Talk:Military woo

Why does this need to be a separate article from paramilitary woo? They're the same thing. 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I also feel like pointing out that the only difference between a paramilitary force and a military force is that the military is technically state-run or state-sponsored. Given that, I agree with Weaseloid. I'm sure anything not covered in the paramilitary woo article (e.g. the stuff about loving war and all that) could easily be fit into other articles as appropriate. - GrantC (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The main difference is that this deals specifically with the military and pseudo military analysis. There's there's the question of where stuff would go if we moved it. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 17:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but my thought is that as the article currently stands, it would be possible to fit each section into an article. For example, the "Wanting war" section could probably be placed into the war article fairly easily, and the comments on military historiography seem somewhat unnecessary. While historical revisionism is bad, I wonder if the relatively shallow transgressions you're referring to are really bad enough to warrant comment. Having a shallow (and mostly useless) knowledge of military history and boasting about it doesn't seem that crazy to me. Who hasn't run into an "armchair expert" in some field? - GrantC (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I could see that for the wanting war section. We do have a specific personality type that's detailed all together here though.  I suppose there's other kinds of armchair experts, but the military wannabe generally has a certain arrogance or privilege about them.  Plus debunking the claims of armchair experts is what we do.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 18:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I would say that we debunk the people that are more relevant or influential than the armchair experts. I know many armchair experts myself, and I wouldn't consider most (or all) of them as problematic as the folks we have articles on. - GrantC (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The phrase "military wannabes" is oversused and tiresome.  ħ uman  08:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "woo" is overused and tiresome. It doesn't mean "stuff I don't like." [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Marge them. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The paramilitary woo, mall ninja, militia movement, articles, and maybe several other articles cover the Rambo fetishoids well. What this article could really use is to keep it, but change its focus to woo that has been official military policy.  The Men Who Stare At Goats kind of stuff.  Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That would actually be a very good focus for the article. I can make the current article just a section of what it's going to be.  That is, have a section about pseudo military experts and historians.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 03:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

"Preferring the M1911 over more modern handguns and arguing that it's just a better gun over more modern pistols because "it was a really good gun."" This seems to be more personal preference than "woo". Claiming the .45 is "just better" than a 9mm is woo, but I know a lot of old timers (like my dad and his buddies) who prefer the .45 just because they grew up with it or prefer the weight of it, and they're more accurate with it than they are a 9mm (though, again, probably because they grew up with it), but none of them are into military/paramilitary woo. We should separate "combat/self defense" guns from guns shot for target practice or the fun of it. ClothCoat (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that for people who grew up with it, that it would be legitimate to want to continue using it, but someone now claiming that the M1911 is better without any serious reasons is falling to woo. I had a friend who's a huge WWII nerd who has said plenty of stuff about how it's an awesome gun and was great, but completely tore it apart when explaining why it would be foolish to go for as a first gun; he nearly came out and said that thinking it's still competitive with modern handguns is woo.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course going for it in a combat situation over more modern guns would be incredibly stupid (unless you genuinely are a better shot with it like some older people), but some people prefer the weight of it for target shooting. The whole "it doesn't jam as often" excuse is dubious and borders on woo, but may be somewhat true (maybe; I've never seen a study on it). I think this article needs to make it more clear that we're talking about combat situations, not target practice or shooting for the hell of it. ClothCoat (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously the Kalashnikovs are the superior guns in every situation. They will keep shooting the enemy even after the shooter has already died, in the severest of dust and snow conditions. Obviously. I have spent over a decade on the Kalashnikov forums and my grandfather knew a guy who knew a guy who fought on the Russian side in WW2, all of you guys are amateurs compared to me. Nullahnung (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha that actually cracked me up because I know people like that. "Worship of the Ak-47" should be added to this article, as well as thinking that any gun is "superior in every situation" just because they've read a lot about it. Common forms of "military woo".ClothCoat (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * They had to invent the Draganov just to give squads the rage of the M16. This definitely needs to go in.  Also, the misconception that the Draganov is a sniper rifle, which it isn't.  It's a combat rifle designed to increase the range of squads using the AKM.  The distinction between the AK47 and the AKM should also go in.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No...No. You aren't improving this article mate. The whole things needs a 'citation needed' tag. Tielec01 (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realize that. Trouble is that as someone who admits to not being a military expert except in specific areas where I happen to have learned facts, most of my knowledge has just been collected without carefully keeping track of the sources for future citation.  Maybe someone else with knowledge can help.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 06:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So... what makes you better than the article's subjects? Tielec01 (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand my own limitations on the subject, and I also understand what military historiography really is. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this a thing?
Where I live this isn't a thing - I've never met anyone who even remotely resembles the kind of person described in this article. On top of that, from a person who knows NOTHING about the military (I've fired only a few guns and thrown one grenade) the whole article comes across as typical of the very thing it is critiquing. For example one example of purported 'woo' is claiming that the P40 is better than the Sten. What are these things? Why is it woo? Why isn't this a valid opinion? How is "Walking in a "tactical" way while holding an airsoft gun, even if wearing civilian clothes" an example of woo - it's a behaviour. The whole article is riddled with attributions to the subjects mental state that seem fanciful at best. It reads like a person who thinks they are a military expert decided to criticise all the other people who think they are military experts.

