Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and History of agriculture: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
→‎Two new ACRs: fixing link
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{farming}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk plainlinks" style="background: whitesmoke; border: 1px lightsteelblue solid; width: 100%;"
{{Unreferenced|date=July 2008}}
|-
'''Agriculture''' was developed at least 10,000 years ago, and it has undergone significant developments since the time of the earliest cultivation. Evidence points to the [[Fertile Crescent]] of the [[Middle East]] as the site of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern [[China]], Africa's [[Sahel]], [[New Guinea]] and several regions of the [[Americas]]. Agricultural practices such as [[irrigation]], [[crop rotation]], [[fertilizers]], and [[pesticides]] were developed long ago but have made great strides in the past century. The [[Haber-Bosch]] method for synthesizing [[ammonium nitrate]] represented a major breakthrough and allowed [[crop yields]] to overcome previous constraints. In the past century agriculture has been characterized by enhanced productivity, the substitution of labor for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, [[selective breeding]], [[Mechanized farming|mechanization]], [[water pollution]], and [[farm subsidies]]. In recent years there has been a backlash against the [[externalities|external]] environmental effects of conventional agriculture, resulting in the [[organic movement]].
| [[Image:Cmbox_notice.png|40px]]
| Please use this page to start discussions that either affect the project ''as a whole'' or ''several'' task forces. For discussions about individual [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Task forces|existing task forces]], please use that task force's talk page instead.


==Origins==
''[[#toc|Skip to Table of Contents]] • [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history#Task forces|List and scope of Task Forces]] • [{{fullurl:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history|action=edit&section=new}} Add new section]''
{{main|Neolithic Revolution}}
|}{{WPMILHIST Announcements|mode=collapsed}}
[[Image:ClaySumerianSickle.jpg|thumb|left|230px|[[Sumer]]ian Harvester's sickle, 3000 BC. Baked clay. [[Field Museum]].]]
{{WPMILHIST Navigation}}<div style="float: right; width: 320px; margin-bottom: 1em; ">
<table style="border: 1px solid #999; background: #fff; margin: .3em .3em .3em 1em; padding: 3px; float: right;" class="noprint">
<th align="center" valign="top">Archives:<br/>[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive|Full list]]
</table>
{{Shortcut|WT:MILHIST}}
</div>
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{WPMILHIST Archive}}{{talkarchive}}{{archive-nav|%(counter)d}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 81
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive %(counter)d
}}


Identifying the exact origin of agriculture remains problematic because the transition from hunter-gatherer societies began thousands of years before the invention of [[writing]]. Nonetheless, [[paleoethnobotany|archaeobotanists]]/[[paleoethnobotany|paleoethnobotanists]] have traced the selection and cultivation of specific food plant characteristics, such as a semi-tough [[rachis]] and larger seeds, to just after the [[Younger Dryas]] (about 9,500 BC) in the early [[Holocene]] in the [[Levant]] region of the [[Fertile Crescent]]. There is earlier evidence for use of wild cereals: [[anthropology|anthropological]] and [[archaeology|archaeological]] evidence from sites across [[Southwest Asia]] and [[North Africa]] indicate use of wild [[cereal|grain]] (e.g., from the ca. 20,000 BC site of [[Ohalo II]] in [[Israel]], many [[Natufian]] sites in the [[Levant]] and from sites along the [[Nile]] in the 10th millennium BC). There is even evidence of planned cultivation and trait selection: grains of [[rye]] with domestic traits have been recovered from [[Epi-Palaeolithic]] (10,000+ BC) contexts at [[Abu Hureyra]] in [[Syria]], but this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication. It isn't until after 9,500 BC that the eight so-called [[Neolithic founder crops|founder crops]] of agriculture appear: first [[emmer wheat|emmer]] and [[einkorn wheat]], then hulled [[barley]], [[pea]]s, [[lentil]]s, [[bitter vetch]], [[chick pea]]s and [[flax]]. These eight crops occur more or less simultaneously on [[Pre-Pottery Neolithic B|PPNB]] sites in the [[Levant]], although the consensus is that [[wheat]] was the first to be sown and harvested on a significant scale.
== C-class question ==


"[[Mehrgarh]], one of the most important Neolithic (7000 BC to 3200 BC) sites in archaeology, lies on the Kachi plain of Baluchistan, Pakistan, and is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in South Asia." <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.pakemb.de/index.php?id=147 |title= Website of the Embassy of Pakistan, Berlin |accessdate=2008-09-21}}</ref>
I probably missed the discussion here, so feel free to just link me to the archives: why is the MILHIST project not using the C-class? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:You're very lazy. [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military_history/Archive 80#New C-Class and Milhist]]. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::He is not lazy. I never even knew about the discussion until it was closed. I think that this should've been able to be known ahead of time so that we could all know about it. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 20:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It was well-advertised: it was in the announcements template, it was open for two weeks. How do you mean "should've been able to be known ahead of time?" We saw it being adopted into 1.0, we asked the project what they thought, they offered their opinions. For future reference, what else would you liked to have seen happen? [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't usually pay attention to the template. I thought that it would be advertised in the newsletter or something like that. I just would've liked to have known that this was going on because i'm sure there are many others out there were in the same position as we were. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 01:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::This page is the only one related to MILHIST that I watch. I didn't know about it either until it was almost over. IIRC tho, the discussion I saw had less than 20 participants total, not quite what I would expect for a project this size. I don't believe there would be any harm in revisiting the issue, given the questions being raised about the whole issue, and the circumstances of the decision. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 02:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
::::This is where the discussion took place, so I am not sure how you missed it. I am not averse to re-opening it, but that is not my decision. There was a solid consensus at the time. What are the questions being raised about the whole issue? [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 01:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::I second Bill. The Start-Class is extremely disproportionate to the project. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 01:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


By 7000 BC, sowing and harvesting reached Mesopotamia and there, in the fertile soil just north of the [[Persian Gulf]], [[Sumer]]ians systematized it and scaled it up. By 6000 BC farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile River. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, probably in China, with [[rice]] rather than wheat as the primary crop. [[Maize]] was first domesticated, probably from [[teosinte]], in the Americas around 3000-2700 BC, though there is some archaeological evidence of a much older development. The [[potato]], the [[tomato]], the [[capsicum|pepper]], [[Squash (fruit)|squash]], several varieties of [[legume|bean]], and several other plants were also developed in the New World, as was quite extensive [[Terrace (agriculture)|terracing]] of steep hillsides in much of [[Andes|Andean]] [[South America]]. Agriculture was also independently developed on the island of [[New Guinea]].{{Fact|date=April 2008}}
:Best may be to see whether significant support for C-Class develops during this discussion. (To this end, I'll add it to /Announcements.) Then, if there is significant support here, C-Class could be revisited, as a referendum, during the upcoming coordinator elections starting on Sep 15. Does this seem sensible? --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 09:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


In [[Europe]], there is evidence of emmer and einkorn wheat, barley, sheep, goats and pigs that suggest a food producing economy in Greece and the Aegean by 7000 BC.<ref name=autogenerated1>[http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/02/eus/ht02eus.htm Southern Europe, 8000–2000 B.C. | Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Archaeological evidence from various sites on the [[Iberian peninsula]] suggest the domestication of plants and animals between 6000 and 4500 BC.<ref name=autogenerated1 /> [[Céide Fields]] in [[Ireland]], consisting of extensive tracts of land enclosed by stone walls, date to 5500 BC and are the oldest known field systems in the world.<ref>[http://www.museumsofmayo.com/ceide.htm Ceide Fields Visitor Centre, Ballycastle, County Mayo, West of Ireland<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref>[http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/309/ Ceide Fields - UNESCO World Heritage Centre<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> By 5000 BC, domesticated horses were found in the [[Ukraine]] {{Fact|date=June 2008}}. Agriculture was in northern Europe by 4000 BC {{Fact|date=June 2008}}.
::Thanks, Roger. Yes, that seems sensible to me. - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 09:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


In [[China]], [[rice]] and [[millet]] were domesticated by 8000 BC, followed by the beans [[mung bean|mung]], [[soy]] and [[Azuki bean|azuki]]. In the [[Sahel]] region of [[Africa]] local rice and [[sorghum]] were domestic by 5000 BC. Local crops were domesticated independently in [[West Africa]] and possibly in [[New Guinea]] and [[Ethiopia]]. Evidence of the presence of [[wheat]] and some [[legumes]] in the 6th millennium BC have been found in the [[Indus Valley]]. [[Orange (fruit)|Orange]]s were cultivated in the same millennium. The crops grown in the valley around 4000 BC were typically wheat, [[pea]]s, [[sesame seed]], [[barley]], [[Date palm|date]]s and [[mango]]es. By 3500 BC [[cotton]] growing and cotton textiles were quite advanced in the valley. By 3000 BC farming of [[rice]] had started. Other monsoon crops of importance of the time was [[cane sugar]]. By 2500 BC, rice was an important component of the staple diet in [[Mohenjodaro]] near the [[Arabian Sea]]. By this time the Indians had large cities with well-stocked granaries. Three regions of the [[Americas]] independently domesticated [[corn]], [[Squash (plant)|squashes]], [[potato]] and [[sunflowers]].
What happened at [[wp:ships]] is that C ratings were rejected at first but later on after some discussion we're now using the rating. Ship articles can only be rated a C if the B class checklist is filled out and the article meets criteria 3-5. That eliminates a potential drive by rating from other projects. There was a lot of concern over having to reassess all of the start articles to look for C's but that seemed rather overwhelming so we decided just to rate new articles with the class and reassess others as we run into them. In the few weeks since, we're only holding about 150 C articles currently. There is a disproportionate gap between start and B and in my observations there are a lot of start articles that are only missing one or two criteria to become B; mostly it's the lack of inline citations. A C rating might give editors an area to work in to bring those up to B without much effort. --[[User:Brad101|Brad]] ([[User talk:Brad101|talk]]) 18:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


===Theory===
A clear frenzy of activity in the last three days. Is that an indicator that there is little appetite to discuss this. Anyway, from my perspective, adding C class appears a bit nugatory, it takes us up to seven quality classes, which is more than a military analyst would use. It also pushes both quality gateways towards the top of the scale. Notwithstanding the actual value of the additional rules creep I do recognise that the majority rules and it's highly likely that the classification will be imposed on the project, predominantly as a result of fly-by assessment or dual project tagging where there will be an impetus around imposing it to avoid disparity. It does all seem a bit nugatory, but as with so much else it'll end up becoming the norm. Whilst we may not see the need for it in MilHist I'd suggest that what we do need to do is identify how we can impliment it with the minimum hassle and diversion of effort. (can you tell that I think it's 'kin pointless) [[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The reasons for the development of farming may have included climate change, but possibly there were also social reasons (e.g., accumulation of food surplus for competitive gift-giving as in the Pacific Northwest [[potlatch]] culture). Most likely there was a gradual transition from [[hunter-gatherer]] to agricultural economies after a lengthy period during which some crops were deliberately planted and other foods were gathered in the wild. Although localised climate change is the favoured explanation for the origins of agriculture in the [[Levant]], the fact that farming was 'invented' at least three times elsewhere, and possibly more, suggests that social reasons may have been instrumental.


When major climate change took place after the last [[ice age]] c.11,000 BC much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favoured [[annual plant]]s which die off in the long dry season, leaving a [[dormant]] [[seed]] or [[tuber]]. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled [[hunter-gatherers]] in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time.{{Fact|date=November 2007}}
:'''Support''' per Brad101 ([[WP:SHIPS]]' solution) (if this is even a vote =D) <font face="Monotype Corsiva">'''[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="8000000">the_ed</font>]][[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color=font color="8000000">17</font>]]'''</font face> 00:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


There are several theories as to what drove populations to take up agriculture:
:I support the WP:SHIPS solution also. FWIW, I was a proponent of that solution, but I missed the change-over there! I must be getting old in my middle-age! - [[User:BillCJ|BillCJ]] ([[User talk:BillCJ|talk]]) 02:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
*The '''Oasis Theory''' which was original proposed by [[Raphael Pumpelly]] in 1908, but popularized by [[Vere Gordon Childe]] in 1928 and summarised in his book ''Man Makes Himself''<ref>Childe, Gordon. (1936) ''Man Makes Himself'' (Oxford University Press).</ref> This theory maintains that as the climate got drier, communities contracted to oases where they were forced into close association with animals which were then domesticated together with planting of seeds. It has little support now as the climate data for the time does not support the theory.
*The '''Hilly Flanks''' hypothesis. Proposed by [[Robert Braidwood]] in 1948, it suggests that agriculture began in the hilly flanks of the Taurus and Zagros mountains, and that it developed from intensive focused grain gathering in the region.
*The '''Feasting''' model by [[Bryan Hayden]]<ref>{{cite book|last=Hayden|first=Brian|
|chapter=Models of Domestication|title=Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory|editor=Anne Birgitte Gebauer and T. Douglas Price|location=Madison|publisher=Prehistory Press|year=1992|pages=11-18}}</ref> suggests that agriculture was driven by ostentatious displays of power, such as throwing feasts to exert dominance. This required assembling large quantities of food which drove agricultural technology.
*The '''Demographic theories''' proposed by [[Carl Sauer]]<ref>{{cite book
|last=Sauer|first=Carl, O|year=1952|title=Agricultural origins and dispersals
|publisher-MIT Press|location=Cambridge, MA}}</ref> and adapted by [[Lewis Binford]]<ref>
{{cite book|last=Binford|first=Lewis R.|year=1968|chapter=Post-Pleistocene Adaptations
|title=New Perspectives in Archaeology|editor=Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford|
publisher=Aldine Publishing Company|location=Chicago|pages=313-342}}</ref> and [[Kent Flannery]]. This leads from an increasingly sedentary population, expanding up to the carrying capacity of the local environment, and requiring more food than can be gathered. Various social and economic factors help drive the need for food.
*The '''evolutionary/intentionality theory'''. As proposed by those such as [[David Rindos]]<ref>{{cite book|title=The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective|first=David|last=Rindos|publisher=Academic Press|month=Dec|year=1987|isbn=978-0125892810)}}</ref> the idea that agriculture is an evolutionary adaptation of plants and humans. Starting with domestication by protection of wild plants, followed specialisation of location and then domestication.


==Ancient agriculture==
I May not be as skeptical as ALR, but he brings a good point. It may seem to be a great idea, but does really need to be done? What problem does it fix, and is it worth the effort? Perhaps we can explore that angle a little more before we start casting votes. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 11:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Ancient egyptian farmer.gif|thumb|Ancient Egyptian farmer, copied from [[Archaeology|archaeologically]] preserved specimen by a modern artist guessing at original colors.<br><font size="-3" face="Verdana, sans-serif">Source: http://www.kingtutone.com</font>]]


By the [[Bronze Age]], wild food contributed a nutritionally insignificant component to the usual diet. If the operative definition of ''agriculture'' includes large scale intensive cultivation of land, [[mono-cropping]], organized [[irrigation]], and use of a specialized [[labour (economics)|labour]] force, the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the [[Sumer]]ians, starting ca. 5,500 BC. Intensive farming allows a much greater density of population than can be supported by hunting and gathering, and allows for the accumulation of excess product for off-season use, or to sell/barter. The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with agriculture was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies. Sumerian agriculture supported a substantial territorial expansion which along with internecine conflict between cities, made them the first [[empire]] builders. Not long after, the Egyptians, powered by farming in the fertile [[Nile|Nile valley]], achieved a population density from which enough warriors could be drawn for a territorial expansion more than tripling the Sumerian empire in area.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}
I don't see the need for it, yes yes, bureaucracy is nice and comforting and structure has its uses, but I think that this goes a little too far. That you need sources to get an article out of start class is a good thing, and should remain as incentive. [[User:Narson|Narson]] ([[User talk:Narson|talk]]) 12:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


===Sumerian agriculture===
:''bureaucracy'' is only nice and comforting to a very special kind of person; REMFs.
In [[Sumer]], [[barley]] was the main crop, but [[wheat]], [[flax]], [[date]]s, [[apple]]s, [[plum]]s, and [[grape]]s were grown as well. Mesopotamia was blessed with flooding from the [[Tigris]] and [[Euphrates]] rivers, but floods came in late spring or early summer from snow melting from the Turkish mountains. This, along with salt deposits in the soil, made farming in Mesopotamia difficult.<ref> [http://www.historylink101.com/lessons/farm-city/mes1.htm historylink101]</ref> [[Sheep]] and [[goats]] were also domesticated, kept mainly for meat and milk, [[butter]] and [[cheese]] being made from the latter. [[Ur]], a large town that covered about 50 acres (20 hectares), had 10,000 animals kept in sheepfolds and stables and 3,000 slaughtered every year. The city's population of 6,000 included a labour force of 2,500, cultivated 3,000 acres (12 km²) of land. The labour force contained storehouse recorders, work foremen, overseers, and harvest supervisors to supplement labourers.
:Structure and process should only be supported where they add value and don't get in the way of conducting operations and achieving the objective. First principle of war - Selection and Maintenance of the aim. If the aim is to bog down Wikipedia in superfluous process steps and nugatory admin burden then someone is succeeding :)
Agricultural produce was given to temple personnel, important people in the community, and small farmers.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 17:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


The land was plowed by teams of [[oxen]] pulling light unwheeled plows and [[grain]] was harvested with [[sickle]]s in the spring. Wagons had solid wheels covered by leather [[tire]]s kept in position by [[copper]] nails and were drawn by oxen and the [[Syrian onager]] (now extinct). Animals were harnessed by collars, [[yoke]]s, and headstalls. They were controlled by [[rein]]s, and a ring through the nose or upper lip and a strap under the [[jaw]]. As many as four animals could pull a wagon at one time. Though some hypothesize that [[Domestication of the horse]] occurred as early as 4000 BC in the [[Ukraine]], the horse was definitely in use by the Sumerians around 2000 BC.
I will not repeat my arguments here, but if you go in the talk page of [[WP:GREECE]] you'll see why I regard this category as useless and a "burden". Quality scale before the adoption of C-Class was already comprehensive. No reason to add another category.--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] ([[User talk:Yannismarou|talk]]) 14:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


===Chinese agriculture===
I agree with Yannismarou. There is no real need to adopt another class, and besides, it isn't really that hard to achieve a B-class article, and what would we rather? A vast range of C-class articles or B-class? We have the B-class check lists for a reason; it acts as a guide to measure how close an article is to B-class. What is the point of adopting C-class when it will do basicly the same thing? Well, there is my two cents to '''opose''' C-class. [[User:Abraham, B.S.|Abraham, B.S.]] ([[User talk:Abraham, B.S.|talk]]) 11:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
{{main|History of agriculture in the People's Republic of China}}


