Talk:Pioneer (military)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revert[edit]

Why? It's a nickname that Republicans themselves use to describe top donors, included in a list of nicknames that members of organizations use to describe themselves. I fail to see how it doesn't fit with the theme or how it's less relevant than Roman Catholic Teetotallers or that particular painting. Stilgar135 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's been a week and you haven't responded, I'm putting it back. Stilgar135 04:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space probes[edit]

Shouldn't this also link to the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 space probes ? I came here looking for them. See also this list. They are amongst rare company ! --213.129.227.107 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same thing. And I didn't initially notice the link to the Pioneer Program (I was scanning for some sort of Pioneer X link). I have added links to Pioneer 10 and 11 under the Pioneer Program that was already listed. While there were many more Pioneer program vehicles that could also be linked to, I think Pioneer 10 and 11 are the only ones famous enough to merit (direct) disambiguation. Noca2plus (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer[edit]

Moving disambig page tp Pioneer, Pioneer page is currently redirecting to Settler, which doesn't make since as a settler is not necessarily a pioneer, nor vice versa... For example "A pioneer in the education profession..." 75.128.225.15 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is this to be disambiguation page, or an article with encyclopedic content? If the second, it needs better source citations! (sdsds - talk) 07:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the indication that the lead section contains claims made without citing reliable xources. Please also consider the relevancy of WP:NOT. We could as easily write, "A pioneer is foreign invader who steals land from indigneous peoples." (sdsds - talk) 17:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

(I'm opening a discussion here following an exchange on my user talk page.) Another editor and I have gotten into a dispute over how to interpret and apply WP:LEAD (diff). Wikipedia:Lead section#Opening sentence states: [the] opening sentence should immediately provide the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to the questions "What is it?" or "Who is he/she?" and "Why is this notable? Etymological information does not answer any of the who, what or why questions. Since this is a general overview of the term "pioneer" and its current and historical usages, my opinion is that a simple definition of the current, commonly understood definition as defined by reliable sources such as dictionaries, followed by an historical/etymological overview and treatment of other usages seems to me like the most reader-friendly way to organize the article in an encyclopedic way that satisfies WP style/content guidelines. --Muchness (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger problem is that the article at the moment is trying to deal with multiple, quite different definitions of 'pioneer'. Individual encyclopedia articles only deal with a single definition (see WP:NOTADICT). You need to pick one and go with it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wolfkeeper. This article looks a lot more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. Consider moving this information to Wikidictionary and then having this page re-direct to the disambiguation page. If you don't want to follow that piece of advice, consider this opening sentence: "The usage and meaning of the word Pioneer /ˌpaɪəˈnɪər/ has changed over time." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the article[edit]

In encyclopedias articles are on a topic. Exactly what is the topic of this article supposed to be? It can't be the term 'Pioneer' because that's what a dictionary entry is about- all the different meanings of the term pioneer. The wikipedia is not a dictionary.

