CZ:Proposals/Article names for wars and conflicts
[Note to the proposer: please delete these lines after reading! Please bear in mind that if you do not volunteer to be the driver of the proposal, and you do not fill it out in great detail, then your proposal or issue will be addressed only if a driver is found. So, if you really do want your work not to go to waste, please do help locate a driver for your proposal. Thanks! Now please delete the foregoing message!]
This proposal has not yet been assigned to any decisionmaking group or decisionmaker(s).
The Proposals Manager will do so soon if and when the proposal or issue is "well formed" (including having a driver).
For now, the proposal record can be found in the new proposals queue.
Driver: Howard C. Berkowitz
Complete explanation
We have had confusion, and some arguments, on the nomenclature for events involving "the extension of politics (group or national) through military or paramilitary means." The confusion involves both semantics and syntax. We need standards.
No one standard can cover all cases, but we can have an ordered list of preferences for naming.
Reasoning
The problems include:
Semantic:
- various parties will have different names for the same conflict (e.g., War Between the States, War of Yankee Aggression); an initiator may have a name for the operation (Case White) but the defender speaks more generically (e.g., defense of Poland against Germany, 1939)
- Historically significant code names, which are not necessarily obvious search terms for a nonspecialist (e.g., Operation Torch vs. Allied invasion of North Africa, 1942.
- Especially with modern conflicts, some countries, especially the U.S., tend to refer to the name by (e.g., Operation IRAQI FREEDOM versus 2003 US invasion of Iraq).
- Operations may have more than one code name. Modern code names are not supposed to suggest the subject of the plan, so, in planning, Operation POLO STEP was the term used for planning the Iraq War (2003-).
- Some names are quickly changed. The original public name for the Iraq War was Operation IRAQI LIBERATION, but that changed when the connotations of the natural abbreviation were noticed.
- Even when the sides involved had relatively neutral naming policies, they were different. During the American Civil War, the Union tended to name battles for a nearby city, while the Confederacy preferred to use rivers (e.g., Manassas vs. Bull Run)
- When the war is over disputed territory, the different sides may have very different names, especially when separatism is involved
- high-intensity combat vs. occupation/nationbuilding/resistance (i.e., when does a "war" stop and an "occupation" end? When does an "occupation end" '
- Especially for older conflicts, the dates of starting and ending may be imprecise. This is still a problem in modern wars; the Second World War ended in 1945, but did it start in 1931 (Mukden incident), 1938 (sinking of the USS Panay) or even Kristallnacht, 1939 (invasion of Poland) or 1941 (Japanese attacks against Western bases in the Pacific)?
Implementation
No naming convention will cover all cases, so the article must mention partisan and other names in the introductory paragraphs, and with redirects to them.
In order of preference:
- [location], conflict in [dates] (e.g., Gulf War (1991)); the date may be optional
- [sides] war (primary naming should be the most common, such as Sino-Japanese War, but also should have the alternatives, such as Japanese-Chinese War (1894-195)
Discussion
A discussion section, to which anyone may contribute.
| Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only) | |
|
Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank):
|