The unique tradition of [[China|Chinese]] agriculture has been traced to the pre-historic [[Xianrendong Relics]] and [[Diaotonghuan Relics]] (c. 12 0000 BC-7500 BC). {{Fact|date=September 2007}} Chinese historical and governmental records of the [[Warring States]] (481 BC-221 BC), [[Qin Dynasty]] (221 BC-207 BC), and [[Han Dynasty]] (202 BC-220 AD) eras allude to the use of complex agricultural practices, such as a nationwide [[granary]] system and widespread use of [[sericulture]]. However, the oldest extant Chinese book on agriculture is the ''Chimin Yaoshu'' of 535 AD, written by [[Jia Sixia]].<ref name="needham volume 6 part 2 55 56">Needham, Volume 6, Part 2, 55-56.</ref> Although much of the literature of the time was elaborate, flowery, and allusive, Jia's writing style was very straightforward and lucid, a literary approach to agriculture that later Chinese [[agronomist]]s after Jia would follow, such as [[Wang Zhen (official)|Wang Zhen]] and his groundbreaking ''Nong Shu'' of 1313 AD.<ref name="needham volume 6 part 2 56">Needham, Volume 6, Part 2, 56.</ref> Jia's book was also incredibly long, with over one hundred thousand written [[Chinese characters]], and quoted 160 other Chinese books that were written previously (but no longer survive).<ref name="needham volume 6 part 2 56"/> The contents of Jia's 6th century book include sections on land preparation, seeding, cultivation, orchard management, forestry, and animal husbandry.<ref name="needham volume 6 part 2 57"/> The book also includes peripherally related content covering trade and culinary uses for crops.<ref name="needham volume 6 part 2 57">Needham, Volume 6, Part 2, 57.</ref>
I '''support''' the C-Class thing. I think that even though it is easy to achieve C-Class, having an article isted as C by many projects and Start by this one makes one wonder. I whink that we might as well try this in a democratic way again. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 22:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


For agricultural purposes, the Chinese had innovated the [[hydraulic]]-powered [[trip hammer]] by the 1st century BC.<ref name="needham volume 4 part 2 184">Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 184.</ref> Although it found other purposes, its main function to pound, decorticate, and polish grain that otherwise would have been done manually. The Chinese also innovated the square-pallet [[chain pump]] by the 1st century AD, powered by a [[waterwheel]] or an [[oxen]] pulling a on a system of mechanical wheels.<ref name="needham volume 4 part 2 89 110">Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 89, 110.</ref> Although the chain pump found use in [[public works]] of providing water for urban and palatial [[Pipeline transport|pipe systems]],<ref name="needham volume 4 part 2 33">Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 33.</ref> it was used largely to lift water from a lower to higher elevation in filling [[irrigation]] [[canal]]s and [[Channel (geography)|channel]]s for [[farmland]].<ref name="needham volume 4 part 2 110">Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 110.</ref>
Although this discussion has now been open for nearly six weeks, there have been even fewer participants than at the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military_history/Archive 80#New C-Class and Milhist|original discussion]] and I cannot see much support for introducing C-class. May I suggest that we perhaps defer this by six months, and revisit the question about the time of the March 2009 coordinator elections? This will give us all an opportunity to see how C-class is working elsewhere and re-evaluate it in that context. Can the supporters of C-Class live with this? --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


===Papuan agriculture===
:'''Comment''', I see what you mean but I also think that since this started from a simple question, some people might not read the comment area correctly. I think that a more formal proposal might invite more people to join in. [[user:ktr101|Kevin Rutherford]] ([[User_talk:Ktr101|talk]]) 22:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ancient [[Papuans]] are thought to have begun practicing agriculture around 7000 BC. They began domesticating [[sugarcane]] and [[root crops]]. Pigs may also have been domesticated around this time. By 3000 BC, Papuan agriculture was characterised by water control for irrigation.<ref>[[Encyclopedia Britannica]], "Melanesian cultures"</ref>


===C-Class arbitrary break===
=== Indian agriculture ===
{{Unreliablesources|date=October 2008}}
<!-- Image with inadequate rationale removed: [[Image:Neolithic mehrgarh.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Early farming village in Mehrgarh (7000-5000 BCE)—discovered in 1974 by an archaeological team directed by French archaeologist [[Jean-François Jarrige]]—with houses built with mud bricks ([[Musée Guimet]], [[Paris]]).]] -->
{{main|Agriculture in India}}
[[Wheat]], [[barley]] and [[jujube]] were domesticated in the [[Indian subcontinent]] by 9000 BCE; Domestication of [[sheep]] and [[goat]] soon followed.<ref name=gupta>Gupta, Anil K. in ''Origin of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration'', Current Science, Vol. 87, No. 1, 10 July 2004 59. Indian Academy of Sciences.</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=October 2008}} Barley and wheat cultivation—along with the domestication of cattle, primarily sheep and goat—continued in [[Mehrgarh|Mehrgarh culture]] by 8000-6000 BCE.<ref name=Baber>Baber, Zaheer (1996). ''The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India''. State University of New York Press. 19. ISBN 0791429199.</ref><ref name=harrisandgosden385>Harris, David R. and Gosden, C. (1996). ''The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia: Crops, Fields, Flocks And Herds''. Routledge. 385. ISBN 1857285387.</ref>


This period also saw the first domestication of the [[elephant]].<ref name=gupta/> Agro pastoralism in India included threshing, planting crops in rows—either of two or of six—and storing grain in [[granary|granaries]].<ref name=harrisandgosden385/><ref name=Possehl>Possehl, Gregory L. (1996). ''Mehrgarh'' in ''Oxford Companion to Archaeology'', edited by Brian Fagan. Oxford University Press.</ref> By the 5th millennium BCE agricultural communities became widespread in [[Kashmir]].<ref name=harrisandgosden385/> [[Cotton]] was cultivated by the 5th millennium BCE-4th millennium BCE.<ref>Stein, Burton (1998). ''A History of India''. Blackwell Publishing. 47. ISBN 0631205462.</ref>
I just found this flying by. It is important enough to comment; I think many contributors are missing the point. We do not assess articles just to amuse aourselves, but to help others. Thus a standard assessment scale to tell either a random reader or an editor not accustomed to this field how good an article is. This only works if the grading is consistent right across wiki. There can not be different standards applied at different projects. In particular I would point out that the standard assessment criteria for referencing a B article is a bare single book mentioned as a general reference for the entire article. This is explained at [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment]], citing the progress of an example article at the bottom of the page. The criteria are not intended to be variable by different projects. Or, more precisely, you can add extra tests, make up your own grades with different names, but if it is implied you are using the standard scale, then it should be by the standard criteria.


Archaeological evidence indicates that [[rice]] was a part of the Indian diet by 8000 BCE.<ref name=Nene>Nene, Y. L., ''Rice Research in South Asia through Ages'', Asian Agri-History Vol. 9, No. 2, 2005 (85–106)</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=October 2008}} The Encyclopedia Britannica—on the subject of the first certain cultivated rice—holds that:<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | encyclopedia =Encyclopædia Britannica | title = rice | url = http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/502259/rice | year = 2008 | publisher = Encyclopædia Britannica}}</ref>
As to C grade. It requires no referencing. The reason for introducing it is that the current grading system is failing to properly separate out articles, they are all becoming lumped into class Start, not least because people are excessively marking them down. The system is currently grossly top-heavy with grades for articles considered near-perfect, even if the 'official' criteria are used. The point of the sytem is to help readers, and it fails to do so if it lumps most articles into the same category.


{{Quotation1|Many cultures have evidence of early rice cultivation, including China, India, and the civilizations of Southeast Asia. However, the earliest archaeological evidence comes from central and eastern China and dates to 7000–5000 BC.}}
As to introducing C, I don't see why this is a difficulty. Articles in category Start will naturally be considered for promotion from time to time. Whereas they might fail B, someone can now mark them as C. I don't see why it is necessary to have a sudden drive recategorising everything. The sooner a decision is made by editors to use the grade, the sooner it will be done without anyone having to especially go out and do anything. Any number of article split away from the start pool is a benefit to readers. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] ([[User talk:Sandpiper|talk]]) 09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


[[Irrigation]] was developed in the Indus Valley Civilization by around 4500 BCE.<ref name=R&U/> The size and prosperity of the Indus civilization grew as a result of this innovation, which eventually led to more planned settlements making use of [[drainage]] and [[sewers]].<ref name=R&U>Rodda & Ubertini (2004). ''The Basis of Civilization--water Science?''. International Association of Hydrological Science. 279. ISBN 1901502570.</ref> Archeological evidence of an [[animal]]-drawn [[plough]] dates back to 2500 BC in the Indus Valley Civilization.<ref name=lal>{{citation|title=Thematic evolution of ISTRO: transition in scientific issues and research focus from 1955 to 2000|first=R.|last=Lal|journal=Soil and Tillage Research|volume=61|issue=1-2|date=August 2001|pages=3-12 [3]}}</ref>
:Ah, the good old ''If you don't agree, you're missing the point'' riposte. Cracking.
:Anyway, if the point of C-class is to improve the grading system for readers then it would make a lot more sense to rationalise at the top of the system, rather than add padding at the bottom. As identified above, there are currently three hurdles at the top to be gone over and it's not clear to the casual reader how each of them are distinguished from the other. How exactly do A, GA and FA relate? for the casual reader it's not at all intuitive.
:The way to resolve ambiguity in any knowledge system is not to layer on more administrative burden and opacity for consumers of the knowledge. A classic self licking lolly.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 11:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


=== Roman agriculture ===
:It strikes me that one reason why this argument is flawed is because the vast majority readers at the moment don't actually know what class any particular article is. The casual reader - and we should not assume that this reader checks talk pages - is only told about stub-class (with a stub notice) or FA-class (with a star in the top right).
{{main|Roman agriculture}}


[[Roman agriculture]] built off techniques pioneered by the Sumerians, with a specific emphasis on the cultivation of crops for trade and export. Romans laid the groundwork for the [[manorial]] economic system, involving [[serfdom]], which flourished in the Middle Ages.
:For editors, Stub/Start/C/B/A assessment is normally done within projects. Different projects currently apply different standards to articles, such that a [[Talk:Falklands War|single article]] can easily have more than one quality assessment - and these assessments can be quite different. Indeed, the page you cited tells us that ''"different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment|this]]"''. So far as I can see, your argument assumes a consistency in assessment standards that doesn't actually exist and probably never has. ''[[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Pfainuk|talk]]''</small> 12:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


===Mesoamerican agriculture===
::Indeed. The 1.0 grading system has ''never'' been a reader-oriented one; its primary purposes, from the beginning, were to (1) aid in the selection of release version articles and (2) allow participating WikiProjects to organize their workload. As a practical matter, 99% of readers will have no idea of how the system works or what the different levels really refer to (much less the arcane details of how grades are actually assigned); merely introducing another level is not going to help them at all. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup><small>([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]])</small></sup> 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
{{main|Agriculture in Mesoamerica}}
:::I am sure you guys here will continue to do as you please, but hopefully you be pleased to do something which helps people other than just history project members. As you say, the system was originally intended to identify articles considered sufficiently good to present to the general public, and upcoming candidates. It must be obvious (?) that this requires consistency across projects. The criteria may vary, but in each project the result has to be to identify articles considered satisfactory. OK, maybe, for example, history requires more citations than physics? I don't see this myself. Yes, change the criteria specifically to suit the subject, but points which apply equally across subjects need to be graded equally across subjects. I suspect the assessment people are being polite when they suggest people should do assessment as they think best. I agree, it is a good starting point for an uncertain system. I am being deliberately more blunt, because I want the assessment process to be more useful than just picking a few cream articles.
::: The pressure for extending and expanding the grading system is because of criticism against wikipedia, that it is unreliable. This is being countered by trying to grade articles, which at least those interested can check. I think wiki is over sensitive to such criticisms and is over reacting, but I think a good grading system would be very desireable irrespective of the motives pushing it. I think, to return to my favourite example, that the great majority of readers do not care one bit if an article has no references whatsoever. They must mind a lot more if a big chunk of a topic is missing. Once a rating system becomes establish and CONSISTENTLY applied, it must become a feature of the article page, so readers will know how good we think a page really is. My own objective is a tool for readers.
:::By the way, I like the notion of a check list, congratulations if it originated here. I think it helps consistencey to make the process as automatic and clear as possible. It struck me though, that rather than check boxes you should have grades, say 0-5. So 0 is no refs, 1 one general ref, 2 multiple refs, 3 general refs plus some inline citations, 4 general refs and citations on at least per-paragraph level, 5 refs just about everywhere anyone could wish. (not a definitive proposal). My central suggestion is that level grading of individual criteria would make the overall assessment much easier. The same grades would automatically carry over to assessing the next grade up rather than having to start over with a different set of check box questions.
:::I agree the current top-end grades are a mess. Because they are the result of combining different grading systems which overlap. But the area which needs work most is the area which contains most articles. As an Alternative to having a C grade, make B and GA criteria easier so more articles are promoted into the higher grades. I suspect GA might simply be abolished as I also am not quite sure what it does.
:::Oh, and ALR, please be civil. Ridiculing the style of argument does not address the objections raised.[[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] ([[User talk:Sandpiper|talk]]) 17:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I regret that you are offended by my observation that ''I think many contributors are missing the point'' wasn't the ideal way to get people to take your arguments seriously. Notwithstanding that, I remain to be convinced that the way to improve a defective system is to increase the complexity. If it is recognised that the top end grading is not adding value, then concentrate on rationalising that. I agree that once administrative cruft is in place it is extremely difficult to get rid of it again, so I would recommend putting the effort in there. Once the top end is rationalised, that is the time to actually look at the whole thing again and see if there is a need for anything further.
::::In practice, by adding C class and removing GA one has only reworked the various boundaries. That is a much easier communication message to manage than wandering around imposing additional admin overhead, then coming along a little later imposing more to accommodate a deletion of a grade. That said I have no confidence that GA can be removed, there are far too many statist opinions present amongst the various users who haunt the burgeoning portfolio of rules, procedures, noticeboards, governance and punishment mechanisms. Administranium is a self sustaining, and self perpetuating brake on progress.
::::[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 18:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::I agree with his "grading" scale...'''not''' 1-5, but maybe 0-2, for simplicity's sake. Cheers, '''<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><sup>[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">-talk-]]</sup> [[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the_ed]][[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="2E8B57">17]] <sup>[[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color="800000">-contribs-]]</sup></font></font face>''' 19:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm not arguing the details here, but I think it needs to be reasonably ambitious. The bottom grade,0, is none and the top has to be 'perfect'. So how many useful steps are there in between? There are currently 7 article grades, do they all expect the same level of referencing?
::::::I agree 'missing the point' may have been tactless, but I still feel the preceding debate did exactly that. I also think that if the B grade is to be placed where some here seem to want it (rather high), then it has to have more grades placed below it. Normally a B is the second highest grade, and that was how it started out on wiki. Now it is 4th from top and 3rd/4th from bottom. Should be a below average article, if you discount C. FA makes sense,'featured', but GA 'good'? No one here seems happy to downgrade 'B', so the only alternative is to create more gades below it (and yes, I used the plural). I don't see that the new C necessarily has to disturb the definition of B at all. (though on the whole there is a current paranoia over referencing)
::::::I also note that right now a grading process is being undertaken by the history project at the request of the editorial assessment team on articles to be published on DVD, and that the history version of assesment grades are being used instead of those requested by the editorial team. Now, is that insane, or what? An impartial observer might suggest this is upsetting the whole process. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] ([[User talk:Sandpiper|talk]]) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


In [[Mesoamerica]], the [[Aztec]]s were some of the most innovative farmers of the ancient world and farming provided the entire basis of their economy. The land around [[Lake Texcoco]] was fertile but not large enough to produce the amount of food needed for the population of their expanding empire. The Aztecs developed [[irrigation]] systems, formed [[Terrace (agriculture)|terraced]] hillsides, and fertilized their soil. However, their greatest agricultural technique was the ''chinampa'' or artificial islands also known as "floating gardens". These were used to make the swampy areas around the lake suitable for farming. To make chinampas, canals were dug through the marshy islands and shores, then mud was heaped on huge mats made of woven [[Phragmites|reeds]]. The mats were anchored by tying them to posts driven into the lake bed and then planting trees at their corners that took root and secured the artificial islands permanently. The Aztecs grew [[corn]], [[Squash (fruit)|squash]], vegetables, and flowers on chinampas.
:::::::Well, I think that a highly technical argument over the precise semantics and number of grades may be missing a more fundamental disagreement here. It's my view that subdivision on the lower end of the scale is fundamentally unproductive; all it really accomplishes is dividing a large group of inadequate articles into smaller (but somewhat arbitrary) groups of articles which are ''still'' inadequate. Any article below our (not particularly stringent, in my opinion) standard for B-Class is essentially an early, rough draft. It may be more or less rough, as the case may be; but moving an article from containing 80% uncited material to containing "only" 60% uncited material is not, in my view, sufficient cause for advancing it along a grading path (in the same way that moving it to, say, 0% uncited material would be).
:::::::Obviously, you seem to disagree with that stance; and I'm not sure that we could really come up with a precise grading scheme that could satisfy both of us, given the existence of such a fundamental disagreement. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup><small>([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]])</small></sup> 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


===Andean agriculture===
Frankly, I think the increasing divisions of the various sub-B class articles is getting pointless. Articles that are worse than B-class clearly lack all but the bare bones of finished article. Even the "strict" milhist criteria isn't very strict at all, because a lot of guys self-assess and sometimes even rank articles with two-three paragraphs as satisfying the comprehensivity criteria. Secondly, regardless of what the criteria actually say, anything from GA down is a one-person assessment, and a lot of people have rather varying interpretations of the same guideline, or in a very small minority, they just ignore them altogether and just inflate the rankings. This tends to happen among some small minority of people who generally regard themselves as "seniors" within a WikiProject, and as they tend to implicitly take credit for the success of the project (Whether they actually improved any articles themselves) they do have an inclination to pass any old junk through. I'm not referring to anyone here or in this WikiProject, but one of the main guys who proposed and trumpeted the C-class criteria, well he is always engaging in grade-inflation. He does 90+% of the assessments for his WikiProject. I used an article size tool to do a calculation. For WikiProjects India, Pakistan and Vietnam, their B-class article is on average 27kb in size. The WikiProject of the C-class guy, on average has B-class articles that are only 14kb in length. When I checked it on the Start-class articles, the PAK/IND/VIET average size was about 6-7kb and the C-class guy's WikiProject had the mean size only 3.5kb. His median start-class article was 1.9kb in length and about 20% of the start-class articles were even less than 1.4kb in length! Now that there is a C-class grade, I checked what he did and most of his C-class articles were only 3-4kb in size. All this is doing is just promoting artificial inflation. Soon we will have Z-class inflation for Zimbabwe, if this trend continues. It's just going to end up wasting more time doing nothing. And per Kirill. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
{{main|Incan agriculture}}
:Luckily, because MILHIST is one of the biggest projects and a lot of people think it is good, there is little incentive/latent urge to inflate rankings to move up the WikiProject rankings because it is already ranked highly. I see a lot of smaller WikiProjects tending to have nonsensically soft ratings which is probably an indication of a latent urge to prove that the wikiproject has "come of age". The same thing seems to happen on a lot of the smaller wikis, but not on en.wiki, which is already miles ahead and has no need to inflate an edit count to win any statistical races. But on smaller wikis, lots of them create thousands of one-line stubs en masse, without even bothering with an infobox. The Marathi Wikipedia created a few hundred cricket stubs, and when the interwiki links came up, they all consisted of an empty infobox, and an expand template. About half did not even have a sentence, and for those that did, they all had the same sentence (which I couldn't understand) but it was obvious that the same sentence could not be relevant for all the hundreds of articles. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The Andean civilizations were predominantly agricultural societies; the Incas took advantage of the ground, conquering the adversities like the Andean area and the inclemencies of the weather. The adaptation of agricultural technologies that already were used previously, allowed the Incas to organize the production a diversity of products of the [[coast]], [[mountain]] and [[jungle]], so them could be able to redistribute to villages that did not have access to other regions. The technological achievements reached to agricultural level, had not been possible without the workforce that was at the disposal of the [[Sapa Inca]], as well as the road system that was allowing to store adequately the harvested resources and to distribute them for all the territory.
::This argument may have come full circle, because I have the urge to once again say 'you are missing the point!'. More precisely, you are making a different point. You are saying you are only interested in artcles which are truly excellent, and only interested in ranking from very good upwards. Ths is only helpfull if you wish to create a tiny sample of showcase articles. It does not help create a general source of information. If I look something up I want to find an entry on that subject and a measure of how good the information is.
::You bring up a different criteria, length. My experience of the best articles is that the difficulty is keeping down the length, not increasing it. But length depends upon subject and is not an aim in itself, more a question of organisation. It sounds to me as though the chap you are talking about is creating what I would describe as a good grading system, which distributes articles between the grades. Wikipedia desperately needs a good grading system available to the public. I have never regarded having many top grade articles as a lifetime goal. My goal is a useful encyclopedia, not a showcase for rarities.
::Kiril, my view has always been that most readers care little or nothing about referencing. Referencing is mainly a tool for wiki editors to use for convenience when creating articles. There is a risk, in fact a reality, of excessive emphasis on an editing tool while completely missing the central issue of how good the content is. My reason for becoming involved with this was because I was repeatedly meeting history artciles which were being marked down from being a B because they were poorly referenced despite very good content. This is not clever. I like the checkpont system, I have no problem whatsoever giving every article a grade on its referencing, but I have a big big problem on reducing overall grade on this one technical requirement. The debate here (and elsewhere) shows that even people who want to mark down on absence of refs are acknowledging the actual articles are factually OK. wiki in general has exactly the opposite problem to th UK public examination system. There, the pressure is to give everyone the top mark. Here, the pressure is to give everyone the bottom mark. Neither course is sensible. Either spread the articles between the existing grades, or introduce new ones to break up the mass of articles. The need for a C grade is precisely because people are marking the higher grades harder. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] ([[User talk:Sandpiper|talk]]) 08:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