I say burn it, preferably with fire. Tielec01 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Burn it down, goatspeed. It's awful and useless.  ħ uman  08:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I definitely know people like this, but I don't see the point of this article in the way that it's written. It's not really woo so much as it is obsessiveness mixed with a shallow or trivial understanding of military history. The phrase "military woo" makes me think of stuff like The Men Who Stare at Goats. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've noticed plenty of these people. There's also a fair number I've seen in videos in Youtube.  You also see them in Games Workshops.  Warhammer 40,000 does attract many people who are actually in the military, but you also get a lot of people who have romantic ideas about war and who think they'd be far more heroic than they actually are. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 04:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I figured it'd be an American thing. Still the article needs so much work. I would volunteer but I don't know anything about the topic. Tielec01 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is, though it could also be an issue in the UK from this "Domanglia" thing I've seen, though that would mostly fall under German woo. I don't see it as being much of an issue in Germany given that I don't think people there would tolerate kids getting obsessive military interests.  I agree that some of the examples seem like a criticism of a personality type or something like that, which I try to avoid.  I think it's valid though that military wannabes want to try to look all "tactical" and get into special walks and poses with airsoft guns without realizing how stupid it looks when a skinny White kid does that in civilian clothes.  It also looks stupid when skinny Black kids do it, which I've seen.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the ADE-651 was more the sort of thing the article should be about.--Weirdstuff (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. Tielec01 (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll probably start shifting in that direction, and push the current content into a section on military wannabes and pseudo historians. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 05:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, at the moment it's more of a dig at a specific kind of dickhead that you obviously have to deal with; that's cool but it needs a little bit more outright bullshit debunkery to be an article on military woo. Tielec01 (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We could possibly put some of the list items into a table and have a debunking explanation next to them, such as with the big bullet fallacy. I was going to mention that when these people continue their military fetish or still consider themselves to be "interested in the military" past 18, they seem like they're compensating for some confidence issue.  That would probably seem like to much of a go at them, even by our standards.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 06:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EC – Theodore Roosevelt was also compensating for a childhood disability, but he at least did something about it. The average military wannabe doesn't try to become more masculine; instead they sit around watching the History channel and thinking about joining the special forces.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 06:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how you know that the Draganov was not intended to be used as a sniper rifle. Tielec01 (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you guys even talking about. Do you mean the Dragunov?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragunov_sniper_rifle Nullahnung (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain to anyone on planet earth how anyone's misapprehension about the purpose of a rifle relates in any way to "woo." See, you make shit up and then defend it. It's bad for RW. Cranks don't just get to drop turds into mainspace. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is a waste of mind space. The author needs to justify its existence - the existence of their personal essay - posthaste, before deletion occurs.  ħ uman  08:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dragunov was designed as a squad support weapon since, according to Soviet and Soviet-derived military doctrines, the long-range engagement ability was lost to ordinary troops when submachine guns and assault rifles (which are optimized for close-range and medium-range, rapid-fire combat) were adopted. For that reason, it was originally named "Полуавтоматическая винтовка Драгунова" Dragunov's Semi-automatic Rifle. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was not disputing that. I was just noting how you consistently are spelling the 'Dragunov' wrongly as 'Draganov'. Both within the article and on the talk page. You even got Tielec01 to adopt your misspelling. I posted a correction before things got out of hand with that. Nullahnung (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I know nothing about guns or the military (I didn't even really know what a Dragunov was); when I read through the wikipedia link that Nulla kindly provided I see the rifle referred to as a sniper rifle multiple times. Tielec01 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * CLEARLY AN EXAMPLE OF WOO THAT MUST BE DEBUNKED ON RATIONALWIKI FORTHWITH!!!1! [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 01:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

So what could go in this?
Obviously these two bomb detectors. ADE-651 and Sniffex. Are there any bulletproof vests that don't work? Misconceptions about them? Misconceptions bout ammunition which can penetrate them? Do silenced guns really go "pfft". I suspect hey go "bang" but not so loud. Something about uranium 235 and 238. How accurate are sniper rifles? Are they oversold? Perhaps we could even link to torture.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like a pointless rationalisation compensating for the fact that an article's been created with such a vague & meaningless title. Is "military woo" an actual concept that people use & understand, or just a miscellaneous list of not-really-connected phenomena?  07:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's crap - both in in title and content - and probably should go bye-bye.  ħ uman  08:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion piece, an essay, and shouldn't be a RW article. Original (and only) author should move it before it gets deleted. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I still do not believe that this has a place as a standalone article, even with the suggested changes. - GrantC (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Explain how this is an "opinion." Memorizing weapon and vehicle names from WWII is not military historiography.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 15:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No it's not, but it's also not important. I know a lot of people who talk from the seat of their pants about military history, politics, economics, etc., but that doesn't make what they're talking about interesting or relevant. Armchair experts are a dime a dozen, and I'm still convinced that RW's mission is devoted to people who are more serious, dangerous, or extreme than that. - GrantC (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. No citations, just a bunch of anecdotal stuff cobbled together to invent a thing that doesn't exist outside this (now deleted) article. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Make an article about the bomb detector. There is no such thing as "military woo." Do we have to start going through this piece of crap to show why this litany of nonsense is at best a list of things this crank doesn't like about the military? Even assuming this should be an article, it's written like a personal screed, and poorly at that. 16:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC) I think this would be a great article in which to talk about Nazis. And rape. If only there were someone who could write it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help move on past shit when you keep bringing it up again. It doesn't help encourage good behavior when you post blatantly inflammatory shit like this looking for a response.  Shit like this is a major reason why I've had problems.  Don't even try to see yourself as a victim of me being annoying.  I'm going to refrain from making any comeback statement about this, just to stop the cycle.  –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 14:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Anyone interested in contributing to a draft version to redo the article
I'll post it here if you want to edit the draft: User:Inquisitor Ehrenstein/Military woo. –Aleksandr(a) Ehrenstein, Jewish Bolshevik 18:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [insert tumbleweed here] 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this thing actually exist, EH, or is it simply a collection of your anecdotes? Google brings up virtually nothing. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)