". Who (famine victims excepted) doesn't? Similarly, what school doesn't educate people? Now ''that'' would be notable - a school where people come out knowing less than when they went in.
::'''This statement above, I think is true for any X. Unless there are very good reasons to eliminate an article on X, it should be kept. And I haven't seen good reasons to delete most school articles.'''
:::So, are the usual reasons which apply to everything else not good enough, then? Are schools somehow above [[Wikipedia:deletion policy|deletion policy]]?
::::'''I don't understand what you mean by this. All I was saying was that for all articles, there is prima facie justification for them to stay in wikipedia, and they ought only be removed if there is sufficient reason. Some possible reasons are listed on that page. I don't consider any of them as applying to school articles.'''
Any fact-based reply is welcome. Pointless conjecture, however, will just end up in /dev/null. Oh, sorry. That appears to be full already. 8-) [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 04:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'''Please identify one of my statements as pointless conjecture. Note: Not all conjecture is pointless, so that would be a statement that is both conjecture, and uncontroversially pointless.'''
:I didn't say that any of your statements were pointless conjecture, only that I would likely ignore or put down any reply which consisted solely of such.
::'''ok'''
=== Further material ===
'''again, me in the bold. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 06:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)'''
Oooh, I love playing with formal arguments. Your argument is flawed. Point 4 is a tautology, since "relevantly similar" is subjective.
'''Ooh, I love playing with flawed responses to my argument. A) If point 4 is a tautology, the reason for that is not that "relevantly similar is subjective" it is that it is uncontroversially true. Since in logic we often allow uncontroversial truths, that isn't really a problem.'''
:OK, perhaps I'm mixing my terminology. The statement does not follow with the [[law of bivalence]]. A proposition should be either "true" or "false", and not "subject to interpretation". Given it is 31/10/2004, the statement "Today is Sunday" is evidently true. Pick up a 2004 calendar, or an appripriate perpetual calendar, and you see that 31/10 is indeed a Sunday. The truth values of point 4 are not based on fact, but on interpretation, depending on what you think "relevantly similar is" - this is not defined, and therefore the statement is "true because I say so".
::Eureka - "law of non-contradiction". ''"One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."'' With such a subjective statement, this can happen. Two people can reach the opposed results with the same situation. Hence the argument is not ... something (valid? sound? complete?). I hope you understand what I mean here.
:::'''the objection you want to be saying is "I think this premise is vague, because you don't define specific parameters for "relevantly similar." I then respond, "give me what you measure school notability by (age of school, number of famous alumni, accomplishments of student organizations, etc.) and I will suggest that "relevantly similar" picks out all schools who have at least that level of notability. Voila, now the claim is not vague, and all I did was insert the common sense meaning for the vague phrase.'''
Point 7 is a fallacy, since Moanalua has a number of notable achievements.
'''Actually, point 7 is not a fallacy. One may take it to be false, depending on what one takes "a large number" to be, but I don't know what fallacy you think it is. I personally think the statement is true, since I would consider 300 high schools to be a large number, and I think that there are certainly more than 300 schools ''at least as notable as Moanalua.'''''
:Whoops! s/fallacy/contradiction (of sorts). It isn't false by its own definition, but it is always false in context. Otherwise, it's another case of "true because I say so". 300 is not a large number with respect to school entries in Wikipedia. There are at least that many schools in one county around this way. 300 is not a sufficiently large number to exclude on the basis of being too common. Now, 300,000 might be a large number in this respect. Remember that there are easily millions of schools (at all levels) around the world - in this context, 300 is small potatoes. Perhaps if the statement were clarified as a "significantly large number" thing rather than just a "large number" thing. You could call 20 a large number if you like - after all, that's more than you've got toes (or at least I ''hope'' you don't have 20 or more toes).
::'''not a contradiction, again, the word you are looking for is "vague." It is my assertion that the number of schools as notable as Moanlua or more notable is sufficiently higher than the number of schools the school deletionists (using my broad definition of school deletionists as people generally against school inclusion) would want in the wikipedia to be considered a large number. So, in effect this claim boils down to: "If moanalua is sufficiently notable, then we have opened the door to way more schools than the deletionists seem to have claimed they would want in the wikipedia."
Thus your conclusion in point 8 is flawed - it does not logically follow from the arguments. Run it past anyone iwth a background in formal logic if you don't believe me. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 04:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
'''If an argument is Valid, than its conclusion follows logically from the premises. If it is sound, then it is valid and those premises are true. This argument is certainly valid. Run it past anyone with a background in formal logic if you don't believe me. What you've done is indicate that, based on the fact that you consider premise 7 false, you think it is an unsound argument. However, if you tell me what bar of notability the Moanalua article has overcome, I will try and find out roughly how many other schools meet that criteria of notability, and you can tell me if you think it is a large number of schools.'''