==Muslim Agricultural Revolution==
:::Setting aside, for the moment, the questions of how important references are to readers—personally, I suspect that you're underestimating their impact—and of whether citations are desirable in and of themselves, let's consider the evaluation of an article's quality in practice. Without proper referencing, we're fundamentally unable to determine whether the content of an article is good or not; indeed, we cannot even provide direction on ''how'' to evaluate the content, beyond "go look in a library". It may very well be that you happen to be an expert on the topic of an article under discussion (although we would likely have no way of verifying that, and would therefore be unable to use even that as a basis for evaluation); but the vast majority of us are not.
{{main|Muslim Agricultural Revolution}}
:::If the assessment system is to function over the entire range of articles we cover—over 70,000, at last count—then it must use criteria that do not require the presence of a topic expert, at least in the initial stages. By far the most useful of these in practice, in terms of reducing false positives, is quality of citation; with very few exceptions (mostly highly controversial articles or deliberate attempts to game the citation requirements), there is a direct and substantial empirical correlation between the quality of an article's citation and the thoroughness with which it covers the topic. Simply put, an overwhelming proportion of well-cited articles are well-researched articles, while a much smaller proportion of not-well-cited articles are well-researched articles.
[[Image:al-jazari pump.png|thumb|A [[valve]]-operated [[reciprocating engine|reciprocating]] [[suction]] [[piston]] [[pump]] water-raising machine with a [[crankshaft]]-[[connecting rod]] mechanism invented by [[al-Jazari]].]]
:::So, yes, if we had several orders of magnitude more time and labor available, we could perhaps use alternative means of evaluation which would not rely so heavily on the quality of referencing; but, as a practical matter, given our currently limited resources, we will be fundamentally unable to assess even a fraction of the necessary number of articles without relying on it. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup><small>([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]])</small></sup> 00:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
::::This has veered somewhat from the topic under argument, which is not the importance of referencing, but the desireability of a c-class. All your comments, Kiril, are arguments in favour of having a C-class, which obviously will be articles inferior to B-class. You are proposing an alteration of fundamental wiki policies, which continue to state that referencing is only required for contentious points.
::::I understand the point you make, that referencing makes checking and assessing an article easier. Again, this is my point: that the purpose of referencing is as an editors tool, and not an aid to readers. I do wonder whether wikipedia and the internet have not changed the way education and study work, in that information from the internet is much more difficult to check for quality than that in a book. Almost all books come with a sole guarantee of accuracy, that the author personally asserts it is correct, but that is uniquely what we cannot do.
::::I am only here because of a recent interest in WWI naval history. Beside me is a book about destroyer actions, written in 1956 by a naval officer. I intend to use it as a reference. It happens that I am also certain it contains a number of significant mistakes. I have other books here which contradict it. This illustrates nicely the difficulty with sources, I could base an entire article upon it, with other supporting and recogniseable refs, and thus substantiate some major blunders. A source does not guarantee accuracy. The ''ONLY'' guarantee of accuracy is an expert on the subject. It may be that a wiki editor can become an expert by reading all those references and judging between them. This is what wiki editors do. wiki does not remove the need for experts by having references. Indeed, it creates a trap, because we may believe we have become experts by reading those sources, but have missed something a real expert would know. A bigger trap is simply to count the references, presuming they accurately reflect the source.
::::The difficulty is that an article's quality is being equated with its level of referencing, just as you outline. The two are not the same. I would be entirely happy to rate an article on more specific grounds, one grade a mechanical count for referencing, one grade an editor rating for content, one for style, whatever categories people think are important.
::::You are saying that you canot make a grading for accuracy because you are not an expert, and instead will only make a grading for referencedness. I don't believe that is helpfull to a reader. You argue that indirectly it helps, but I don't agree. Or at least, I take your point about practicalities, but that simply overlooks the ability of editors as informed people familiar with a subject to make a general evaluation of its quality. In debating generally this point on mil hist in various places, I have read a dozen comments on the lines: 'the article is fine, but it hasn't got any refs'. Editors here ''do'' believe they are capable of assessing accurate content.
::::So to return to the issue of a C-class. This discussion simply says that you wish to restrict all classes B upwards to articles with multiple references. I think this is silly (you may agree, you may feel this is too many classes or have other issues with the scheme), but irrespective my own perspective demands a place for articles which have been assessed by us experts as having good content. Thus the need for the C. I will, however, continue to argue that the mechanical existence of references does not guarantee, and can never guarantee, content (especially if it is regarded as a purely statistical test). The only possible assessment of quality is the opinion of an editor evaluating the content.


From the 8th century, the [[Islamic Golden Age|medieval Islamic world]] witnessed a fundamental transformation in [[agriculture]] known as the "[[Muslim]] [[Agricultural Revolution]]", "[[Arab]] Agricultural Revolution", or "[[Green Revolution]]".<ref>Thomas F. Glick (1977), "Noria Pots in Spain", ''Technology and Culture'' '''18''' (4), p. 644-650.</ref> Due to the [[global economy]] established by Muslim traders across the [[Old World]] during the "[[Islamic Golden Age#Age of discovery|Afro-Asiatic age of discovery]]" or "Pax Islamica", this enabled the [[diffusion]] of many [[Crop (agriculture)|crops]], [[plant]]s and [[farming]] techniques between different parts of the Islamic world, as well as the adaptation of crops, plants and techniques from beyond the Islamic world, distributed throughout Islamic lands which normally would not be able to grow these crops.<ref name=Watson/> These techniques included [[crop rotation]], [[irrigation]] and [[pest control]]. Some have referred to the diffusion of numerous crops during this period as the "[[Globalisation]] of Crops"<ref>FTSC [http://www.muslimheritage.com/topics/default.cfm?ArticleID=229 The Globalisation of Crops]</ref> ,which, along with increased [[mechanization]] of agriculture, led to major changes in [[economy]], [[population distribution]], [[vegetation]] cover,<ref>Andrew M. Watson (1983), ''Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World'', [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 052124711X.</ref> agricultural production and [[income]], [[population]] levels, [[Urbanization|urban growth]], the distribution of the [[Work|labour]] force, linked [[industries]], [[cooking]] and diet, [[clothing]], and numerous other aspects of [[life]] in the Islamic world.<ref name=Watson>Andrew M. Watson (1974), "The Arab Agricultural Revolution and Its Diffusion, 700-1100", ''The Journal of Economic History'' '''34''' (1), p. 8-35.</ref>
::::It strikes me that the statistics you quote are chicken and egg: while the presence of refs may statistically indicate a good article, this is only because someone has spent time inserting refs to make that perfectly good article meet this requirement. People will only bother inserting those refs because they could already see it was a good article and worth the trouble. They already knew it was good, so why couldn't they just mark it as such? Refs might be an easy method for just picking out an article already worth uprating, but it is not an adequate condition for dismissing others without proper consideration. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] ([[User talk:Sandpiper|talk]]) 21:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


[[Serfdom]] became widespread in eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Medieval Europe owed much of its development to advances made in Islamic areas (see [[Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe]]),<ref>Claude Lebedel (2006), ''Les Croisades, origines et conséquences'', pp. 109-13, Editions Ouest-France, ISBN 2737341361</ref> which flourished culturally and materially while Europe and other [[Roman Empire|Roman]] and [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] administered lands entered an extended period of social and economic stagnation.<ref name="M532">Magdalino ''in Laiou'' (2002), {{PDFlink|[http://www.doaks.org/EconHist/EHB20.pdf 532]|519&nbsp;[[Kibibyte|KiB]]<!-- application/pdf, 531963 bytes -->}}</ref> As early as the ninth century, an essentially modern agricultural system became central to economic life and organization in the Arab caliphates, replacing the largely export driven Roman model. The great cities of the Near East, North Africa and Moorish Spain were supported by elaborate agricultural systems which included extensive irrigation based on knowledge of [[hydraulic]] and [[hydrostatic]] principles, some of which were continued from Roman times. In later centuries, Persian Muslims began to function as a conduit, transmitting cultural elements, including advanced agricultural techniques, into Turkic lands and western India. The Muslims introduced what was to become an agricultural revolution based on four key areas:
===C-Class redux===


* Development of a sophisticated system of [[irrigation]] using [[machine]]s such as [[noria]]s, [[water mill]]s, water raising machines, [[dam]]s and [[reservoir]]s. With such technology they managed to greatly expand the exploitable land area.
And what I think most have forgotten in this discussion is that C is easy to implement using the B class check list. If done correctly, the article can't be assessed C unless the checklist is there and certain criteria have been met. Otherwise, those who don't like the C rating don't have to use it. Out of 78,000 articles only about 3,500 are falling into B or higher. Expect that out of the remaining 74,500 articles only about 1.500 more will ever meet or exceed above B. Expecting anymore than 10% of total articles to become "acceptable" is highly unrealistic. --[[User:Brad101|Brad]] ([[User talk:Brad101|talk]]) 01:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
* The adoption of a scientific approach<ref name=Woodcock>Al-Hassani, Woodcock and Saoud (2007), ''Muslim heritage in Our World'', FSTC publishing, 2nd Edition, p. 102-123.</ref> to farming enabled them to improve farming techniques derived from the collection and collation of relevant information throughout the whole of the known world.<ref name=Woodcock/> Farming manuals were produced in every corner of the Muslim world detailing where, when and how to plant and grow various crops. Advanced scientific techniques allowed leaders like [[Ibn al-Baytar]] to introduce new crops and breeds and strains of livestock into areas where they were previously unknown.
* Incentives based on a new approach to [[land ownership]] and labourers' rights, combining the recognition of private ownership and the rewarding of cultivators with a harvest share commensurate with their efforts.<ref name=Idrisi>Zohor Idrisi (2005), [http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/AgricultureRevolution2.pdf The Muslim Agricultural Revolution and its influence on Europe], FSTC.</ref> Their counterparts in Europe struggled under a feudal system in which they were almost slaves ([[serfs]]) with little hope of improving their lot by hard work.
* The introduction of new crops transforming private farming into a new global industry exported everywhere,<ref name=Watson/> including Europe, where farming was mostly restricted to wheat strains obtained much earlier via central Asia. Spain received what she in turn transmitted to the rest of Europe; many agricultural and fruit-growing processes, together with many new plants, fruit and vegetables. These new crops included sugar cane, rice, citrus fruit, apricots, cotton, artichokes, aubergines, and saffron. Others, previously known, were further developed. Muslims also brought to that country lemons, oranges, cotton, almonds, figs and sub-tropical crops such as bananas and sugar cane. Several were later exported from Spanish coastal areas to the Spanish colonies in the New World. Also transmitted via Muslim influence, a silk industry flourished, flax was cultivated and linen exported, and [[esparto]] grass, which grew wild in the more arid parts, was collected and turned into various articles.


===Agriculture in the Middle Ages===
:Absolutely. Though I opposed it during the W1.0 straw-poll, I can see that C-Class arguably has some advantages, not least as an administrative tool. The major problem we have as a project is the vast number of low-level articles within our scope: by now, at least 75,000, with perhaps another 5,000 lurking out there untagged for Milhist. Many thousands of these are potentially C-Class but it will take a mountain of work to identify them.
{{main|Muslim Agricultural Revolution}}
:An alternative approach is to use C-Class purely as a stepping stone to B and for identifying articles which are close to B. An example of how this might work is that any article which has a complete B-class checklist but which fails B on just one (or perhaps two at a pinch) criterion becomes C-Class. If C-Class is thus kept selective, it gives us a manageable reservoir of articles which, with some work, can become B. There is no benefit in having a huge C-Class because we don't have the resources to upgrade the material within in.
:Such an approach might work well organically, as you say Brad, or within other drives but I'd be wholly opposed to embarking on the Herculean (and to my mind overloading) task of identifying all the potentially C-Class articles within our scope. However, this is to some extent academic as Milhist consensus is - for a variety of good reasons - currently strongly against it. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


During the Middle Ages, Muslim farmers in North Africa and the Near East developed and disseminated agricultural technologies including irrigation systems based on [[hydraulic]] and [[hydrostatic]] principles, the use of machines such as [[Water wheel|norias]], and the use of water raising machines, dams, and reservoirs. They also wrote location-specific farming manuals, and were instrumental in the wider adoption of crops including sugar cane, rice, citrus fruit, apricots, cotton, artichokes, aubergines, and saffron. Muslims also brought lemons, oranges, cotton, almonds, figs and sub-tropical crops such as bananas to Spain.
:::As a footnote I can remember articles I assessed in T&A 2008, failing B class only because of a lack of citations, if I am reading this correctley would they would now quailify as C class if the project adopted this grading ? Is there a quick way of seeing all teh start class articles in the project [[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 09:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


==Renaissance agriculture==
::::Yes, you are reading it correctly. The list is here [[:Category:Start-Class military history articles]], currently 37,000 of them. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 09:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The invention of a [[three field system]] of crop rotation during the [[Middle Ages]], and the importation of the Chinese-invented [[moldboard]] plow{{Fact|date=June 2007}}, vastly improved agricultural efficiency.


After 1492 the world's agricultural patterns were shuffled in the widespread exchange of plants and animals known as the [[Columbian Exchange]].<!--Is this just Crosby's term or is it more widely used? Crosby's at first, but others use it. --> Crops and animals that were previously only known in the Old World were now transplanted to the New and vice versa. Perhaps most notably, the [[tomato]] became a favorite in European cuisine, and [[maize]] and [[potato]]es were widely adopted. Other transplanted crops include [[pineapple]], [[cocoa]], and [[tobacco]]. In the other direction, several wheat strains quickly took to western hemisphere soils and became a dietary staple even for native North, Central and South Americans.
:::: DOH MY BRAIN HURTS , of course thats where they were thanks Roger
So if this is correct [[:Category:Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation]] we have identified just over 16,ooo C Class articles that just need start changed to C Class, as mentioned above a Herculean task [[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Agriculture was a key element in the [[Atlantic slave trade]], [[Triangular trade]], and the expansion by European powers into the Americas. In the expanding [[Plantation economy]], large plantations producing crops including sugar, cotton, and indigo, were heavily dependent upon [[slave labor]].
:I don't think this should be done with a specific drive though it could perhaps be done with template changes. This would involve changing the {{tlx|WPMILHIST}} template – the one with the B-class checklist. At the moment, the template assigns B-class if all the parameters are "yes" and "start" if they aren't. If the template could be modified to put articles with just one "no" into C-class, the whole thing could be done automatically. Whether this modification is practical, I couldn't say. [[user:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] is the template expert, as he put it all together. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 11:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


==British Agricultural Revolution==
::Yes, I'm reasonably certain the template could be modified to support that. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup><small>([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]])</small></sup> 12:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
{{main|British Agricultural Revolution}}


Between the 16th century and the mid-19th century, [[Great Britain]] saw a massive increase in agricultural productivity and net output. New agricultural practices like [[enclosure]], [[mechanization]], [[four-field crop rotation]] and [[selective breeding]] enabled an unprecedented population growth, freeing up a significant percentage of the workforce, and thereby helped drive the [[Industrial Revolution]].
::::: That would seem a good soloution if its possible, but just how much support is there for a C Class ? I voted against it last time and I have not yet seen anything to change my mind and if we do adopt it are we then opening the door to a D class using the B class checklist
:::::*ticks all the boxes = B
:::::*ticks 4 out of 5 = C
:::::*ticks 3 out of 5 = D ?
:::::*ticks 2 out of 5 = Start
:::::*ticks 1 out of 5 = Stub
::::: Where will it end [[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 12:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


By the early 1800s, agricultural practices, particularly careful selection of hardy strains and cultivars, had so improved that yield per land unit was many times that seen in the Middle Ages and before.
:::::: I am coming round to the idea that it will be useful administratively. We have so many articles, it's good to find ways to break them into slightly more bite-sized pieces. Your mileage may vary :) --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


