Template:Did you know nominations/Commission on Training Camp Activities

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Commission on Training Camp Activities

(

)

~~... that the Commission on Training Camp Activities used sexuality to motivate American soldiers to fight?~~ Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/usa-sexually-teased-troops-in-first-world-war-to-make-them-fight-harder
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Coastal hydrogeology
- Comment: Need some help to improve and expand this article but believe it will make a good DYK and perhaps GA in the future

Created by Whizz40 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC).

I'm afraid there are some sourcing issues:
- "For the Boys Over There" (hosted at www.unitedwarwork) is a student research project. It clearly can be easily replaced for the material it supports.
- Almeroth-Williams is a blog post -- an excellent one, but still a blog post. It appears to be derived mostly or entirely from Eric Wycoff Rogers, "The Men behind the Girl behind the Man behind the Gun: Sex and Motivation in the American Morale Campaigns of the First World War", Journal Hist Sexuality, and the article should use that as its source. Further, it looks like Rogers' ideas are highly interpretive, so the article should probably relay them as "Historian Eric Wycoff Rogers argues that etc etc".

Having said that, I certainly don't want to discourage anyone. This subject is fertile with pregnant hooks whose general thrust is given by this variation on ALT0:

ALT1 ... that the Commission on Training Camp Activities used sexual denial to make American World War I soldiers fight harder? Source: https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/usa-sexually-teased-troops-in-first-world-war-to-make-them-fight-harder

With source material like [1] (found in Almeroth, but likely from Rogers) the hooks practically write themselves: "The position of the piston ... Cocks 4, 5, and 6 are all partially open and there is some flow through each. Education has enlarged the soldier's field of interests ..." And Almeroth's post climaxes with Rogers' penetrating (if ambiguous) insight that US [oops -- turns out the author meant British and French] authorities were "inclined to tolerate -- and perhaps even encourage -- sexual activity among their soldiers" -- a seminal idea injecting new potentcy into the heretofore flaccid image of American doughboys. E Eng 19:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing issues have been addressed. No objection to going with ALT1. Whizz40 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's really coming together. But ... in my role as pain in the ass, I need to point out that with Rogers available there should be no need for Almeroth-Williams (and indeed, if it's in Almeroth but not Rogers, one has to wonder where Almeroth got it). Also, WRT to Gatzemeyer, we don't usually accept PhD dissertations as RS. E Eng 23:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

First, a belated thank you for your review of this article for DYK. I believe the article is well-referenced and inline citations are provided to the sources used to write the article, including a direct quotation from Almeroth. His blog itself references Rogers as his source, as you point out, however, Rogers' paper is behind a paywall. Given the blog is published on the website of a reputable university, there is nothing to suggest it is unreliable. Furthermore, its accessibility to readers makes it easy for them to verify what is written in the article themselves, if they wish to, or to reader further, should they wish. I forget which Wikipedia principle I read it on, but I recall good practice is to cite where you read it rather than citing where your source references it. Separately, I have now clarified the reason for citing Gatzemeyer, which is footnote 7 of page 105 which reads 'For the CTCA's portrayal of its task, purpose, and method see Edward Frank Allen, Keeping Our Fighters Fit for War and After (New York: The Century Co., 1918), 3-8, quotation on 16; War Department, Commission on Training Camp Activities (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1917), 3-5; Raymond B. Fosdick, "The Commission on Training Camp Activities," Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York 7, no. 4 (1918): 163-70.'. Hopefully, this suffices to address the sourcing issues, but happy to discuss further. Whizz40 (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn'tvundertaking to do the review --just kibitzing re the hook. E Eng 12:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination needs a full review. Flibirigit (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I was going to review this but then I started looking at the sources listed in the fantastic bibliography (including the journal articles which can be accessed through Wikipedia Library, etc.) and started layering in details, and now I think I'm too involved to be a reviewer. But I still need a few more days to finish adding content. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Update. We now have a "Background" section on the article, but more work is needed on explaining the actual most interesting part of the story (per EEng's comments above). I am planning to return to working on it in about a week or so, and in the meantime EEng has also provided some additional points to research/add on the article Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The prose is long and new enough. Good sources are used throughout the text. Meanwhile, which portion of the article supports ALT1? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Mhhossein. I tweaked the wording to support ALT1 as well as the original hook. Whizz40 (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