:: ''Moanalua High School is nationally recognized for its academics and music program — home of one of very few student orchestras to perform at Carnegie Hall in New York City. They have been invited to return in 2005.''
: I am not a deletionist. Deletionists have objections to non-specific information. I have objections to articles containing nothing but non-specific information. Either way, I know what I'm saying, even if I'm not saying it correctly (I should go back over my logic notes to double-check terminology next time, though :-). The argument is "faulty" in some way. Be it flawed, invalid, unsound, fallacious, contradictory, falsely-assuming, or anything else - something about it isn't right, and I'll figure out the word I need here at some point later. 8-) [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 07:08, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::'''The argument is valid, you might still disagree with the premises. So what you've done is suggest my argument (on some disambiguations of premises 4 and 7) is unsound. However, you'll need to respond to the disambiguations of 4 and 7 that I outlined above in order to claim that the argument I was presenting is, in actuality, unsound. Or else accept my conclusion, as others who examined the argument have done.'''
'''Also, as a side note, I was a bit offended at the condescention in your original response in instructing me to run the argument by anyone with a background in formal logic. Given that I had to explain to you the concepts of validity, soundness, vagueness, tautologies, fallacies and contradictions, it would appear that my knowledge of formal logic was not the problem here, and the tone with which you objected was harsher than necessary.''' [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 06:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==Your proposal==
It still looks like a completely inclusionist proposal. You're saying keep all this stuff. It's just not justifiable. [[User:RickK|Rick]][[User talk:RickK|K]] 23:18, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
:It is inclusionist in the sense that it does not support the deletion of school articles. It is, however, a compromise insofar as there would be a status inbetween inclusion and deletion (demoted articles, for instance), which still exist, and can be expanded at leisure, which are not presented to the general public as part of wikipedia. This way, it is not a choice between keeping the article or deleting it, it is a choice between whether the article is approved for the public face of wikipedia or not. The idea was, there would be a wikipedia that reflects a deletionist vision of what should be covered, but that the information, the stubs, can exist without fear of deletion until someone is able to make it suitable. And if some article is on a topic that is not suited for the public face of wikipedia, well, it can just continually exist in the wider tier. It seemed like a compromise solution to me, but if its not, then I'd be interested in hearing other compromise solutions. [[User:Posiduck|Posiduck]] 23:25, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== AIW ==
Hello Posiduck, thank you for the invitation. I really wonder how I got listed as a honorary member there since I consider myself a moderate inclusionist, but not in any way special. I won't join as a member, though, because I view the current establishing factions of inclusionists and deletionists as wrong. It only serves to hardening the fronts but it doesn't solve the underlying problems. Instead of fighting I prefer convincing people. greetings and sorry for the bad english, --[[User:Elian|Elian]] 00:46, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
*As the Interim General Secretary of the AIW, I feel perhaps I should address this issue a bit. The AIW should be for "moderate inclusionists" too. I'd like to see a wide range of inclusionist opinions within the group. I'm not certain we've been merely "hardening the fronts", as members have been trying to explain their reasoning to people so far. Convincing people is definitely more important and productive than fighting, in my opinion, and I've added it to our [[m:Association_of_Inclusionist_Wikipedians#Goals|list of goals]]. I hope you'll join and contribute your ideas to the AIW, but if you choose not to be a member, that's fine as well. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 07:28, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
*Posiduck, I'd like to say well done for your work on inclusionism. I was alarmed at the amount of stuff getting VfD'd, and then found the Inclusionism stuff on meta (including the AIW, which I have joined), and realised I was as inclusionist! It's nice to know I'm far from the only one who feels this way. Keep up the good work. [[User:Dan100|Dan100]] 22:28, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
== Schools on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]] ==
As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:Deletion_policy|deletion policy]]. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Canyon Crest Academy|VfD: Canyon Crest Academy]]
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Devonport High School for boys|VfD: Devonport High School for boys]]
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eyuboglu high school|VfD: Eyuboglu high school]]
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Geylang Methodist Secondary School|VfD: Geylang Methodist Secondary School]]
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Maha Jana High School|VfD: Maha Jana High School]]
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Robert Frost Middle School|VfD: Robert Frost Middle School]]
* [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Woodgreen|VfD: Wood Green School]]
Thank you for your time. --[[User:GRider|GRider]]\<sup>[[User_talk:GRider|talk]]</sup>
| 