The 18th and 19th century also saw the development of glasshouses, or [[greenhouses]], initially for the protection and cultivation of exotic plants imported to Europe and North America from the tropics.
:[[WP:SHIPS]] uses the same B-Class checklist as WP:MILHIST and has adopted the C-Class rating. To be assessed as C-Class for WP:SHIPS, the articles must meet criteria 3 through 5. I just yesterday modified [[Template:WikiProject Ships/Class]] to properly auto-assess C-Class articles. Changing [[Template:WPMILHIST/Class]] to do the same is trivial (and in fact I've taken the liberty of creating [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPMILHIST/Class/sandbox&oldid=242750546 a template sandbox] that contains these changes in case C-Class is adopted by MILHIST and/or for testing.) — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Experiments on Plant Hybridization]] in the late 1800s yielded advances in the understanding of plant genetics, and subsequently, the development of hybrid crops.
:: Thanks for that, very helpful. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Increasing dependence upon monoculture crops lead to famines and food shortages, most notably the [[Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849)]].
:::Roger, I agree with you that the implementation of additional classes could assist in finding articles which are currently sub-standard but could be brought up to standard without great effort. Like many people have referenced above, the majority of articles under our project's scope are below B-class now, and many of them could become B-class or better with minimal work. However, I feel that these articles in question have already been identified. [[:Category:Military history articles needing attention]] and its sub-categories lists thousands upon thousands of articles that could be improved upon. I will admit that many of these articles are in need of severe attention, and there is no simple way to sort them without looking at each individual page (an arduous process to say the least).
:::I don't think the problem is necessarily identification of the articles in need. Eveywhere you look, there are articles to be improved upon; simple probability shows that because the majority of our articles are in need of some form of attention, any given article will probably be one of them. I will also concede that an editor may find an article in need of help, and decide to pass on it because it needs a great deal of work.
:::My '''main point''' is that the resource to identify articles in need of help already exists, and that a new assessment class simply duplicates that resource. I would be interested in hearing any arguments about other possible advantages of the C-class. My opinion, still open to change with a convincing argument, is that the C-class would add nothing of value, and simply serve as [[instruction creep]] and self-feeding [[bureaucracy]]. '''[[User:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#006400;color:#fff;">bahamut0013</span>]][[User talk:Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♠</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Bahamut0013|<span style="background:#00FF00;color:#000">♣</span>]]''' 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I see your point, that it simply adds another potentially useless feature. I say that you can never go wrong with more specificity in assessments, as it helps reader see exactly what type of article they are looking at. I see both sides of this issue and I am wary of the argument of "where does it stop?" but I don't think adding a C class would hinder the project, and if anything it could help it just a little. Either way I don't think it is a big or drastic change. --[[User:Banime|Banime]] ([[User talk:Banime|talk]]) 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::The proposed manner to implement this rating hardly adds instruction creep or bureaucracy. If you're filling out a B-class checklist it is simply a matter of filling it in and the template will assign the rating accordingly. As long as there is a "start" in the class rating it will add B or C automatically. This is no-brainer assessment. --[[User:Brad101|Brad]] ([[User talk:Brad101|talk]]) 17:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Storage silo]]s and [[grain elevator]]s appeared in the 19th century.
== Kargil War ==


==Recent history==
[[Kargil War]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:|{{{2}}}|Kargil War}}|here]]. {{unsigned|Vontrotta|12:13, 4 September 2008}}
{{main|Industrial agriculture}}


===New technologies===
== Requested name change ==
[[Image:Agriculture (Plowing) CNE-v1-p58-H.jpg|left|thumb|250px|A [[tractor]] [[plough]]ing an [[alfalfa]] field]]


With the rapid rise of [[mechanised agriculture|mechanization]] in the late 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in the form of the [[tractor]], farming tasks could be done with a speed and on a scale previously impossible. These advances, joined to science-driven innovations in methods and resources, have led to efficiencies enabling certain modern farms in the United States, Argentina, Israel, Germany and a few other nations to output volumes of high quality produce per land unit at what may be the practical limit.
{{User|Pkkphysicist}} has requested that [[Battle of Hurtgen Forest]] be renamed and moved to [[Battle of Hürtgen Forest]]. All editors are invited to comment on this request at [[Talk:Battle of Hurtgen Forest#Requested move]]. {{unsigned|75.41.166.142| 06:11, 7 September 2008}}


The development of rail and highway networks and the increasing use of [[containerization|container shipping]] and [[refrigeration]] in developed nations have also been essential to the growth of mechanized agriculture, allowing for the economical long distance shipping of produce.
== World War II Airborne Warfare Photos ==


While chemical [[fertilizer]] and [[pesticide]] have existed since the 19th century, their use grew significantly in the early twentieth century. In the 1960s, the [[Green Revolution]] applied western advances in fertilizer and pesticide use to farms worldwide, with varying success.
I've just finished re-writing [[Operation Tonga]], the British airborne landings during [[Operation Overlord]] and I'm starting work on [[American airborne landings in Normandy]], but I'm rapidly finding a distinct dearth of photos for Allied airborne operations pre-[[Operation Market-Garden]], especially for the American airborne divisions. I can find one photo positively identified to be about the [[101st Airborne Division]] for the Normandy article and one in Commons that ''might'' be, but no others. I've put about six photos in Operation Tonga, as the IWM provides excellent photos for the British operations. I can write American airborne landings in Normandy quite easily, but it will lack in photos if I start at this moment. Does anyone have any idea where photos for the article can be found online, and how to verify they can actually be used by wiki? Apologies for the complex and long-winded question, [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
: If any image in your sources are attributed to the U.S. National Archives or U.S. Armed Forces they can be used on Wikipedia. '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
::Ah yes, that's helpful. However, I'm not sure how to verify the authenticity of some of the photos I come across in, say, a google search. I tried searching the US National Archives, but I can't make head nor tail of that website. [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 08:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Just 'bumping' this to see if anyone else has any ideas where I could locate suitable photos for the article and how I could identify them as usable by wiki? [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Have you tried searching the [http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk/ Imperial War Museum Collections]? The photos on that site would generally be available for use as pre-1957 British government works, see {{tl|PD-BritishGov}}. [[User talk:Leithp|Leithp]] 06:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I have, thanks, but there are no photos of US airborne forces in the IWM Online Collections - it was the first place I looked :( [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::On re-reading your post, I see that you mentioned it. [[User talk:Leithp|Leithp]] 15:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Hey, no problem, my writing is rather confusing at times. I tried to find the US equivalent to the IWM, and did find one site, but it was so byzantine I got lost after a few clicks. [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:There's three [http://www.history.army.mil/html/reference/Normandy/pictures.html here], if that helps? [[User talk:Leithp|Leithp]] 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::One is already on commons, but the other two are brilliant. Thanks so much. One last thing - what's the process for uploading those so I can add them to the article when I finally re-write it. Is there an 'Idiot's Guide to Uploading' somewhere? [[User:Skinny87|Skinny87]] ([[User talk:Skinny87|talk]]) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::[[WP:UPLOAD]] or [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]? (Is that what you are looking for?) &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F">'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]] [[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="2F4F4F">for President]] <sub>''[[User:the_ed17/Vote|<font color="2F4F4F">Vote for Ed]]''</sub></font></font face color>''' 15:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Other applications of scientific research since 1950 in agriculture include [[gene manipulation]], and [[Hydroponics]].
== Henry Clinton at GAN ==


===New criticisms===
[[Henry Clinton (1730–1795)]] is at GAN. Currently it is on hold. Could someone with access to the sources please add page numbers? [[User:Geoff Plourde|Geoff Plourde]] ([[User talk:Geoff Plourde|talk]]) 16:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Though the intensive farming practices pioneered and extended in recent history generally led to increased outputs, they have also led to the destruction of farmland, most notably in the [[dust bowl]] area of the United States following World War I.
:I will try how many of these 7 books I can find on Saturday. What genius did nominate this article for GAN? [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 19:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::I nominated it. Also I nominated a Messerschmitt article, that I found during the 0.7 review. [[User:Geoff Plourde|Geoff Plourde]] ([[User talk:Geoff Plourde|talk]]) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Sry, had no time, will try next Saturday. [[User:Wandalstouring|Wandalstouring]] ([[User talk:Wandalstouring|talk]]) 17:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


As global population increases, agriculture continues to replace natural ecosystems with monoculture crops.
== Help ==


In the past few decades, western consumers have become increasingly aware of, and in some cases critical of, widely used intensive agriculture practices, contributing to a rise in popularity of [[organic farming]], the growth of the [[Slow Food]] movement, and an ongoing discussion surrounding the potential for [[sustainable agriculture]].
At [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Naval Gunfire Support Debate]] I've hit a bump and need a few more people to weigh in on a matter asap: the name has been ided as being out of MoS compliance. Suggestions for a new name move include "U.S. Naval gunfire support debate", "United States Naval Gunfire Support debate", United States naval gunfre support debate", as well as others. SandyGeorgia needs this issue settled quickly becuase of the work involved in reordering the pages so everything points to the new title, the sooner this issue is resolved the better. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 03:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


===Agricultural revolutions===
== [[Lord Nelson]] ==
* [[Neolithic Revolution]]
* [[Muslim Agricultural Revolution]]
* [[British Agricultural Revolution]]
* [[Green Revolution]]


==See also==
Hi. I don't edit in this area, but I noticed that there is a long Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Nelson here: http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/lotw/1.html
* [[Agricultural machinery]]
* [[List of agricultural machinery]]
* [[Hoe-farming]]


==Notes==
It is the Life of the Day today, and available for a free substcription to Life of the Day. Best regards, -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
{{reflist|3}}
<!--
Using this template per Wikipedia:Citation templates
{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |author= |coauthors= |title= |url= |format= |work= |publisher= |id= |pages= |page= |date= |accessdate= |language= |quote= }}
...OR...
{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate= |accessmonthday= |accessdaymonth= |accessyear= |author= |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}
...OR...
{{cite journal |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year= |month= |title= |journal= |volume= |issue= |pages= |id= |url= |accessdate= |quote= }}
...OR....
{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |editor= |others= |title= |origdate= |origyear= |origmonth= |url= |format= |accessdate= |accessyear= |accessmonth= |edition= |series= |date= |year= |month= |publisher= |location= |language= |isbn= |oclc= |doi= |id= |pages= |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= }}
-->


==Sources==
== 728th Military Police Battalion ==
*Needham, Joseph (1986). ''Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Technology, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering''. Taipei: Caves Books, Ltd.
*Needham, Joseph (1986). ''Science and Civilization in China: Volume 6, Part 2''. Taipei: Caves Books Ltd.


==Further reading==
I keep running across references to the [[728th Military Police Battalion]] being a part of the [[8th Military Police Brigade]] '''and''' others referencing it as part of the 18th Military Police Brigade. Anyone know where I can find out which it is a component of or are there two 728th MP Battalions within different brigades? Very confusing. Notice the captions for the photo [http://www.1ad.army.mil/Story/sept08/rtc.htm here] for the 18th MP Brigade and then [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/8mp.htm here] as a subordinate unit of the 8th MP Brigade. Thx. --<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:JavierMC|<font style="color:#fef;background:darkblue;">'''Javier'''</font>]][[User talk:JavierMC|<font style="color:darkblue;background:white;">'''MC''']]</font></span></small> 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
{{Horticulture and Gardening}}
*Marcel Mazoyer, Laurence Roudart, ''A History of World Agriculture: From the Neolithic Age to the Current Crisis'', New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006, ISBN 1583671218
*[[Bernard Stiegler]], [http://www.arsindustrialis.org/Members/bstiegler/prendresoin-en Take Care]. A philosopher's perspective.


==External links==
:Random guess - it's assigned to 8th Brigade when in Korea and 18th when deployed to Iraq? [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
* [http://acl.arts.usyd.edu.au/projects/earth/ Early Agricultural Remnants and Technical Heritage] is a multidisciplinary project investigating the development of non-industrial agricultural techniques, with a focus on Europe.
* [http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/tracing/tracing.shtml ''Tracing the Evolution of Organic/Sustainable Agriculture''] A Selected and Annotated Bibliography. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, [[National Agricultural Library]].


[[Category:History of agriculture| ]]
== FAC for SMS ''Von der Tann'' now open ==


[[ca:Història de l'agricultura]]
The [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Von der Tann|FAC]] for [[SMS Von der Tann|SMS ''Von der Tann'']] is now open. All editors are invited to participate. Thanks. [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 16:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[[de:Agrargeschichte]]
: For future reference, I believe that FAC alerts on the talk page are suggested against because it may seem like an attempt to provoke vote stacking. At least, that's what I was told when I did so a while back—I'm not sure if this opinion has changed. '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 17:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[[fr:Histoire de l'agriculture]]
:: See, we sort of use the talk-page alerts more for ACRs and PRs as a method to get people involved. the thing about FACs is that there is frequently a highly dedicated core of FAC reviewers (Ealdgyth, Sandy, Raul654, Tony) who are checking every FAC for the usual stuff (technical errors). ACRs and PRs are always more difficult to find editors for, as they're typically in-project..just getting my two cents in. Regards, [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] ([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]]) 23:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[[hr:Povijest poljoprivrede]]
:::I am sure there are some articles though which do not get mentioned here either for Peer Review, ARC, GAR or FAC. I ''could'' name one, which if I had noticed it during the review stage would not have made it to FA on account of its extremely poor reliability. If an article gets as much exposure as possible in the project then you're helping to ensure that the article is evaluated properly and updated accordingly, in conjunction with the FAC team's recommendations. --[[User:Harlsbottom|Harlsbottom]] ([[User talk:Harlsbottom|talk]] | [[User:Harlsbottom/Library|library]] | [[User:Harlsbottom/Reviews|book reviews]]) 23:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[[id:Sejarah pertanian]]

[[no:Jordbrukets historie]]
== Question ==
[[sv:Jordbrukets historia]]

[[zh:农业史]]
Can anybody confirm these conflicts, [[Siamese-Vietnamese War (1841-1845)]] and [[Siamese-Vietnamese War (1831-1834)]], actually happened? I think they are made up by some vandal. [[User:Fclass|Fclass]] ([[User talk:Fclass|talk]]) 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/vat/vietnam/fcambodia1841.htm '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 19:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::Although I can't say I blame you for being suspicious. Based on the lack of citations, that would be my immediate response. I would severely chastise whoever created the article for not even leaving an external link. Regards, [[User:Climie.ca|Cam]] ([[User Talk:Climie.ca|Chat]]) 23:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::{{User|YellowMonkey}} would be the best person to ask about this, he is very familar with vietnam and its history with wars. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Featured short articles]] ==

Now this is has got to be of interest ... --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
: How many MILHIST articles fall under this category? How do we know how many words an article has? '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 21:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::My low-tech solution is to select the article text by dragging a mouse over it, excluding the refs, footnotes etc, and pasting it into Word. There's a tool that does this [[User talk:Dr pda/prosesize.js]], which I've never used.
::How many Milhist articles this applies to is anybody's guess.
::It seems the day of the Featured Stub is moving ever closer :) --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I installed that code in my monobook, and it's actually quite nifty. Thanks! '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::: I've just done the same. It's excellent. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::That's a really good idea, and will hopefully go someway to overcoming the mindset that only bloated articles can be FAs - often there simply isn't much to write on the topic of an article. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I agree completely; there's a surprising number of firearms topics where there's really not a lot to say ([[Enfield revolver]] being a prime example) or there's just not a lot of information available. Having Featured Short Articles is an excellent way of saying "This is the best Brief Overview of (Topic) you're going to get". The only issue I can see is what to do if a topic that is a Featured Short Article gets expanded (say, new research becomes available expanding existing body of knowledge on the topic) and you end up with a Featured Short Article that's clearly not a Short Article anymore.[[User:Commander Zulu|Commander Zulu]] ([[User talk:Commander Zulu|talk]]) 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't think it is, the main reason for the first oppose was 1a, and as for the second reviewer, most of the FAC people tend to ignore Kaypoh and disregard his opinions, so I don't think there is a clear consensus that the article is too short, eg see [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics]]. That's just a comment in case you hadn't renominated thinking that it is intrinsically too short to be acceptable. '''[[User:YellowMonkey|<font color="GoldenRod">YellowMonkey</font>]]''' (''[[User talk:YellowMonkey|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::Its been awhile since I seen the list of short FAs. but if I recall correctly both {{USS|Illinois|BB-65}} and {{USS|Kentucky|BB-66}} were on it. That may have changed though, considering both are now over a year old. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 03:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Tom, don't forget that the new info I've discovered will add enough to ''Kentucky'' to make it a presentable length. Unfortunately, there is nothing more that I can add to ''Illinois'' except maybe a sentence. ''Illinois'' is a prime example (in my mind) of what type of article is ideal for this process. -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 04:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There seem to be differing opinions on the subject of shorter-length FAs right now at [[WT:FAC]]. I wouldn't count on [[Wikipedia:Featured short articles]] being a done deal just yet. — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
:I've just taken a look at these two ship articles again, and they both will pass any word requirement that is being discussed currently. Also, I've found this (Tom I think this is what you were looking for): [[Wikipedia:Very short featured articles]] -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
::Actually what I was looking for was this: [[Wikipedia talk:Featured article statistics]]. You can see the big and small articles with bronze stars there, and one of those is ''Kentucky''. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Convoy article names ==

I had recently noted some inconsistencies in the names of World War II convoy related articles, and moved a few that were in one naming style into the naming style used by the majority of convoy articles. The current style is with a hyphen between the prefix and the convoy number ("Convoy SC-7"), while the other naming style was with a period between the prefix and the convoy number (Convoy SC.7). {{User|Xyl 54}} has researched and believes that the hyphen notation is an American naming style and that the period notation is a British style. Xyl 54 wanted to move articles he has worked on to the British naming style since, he reasons, most of the convoy battles in the Battle of the Atlantic were British or Canadian affairs. I have no preference one way or the other except a preference for consistency of all the names.

