Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Many are both, depending on who's reporting them, and who was victorious. There's no robust, objective difference. In some conflicts, from into the modern media reporting age, one side might claim to have lost a few 'skirmishes', but decisively won every 'major battle' - then lost the war. This was particularly common in Korea, Vietnam, the Iran-Iraq War and then in the US invasion of Iraq. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a high probability that this is related to a previous question about the first "battle" by the Rebellion in Star Wars. Over 20 years, there were many skirmishes, but the battles didn't start until the final year before the Battle of Yavin. In this case, there were conflicts that were named "battles" and others named "skirmishes". There were "rescues" and "invasions" and "infiltrations" and "insurrections" as well. However, the war didn't begin until the Battle of Scarif. So, everything before the was is considered a skirmish and everything after the war started is called a battle (unless there simply aren't enough people to make it battle - like a single Jedi and his apprentice sneaking onto the Death Star with a rag-tag team to back them up). 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Star Wars aside, our article skirmisher holds the key. An army on the move throws out a protective screen of lightly armed troops, "skirmishers", so that they know what's coming and can also disrupt the activities of their oponents. When they come into contact with the enemy and fight, it's a skirmish. When the main bodies of both armies engage, it's a battle. Alansplodge (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, suppose that the battle (skirmish, whatever) was a surprise attack by one side on the other (as in an ambush), but involved multi-divisional forces on each side (as in a major battle), and ended inconclusively (as in a skirmish) (not very likely, I know -- but possible e.g. if the attackers misunderestimate the defenders' reserves) -- where would it fit in? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have just used the words battle and skirmish with obvious intent and the expectation that you think we know what you are talking about. THERE IS NO POINT TO YOUR QUESTION. To paraphrase Aristotle, to expect the obvious to be explained by the obscure is like the man blind from birth describing color or the fool who uses words as sounds without any idea corresponding to them. This is not a forum, please consult a dictionary. μηδείς (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because this was preceded with questions about the first "battle" in Star Wars, this is likely an attempt to win an argument about the first battle in Star Wars and there isn't actually any interest in the definitions of battle or skirmish. As such, the attempt is to use this as a forum to say to whomever is on the other side of the argument, "Hah! Wikipedia says I'm right!" 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a substitute for actually doing any original research required, or as a free source of ideas.
Nope, you're wrong -- this does in fact have to do with Star Wars, but it has NOTHING to do with any argument! In case you want to know, I'm writing a Star Wars-themed song (actually a Star Wars-themed parody on a really old cavalry song from the Russian civil war), and I was stuck on just one line (the 3rd line of the 1st verse, if you want to know) -- and that's why I needed to know the year! And the way it turned out, 5 BBY fitted a whole lot better than 0 BBY -- that's why I have a vested interest in classifying some of the events of the Rebels miniseries as battles, and not just because I want to prove some point! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:8115:EFB1:83C0:5101 (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you have two obvious choices. You can either work with the terms (if any) used in the canonical (or apocryphal) sources describing the military encounters in question, or – if there are no such terms used or if contradictory terms are used – you can make your own arbitrary decision in the knowledge that nothing in the sources will completely contradict you. If you're writing a filk, much will depend on who the song is notionally attributed to (or sung by) in story: as Andy Dingley alluded above, different sides or onlookers might well interpret the same encounter in different terms. In any case, songwriters use poetic licence, they aren't producing historical documentaries (except on Pern). μηδείς has it right: there is no point to this discussion, choose what you will (since it will harm no-one) and move on. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.208.241 (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of a strange question here: maybe 6 months back I was clicking around on Wikipedia and ended up at an article about an apocryphal angel. I thought the imagery was very interesting and vivid, so I made a mental note to come back to it later, and then of course I closed the tab and forgot the name of the article. Here is what I remember, but of course the human memory can be pretty fuzzy at the best of times:
The angel teaches something or other to humans, but is not one of the Grigori.
The angel reveals its true form to someone, and delivers a warning that something terrible is going to happen, so it's probably got something to do with the non-canonical apocalyptic literature.
The angel in the vision is quite tall, maybe 90 miles. (The first thing I tried to re-find the article was a search for "miles tall", which led me to Hadraniel, but this guy is definitely not 2.1 million miles tall.)
The angel faces to the west while he delivers his spiel. Or maybe he came from the west, and faced to the east?
Elsewhere I learn that this new Revelation, the Book of Elchasai, prescribes praying towards Jerusalem rather than towards the east, and reckons the washing of water is superior to the fire of sacrifice when it comes to forgiving sins (whatever that means), but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any of these details, or not that I can find. --Antiquary (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fire bit really does not narrow anything down. The teaching part and true form thing sounds like Metatron, Uriel, or Raphael (archangel). The height thing reminds me of Metatron and Hekhalot literature in general. The bit about facing to the west does sound like something that would appear in Hekhalot and Kabbalistic literature, but that detail is usually not something spelled out in articles. Raphael is traditionally the angel of the east (and so faces west), while Gabriel is traditionally the angel of the west.
Thanks for the answers, everyone, I know this is not the first hopelessly vague / niche question to hit the ref desks so I appreciate that you took the time to respond (doubly so considering the subject matter, which probably made a few dozen readers roll their eyes). Looks like there are plenty of good points here from which I can resume my search. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