To use ALT0 would be a tragic waste of comic potential. ALT1 would go in the quirky slot, of course. E Eng 14:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome Whizz40. The sentence used for ALT1 still requires attribution. The current wording is wikivoicing Eric Wycoff Rogers's opinion/thought/argument. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The link you put behind wikivoicing is WP:NPOV, so you seem to be implying there's some controversy or dissent. I don't see any evidence of that, and Rogers's paper is peer-reviewed, so I don't see what your objection is (though Whiz more cautious wording, below, is fine). E Eng 21:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The Almeroth-Williams piece has the sub-title "The United States sexually ‘teased’ its troops in the First World War to make them fight harder, a new study reveals". It quotes Rogers directly: '"Sexual denial, status anxiety and perceived pressure from women – this was a powerful combination,” Rogers says. “In striving for the approval of women, the morale planners hoped soldiers would perform their duties without complaint, fight harder, and be willing to risk their lives.”' The Wikipedia article contains the following sentence: "Historian Eric Wycoff Rogers, however, argues the agency used sexuality and sexual denial to motivate soldiers to fight harder."[2] Whizz40 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody beats the Whiz. E Eng 19:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think some sort of WP:OR is happening here. Rogers argues that "Sexual denial and ..." is a "powerful combination". In what term? He further argues that US soldiers was made fight harder for the sake of "the approval of women". Then I think your final conclusion is OR. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair point, we don't want original research. Let's revise the hook and the relevant sentence in the article. Whizz40 (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair point nothing. Rogers says (underlining added):

Morale strategists and CTCA reformers sought to install what sociologist Eva Illouz describes as an "architecture of choice," ... These desirability hierarchies worked in tandem with the military's efforts to drastically reduce the overall availability of sex within the soldiers' social environments in order to capture sexual desire and make it productive. Within these conditions, the War Department selectively exposed White soldiers to the appeals of alluring, self-restrained women who would pressure and/or encourage them to fight. The men who founded and ran the military's morale agencies sought to depict women's desires and expectations in media, using posters, newspaper editorials, and films to convey a sense to the soldiers that women's expectations aligned with the goals of the military. They hoped that men, in striving for women's approval, would perform their military duties enthusiastically and without complaint, light [sic, fight] harder, and risk their lives ...

To be honest, I can't even parse Mh's post, much less understand the complaint. There's no OR. E Eng 21:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@EEng: The first issue was over the hook being Wikivoiced. The article reads: "The CTCA has been portrayed as "one of the last stands of an older generation of moral reformers against the onrush of a liberalizing sexual culture." This POV goes against that of the Roger saying sexuality was actually being used to motivate the soldiers fight harder. Also, the portion you just quoted here says sexual denial was done "to capture sexual desire and make it productive." Should/can we interpret "productive" as 'fighting harder'? Thought the quotation does support the fact that women's approval was used to make soldiers fight harder. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV or NPOV. There are no sources disputing these ideas. The sentence you quote in no way contradicts the hook or anything Rogers says.
Nobody's interpreting "productive" as "fighting harder"; we're interpreting "fighting harder" as "fighting harder". What I quoted is a single passage leading from "sexual denial" to "fight harder". You seem to think that the source has to give the hook fact in a single sentence, and that's not true.
And Almeroth-Williams gives the hook fact directly: "The United States sexually ‘teased’ its troops in the First World War to make them fight harder, a new study reveals".

E Eng 23:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly a POV-related issue, in my viewpoint. Maybe we can consider Almeroth-Williams's words as a better source. But it still does not elaborate on the details by saying 'teased'. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm forced to say it: there appears to be a language barrier here, because in a sexual context teased implies denial. I don't see how to move forward if you don't understand that. We've quoted sources N different ways, all saying the same thing. E Eng 07:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The Rogers quote provided by EEng is sufficient to support both the Almeroth-Williams headline and the hook. Based on the further discussion above, I am satisfied now the text in the article meets Wikipedia's policies and the hook meets DYK criteria. Whizz40 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I modified the hook to add that the context is WW1. E Eng 18:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I'd prefer to leave the review job to another volunteer. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the cited sources support the hook (ALT 1). I approve the hook and the sources given in the body of the page's text. Except "solders" should be "soldiers" :-). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)