Articles affected would be those found in both [[:Category:Arctic convoys of World War II]], [[: Category:North Atlantic convoys of World War II]], and would include "Battle of Convoy ''name''" articles and "Order of battle of Convoy ''name''" articles as well. Given that the previous ''de facto'' consensus was for the hyphenated names (which is why I moved the few that I did), does anyone else have any thoughts on the issue? — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 15:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:Like you, I'm not fussed either way though, subjectively (and with a devil-may-care-insouciance-about-the-historical-ins-and-outs), SC-7 looks neater than SC.7. I'd start by adding a note to the talk pages and see whether there's clear editor bias towards one option or the other. While 100% consistency would be nice, it's rarely possible on Wikipedia. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

::Nor me, tho I tend toward SC-7, which I think is U.S. preference. You may get some grief from Brits, who may prefer SC.7. Can we avoid a conflict by going to SC7? Or is that making a lot of needless work? [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 03:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::As a Brit I like SC-7 :-) Perhaps we could leave it for a while and see what the preponderance of use is? Knowing what the standard reference works use would be interesting, too. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 15:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::My apologies, then. ;D I've seen a Brit preference to hyphens in other designations. I shouldn't presume. :/ [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As I started this I suppose I should chip in:<br />
I’m trying to separate out my personal feeling from any WP issue.<br />
Personally I suppose I’m miffed about it, particularly the "majority/de facto consensus" argument: when I started doing convoy battle pages there were only 3, and they used the "hyphen" format, so I followed suit; now I’ve used the "full stop" format I feel the ones I did before are being held against me. So that’s the personal bit.<br />
On the WP issue, though, the English WP tries to cater for 2 (or more!) different but mutually intelligible languages; is there an over-riding reason for a single format here?<br />
OTOH I don’t know for sure if it ''is'' a British/American difference, it’s just my impression; does anyone know for sure?<br />
If we follow the majority argument, then [[User:Thewellman]] has done more articles than me (14 to 9), and uses the hyphen format; but I’d object to the majority argument. I’d be happy to see both, but if we are to insist on a single format then I’d have to argue for British usage (whatever that is). [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] ([[User talk:Xyl 54|talk]]) 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:As far as what references use what style, I've started a chart to compare. I've started with some that I frequently use, and it looks like a third option with a space ("SC 7") ought to be considered. Please feel free to add any that you have access to. — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 19:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

{| class=wikitable
! width= 25% | Hyphen (example: SC-7)
! width= 25% | Full stop (example: SC.7)
! width= 25% | Space (example: SC 7)
! width= 25% | No space (example: SC7)
|-
|[[Samuel Eliot Morison|Morison]]'s ''[[History of United States Naval Operations in World War II]]'' (US)
|[http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/ convoyweb.org.uk] (Much based on Arnold Hague's works)
|Cressman's ''The Official Chronology of the U.S. Navy in World War II''
|Macintyre's ''Battle of the Atlantic'' (Br)
|-
| ''[[Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships]]''
|Roskill ''The War At Sea 1939-1945 Volume III'' (Br)
|[http://www.warsailors.com/convoys/index.html warsailors.com]
| Woodman ''The Real Cruel Sea'' (Br)
|-
| Winthrop ''Ghosts on the Horizon'' (?US)
| Kemp ''U-boats destroyed'' (Br)
| Clay Blair's ''Hitler's U-Boat War The Hunters 1939-1942'' (US)
| Tarrant ''The U-Boat Offensive 1914-1945''
|-
| Leckie ''The World War II Reader'' (US)
| Wemyss ''Walker’s Group in the Western Approaches''
| Hague ''The Allied Convoy System 1939-1945'' (Br)
| Showell ''The Evolution of the Wolf Pack''
|-
|
| Rayner ''Escort'' (Br)
| Gretton ''Convoy Escort Commander'' (Br)
|
|-
|
|
| MacIntyre ''U-boat Killer'' (Br)
|
|-
|
|
| White ''Bitter Ocean''
|
|-
|
|
| Milner ''Battle of the Atlantic'' (Cdn)
|
|-
|}

::Blair uses the interesting approach, as far as I can tell, where most mentions in the text are given as "Slow Convoy 7" for preference. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::IIRC, Martin Middlebrook in ''Convoy'' uses no space (but I can't seem to find my copy to confirm it...). [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::A Google books snippet of Middlebrook's ''Convoy'' show that he uses the "SC.7" style in body text (as well as the subtitle). Also, just out of curiosity, what does Blair call other types of convoys, like the PQ/QP series or the HX series? — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 04:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, Blair gives a full name (not necessarily the right one!) for a number of convoy series; for the Arctic convoys he uses a space (eg. PQ 17).[[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] ([[User talk:Xyl 54|talk]]) 08:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::I think he uses our naming logic for PQ convoys - they're the ones famously known by their code, so use the code, and for everyone else use full name. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Another one - Donald Macintyre's ''Battle of the Atlantic'' (a 70s paperback that happens to be on the shelf in the library) uses no space, just SC7. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 09:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a plurality of our sample opts for a space, so how about we go with names with a space, then? — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 14:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:A fine idea. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::Should we have redirects from the other alternatives? [[User:David Underdown|David Underdown]] ([[User talk:David Underdown|talk]]) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Absolutely on redirects from other variations. — [[User:Bellhalla|Bellhalla]] ([[User talk:Bellhalla|talk]]) 15:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Do we have a comprehensive list of convoys anywhere? If so, I'll create a grid of redlinks so that we can ensure we get all the redirects... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Okay, an example list is [[Talk:SC convoys/list|here]], based off the details for SC convoys [[List of World War II convoys|here]], and an HX list [[Talk:HX convoys/list|here]]. If people would find these useful, and can give me the number ranges, I can easily churn out a big pile. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::There isn’t a comprehensive list of convoys here; there were more than a 1000 in the North Atlantic alone, and most of them travelled without incident. I’m working on a list of major convoy battles; there were about 30 that saw the loss of more than 10 ships, or more than 2 U-boats. There were maybe 150 that saw any action at all. There isn't a comprehensive list of those either; there are lists of battles where u-boats clobbered convoys (like [http://www.uboat.net/ops/convoys/battles.htm here], but they tend to be quiet about the battles where the escorts came off best. [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] ([[User talk:Xyl 54|talk]]) 11:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::From memory, some convoy names were also re-used by restarting the numbering system after the numbers were judged to be getting too high. [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, the slow convoys of the ON series were re-numbered as ONS in 1943; there were a couple of other series that did this, but none of them were attacked, ( I think) [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] ([[User talk:Xyl 54|talk]]) 11:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Ah, I see. So there's no plan to create articles for all of them? The redlink list may be a bit excessive, in that case; I'll clean them up... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:I seem to be lagging behind in this conversation; are you wanting to go with the space format now? ( I’m not averse to that, BTW, but my previous reservation still stands). And I don’t know that there is a format that the majority use.<br />
:I’ve added some more titles to the table, from where I am in the library now; Trekphiler was right, there are some British books that use the no-space format. [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] ([[User talk:Xyl 54|talk]]) 11:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone quiet.<br />
I can’t see that there is any consensus here about which single format to use, or even why there has to be a single format.<br />
But as the suggestion here is to see if a pattern emerges, and the current situation is skewed by the recent moves, I’ve gone with plan B and moved them back.<br />
I don’t want to take liberties with the articles in American English, but I’ve also moved those where there is a strong national interest, and where the main contributor (ie myself) uses British English, and labelled them accordingly. [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] ([[User talk:Xyl 54|talk]]) 13:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Pershing Rifles]] ==

The article about the national university-level ROTC drill team, the [[Pershing Rifles]], is up for deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pershing_Rifles here]. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. --[[User:ScreaminEagle|ScreaminEagle]] ([[User talk:ScreaminEagle|talk]]) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== FAR: [[Virtuti Militari]] ==

[[Virtuti Militari]] has been nominated for a [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|featured article review]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured quality]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review|here]]. Reviewers' concerns are [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/{{#if:|{{{2}}}|Virtuti Militari}}|here]]. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 15:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front, continued (!) ==

:'''Update''': The debates about naming Soviet-German WWII operations have been consolidated into one discussion, with a proposal to move 36 articles. As the outcome of the discussion will probably resolve this, all interested editors are urged to [[Talk:Baltic Offensive#Requested move|'''comment here''']]. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Longtime readers will be aware there is a continuing disagreement over the naming of major Soviet offensives on the Eastern Front. This has sucked up a massive amount of editor time over what is really a small point - where the main name is located, as by now, most of the alternate names have been added in the introduction and infoboxes. Currently this includes things from [[Battle of Berlin]]/Berlin Strategic Offensive Operation, to Soviet invasion of Manchuria/[[Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation]]. Mrg3105 is insistent on the use of 'Strategic Offensive Operation.' I and one or two others who've spoken occasionally think this is clumsy English and 'X Offensive' would do just fine.
As a method of moving forward, Roger Davies suggested a sources along the convoy example above.
The test case we're bickering over at the moment is currently at [[Battle of West Ukraine (1944)]] which is not very satisfactory.

'''Comment''' - the current name is derived from a requested articles list! This is better known as the [[tail wagging the dog]] :)--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 22:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:Therefore, I don't believe there is anyone arguing for that name anymore. As I have said before, and Buckshot agrees, we agree that the current name is not the best option, and either Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive, Denpr-Carpathian Operation, or even Denpr-Carpathian Strategic Operation would be better.[[User:Borg_Sphere|<font color="green">Joe</font>]] <font color="green">([[User talk:Borg_Sphere|<font color="green">Talk</font>]])</font> 23:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A potential compromise is 'X Strategic Offensive,' which Mrg has some level of agreement with.

Citations include:

{| class=wikitable
! width= 25% | Battle of West Ukraine
! width= 25% | Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation
! width= 25% | Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive
! width= 25% | Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive
|-
| Placeholder
|
|
|
|-
|
| Placeholder
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|Fallen Soviet Generals p.257 Dnepr-Carpathian offensive operation
|-
|
|
|
|Absolute War Dnepr-Carpathian Offensive Operation p.xiv
|}

I'm sure all involved would like to get this cleared up once and for all, with a definite answer. Please let's work together here and be willing to compomise. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]]([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]]) 07:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:As a procedural note, would it be better to move this to the WW2 task force's talk page? [[User:Nick Dowling|Nick Dowling]] ([[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk]]) 10:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:Those familiar with me will not be surprised by the length of the response below. Those with short attention spans may not appreciate it so I will just ask that articles are titled per policies Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Verifiability, Citing sources, and No original research.

:I am not interested in this discussion as it comes with a stated preconception of my character to which I object

:I am not ''insistent'' on the use of 'Strategic Offensive Operation.' I am insistent on ''using sources'' that allow editing of good quality, fully cited article content. These sources reflect more recent research which Buckshot06 and others find unpalatable - [[Palate|literally]]. This research confirms, based on [[military theory]], the difference between strategically significant operations on the Eastern Front and those that were sub-phase operations. My insistence is therefore within the framework of Wikipedia policies, and is not personality driven as I have been portrayed due to the "incivility" blocks.

:I'm not sure what Buckshot06 means by "let's work together here and be willing to compromise". I mostly work on the articles about the Eastern Front either alone or with one or two other editors. In this case another editor, UserBorg Sphere is working on it, and I can assist. Buckshot06 has been the only one consistent non-compromising ''objector to using sources'', while not actually contributing.

:If he means that I should compromise on the name of the article, he must assuredly recognise that words have meanings, and those meanings reflect article content. Why does he use [[Russian Ground Forces]] and not Russian Army? Because he has it Redirected from Russian Army while using the more correct name. Why should the rules be different when applied to me and a four word title rather then three?

:I don't see "compromise" anywhere in article content policies Neutral point of view, Reliable sources, Verifiability, Citing sources, and No original research.

:I also don't see any tables in any of those policies. I don't see a need for such a table which to me is just a multiple choice opinion survey/vote.

:The issue is articles' titles. A title is part of the article content. A title is important because it describes what the article is about. For example Operation Overlord is a bad article title because its a codename! It actually requires the reader to remember which operation it refers to. There are over 600 operational code names in German [[list of Axis named operations in the European Theatre]]. It is an assumption that someone will remember Operation Overlord just because it is more commonly seen in the media.

:In the case of military operations there are scales of combat. This is an acceptable concept in much of military literature written by professionals. A military operation can be a campaign, a strategic operation within a campaign (usually an offensive or a defensive one), a battle within a strategic operation, an engagement within a battle, and an action within an engagement. Just because less professional authors in the past slapped "battle" on every scale of combat in the past does not change the incomparability of fighting between two infantry battalions and that of two Army Groups.

:Do not tell me this is a general reference work and not a specialist one. There are many VERY specialised articles in Wikipedia, and anyone who wants to know about the Eastern Front is likely not to be looking for mainstream fields of knowledge like a TV show of popular music. In any case, a general reference work is only acceptable on approval of experts, and Wikipedia suffers in currently being banned by many academic and educational institutions, which is surely a far worse outcome than the banning I am issued every month it seems.

:My position is very simple, and based on a quick summation of justifications I have offered:
::that the naming be consistent throughout the range of what are expected to be well over 100 articles about Red Army operations during the Second World War
::that the titles of the article reflect their contents (only some are "strategic")
::that ultimately the names are derived from those who coined them, i.e. the Soviet General Staff (as is true for other countries) and not misinformed/outdated sources or votes by Wikipedia editors.
::that more recent and authoritative research is better as a substantiation of, and reference for the article rather than "Googlecounts" and counting up all books published, since a great many are lacking in authority, and reflect old and often biased research

:Those that have tried to bully me into accepting non-historical names have offered as arguments:
::mythical "consensus" (a guide to how discussions are conducted, not how facts are established) that has been tested only once via [[Talk:Jassy-Kishinev_Operation#Rename_proposal|a stacked pro-Rumanian vote]]
::the equally mythical perception of the "common English-speaker" for which there is no evidence of course, but which is linked to the naming convention of "common name" which is of course not the same since one is about [[Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#section_names|what 309–400 million people think]] Red Army operations are called, and the other is about what they are commonly called, usually by those interested enough in them to bother gaining the knowledge, the military professionals, military historians, and military history enthusiasts such as board gamers and wargamers
::and the [[aesthetics]] of any given article name - dare I say [[look and feel]], expressed as needing an article name that doesn't [[Talk:Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria#Article_is_renamed|"look lousy"]]

:Hence I don't see a need for any tables as the one above to name articles. I do the research and reference my articles (eventually, currently a backlog). I do not need a community vote of what "looks" best, this not being the [[American Idol]] competition. If people want a discussion on the sources used, I am more than happy to discuss them as I have with the [[Talk:Battle_of_West_Ukraine_(1944)#Renaming_proposal|current participating editor]]
:''Sources used to establish consensus need to be usable in providing citations for the article in question - i.e. relevant''
:In the area of Eastern Front research there had been a substantial change since the late 1970s first with professor [[John Erickson]], and later with Colonel (ret) [[David Glantz]]. I corresponded with the later to clarify a 25 year old misconception about [[Operation August Storm]] which highlights how many published authors were prepared to accept it unquestioningly. I think that critical thinking in compiling a reference work is a must. This clarification was outvoted based on opinion, original research and irrelevant Googled sources - I call this unacceptable as an editing practice, and an abuse of administrative tools as I was subsequently banned from the article with an implied threat of being blocked

:In the list below, the two top books are those most available on the Eastern Front from Authoritative sources (except [http://www.amazon.com/Second-World-War-Vol-1941-1945/dp/0415968496/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223123454&sr=1-1 Jukes] which I do not consider authoritative). The authors of both correspond with each other, and I with them. They supplied me with the list of the operations which I had correlated with that from Soviet sources. Glantz added a couple of operations that were not publicised for political reasons--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

===Sandboxing: Mrg3105's list===
*Armies Of The Bear page 45: Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation
*When Titans Clashed: p.356n Dnepr-Carpathian strategic offensive operation (March-April 1944)<ref>the name is only cited fro the second phase as the entire operation's 1st phase begun on the 24 December 1943</ref>,

*Role of intelligence by Glantz it the "new strategic offensive" after Kiev and lists phases
*Slaughterhouse doesn't mention it
*Dupuy in his 1970s "encyclopaedia" calls it what the Germans called it "Soviet Winter Offensive of 1943-44, but forgets to mention two out of the four Fronts
*The road to Berlin "right-bank" of Dnieper (the western Ukraine) or "Christmas eve....offensive operations" because he deals with each sup-phase operation and not withthe entirety of the strategic one as a whole (perspective again)
*The Almanac of World War II (Brig Young) fails to mention it
*Haupt in Army Group South fails to mention a 2 million men offensive by four Fronts
*Buchner calls it simply winter offensive of 1943/44, but talks about "middle Dniepr"
*Seaton in The Fall of Fortress Europe doesn't call it anything
*A World at Arms is a very general work which I don't have
part 1 sandboxing [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]]([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]]) 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
*Vol. 8 of ''Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg'' (German official history), p. 387: ''Strategische Dnepr-Karpaten-Angriffsoperation''. Parts of the operation are given titles of varying worth: "The retreat of the 4th Panzer Army and the counterattack of the 1st Panzer Army", "The 8th Army at Kirovograd", "The break-out of the Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket", "The fighting withdrawal of the 4th Panzer Army", and "The break-out of the 1st Panzer Army".
*Vol. 2 of ''Verbände und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS'' by G. Tessin, p. 9: Defensive battles in the south Ukraine
*Vol. 8 of ''Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkreiges'' (DDR Army translation of the Soviet official history), p. 80: The winter offensive of the Soviet troops in the Ukraine west of the Dnepr. On p. 611 (chronology), the start of the operation is simply indicated by mention of the Zhitomir-<s>Bertizhev</s> Berdichev(sp) Offensive Operation, and all other phases are indicated individually. The start of the "Leningrad-Novgorod Strategic Offensive Operation" ''is'' however mentioned on p. 612.
--[[User:W. B. Wilson|W. B. Wilson]] ([[User talk:W. B. Wilson|talk]]) 16:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::What does the ''Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg'' call the disintegration of the 8th Army?
::Yes, I'm aware of the different names given to different ''parts'' of the German/Rumanian '''defensive operations''' on response to the strategic offensive unleashed on them. However, this is supposed to be an article about the Red Army's offensive, not ''what the Germans thought about the Soviet offensive''. I am unaware that there is a ''single definitive name'' given to the overall planning and execution of the [[Army Group South]] retreat to the 1941 border of Soviet Union because Germans had a problem with saying "von Manstein" and "retreat" in the same sentence.
::Also, consider this, ''Battle for the Ukraine'' by David M. Glantz & Harold Steven Orenstein is in fact about ''The Red Army's Korsun'-Shevchenkovkii Operation, 1944 (the Soviet General Staff Study)''. Lets not try to name articles from ''book covers'', ok? I would have hoped that Operation August Storm would have served as a warning for this. Korsun-Shevchenkovsky Offensive Operation was but ''a part'' of the ''1st phase'' of the Dnepr-Carpathian Strategic Offensive Operation involving only two of the four fronts (operational 1/8th). It could not be literally a "battle" for the whole of Ukraine if only because the left-bank Ukraine had already been liberated. What authors and their publishers choose to put on book covers is not what should guide titling of reference articles.
::{{unsigned|Mrg3105| 22:33, 4 October 2008}}

:I suppose the common factor in all those sources that choose to name it is "Offensive". --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 09:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

===Comment===
I’m glad to hear that mrg3105 is becoming more flexible in his views on article naming, as opposed to insisting on only Soviet nomenclature because of its simpler logical structure. That’s encouraging. However, it should be pointed out that using one side’s or the other’s terminology means subsuming their definitions and perspectives (i.e., POV) with it. Besides naming the action, perceptions of beginning and ending dates often do not align between German and Soviet reports – and such vagaries and other vaguenesses are often reflected in the scholarly literature. I point this out because in some cases, the most NPOV approach may be to use neither or even mix a little of both – if only to provide a broader context.

