Talk:Psychological Warfare Department

redirect?

I saw mention of this article at the wp:Teahouse. I don't want to do anything rash, but it looks like it is pretty much a copy-paste of the existing article Psychological Warfare Division. Apparently it could be called either "Department" or "Division". So it would be appropriate to have a wp:redirect from Psychological Warfare Department to the other article. We don't need two copies of the same article, because it would be hard to maintain them.

This should not be deleted, it appears to be a valid term that some readers might look for. --do ncr am 00:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) -- The Title is not the same as Division, there was a Department! A Division is part of an entity and a Department is a complete entity unto itself! There are references (links/pointers) in other articles that distinctly refer to "Psychological Warfare Department". This "Psychological Warfare Department" was a complete entity created in 1945 and not a division of! I created the "Psychological Warfare Department" section so the links would have a valid place to point to and so the people the know the difference between a Division and a Department could add to it. Feel free to contact me if there is a semantic problem here! --John Moosbrth (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the duplication of the Division page and created a redirect. Given the lack of new information presented on this page, the fact that a different term was sometimes used is irrelevant. —Verrai 01:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To editor User:Moosbrth: Perhaps you could suggest, at Talk:Psychological Warfare Division, what could be added to that article to cover the "Department", also, perhaps in a new section there, to whatever extent the Department is/was different. And share your source(s), how you know about this area (which i personally known nothing about). Hope this helps. --do ncr am 17:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice in this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Psychological+Warfare+Department&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 there ARE references to the "Psychological Warfare Department" but now they are sent to the "Psychological Warfare Division", Wikipedia now has the ability to bend history to their liking. So be it, you massage history to what you like, it's no wonder that Wikipedia IS NOT the de facto source of information it used to be. I was trying to add an actual entity and you changed it to your liking. 73.202.29.14 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Moosbrth, i followed that. And you're right, there is usage of a PW Department different than the PW Division. And there's a PW Board, too. One person, Frank Albert Kaufman apparently served on all three, per the one reference in the wikipedia article about him. Could the Department be described also at the Division article? Was the Department, which Kaufman consulted to in 1951 or so, the successor of the SCHAEF war-time Divison? It would be highly appropriate to discuss both in Wikipedia. Start by providing sources and suggestions at the Division article Talk page, I suggest to you, then let it be split back out as a separate article, if there's enough material to warrant a split. One article can handle more than one department; I am not familiar with the topic but I tend to think one unified article would be better. Happy to be proved wrong. The article here, though, I thought was a copy of the other one. Anyhow, you seem to know something and it could be correctly added / described / accepted in Wikipedia, still. I'll start something at the Talk page there, pls add. --do ncr am 23:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]