Talk:Dehousing

dehousing

I have moved the page back from "Dehousing cabinet paper" as there is no consensus for the move. If anyone wishes to move it please put in a WP:RM and build a consensus for moving the page to that name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to Dehousing cabinet paper

Users Philip Baird Shearer (talk) and Binksternet (talk) claim in the history that the contents of the article entitled Dehousing was about the Dehousing cabinet paper and was not about the general topic Dehousing, so the contents of the Dehousing article was moved to the correctly-titled Dehousing cabinet paper Mugs2109 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dehousing is not an English word (It is not recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary) when it is used it is usually used to refer to this paper and the policy it suggested following. Any other minority usages can be dealt with via a disambiguation page.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this change from dehousing as well. It should be Dehousing Cabinet Paper, because this is precisely what the topic deals with. It is not about the further expansion of similar campaigns or anything like that.--Npovshark (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dehousing is not a dictionary word, what other topics do you think would be covered by this title? --PBS (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead

From the edit history:

21:31, 10 July 2008 Mugs2109 (Deleted redundant information that the reader can read in the actual content of the paper, deleted irrelevant and improperly positioned command sentence)

The information you (user:Mugs2109) have deleted was in the lead, and is a summary of the rest of the article. Having such an introduction is recommended in WP:LEAD "The lead section, lead, or introduction (also lede) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

user:Mugs2109 What exactly is it that you are demanding a source for in the sentence "So given the known limitations of the RAF in locating precision targets in Germany, and providing the planned resources were made available to the RAF, destroying thirty percent of the housing stock of Germany's fifty-eight largest towns was the most effective" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Chief scientist to the Royal Navy

The text says "Professor Patrick Blackett the chief scientist to the Royal Navy."

Trekphiler you ask, "I wanted clarity on his role in RN & in relation to Portal, Lindemann, & Winston, & should have said so when tagging it before..."

I am not sure what needs clarifying in that statement. I would suggest that given he disagreed with Lindermann's figures and was therefore arguing on the side of those who did not want to give the RAF the resources they wanted, neither Portal or Lindermann would have though much of him. But that is something else from the simple statement the he was "the chief scientist to the Royal Navy." so I don't see the need for a clarify tag in article space. -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, when I first tagged it, I had something in mind, & I don't recall now exactly what. :( It seems, tho, if he's disagreeing with Lindemann, & appears to have gotten it right on the record, it'd be good to know his qualifications beyond "chief scientist". (I do know he was part of {led?} the Ops Research section, which suggests a specialty in math...) OTOH, the link to his page might do it.... Call me old-fashioned & not yet entirely used to links, I guess. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A Google Book search on [Patrick Blackett dehousing] returns this and on [Patrick Blackett Lindemann] returns this from the same book and more pages 135-140-142. See what you think and if the pages answer your questions perhaps we can add some more info to the page. I skimmed second book it is all interesting but I suggest you start with page 139 and expand out from there.-- PBS (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Those are all great sources, thx. (I wish I'd thought of Google Books... :( :( Showing my age, I guess. :) What would you say to changing "chief scientist" to "Director of OR", adding a mention of Tizard, & mentioning the Zuckerman report, all from here? That same source also explains the underlying reason Winston preferred bombing: it was a way to aid the SU. (It may've been more political, or grand strategic, than actually effective...) Some brief coverage, 3-4 lines max, would suit me fine. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in favour (the change of title and a cite can be made immediately). The paragraph "The study of the effects of bombing on Hull and Birmingham..." was added by user:GraemeLeggett lets see what he thinks. -- PBS (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the course of looking the subject up myself, I've added a few notes to the players in the story which I hope adds to the context. The more you read about the subject the more it becomes a tale of resources and policy direction driven by logic and numbers and less about choosing to be beastly to the Germans (which seems to be the popular view). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

♠For myself, I've learned, quite aside Lindeman's deceit (which has been presented as stupidity in the sources I've read til now), it wasn't a clear-cut case of mania & stupidity against survival. And there were, never forget, domestic political factors at play: if HMG wasn't seen to be striking back, it would cost them. (From Ethics & Airpower, IIRC.) I do think the ethical dimension entitled Winston to tell the Sovs to go screw, but IDK if he'd've dared, given the grand strategic implications. (I also wonder why the mining option was never considered, but that's getting OT. :( )

♠I've counted myself well-informed on the issue. If the average reader gets a more nuanced & accurate picture, I'm thrilled. (That I've also learned something thrills me already. :) ).

♠Let me also add, I like the "parenthetical" footnotes. I know some on WP seem to disapprove them, but I think they're useful for facts pertinent to the interested, but not essential to understanding. In short, it was done almost exactly as I'd have done it, & I can scarcely offer higher praise. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:03 & 10:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

a bit of searching is leading me to believe that the "Chief Scientist" of the RN was on the Admiralty Board, but individual departments had their own "Chief Scientist." GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

dehousing or de-housing

Assuming WP:BRD: from the edit history:

• 10:14, 8 December 2013‎ Victor falk m (Victor falk moved page Dehousing to De-housing: per WP:COMMONNAME)
• 10:16, 8 December 2013‎ Victor falk (sp.)
• 13:28, 8 December 2013‎ PBS (PBS moved page De-housing to Dehousing over redirect: not convinced it is the more common name take it to RM) (undo)
• 13:30, 8 December 2013‎ PBS (Undid revision 585107091 by Victor falk not a spelling mistake.)

@user:Victor falk. I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that "De-housing" is the common name because a Google book search on "dehousing paper" and "de-housing paper" (to remove noise from other uses of de/housing returns:

• ["dehousing paper"] About 67 results
• ["de-housing paper"] 4 result with a Google search comment of Did you mean: "dehousing paper"

-- PBS (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227151505/http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Issues/Singletn.php to http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Issues/Singletn.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)