To use a non-Eastern Front/GPW example, what is commonly known in the English-speaking world as the “Battle of Britain” is traditionally treated as having run from 10 July 1940 – 31 October 1940; for the Germans, however, it was the ''Luftschlacht um England'' (“Air Battle against England”) and ran from mid-August 1940 to May 1941. The first phase, for the Germans, was their initial phase of attacks, code-named ''Adlerangriff'' (“Eagle Attack”), against British airfields from 12 – 23 August; however, one could just as easily point to the preceding “Channel Battles” (''Kanalkampf'') of 10 July – 11 August as the opening move, since it was obviously a necessary action to take to enable a cross-Channel invasion. The Wikipedia article [[Battle of Britain]] does just this (in its “Phases of the Battle” section) while employing the name most well-known by English readers (and often, by default, in a loose way by scholars). While such an approach will no doubt not find favor with purists, it should prove a useful reminder is that sometimes the best approach to titling an article might be to use neither side’s unique (POV) preference but rather instead one that simply clearly conveys the nature of the topic. If mrg3105 is comfortable with a formula of “X Strategic Offensive” and there is no strongly preferred English usage, that would seem to be a good compromise. [[User:Askari Mark|Askari Mark]] <small>[[User talk:Askari Mark|(Talk)]]</small> 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:I agree with everything you said. Maybe mrg can add all his information from the Soviet point of view from his Glantz and Erickson sources, and I can add information from the German point of view, from the Ziemke source (the Werth source is closer to the Soviet point of view as well, seeing as he was in the USSR during the war), with the hopeful result of creating a balanced article that includes both points of view, seeing as the Soviet advance was obviously contested (look at the casualty figures). [[User:Borg_Sphere|<font color="green">Joe</font>]] <font color="green">([[User talk:Borg_Sphere|<font color="green">Talk</font>]])</font> 23:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Askari Mark, your assessment of me is just wrong. You seem to attribute my "unreasonableness" to some quirky behavioural trait that suddenly came good. Nothing can be further from the truth. Aside from a logical approach being usually a better option to a blind shot in the dark (i.e. with no night fighting equipment), the what you refer to as "nomenclature" is in fact [[Stavka:Naming conventions]] :) I am not becoming more flexible, but simply recognise that in English the use of "offensive" and "operation" together is not necessary because the replacement of the translation "advance" with the "offensive" makes the later redundant.
::I think what you and many others misunderstand is, that the article, in fact almost every article I have been trying to rename, is ''a Soviet operation''! Axis did not have an East->West offensive in on the 24 December 1943. Just like writing a history of Overlord from predominantly German accounts is unlike to produce much of an idea on Allied plans and their execution, so too here. This article is not an attempt to produce an NPOV account of both sides, but the account of Soviet operation and its success or failure based on enemy reactions.
::At some stage I will produce an operational correlation between the two sides on the Eastern Front. Then, the Axis operations that correspond to the Soviet will be more clearly seen in their own right. What you are looking for in this case is [[Axis strategic defence of the Western Ukraine 1943-1944]]. This is because that is how the area was referred to by them (due to earlier support for Ukranian Nationalists), and that is what their posture was in attempting to prevent Red Army advancing
::Please DO NOT CONFUSE a reference work and a book! While an author may have the luxury of 300 pages to detail and analyse plans and actions of both sides, this is an article that deals with one subject only, the Dnepr-Carpathian strategic offensive.
::One can not have a neutral point of view when describing an event which was intended to be extremely prejudicial in that this was an offensive intended to destroy the Axis forces.
::Again, I stress that claims of "preferred English usage" have nothing to do with using the correct name. And this is particularly true for areas of knowledge where this usage has been denied and misconstrued for much of the post-war history. What Wikipedia should strive to do is to reflect the best research available on any subject for its readership, on any subject, and not use outdated research because it represents a more neutral point of view--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 04:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I think I probably speak for all of us when I say I'm glad you've reasonably happy with 'X SO,' for whatever reason. I will move the Battle of West Ukraine, as I said on the talk page, by tomorrow at the latest if there's no further input. However I'd like to try and avoid another huge argument which may be lurking from what you've said. We, or at least I, and Joe above, are trying to write an article on the battle, abiding with NPOV. Not just the Soviet side of it. Not just the German side of it. Very many people would see 'Axis strategic defence of the Western Ukraine' as a [[WP:CFORK]] and to try and present the Axis defence and the Soviet advance in two pages would not insufficiently describe their interaction - the combat action. I've only just realised, because of this, that part of your insistence on naming the operations the way you have is that you're only trying to describe one side. That is, frankly, inconsistent with WP guidelines. Please help us all produce depictions of the battles, without trying to divide things into two. Regards [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]]([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]]) 06:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::lol
::::Do you know how ''condescending'' you sound? I had read Joe's original comment in talk. Moved the article, discussed it, expanded it, and then you show up ''out of the blue'' sprouting your "I speak for the average English speaker" mantra, waving your "have a vote in consensus" flag, and now you are going to move it because no one has actually deigned to offer any alternatives to an article which is ''a Soviet operation''!
::::Neither you nor Nick had actually tried to discuss the article with Joe. Neither of you had offered any insight on the article subject. Neither of you have offered any suggestion or analysis of sources. BUT, YOU now give your ''permission'' to start by YOU YOURSELF THE BIG NEW CIVIL ADMINISTRATOR moving the article, something I have done ''twice'', because ''you'' could not live with the word "operation" in the title
::::Well, I hope your German and Rumanian are better than your Russian or French--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 06:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Quite apart from the [[WP:POV|POV]] issues raised above, what [[WP:naming|naming policy]] says is that an article's title should "prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". To apply this to the present issue, and I stress that I am giving this only as an example rather than expressing a preference, "strategic offensive operation" fails on a number of points.
:::* "strategic offensive operation" is an unusual and verbose collocation, it must be learned, and it is therefore not intuitive ("intuitive" means "does not need to be learned"). It is not therefore "second-nature" to link to it.
:::* "strategic offensive operation" is military jargon and only specialist students of the subject are likely to understand it: can it there reasonably be said that the name is what "the greatest number of English-speakers would most easily recognise"?
:::* How does "strategic offensive operation" sit with the [[WP:Naming|policy requirement]] to use the "common name" for a thing? The common name for a military offensive of whatever nature is the plain unvarnished "offensive".
:::* I'm not sure it is possible to determine what, globally, is a "correct" title for an article though it is a relatively easy matter to give an article a purely descriptive one. The use of descriptors instead of names is already well-established in policy, for example, with the emphasis on using non-evocative descriptors in place of evocative or POV names.
:::* Finally policy says that "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another" and that seems to be the case here. It is safe to say, from the opposition it has attracted on many occasions here, that "stragic offensive operation" is a controversial name and it likely to be viewed as controversial in the wider world too.
:::These probably point towards the simplest possible form of name. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 06:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Incidentally, I see that both the German and Russian Wikipedias use the simple "operation" as the article name: [[:de:Dnepr-Karpaten-Operation]] and [[:ru:Корсунь-Шевченковская операция]]. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 07:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

===Arbitrary break (1)===
'''Replies to above'''
* Because most Soviet operational names are linked to the geographical names, "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" is not applicable. The titles have to start with these components, or they would be talking about something else entirely. However, what you neglected to quote is that "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what ''verifiable reliable sources'' in English call the subject." I have provided these sources, and four use "strategic offensive", all verifiable and reliable.
* For ''no'' average English speaker "making linking to those articles easy and second nature" is going to be possible due to the geographical names involved, so inclusion of English words in the title is the least of their problems, but that is just part and parcel of reading about military history that did not happen in the UK or other English-speaking countries. Care to tell me how many English speakers find it second nature to link US battles in the Vietnam War or those of the UK long colonial military history?
* a "strategic offensive operation" may be unusual, but not as individual words, and a quick Google also suggests that the "strategic offensive" is found 130,000 as well as in 1880 published works, so not that strange either. The question is, is it unusual to find mention of strategic offensives in military history? It was in September news articles 21 times in Google, and I bet a lot more in printed press.
* I would next direct you to US News programs that I see from time to time. They are today using a veritable plethora of military jargon, and have advisers to interpret this jargon on camera! However, given the subject is of a specialist nature, i.e. military history, and one about Soviet military history, do you propose to use terms "most easily recognise"? How does one determine this? Are you going to take time of to do a quick survey of the English speaking world, or write a dictionary that translates all Soviet military terminology into simple English? I would suggest that when a reasonable reader ventures into an unfamiliar area of human knowledge, they probably expect some to be introduced to terms they are not familiar with. However, I hardly think that a strategic offensive is considered military jargon. There is for example a book ''Offensive Marketing: An Action Guide to Gaining the Offensive in Business'' by Warren Keegan, Hugh Davidson, Elyse Arnow Brill which has Ch. 5, Strategic Offensive Business Analysis. Its on sale at Barnes and Noble. Jarymowycz in his 2001 ''Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Lorraine'', a book no doubt widely read by English speaking readers interested in the Second World War, he says "The best example of the Allied strategic offensive par excellence is the Normandy invasion." Its an interesting read on Page 286. Given this is a book that has been around since 2001, and I had seen widely and deeply discussed in several boardgaming and wargamning forums back in 2003-4 before the Normandy commemorations, at a guess I think you don't give as much credit to the Wikipedia readership as they probably deserve.
* A common name for a military offensive, is offensive, unless the offensive is not common. However, we can test this. At the next Super Bowl, go up there and tell the first 10,000 fans its just another football game. :) I would suggest that some offensives are more common than others.
* You find "strategic" evocative? Or do you find it an expression of a particular bias in the point of view? What about "overlord"? If an editor is not sure it is possible to determine what, globally, is a "correct" title for an article, then I put it to you that the editor is not sure what the article is about.
* I'd like to find out what controversy is attached to using translations of Soviet operational names to refer to Soviet operations in English? The opposition it has encountered is mostly based on Buckshot06 insisting that they are too long. In 25 years of research I have never seen this mentioned anywhere, although use of fictional Operation August Storm is certainly controversial as it questions the reliability of many authors that used it in their works. The other controversy was that Eurocoptertigre thought the names of Soviet operations should be spelled in Rumanian. Raul654 thought they did not meet with his aesthetic appreciation, understandable in hind sight since to an IT systems guy [[look and feel]] is important. So, in fact the controversy was ''made in Wikipedia'' (better than Made in China I guess, what with artificial ingredients in the milk [[scandal]]) for reason that are not in Wikipedia policy, i.e., restriction on reasonable length, nationalistic bias, and subjective judgement.
* There is also a policy that Wikipedia is a reference work, and not one that seeks to [[dumb down]] knowledge to simplest common form as a sort of knowledge processor where a perfectly good steak goes in one end, and a baby-food looking substance comes out the other.

Now that Roger has finally had his say, consider that in the article introduction the editors would still have to say that the operation was strategic, because quite simply that is how history, both Soviet and German (grudgingly), has recorded it. Given the Eastern Front is only probably going to be interesting for those over 16, and most probably of university age and older (so Joe seems to be somewhat above average), how interesting they would find a Wikipedia article that has "digested" the subject to the simple and non-controversial, completely neutral version of events described in most books as some of the most brutal winter fighting in the history of the Eastern Front as German troops realised they are loosing any hope of retaining even a portion of the conquered territory, or that they are about to retreat to the borders they crossed in 1941, and 2.5 years of fighting and millions of dead were all for naught? Hmmm, I'm ready with my FA-grade assessment questions :)

::If we are going to play the google test, lets at least do it properly mrg. I'll be using the word 'War' to try to remove the articles on offensive clothing etc and go for Offensive as in the war sense.
::*"Strategic Offensive" : 84,400 hits
::*Offensive war -"Strategic Offensive" : 835,000 hits
::*"Strategic Offensive" -wikipedia : 78,000 hits
::*Offensive war -"Strategic Offensive" -wikipedia : 730,000 hits
::So thats 10:1 difference there, allowing for vagueness of google I'm still less than convinced the term is as wide as you say. So, lets look into google books, shall we?
:*"Strategic Offensive" : 1,890 hits
:*Offensive War -"Strategic Offensive" : 30,800 hits.
::Even if we said, well, half of those can't be right on both of the tests, we are still looking at huge disparity. Even if we removed 80% of the results on offensive, it still has a 2:1 on google search and over 3:1 on books. NOt to say this is authoritative or the way we should be deciding things, but just in retort to your use of google to try to prove the use is widespread, relativly. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --[[User:Narson|<span style="color:#1100;">'''Narson'''</span>]] ~ [[User_talk:Narson|<span style="color:#900;">''Talk''</span>]] • </span> 09:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::<s>Roger claimed it was "unusual", I used the simplest way I know to show it is not</s>--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 12:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::: I claimed "strategic offensive operation" was an "unusual" collocation. It is, for a variety of reasons. The string <code>"strategic offensive operation"</code> generates 3800-ish hits, of which over 2000 are on Wikipedia (add switch <code> -Wikipedia</code>). Of the remaining 1600, large numbers are trivial. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok, fair enough. I was simply trying to point out that it is not that unusual in the area of military history to link the three terms--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My replies to mrg's replies:
# I don't buy your argument that (1) the presence of Russian names complicates the title so much that additional levels of complexity don't matter and (2) therefore, somehow, policy doesn't apply. For the avoidance of doubt, policy does apply and we should apply it.
# Policy doesn't require us to distinguish between "Defensive Battle of XXX" and "Offensive Battle of XX" so it's difficult to see why we should do for offensives.
# However, policy requires us to disambiguate. So "XX Strategic Offensive" has a place if an article entitled "XX Tactical Offensive" exists.
# I disagree with your analysis of the readership. A growing number of readers are people seeking information on battles their fathers/grandfathers fought in/died in. In short, we can't predict with certainty who will read this.
# There is no element of dumbing down in being concise. In my opinion, "XX Offensive" or "XX Operation" conveys precisely the same amount of information to the general reader as "XX Strategic Offensive Operation" and a great deal more efficiently.
:--[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 10:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:You mentioned that I had policy disputes with others, and queried how they can all be wrong. This is how. You state that "you don't buy" my argument, but fail to offer a reasonable followup staring with the preposition ''because''. Usually what my policy discussions come down to is that others either say something like "we will have to agree to disagree" as you already have done, but which I did not accept, or they just stop talking, as you have done by not answering direct questions, but merely offering the suggestion that I can't be right and a dozen other editors can be wrong. Alternatively they can switch into Wikilingo and call me a "troll", or claim I am being "disruptive", "tendentious", or some other uniquely-Wikipedia way to get out of a discussion while still seeking to preserve some belief in self-righteousness. Alternatively they claim they are busy, and have no time for discussions, but find time to revert my edits within minutes. I have never felt so "loved" with so many people looking at what I'm doing here.
:However as you well know, saying that my argument is not accepted makes for a very poor logical continuation of a discussion which is encouraged as I understand.
:What the policy you quotes says is that we "prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". Lets take the case of an operation which was not strategic, and accept that "operation" is unnecessary if "offensive" is used. Are you telling me that [[Proskurovsko-Chernovitskaya offensive]] is going to be easily recognisable or lacking in ambiguity for the greater number of English speakers? I only know three people on Australia who can say it correctly, and another correspondent some years ago offered $50 in his wargaming club to anyone who could say it with any reasonable correctness after hearing a recording I made three times. As it happens this will be one of the sub-operations in the strategic operation under question. Wikipedia policy can not make people speak Russian. Nor can policy change how operations were named by the Stavka. The name includes two operational objectives and is therefore at the core of the article about it unlike a codenamed operation.
:Its just one of those things in history where a historian or the reader encounters the strange, and what I enjoy most about history, and not just military history. It forces one to learn.
:However, disambiguation of "X offensive" and "X defensive" is ok?
:Use of strategic is quite simply to convey ''the scale'', and ''group'' non-strategic sub-operations within it. I do not see a problem, and quite frankly no IP has ever complained he/she didn't know what it meant. Given that once the first transliterated part is entered the search will bring up the other words automatically as the closest match in Wikipedia, I really fail to see the objection since ''no typing is required''!
:We can't predict who will read this, but we can predict that if they are making the effort to get to the Eastern Front articles, they are most probably prepared for encountering either Russian, German or military terms. I'm fairly sure they will not be deterred by the use of strategic in some of the titles!
:I disagree that "XX Offensive" or "XX Operation" conveys precisely the same amount of information to the general reader as "XX Strategic Offensive Operation". We are not looking for efficiency, but for accuracy. Efficiency would be numbering all operations from 1 to whatever prefixed by any word you like, and thus creating ....a code name! Codenames have offer a grater ambiguity to the title as is pointed out in the naming conventions. Some operations were larger than others. Its just a fact of history. How that is reflected is through the use of "strategic". The word was also used in Allied and Axis forces, but in operational orders only
:I know that in German and Russian wikis the use is different. In the Russian wiki the entire area is currently under development somewhat on the model I'm using. I will keep in touch with them. However in the untranslated form there is greater ambiguity, so they are also using three words for battle in Russian where there is only one in English, and therefore have greater degree of disambiguation. I have not been in touch with the German wiki, but I suspect there is less desire for precision in the matter of Soviet operations with understandably most editing effort going into the German view of the war.--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 13:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::# You're confusing accuracy with detail, and introducing [[WP:CREEP|instruction creep]].
::::# Disambiguation of "X offensive" and "X defensive" would be okay if the term "defensive" was widely used ''as a noun'' to describe defensive operations, which it isn't. The two Baltic operations might be better disambiguated by date, ie "Baltic [whatever] (1941)" and "Baltic [whatever] 1944".
::::: --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 05:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::For reference, the other article named in this fashion is [[Lower Dnieper strategic offensive operation]]. There's also [[Baltic Strategic Defensive Operation]] which is named in the same way. [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]]([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]]) 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Although I generally agree with mrg, I am not sure the word ''offensive'' is absolutely necessary. Usually the name of the certain battle comes from the side that holds a strategic initiative, i.e. the side in the offensive. We use ''Barbarossa'' for the "Eastern European strategic offensive operation"; we call the events in North Caucasus in 1942 a part of the "Fallen Blau", not a "North-Caucasus strategic defensive operation". Therefore the words "strategic operation" already imply "offensive". The German offensive during of the battle of Kursk was "Operation ''Zitadelle''", and the phase when the Soviet started their offensive are called "Strategic offensive operation Kutuzov" and "Strategic offensive operation Polkovodets Rumyantsev". The Soviet historiography needed a unified name convention for their offensive and defensive operations, but, I think, English WP have no such a problem. Am I wrong?--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Sorry Paul, but you are comparing apples and oranges since all of the above are [[codename]]s intended precisely for the purpose of ''denying knowledge'' as to the nature of the operation. Should this be perpetuated in Wikipedia when options are available?
:::::All articles in the categories [[:Category:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II]], [[:Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II]], [[:Category:World War II aerial operations and battles of the Eastern Front]] and [[:Category:Naval battles and operations of World War II (European theatre)]] are by their nature military, and therefore operations. There is no need to restate this. However, the nature of the operation as being offensive, defensive, siege, or other, certainly belongs there.
:::::I am not going to address every operation, but on looking at Barbarossa, I see that it is deficient since it says the operation was an "invasion of the Soviet Union", that "The operational goal of Barbarossa was the rapid conquest of the European part of the Soviet Union west of a line connecting the cities of Arkhangelsk and Astrakhan, often referred to as the A-A line" and that "Tactically, the Germans had won some resounding victories and occupied some of the most important economic areas of the country, most notably in Ukraine." - all these are of course laughable. An invasion does not nearly describe the massive scale of the undertaking and "Eastern European theatre offensive operation" would be a much better description in the introduction. The goals of Barbarossa, as stated, were not operational, but planned around "strategic campaign goals". The victories were certainly strategic although achieved at the operational level of warfare due to the new [[operational mobility]] offered by the use of mechanised divisions and Panzer Groups. Do we actually want to say something to the reader that they can repeat to others, or are we just copying 1960s books?--[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 06:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::PS. No Soviet or Russian source would call Operation Kutuzov or Operation Rumyantsev either strategic or offensive. They were the Orel Орловская наступательная операция (операция "Кутузов") and the Belgorod-Kharkov Белгородско-Харьковская наступательная операция (операция "Румянцев") strategic operations. --[[User:mrg3105|mrg3105]] ([[User talk:mrg3105|comms]]) ♠<font color="#BB0000">♥</font><font color="#BB0000">♦</font>♣ 06:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::"intended precisely for the purpose of ''denying knowledge''" I hope you don't mean (& I don't think you do) we should resort to the likes of "D-day" rather than "Operation Overlord" (or "Neptune") because that's the more common name. It's for that reason (if no other) I don't find a "Google poll" persuasive. I have a concern we're going to end up with pablum in the name of accessibility. I'm not persuaded by the "drive-by reader" argument; anybody coming to one of these articles is likely to already have some basic knowledge of the subject. (How many "random article" hits go to one of these in a week? I'll bet the number's pretty low.) As stated elsewhere, I'm of the view we should be aiming for the top of the class, the brightest & best-informed, not catering to the least-informed. Beyond that, I'm not competent to comment. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 08:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::::While I agree to a point Trek, the wiki guidelines and policies are set up to cater to the reader with no prior experience, as well as reader over editor (hence why the idea of uniformity finds an ill home). It is a battle that should be fought on guideline/policy pages, or on the pump. We shouldn't be trying to ride out infront of the crowd yelling 'Rally!'. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --[[User:Narson|<span style="color:#1100;">'''Narson'''</span>]] ~ [[User_talk:Narson|<span style="color:#900;">''Talk''</span>]] • </span> 09:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Frankly, I didn't understand your analogy with apples and oranges. My point is that Russian names of battles are "Russocentric" whereas German names are "Germanocentric - and that is quite natural and understandable. We do not use both names simultaneously and, as a rule, when the German is in offensive, the German name is used and ''vise versa''. So any operation is "offensive", I cannot imagine the battle where both sides were in a defensive. Simultaneous offensive is also rare if possible: even the battle of Kursk had two phases: German offensive and Soviet counter-offensive. <br />"Strategic offensive operation" is not precise, because we need to specify which side was in the offensive. (It is obvious for national historiography, not for WP).<br /> "Strategic offensive operation" is redundant, because any strategic operation implies an offensive of one side.<br />However, I fully agree that the name should reflect the geography and scale of the battle: it is ridiculous when, for instance, "Barbarossa" and the battle of Beirut are listed as the similar range items in such a [[List of military engagements of World War II|list]].--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 12:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I'll make no argument to change policy; when this came up before, I was clearly in a tiny minority, so I wouldn't expect to achieve a revolution, & I'm not one to fight futile battles. (Not when I have any say about it, anyhow. ;) )
:::::::::Given the guideline won't adopt page changes to operational codenames (presuming we here could agree on whose to use, which I doubt ;D), & given a choice between two (about equally) uncommon names (even people here, ''moi'' for 1, couldn't necessarily name the Rus/Ger Kharkov ops, say, & Joe Average sure can't), I'd adopt the name of either a) the side with initiative or b) the victor, & stick to that '''in all cases'''. Using the victor's name has the advantage of consistency & simplicity, IMO. My C$0.02, FWIW. [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 14:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== U-boat designations (notification) ==

