Jump to content

Talk:Women Airforce Service Pilots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notable WASP names

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Poor Judgment and Reasoning

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some things really don't sink in, do they? This discussion is moot. -Signaleer 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WASP and WAFS

[edit]

On a happier note (;-), I'm just learning about the WAFS (ferry service) operation at New Castle Army Air Field. I note this article currently links to itself via the WAFS redirect. Is that intentional? Sdsds 03:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have an explanation for the re-direct to this article. As I understand, the WAFS was announced under the command of Love on September 10, 1942 and the WFTD under Cochran. However, in August 1943 both organizations were merged to be the WASPS so it makes sense that both the WAFS and WFTD pages are redirected to the WASPS article, although I was not the one who made the re-directs. To me, it's reasonable to say why the re-directs goes to this page. --Signaleer 11:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:Fifinella.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plural: WASP or WASPs?

[edit]

One of the WASP websites says there should never be an 's' after WASP, as the acronym already contains the plural version of "Pilots". On the other hand, two of the referenced books have "WASPs" in their titles, so it's clear there are differing opinions. What plural form should be we using at this article? Or should we work around the question by using such constructions as "the WASP group lobbied Congress" instead of either plural form "the WASP lobbied Congress" or "the WASPs lobbied Congress"? Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, on the official United States Air Force websites, the use of WASP and WASPs is used. http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/WASP.htm http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1506 It is understood that both forms are being used both colloquially and formally, use best judgement when writing an encyclopedia article. -Signaleer (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to make this point--this is my first effort contributing to WP--but I believe the term being used in this article, Women AirFORCE Service Pilots, is factually incorrect. I've placed FORCE in caps because during WW II the organization was called the Women Air Service Pilots, and did not include the word force. Even though some of the sources/books used for this WP article use that term, during WW II it was not used. Check the Army's Official History volume, The Women's Army Corps, by Mattie Treadwell, published in 1954, for some of the background on this. If the name was changed sometime later, that ought to be clarified in the article. Dr Dan Kuehl National Defense University 202 685 2257 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daninfowar (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Womens Airforce Service Pilots is the correct title. That is what they were called by the Army Air Forces. Check Craven and Cates. SamMcGowan (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air WACS

[edit]

The article states that Colonel (later B/Gen.) Tunner's original plan was to have the women commissioned as Air WACs. I have never seen this assertion in anything I have read in any of the offical US Army sources. Furthermore, I doubt that it is accurate since Tunner's role as commander of the Ferrying Division of the Air Transport Command was to hire civilian contract pilots to ferry aircraft. There was consideration of commissioning the WASPs late in their existence but that idea never really got off the ground. Volume VI of the history of the United States Army Air Forces in WW II, edited by Craven and Cates, covers the WAFS and the WASP program in some detail. SamMcGowan (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article name

[edit]

The following discussion was started on User talk:Daniel Case and has been moved here Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I think the name of this article Women Airforce Service Pilots might be incorrect. I've been doing a lot of reading on this subject recently and all the official sources seem to call them the Women's Air Service Pilots.[1] If that is indeed the correct name, what type of sources would we need to make the correction? And how does an article name get corrected? Thanks.Malke2010 19:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force Historical Society pages say Womens without an apostrophe; see this page. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My question is the use of the words "Air" as opposed to "Airforce."Malke2010 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is, what do the official USAF sources call it? Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Air Force Historical Studies Office, part of the Air Force, that I linked to up above here. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an email to Harry Reid's office.Malke2010 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your Senator is not in any way the authority on this. I think the Air Force Historical Studies Program is much more authoritative. They refer to Womens Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) as do other official Air Force sites. Mike is correct. If you still have doubts, please copy this entire thread to the article's talk page and continue there. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I second this? It is my talk page, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not post on this talk page. This discussion, not including the comments by Toddst1, are from Daniel Case's talk page. I don't have any desire to participate in any discussion regarding this article. I was simply making an observation and questioned if the article was correctly titled. Toddst1, who apparently has never had any interest in this article, has taken over. My comments don't belong here. Please do not leave comments on my talk page.Malke2010 19:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I do have a question, where do you see the word Airforce spelled like that other than this article? Don't know? Well, there is no word, Airforce. It's a mistaken name applied to the Women's Air Service Pilots in order to make the word, mispelled, fit into the acronym, WASP. That's why Senator Reid's office has it correct. They took the trouble to look up the actual founding of the organization.Malke2010 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hide digression

I haven't done anything wrong.Malke2010 19:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malke, you made a move agaist the consusus of the discussion on both this page and Daniel Case's talk page. WHen called on it, you removed posts, including my warning, and have acted antagonistically toward editors trying to have the discussion. You made it clear you don't want to discuss the article's title, but you cannot move it unilaterally too. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then you need to move on. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related thread on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet_print.asp?fsID=1610&page=1, the original title was correct, and matches the photograph at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070607-F-1234P-002.jpg. I've moved it back. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also S. 614. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More sources for WASP