I have proposed a change of title for all U-boat pages from "Unterseeboot...", as at present, to "German submarine...", for a variety of reasons (listed [[Talk:List of U-boats#Naming, again|here]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) #U-boat designations|here]]), viz:
*"Unterseeboot..." effectively loses the page,
*''Unterseeboot'' is a foreign term (the English word is "submarine", or "U-Boat"),
*Other submarine pages use, for example “Italian submarine...” or "French Submarine...",
*And other german warships use the same format, eg “German battleship…”.

The discussion is [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ships) #U-boat designations|HERE]]. (Posted also at [[WT:SHIPS]] as suggested). [[User:Xyl 54|Xyl 54]] ([[User talk:Xyl 54|talk]]) 12:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== Userboxes and catagorization ==

Is there a reason why the userboxes for this project doesn't put users in a category of members of the Military History WP?--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Gen. Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="green">his Forest</font>]]</sup> 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This came up a few months ago. Here's the discussion from then:<blockquote>
[[:Category:WikiProject Military history participants]] seems to have reappeared. I seem to recall that there was a consensus not to have a member category, since it could not be maintained in the same way as an active/inactive list, and since people "joining" the project through it would not be visible via the various watchlists, and would be ignored by any automation that examined the canonical list. Is that still the case?

(Even if it's not, I suspect we ought to rename it to [[:Category:WikiProject Military history members]] for consistency with our normal usage, incidentally.) [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup><small>([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]])</small></sup> 03:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:I agree that we shouldn't have these for all the reasons you state. Perhaps a little word to {{User|Serviam}} (the sole user in the category) about it should suffice. [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 12:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
::I've asked him if he'd be willing to get rid of it. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill]] <sup><small>([[User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism|prof]])</small></sup> 17:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
</blockquote>
Does that answer it? --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 17:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Yes it does. However, I'll just say that others WPs have active lists and have the userbox categorization.--[[User:Bedford|<font color="black">'''Gen. Bedford'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Bedford|<font color="green">his Forest</font>]]</sup> 18:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, is there anyway to get around those limitations? Every other project that I am in has them and I was just wondering, I'm not good at the technical side of things. --[[User:Banime|Banime]] ([[User talk:Banime|talk]]) 18:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Is there any particular reason why you think it would a good idea? --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Substandard article ==

I've happened upon this article: [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]], and for lack of better words, I don't have time to fix it. It seems as though an editor has expanded the article, but the references are cited in an extremely incorrect manner within each paragraph and there is even talk to the reader in the article. I'm not sure how much work is required but since this article is one of the showcase battles of the pacific theatre in WWII, I'm sure it gets read quite a bit. Any help to fix this article up to presentable standards would be appreciated. -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: There are quite a few substandard articles on Wikipedia, including featured articles. '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::I think the point with this one is that it is a very important battle, and is normally viewed over 400 times per day. [[User:Borg_Sphere|<font color="green">Joe</font>]] <font color="green">([[User talk:Borg_Sphere|<font color="green">Talk</font>]])</font> 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Fwiw, the references aren't cited in "an extremely incorrect manner": the majority are in [[WP:HARV|Harvard style]], which is accepted in Wikipedia. Some aren't done quite correctly, of course (no page numbers, too much comment) but the principle is ok. See [[Battle of Red Cliffs]] for a FA example with Harvard referencing. [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] ([[User talk:Gwinva|talk]]) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Are we looking at the same article? I count 2 fn, no comment in either. Or did it get reverted? [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::OK, strike that last. I don't see xs comment still. (I'm not a fan of the citation style, but...) [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>hit me ♠</small> </sup>]]</font> 03:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well I actually did not know about that citation style. I'm definitely not a fan of it and prefer the in-line variety, but if you say it's okay, then I guess there is nothing left to do from this. -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 03:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Well, wouldn't go as far as saying there's nothing left to do: the principle is ok, but they're not all managed correctly, and there is some mixing of styles, which someone should tidy at some point. (As an aside, I'm not a great fan of Harvard referencing on Wikipedia, but it works well in some other contexts.) [[User:Gwinva|Gwinva]] ([[User talk:Gwinva|talk]]) 09:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== Question from FAC of ''Nevada'' ==

With information I just added to the {{USS|Nevada|BB-36}} article, I compare ''Nevada'' to ''Oregon'', ''Connecticut'' and ''Delaware''. However, do I use "BB-3", "BB-18" and "BB-26" with these? The "BB-x" designations did not start until 1920, and I'm in the pre-1915 part of the article (Design and construction). Can any maritime history buffs help? &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]][[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]]</font></font face>'''&mdash; 01:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:You can use the {{tl|USS}} template and just use the option to have the name of the vessel displayed. That solves everything. -'''[[User:MBK004|MBK]]'''<sub>[[User talk:MBK004|004]]</sub> 03:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I would, but thats just becuase I don't want my aidience to have to guess which ship I want them to look at. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 03:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Well, could I use the designation from that time period? (Is it too confusing?) [ I.e. USS ''Oregon''(B-3) or USS ''Oregon'' (Battleship 3) ] &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]][[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]]</font></font face>'''&mdash; 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::You could, but I would stick with the BB designation. I believe these were applied retroactively as well, so using BB for the pre-1920s battleships should be acceptable. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay, thanks Tom!! &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]][[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]]</font></font face>'''&mdash; 04:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:Thats what I'm here for :-) [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 04:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== GAR of [[Carrier Air Wing Six]]... ==

A GAR has been opened regarding [[Carrier Air Wing Six]], as there is a question of whether the article should have been promoted to GA-class a few days ago. The question is not about quality, rather, it is focused upon whether the article is actually a list. Please go to the page and leave comments! Thanks and cheers, &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]][[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]]</font></font face>'''&mdash; 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== (Very) delayed notification of a FAC for {{USS|Nevada|BB-36}} ==

A FAC for {{USS|Nevada|BB-36}} is open; all people are invited to participate in reviewing the article. Please feel free to leave comments or questions '''[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/USS Nevada (BB-36)|the FAC page]]''', and if you see something in the article that is wrong, [[WP:BOLD|be bold]] and make it right! Thanks and cheers, &mdash;'''<font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">the]]_[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">ed]][[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]]</font></font face>'''&mdash; 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== ACR for Third Battle of Kharkov ==

An '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Third Battle of Kharkov|A-class review]]''' has been opened for the [[Third Battle of Kharkov]]. Your comments are welcomed! '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 16:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Sourcing Q ==

Ok guys, I know that [http://www.hazegray.org Hazegray] has the correct information on a bunch of warships....but is Hazegray reliable? I couldn't find it in a quick Google News archive search, but I figured that someone here might know off hand from something.....thanks, guys! &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F">'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]] [[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="2F4F4F">for President]] <sub>''[[User:the_ed17/Vote|<font color="2F4F4F">Vote for Ed]]''</sub></font></font face color>''' 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:I can't vouch for the Navy ships, but the coverage is really incomplete for Coast Guard cutters. Hardly any of them are there. Only the really old cutters are indexed. [[User:Cuprum17|Cuprum17]] ([[User talk:Cuprum17|talk]]) 04:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::''U.S. Navy'' ships are well covered, especially battleships + aircraft carriers... &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F">'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]] [[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="2F4F4F">for President]] <sub>''[[User:the_ed17/Vote|<font color="2F4F4F">Vote for Ed]]''</sub></font></font face color>''' 04:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Hazygray usually copies whatever DANFS has insofar as the USN ships are concerned, so in thereory anything covered by Hazygray is automatically covered by DANFS, thus its reliable. Thats the stance I have always taken. If you want an official edict though you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, the users there will be able to answer the question of reliability with the authority of wikipedia, and as such people listen when they say something is or is not reliable. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 04:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Hey Tom. I'm not talking about the DANFS copies; I'm talking about the lists ({{cite web|url=http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_dr.htm#nev-cl |title=World Battleships List: US Dreadnought Battleships |accessyear=2008|accessdaymonth=4 September |last=Toppan |first=Andrew |year=1995–2001 |publisher=Hazegray.org}}) that are there! =) &mdash;<font face="Viner Hand ITC" color="2F4F4F">'''Ed [[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|<font color="000080">17]] [[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="2F4F4F">for President]] <sub>''[[User:the_ed17/Vote|<font color="2F4F4F">Vote for Ed]]''</sub></font></font face color>''' 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Not sure. They should be reliable since the information has to originate from official sources, and those source all trace back to the USN. Its one of those citation paradoxes that an article can have multiple cites to questionable source that sooner or later turn out to be valid because their orgins are USN based. I will look into this more tommarow, but at the moment I am winding down my time on the wiki in advance of heading off to bed. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== A-Class review for [[Stanley Goble]] now open ==

The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanley Goble|A-Class review]] for [[Stanley Goble]] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 17:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== A-Class review for [[Clarence Smith Jeffries]] now open ==

The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Clarence Smith Jeffries|A-Class review]] for [[Clarence Smith Jeffries]] is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! [[User:Woody|Woody]] ([[User talk:Woody|talk]]) 13:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

== WWII operational naming on the Eastern Front ==


The lengthy debate about naming Soviet-German WWII operations has now been resolved. However, individual articles may have however [[WP:POV|point-of-view]]/[[WP:BALANCE|balance]] concerns. It would be appreciated if editors could take a look at [[Talk:Baltic Offensive (1944)#Requested move|'''the articles''']] with a view to improving them. This also applies to articles in [[:Category:Battles and operations of the Eastern Front of World War II]]. --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 11:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== Order of battle ==

Does the project have a "naming convention" for articles on orders of battle? Looking at the variety of article names in, for example, [[:Category:Second Sino-Japanese War orders of battle]], perhaps there should be one?

To pick just a few, forms include:
*Order of Battle of the (battle)
*Order of battle for (battle)
*(Army) Order of battle, (battle)
*(Battle) order of battle
*Order of Battle (battle)
*Order of Battle: (battle)

The most common seems to be (Battle) order of battle, and where necessary (Battle) (Army) order of battle. Is this the most commonly accepted form? Should "order of battle" be capitalised or not? Thanks, [[User:Jonathan Oldenbuck|Jonathan Oldenbuck]] ([[User talk:Jonathan Oldenbuck|talk]]) 12:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== Ulster Defence Regiment ==

I've been doing a lot of work on this article and I've now got it up to B Class but I'm being advised on the edit page to consider splitting it as it's getting too large. I could do with some advice at this juncture, particularly from someone with admin status. That's not to say that non-admin advice isn't good but it's a very controversial article and it's been the subject of much bickering and edit warring so I want to ensure that whatever I do - I do it right, and with good guidance from someone who has a bit of clout.[[User:The Thunderer|Thunderer]] ([[User talk:The Thunderer|talk]]) 15:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

== Two new ACRs ==

Both '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Khafji|Battle of Khafji]]''' and '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Clarence Smith Jeffries|Clarence Smith Jeffries]]''' are currently being reviewed for A-class. Your comments are welcomed! '''[[User:Catalan|JonCatalán]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Catalan|(Talk)]]</sup> 19:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:47, 13 October 2008

Agriculture was developed at least 10,000 years ago, and it has undergone significant developments since the time of the earliest cultivation. Evidence points to the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East as the site of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas. Agricultural practices such as irrigation, crop rotation, fertilizers, and pesticides were developed long ago but have made great strides in the past century. The Haber-Bosch method for synthesizing ammonium nitrate represented a major breakthrough and allowed crop yields to overcome previous constraints. In the past century agriculture has been characterized by enhanced productivity, the substitution of labor for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, selective breeding, mechanization, water pollution, and farm subsidies. In recent years there has been a backlash against the external environmental effects of conventional agriculture, resulting in the organic movement.

Origins

Sumerian Harvester's sickle, 3000 BC. Baked clay. Field Museum.

Identifying the exact origin of agriculture remains problematic because the transition from hunter-gatherer societies began thousands of years before the invention of writing. Nonetheless, archaeobotanists/paleoethnobotanists have traced the selection and cultivation of specific food plant characteristics, such as a semi-tough rachis and larger seeds, to just after the Younger Dryas (about 9,500 BC) in the early Holocene in the Levant region of the Fertile Crescent. There is earlier evidence for use of wild cereals: anthropological and archaeological evidence from sites across Southwest Asia and North Africa indicate use of wild grain (e.g., from the ca. 20,000 BC site of Ohalo II in Israel, many Natufian sites in the Levant and from sites along the Nile in the 10th millennium BC). There is even evidence of planned cultivation and trait selection: grains of rye with domestic traits have been recovered from Epi-Palaeolithic (10,000+ BC) contexts at Abu Hureyra in Syria, but this appears to be a localised phenomenon resulting from cultivation of stands of wild rye, rather than a definitive step towards domestication. It isn't until after 9,500 BC that the eight so-called founder crops of agriculture appear: first emmer and einkorn wheat, then hulled barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax. These eight crops occur more or less simultaneously on PPNB sites in the Levant, although the consensus is that wheat was the first to be sown and harvested on a significant scale.

"Mehrgarh, one of the most important Neolithic (7000 BC to 3200 BC) sites in archaeology, lies on the Kachi plain of Baluchistan, Pakistan, and is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming (wheat and barley) and herding (cattle, sheep and goats) in South Asia." [1]

By 7000 BC, sowing and harvesting reached Mesopotamia and there, in the fertile soil just north of the Persian Gulf, Sumerians systematized it and scaled it up. By 6000 BC farming was entrenched on the banks of the Nile River. About this time, agriculture was developed independently in the Far East, probably in China, with rice rather than wheat as the primary crop. Maize was first domesticated, probably from teosinte, in the Americas around 3000-2700 BC, though there is some archaeological evidence of a much older development. The potato, the tomato, the pepper, squash, several varieties of bean, and several other plants were also developed in the New World, as was quite extensive terracing of steep hillsides in much of Andean South America. Agriculture was also independently developed on the island of New Guinea.[citation needed]

In Europe, there is evidence of emmer and einkorn wheat, barley, sheep, goats and pigs that suggest a food producing economy in Greece and the Aegean by 7000 BC.[2] Archaeological evidence from various sites on the Iberian peninsula suggest the domestication of plants and animals between 6000 and 4500 BC.[2] Céide Fields in Ireland, consisting of extensive tracts of land enclosed by stone walls, date to 5500 BC and are the oldest known field systems in the world.[3][4] By 5000 BC, domesticated horses were found in the Ukraine [citation needed]. Agriculture was in northern Europe by 4000 BC [citation needed].

In China, rice and millet were domesticated by 8000 BC, followed by the beans mung, soy and azuki. In the Sahel region of Africa local rice and sorghum were domestic by 5000 BC. Local crops were domesticated independently in West Africa and possibly in New Guinea and Ethiopia. Evidence of the presence of wheat and some legumes in the 6th millennium BC have been found in the Indus Valley. Oranges were cultivated in the same millennium. The crops grown in the valley around 4000 BC were typically wheat, peas, sesame seed, barley, dates and mangoes. By 3500 BC cotton growing and cotton textiles were quite advanced in the valley. By 3000 BC farming of rice had started. Other monsoon crops of importance of the time was cane sugar. By 2500 BC, rice was an important component of the staple diet in Mohenjodaro near the Arabian Sea. By this time the Indians had large cities with well-stocked granaries. Three regions of the Americas independently domesticated corn, squashes, potato and sunflowers.

Theory

The reasons for the development of farming may have included climate change, but possibly there were also social reasons (e.g., accumulation of food surplus for competitive gift-giving as in the Pacific Northwest potlatch culture). Most likely there was a gradual transition from hunter-gatherer to agricultural economies after a lengthy period during which some crops were deliberately planted and other foods were gathered in the wild. Although localised climate change is the favoured explanation for the origins of agriculture in the Levant, the fact that farming was 'invented' at least three times elsewhere, and possibly more, suggests that social reasons may have been instrumental.

When major climate change took place after the last ice age c.11,000 BC much of the earth became subject to long dry seasons. These conditions favoured annual plants which die off in the long dry season, leaving a dormant seed or tuber. These plants tended to put more energy into producing seeds than into woody growth. An abundance of readily storable wild grains and pulses enabled hunter-gatherers in some areas to form the first settled villages at this time.[citation needed]

There are several theories as to what drove populations to take up agriculture:

  • The Oasis Theory which was original proposed by Raphael Pumpelly in 1908, but popularized by Vere Gordon Childe in 1928 and summarised in his book Man Makes Himself[5] This theory maintains that as the climate got drier, communities contracted to oases where they were forced into close association with animals which were then domesticated together with planting of seeds. It has little support now as the climate data for the time does not support the theory.
  • The Hilly Flanks hypothesis. Proposed by Robert Braidwood in 1948, it suggests that agriculture began in the hilly flanks of the Taurus and Zagros mountains, and that it developed from intensive focused grain gathering in the region.
  • The Feasting model by Bryan Hayden[6] suggests that agriculture was driven by ostentatious displays of power, such as throwing feasts to exert dominance. This required assembling large quantities of food which drove agricultural technology.
  • The Demographic theories proposed by Carl Sauer[7] and adapted by Lewis Binford[8] and Kent Flannery. This leads from an increasingly sedentary population, expanding up to the carrying capacity of the local environment, and requiring more food than can be gathered. Various social and economic factors help drive the need for food.
  • The evolutionary/intentionality theory. As proposed by those such as David Rindos[9] the idea that agriculture is an evolutionary adaptation of plants and humans. Starting with domestication by protection of wild plants, followed specialisation of location and then domestication.