[edit]

A selection of sources for the meaning of WASP:

  • New York Times. Bernie Becker (10 March 2010). "World War II Women Pilots Honored". This NYT article uses Women Airforce Service Pilots as the name. (Which agrees with the title of our Wikipedia article as of this exact moment).
As you can tell from her book title, Merryman thinks 'Women Airforce Service Pilots' is the correct name. She discusses alternatives for the name on page 185:

A number of variations on the WASP acronym were used during and after World War II, including "Woman Air Service Pilots" and "Women's Auxiliary Service Pilots". There are two acceptable names for the WASPs: "Women's Air Force Service Pilots" and "Women Airforce Service Pilots". The first was the title given the program by AAF Memorandum 20-8 on August 5, 1943, and was the official title used by the War Department's Press Division. In 1944, AAF Regulation 40-8, Utilization of Women Pilots, used the name "Women Airforce Service Pilots." This was the name officially used by the AAF until the end of the war, and it is the designation used by WASP veterans to this day. Because of this, "Women Airforce Service Pilots" is the version I use throughout this study.

In case of doubt, I suggest that a printed book from a university press should be more credible than a government website that does not list any sources of its own. If needed, Google Scholar will probably come up with more academic references, or at least, things written by people who studied the original documents from the period. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is Womens Air Service Pilots. The use of Airforce came into being on its own, from everyday, common usage. People and reporters and websites just assumed this is the correct name. There is no such word as Airforce. It was combined as one word in order to fit the acronym WASP. The original formation of this group was the result of the merger of two women's air service groups. I'm not going to bother with the congressional and military sources I have found, or add to any further discussion. This was an innocent move by me that has been turned into an ugly, ridiculous argument just for the sake of harassing me, wasting my time, and attempting to get me blocked. It is all the things that Wikipedia is not supposed to be.Malke2010 22:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note this Congressional source that backs up the original/current title.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look for the original documents that created the Womens Air Service Pilots.Malke2010 23:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one source you have provided so far calls them "Women Airforce Service Pilots" in the prepared remarks section after the lead header. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't provided any sources.Malke2010 02:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! - BilCat (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article has lots of dead links. I substituted good links for the dead links to the Eisenhower archives, but someone more familiar with the subject should check out and repair the rest. --CliffC (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An editor has been adding raw links that are related to this article, but not quite integrated. I'm depositing some of them here until they can be integrated into this article or separate articles about the individual aviators. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

Women's Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron already redirects here. Women's Flying Training Detachment used to redirect here, but a small article was created. I recommend merging its content into here and creating a paragraph for each of these predecessor organizations. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest keeping as separate articles. There is plenty of information out there on each of these organizations. I would also suggest adding a preceded by and succeeded by lineage at the bottom of the article page so that these pages mirror the rest of the unit history pages in Wikipedia. Please feel free to check out the Pritzker Military Museum & Library's holdings for expansion of the article as needed. TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:400-202xtra.jpg

[edit]

The file File:400-202xtra.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:400-202xtra.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. If no action is taken, it will be deleted after 7 days. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Women Airforce Service Pilots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Women Airforce Service Pilots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelia Fort death correction

[edit]

This part of the article:

[50] One of the pilots, while showing off, flew too close to Fort's plane and his landing gear collided with the wing of her plane, breaking part of it off.[51] The plane went into a nose-dive, killing her.[52]

is incorrect. Cornelia's plane collided with one operated by Lt. Frank Stamme over Merkel, Texas, as they ferried planes toward Love Field in Dallas.

He was not showing off. Source: "Daughter of the Air," by Rob Simbeck, 1999, Atlantic Monthly Press pages 227-9. NashContributor (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

[edit]

Text and references copied from Elizabeth L. Gardner to Women Airforce Service Pilots, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Text and references copied from Women Airforce Service Pilots to Elizabeth L. Gardner, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing summary?

[edit]

It seems that someone accidentally removed a portion of the summary on this page.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not officially a "Bamboo Bomber"

[edit]

In the paragraph about the WASP Museum, several aircraft types on display there are listed. All except one are given their proper, official names (BT-13 Valiant, rather than the frequently used "Vultee Vibrator," etc.) The exception is the UC-78 "Bamboo Bomber." This is a nickname, just as is "Useless Seventy-Eight." The aircraft's proper name is Cessna UC-78 Bobcat. 173.62.26.61 (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info

[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place for a request but... Can a wiki-knowledgeable person perhaps edit her entry to include her passing date? April 26, 2000.

cafriseabove.org then / then shirley-slade-teer (have no idea why this page is not letting me simply post the link) Rmm8 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots&oldid=1234623629"