Ancient agriculture

File:Ancient egyptian farmer.gif
Ancient Egyptian farmer, copied from archaeologically preserved specimen by a modern artist guessing at original colors.
Source: http://www.kingtutone.com

By the Bronze Age, wild food contributed a nutritionally insignificant component to the usual diet. If the operative definition of agriculture includes large scale intensive cultivation of land, mono-cropping, organized irrigation, and use of a specialized labour force, the title "inventors of agriculture" would fall to the Sumerians, starting ca. 5,500 BC. Intensive farming allows a much greater density of population than can be supported by hunting and gathering, and allows for the accumulation of excess product for off-season use, or to sell/barter. The ability of farmers to feed large numbers of people whose activities have nothing to do with agriculture was the crucial factor in the rise of standing armies. Sumerian agriculture supported a substantial territorial expansion which along with internecine conflict between cities, made them the first empire builders. Not long after, the Egyptians, powered by farming in the fertile Nile valley, achieved a population density from which enough warriors could be drawn for a territorial expansion more than tripling the Sumerian empire in area.[citation needed]

Sumerian agriculture

In Sumer, barley was the main crop, but wheat, flax, dates, apples, plums, and grapes were grown as well. Mesopotamia was blessed with flooding from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, but floods came in late spring or early summer from snow melting from the Turkish mountains. This, along with salt deposits in the soil, made farming in Mesopotamia difficult.[10] Sheep and goats were also domesticated, kept mainly for meat and milk, butter and cheese being made from the latter. Ur, a large town that covered about 50 acres (20 hectares), had 10,000 animals kept in sheepfolds and stables and 3,000 slaughtered every year. The city's population of 6,000 included a labour force of 2,500, cultivated 3,000 acres (12 km²) of land. The labour force contained storehouse recorders, work foremen, overseers, and harvest supervisors to supplement labourers. Agricultural produce was given to temple personnel, important people in the community, and small farmers.

The land was plowed by teams of oxen pulling light unwheeled plows and grain was harvested with sickles in the spring. Wagons had solid wheels covered by leather tires kept in position by copper nails and were drawn by oxen and the Syrian onager (now extinct). Animals were harnessed by collars, yokes, and headstalls. They were controlled by reins, and a ring through the nose or upper lip and a strap under the jaw. As many as four animals could pull a wagon at one time. Though some hypothesize that Domestication of the horse occurred as early as 4000 BC in the Ukraine, the horse was definitely in use by the Sumerians around 2000 BC.

Chinese agriculture

The unique tradition of Chinese agriculture has been traced to the pre-historic Xianrendong Relics and Diaotonghuan Relics (c. 12 0000 BC-7500 BC). [citation needed] Chinese historical and governmental records of the Warring States (481 BC-221 BC), Qin Dynasty (221 BC-207 BC), and Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) eras allude to the use of complex agricultural practices, such as a nationwide granary system and widespread use of sericulture. However, the oldest extant Chinese book on agriculture is the Chimin Yaoshu of 535 AD, written by Jia Sixia.[11] Although much of the literature of the time was elaborate, flowery, and allusive, Jia's writing style was very straightforward and lucid, a literary approach to agriculture that later Chinese agronomists after Jia would follow, such as Wang Zhen and his groundbreaking Nong Shu of 1313 AD.[12] Jia's book was also incredibly long, with over one hundred thousand written Chinese characters, and quoted 160 other Chinese books that were written previously (but no longer survive).[12] The contents of Jia's 6th century book include sections on land preparation, seeding, cultivation, orchard management, forestry, and animal husbandry.[13] The book also includes peripherally related content covering trade and culinary uses for crops.[13]

For agricultural purposes, the Chinese had innovated the hydraulic-powered trip hammer by the 1st century BC.[14] Although it found other purposes, its main function to pound, decorticate, and polish grain that otherwise would have been done manually. The Chinese also innovated the square-pallet chain pump by the 1st century AD, powered by a waterwheel or an oxen pulling a on a system of mechanical wheels.[15] Although the chain pump found use in public works of providing water for urban and palatial pipe systems,[16] it was used largely to lift water from a lower to higher elevation in filling irrigation canals and channels for farmland.[17]

Papuan agriculture

Ancient Papuans are thought to have begun practicing agriculture around 7000 BC. They began domesticating sugarcane and root crops. Pigs may also have been domesticated around this time. By 3000 BC, Papuan agriculture was characterised by water control for irrigation.[18]

Indian agriculture

Wheat, barley and jujube were domesticated in the Indian subcontinent by 9000 BCE; Domestication of sheep and goat soon followed.[19][unreliable source?] Barley and wheat cultivation—along with the domestication of cattle, primarily sheep and goat—continued in Mehrgarh culture by 8000-6000 BCE.[20][21]

This period also saw the first domestication of the elephant.[19] Agro pastoralism in India included threshing, planting crops in rows—either of two or of six—and storing grain in granaries.[21][22] By the 5th millennium BCE agricultural communities became widespread in Kashmir.[21] Cotton was cultivated by the 5th millennium BCE-4th millennium BCE.[23]

Archaeological evidence indicates that rice was a part of the Indian diet by 8000 BCE.[24][unreliable source?] The Encyclopedia Britannica—on the subject of the first certain cultivated rice—holds that:[25]

Template:Quotation1

Irrigation was developed in the Indus Valley Civilization by around 4500 BCE.[26] The size and prosperity of the Indus civilization grew as a result of this innovation, which eventually led to more planned settlements making use of drainage and sewers.[26] Archeological evidence of an animal-drawn plough dates back to 2500 BC in the Indus Valley Civilization.[27]

Roman agriculture

Roman agriculture built off techniques pioneered by the Sumerians, with a specific emphasis on the cultivation of crops for trade and export. Romans laid the groundwork for the manorial economic system, involving serfdom, which flourished in the Middle Ages.

Mesoamerican agriculture

In Mesoamerica, the Aztecs were some of the most innovative farmers of the ancient world and farming provided the entire basis of their economy. The land around Lake Texcoco was fertile but not large enough to produce the amount of food needed for the population of their expanding empire. The Aztecs developed irrigation systems, formed terraced hillsides, and fertilized their soil. However, their greatest agricultural technique was the chinampa or artificial islands also known as "floating gardens". These were used to make the swampy areas around the lake suitable for farming. To make chinampas, canals were dug through the marshy islands and shores, then mud was heaped on huge mats made of woven reeds. The mats were anchored by tying them to posts driven into the lake bed and then planting trees at their corners that took root and secured the artificial islands permanently. The Aztecs grew corn, squash, vegetables, and flowers on chinampas.

Andean agriculture

The Andean civilizations were predominantly agricultural societies; the Incas took advantage of the ground, conquering the adversities like the Andean area and the inclemencies of the weather. The adaptation of agricultural technologies that already were used previously, allowed the Incas to organize the production a diversity of products of the coast, mountain and jungle, so them could be able to redistribute to villages that did not have access to other regions. The technological achievements reached to agricultural level, had not been possible without the workforce that was at the disposal of the Sapa Inca, as well as the road system that was allowing to store adequately the harvested resources and to distribute them for all the territory.

Muslim Agricultural Revolution

File:Al-jazari pump.png
A valve-operated reciprocating suction piston pump water-raising machine with a crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism invented by al-Jazari.

From the 8th century, the medieval Islamic world witnessed a fundamental transformation in agriculture known as the "Muslim Agricultural Revolution", "Arab Agricultural Revolution", or "Green Revolution".[28] Due to the global economy established by Muslim traders across the Old World during the "Afro-Asiatic age of discovery" or "Pax Islamica", this enabled the diffusion of many crops, plants and farming techniques between different parts of the Islamic world, as well as the adaptation of crops, plants and techniques from beyond the Islamic world, distributed throughout Islamic lands which normally would not be able to grow these crops.[29] These techniques included crop rotation, irrigation and pest control. Some have referred to the diffusion of numerous crops during this period as the "Globalisation of Crops"[30] ,which, along with increased mechanization of agriculture, led to major changes in economy, population distribution, vegetation cover,[31] agricultural production and income, population levels, urban growth, the distribution of the labour force, linked industries, cooking and diet, clothing, and numerous other aspects of life in the Islamic world.[29]

Serfdom became widespread in eastern Europe in the Middle Ages. Medieval Europe owed much of its development to advances made in Islamic areas (see Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe),[32] which flourished culturally and materially while Europe and other Roman and Byzantine administered lands entered an extended period of social and economic stagnation.[33] As early as the ninth century, an essentially modern agricultural system became central to economic life and organization in the Arab caliphates, replacing the largely export driven Roman model. The great cities of the Near East, North Africa and Moorish Spain were supported by elaborate agricultural systems which included extensive irrigation based on knowledge of hydraulic and hydrostatic principles, some of which were continued from Roman times. In later centuries, Persian Muslims began to function as a conduit, transmitting cultural elements, including advanced agricultural techniques, into Turkic lands and western India. The Muslims introduced what was to become an agricultural revolution based on four key areas:

  • Development of a sophisticated system of irrigation using machines such as norias, water mills, water raising machines, dams and reservoirs. With such technology they managed to greatly expand the exploitable land area.
  • The adoption of a scientific approach[34] to farming enabled them to improve farming techniques derived from the collection and collation of relevant information throughout the whole of the known world.[34] Farming manuals were produced in every corner of the Muslim world detailing where, when and how to plant and grow various crops. Advanced scientific techniques allowed leaders like Ibn al-Baytar to introduce new crops and breeds and strains of livestock into areas where they were previously unknown.
  • Incentives based on a new approach to land ownership and labourers' rights, combining the recognition of private ownership and the rewarding of cultivators with a harvest share commensurate with their efforts.[35] Their counterparts in Europe struggled under a feudal system in which they were almost slaves (serfs) with little hope of improving their lot by hard work.
  • The introduction of new crops transforming private farming into a new global industry exported everywhere,[29] including Europe, where farming was mostly restricted to wheat strains obtained much earlier via central Asia. Spain received what she in turn transmitted to the rest of Europe; many agricultural and fruit-growing processes, together with many new plants, fruit and vegetables. These new crops included sugar cane, rice, citrus fruit, apricots, cotton, artichokes, aubergines, and saffron. Others, previously known, were further developed. Muslims also brought to that country lemons, oranges, cotton, almonds, figs and sub-tropical crops such as bananas and sugar cane. Several were later exported from Spanish coastal areas to the Spanish colonies in the New World. Also transmitted via Muslim influence, a silk industry flourished, flax was cultivated and linen exported, and esparto grass, which grew wild in the more arid parts, was collected and turned into various articles.

Agriculture in the Middle Ages

During the Middle Ages, Muslim farmers in North Africa and the Near East developed and disseminated agricultural technologies including irrigation systems based on hydraulic and hydrostatic principles, the use of machines such as norias, and the use of water raising machines, dams, and reservoirs. They also wrote location-specific farming manuals, and were instrumental in the wider adoption of crops including sugar cane, rice, citrus fruit, apricots, cotton, artichokes, aubergines, and saffron. Muslims also brought lemons, oranges, cotton, almonds, figs and sub-tropical crops such as bananas to Spain.

Renaissance agriculture

The invention of a three field system of crop rotation during the Middle Ages, and the importation of the Chinese-invented moldboard plow[citation needed], vastly improved agricultural efficiency.

After 1492 the world's agricultural patterns were shuffled in the widespread exchange of plants and animals known as the Columbian Exchange. Crops and animals that were previously only known in the Old World were now transplanted to the New and vice versa. Perhaps most notably, the tomato became a favorite in European cuisine, and maize and potatoes were widely adopted. Other transplanted crops include pineapple, cocoa, and tobacco. In the other direction, several wheat strains quickly took to western hemisphere soils and became a dietary staple even for native North, Central and South Americans.

Agriculture was a key element in the Atlantic slave trade, Triangular trade, and the expansion by European powers into the Americas. In the expanding Plantation economy, large plantations producing crops including sugar, cotton, and indigo, were heavily dependent upon slave labor.

British Agricultural Revolution

Between the 16th century and the mid-19th century, Great Britain saw a massive increase in agricultural productivity and net output. New agricultural practices like enclosure, mechanization, four-field crop rotation and selective breeding enabled an unprecedented population growth, freeing up a significant percentage of the workforce, and thereby helped drive the Industrial Revolution.

By the early 1800s, agricultural practices, particularly careful selection of hardy strains and cultivars, had so improved that yield per land unit was many times that seen in the Middle Ages and before.

The 18th and 19th century also saw the development of glasshouses, or greenhouses, initially for the protection and cultivation of exotic plants imported to Europe and North America from the tropics.

Experiments on Plant Hybridization in the late 1800s yielded advances in the understanding of plant genetics, and subsequently, the development of hybrid crops.

Increasing dependence upon monoculture crops lead to famines and food shortages, most notably the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849).

Storage silos and grain elevators appeared in the 19th century.

Recent history

New technologies

A tractor ploughing an alfalfa field

With the rapid rise of mechanization in the late 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in the form of the tractor, farming tasks could be done with a speed and on a scale previously impossible. These advances, joined to science-driven innovations in methods and resources, have led to efficiencies enabling certain modern farms in the United States, Argentina, Israel, Germany and a few other nations to output volumes of high quality produce per land unit at what may be the practical limit.

The development of rail and highway networks and the increasing use of container shipping and refrigeration in developed nations have also been essential to the growth of mechanized agriculture, allowing for the economical long distance shipping of produce.

While chemical fertilizer and pesticide have existed since the 19th century, their use grew significantly in the early twentieth century. In the 1960s, the Green Revolution applied western advances in fertilizer and pesticide use to farms worldwide, with varying success.

Other applications of scientific research since 1950 in agriculture include gene manipulation, and Hydroponics.

New criticisms

Though the intensive farming practices pioneered and extended in recent history generally led to increased outputs, they have also led to the destruction of farmland, most notably in the dust bowl area of the United States following World War I.

As global population increases, agriculture continues to replace natural ecosystems with monoculture crops.

In the past few decades, western consumers have become increasingly aware of, and in some cases critical of, widely used intensive agriculture practices, contributing to a rise in popularity of organic farming, the growth of the Slow Food movement, and an ongoing discussion surrounding the potential for sustainable agriculture.

Agricultural revolutions

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "Website of the Embassy of Pakistan, Berlin". Retrieved 2008-09-21.
  2. ^ a b Southern Europe, 8000–2000 B.C. | Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art
  3. ^ Ceide Fields Visitor Centre, Ballycastle, County Mayo, West of Ireland
  4. ^ Ceide Fields - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
  5. ^ Childe, Gordon. (1936) Man Makes Himself (Oxford University Press).
  6. ^ Hayden, Brian (1992). "Models of Domestication". In Anne Birgitte Gebauer and T. Douglas Price (ed.). Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Madison: Prehistory Press. pp. 11–18. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  7. ^ Sauer, Carl, O (1952). Agricultural origins and dispersals. Cambridge, MA. {{cite book}}: Text "publisher-MIT Press" ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Binford, Lewis R. (1968). "Post-Pleistocene Adaptations". In Sally R. Binford and Lewis R. Binford (ed.). New Perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. pp. 313–342.
  9. ^ Rindos, David (1987). The Origins of Agriculture: An Evolutionary Perspective. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0125892810). {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  10. ^ historylink101
  11. ^ Needham, Volume 6, Part 2, 55-56.
  12. ^ a b Needham, Volume 6, Part 2, 56.
  13. ^ a b Needham, Volume 6, Part 2, 57.
  14. ^ Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 184.
  15. ^ Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 89, 110.
  16. ^ Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 33.
  17. ^ Needham, Volume 4, Part 2, 110.
  18. ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, "Melanesian cultures"
  19. ^ a b Gupta, Anil K. in Origin of agriculture and domestication of plants and animals linked to early Holocene climate amelioration, Current Science, Vol. 87, No. 1, 10 July 2004 59. Indian Academy of Sciences.
  20. ^ Baber, Zaheer (1996). The Science of Empire: Scientific Knowledge, Civilization, and Colonial Rule in India. State University of New York Press. 19. ISBN 0791429199.
  21. ^ a b c Harris, David R. and Gosden, C. (1996). The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia: Crops, Fields, Flocks And Herds. Routledge. 385. ISBN 1857285387.
  22. ^ Possehl, Gregory L. (1996). Mehrgarh in Oxford Companion to Archaeology, edited by Brian Fagan. Oxford University Press.
  23. ^ Stein, Burton (1998). A History of India. Blackwell Publishing. 47. ISBN 0631205462.
  24. ^ Nene, Y. L., Rice Research in South Asia through Ages, Asian Agri-History Vol. 9, No. 2, 2005 (85–106)
  25. ^ "rice". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008.
  26. ^ a b Rodda & Ubertini (2004). The Basis of Civilization--water Science?. International Association of Hydrological Science. 279. ISBN 1901502570.
  27. ^ Lal, R. (August 2001), "Thematic evolution of ISTRO: transition in scientific issues and research focus from 1955 to 2000", Soil and Tillage Research, 61 (1–2): 3-12 [3]
  28. ^ Thomas F. Glick (1977), "Noria Pots in Spain", Technology and Culture 18 (4), p. 644-650.
  29. ^ a b c Andrew M. Watson (1974), "The Arab Agricultural Revolution and Its Diffusion, 700-1100", The Journal of Economic History 34 (1), p. 8-35.
  30. ^ FTSC The Globalisation of Crops
  31. ^ Andrew M. Watson (1983), Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 052124711X.
  32. ^ Claude Lebedel (2006), Les Croisades, origines et conséquences, pp. 109-13, Editions Ouest-France, ISBN 2737341361
  33. ^ Magdalino in Laiou (2002), Template:PDFlink
  34. ^ a b Al-Hassani, Woodcock and Saoud (2007), Muslim heritage in Our World, FSTC publishing, 2nd Edition, p. 102-123.
  35. ^ Zohor Idrisi (2005), The Muslim Agricultural Revolution and its influence on Europe, FSTC.

Sources

  • Needham, Joseph (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 4, Physics and Physical Technology, Part 2, Mechanical Engineering. Taipei: Caves Books, Ltd.
  • Needham, Joseph (1986). Science and Civilization in China: Volume 6, Part 2. Taipei: Caves Books Ltd.

Further reading

  • Marcel Mazoyer, Laurence Roudart, A History of World Agriculture: From the Neolithic Age to the Current Crisis, New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006, ISBN 1583671218
  • Bernard Stiegler, Take Care. A philosopher's perspective.

External links