The point is that you must pick by consensus a definition of the subject that is to be used that matches the article name 'pioneer'. You can only pick one subject. Another subject that also matches pioneer goes in another article. That's how encyclopedia entries work. That's how the wikipedia works.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article was the military occupation (job) or a pioneer. The later meaning me, well, chronologically later. I had expanded this article and referenced it, including adding the other meanings although neither are in wider use than the original military meaning. That a dictionary has other meaning is not material one way or another. Both the settler and the innovator are derived in meaning from the original military term, so there is no need to redirect. Besides that redirecting pioneer to combat engineering is actually misleading. Pioneers were not combat engineers, which are the modern military occupations. Pioneers now are the unit names of combat engineering occupations, and are therefore not same--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You only get one meaning per article in an encyclopedia article. These are self evidently different meanings, even if, in the dim and distant past they were derived. You can by all means mention the derivation on each meanings individual article page though.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper, Pioneer was and is a name for a military occupation. It is not used on its own in Wikipedia to refer to the American pioneers. It is not used at all in the innovator article. I only added the two meanings because of the etymological entry. If you are so adamant, the two other meanings can be deleted since the disambiguation page is in place--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, you've almost certainly picked the wrong definition to use. The meaning of the term pioneer as you've chosen to use it here is so close to being isomorphic with 'combat engineer' that it's practically guaranteed that the article should and will merge (along with sapper as well) and any minor differences can be dealt with much better there. On the other hand, there is currently no article for 'innovator/pioneer', but there is one for the process of innovation (which isn't the same thing if you think about it.)- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a lot of research on the subject? If you must know, the role of the pioneer had changed over time. It started as a non-combat role within armies of employing workers, and was changed to a combat role by the 20th century. Combat engineers on the other hand evolved from military engineers, usually officers and senior NCOs, that had to perform tasks during and in support of combat. Pioneers are almost always limited to the construction tasks (until WWI) while combat engineers are more often involved in demolition. Pioneers were rarely issued with anything more than personal weapons while combat engineers have been known to "pack" heavy weapons, and often use vehicles, including armoured vehicles. The change occurred after the First World War because during that conflict pioneers were often used as infantry, and later during the Second World War necessity forced their training and equipment to become almost like that of the combat engineers, but this was not true for every armed force. With the reduction of post-war forces most were disbanded, and those that were retained, were retained in the pioneer name only rather than the construction role because most of their tasks became mechanised, such as road and trench construction. However, within the military engineering Arm, no one would ever confuse the profession of a pioneer and that of a combat engineer. Also, no one would confuse the sapper with a pioneer, although all combat engineers are these days sappers in most English speaking countries. Sappers too had a different history, and one much older than either a pioneer of a combat engineer. And there is yet to be an article on the mineur --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's my point really, at worst there's huge levels of overlap and common history (which is what you've described above). When there's that much overlap, they become one topic and should be merged. The merged article could point out the few differences with tables, charts etc. Anyway, I've stubbed out the innovator article and we'll see where that leads.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are at the poles of encyclopaedic thinking about content. I think that an encyclopaedia should address each distinct subject. You think that the subject article should include all subjects that are conceptually linked. Have a look at how many different types of infantry there are, or artillery, a monster of an article I am researching for eventual promotion to FA. Ultimately, and I have to say it because it has become a cliché, all things are related. Pioneers that started as civilian workmen became infantry and eventually combat engineers. Now-days even the average infantryman has more combat engineering skills than the Napoleon Wars period pioneer and maybe even an engineer. In future an average soldier may combine skills that will make classification distinction almost impossible if he rides in an individual armoured vehicle using a mix of infantry and cavalry tactics, but also armed with indirect fire weapons of artillery (see Battletech).
Innovator has a huge potential as an article. Aside from the exploration of the psychology of such people, there are such diverse examples which go to the core of the subject of progress in humanity that its referencing (with page numbers) should be easy. I will probably eventually add the military innovators to it unless someone beats me to it. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move[edit]

Pioneer → Pioneer (military) — Following comments on this talk page and at Talk:Pioneer (disambiguation), there's some question whether this article covers the term pioneer's primary topic as defined at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: the meaning that is "much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings)." I suggest moving this page to pioneer (military) and either

  1. if there's no primary topic, move the disambiguation page to this title, or
  2. if the most common meaning of pioneer is "a person or an organisation who is one of the first to do something", move the page at innovator here and continue to expand it into an encyclopedic article. — Muchness (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support a pioneer is a settler who opens up new country and settles there. It's also the name of a series of spacecraft from NASA, that opened up new space and explored there. 70.55.85.43 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the move of this material to Pioneer (military). My copy of The New Oxford Dictionary of English does not support the idea the term is much more used to refer to a type of infantry than to any other meaning, and I'm afraid I'm gullible enough to think that the writers of that tome may know one or two things about modern English usage. I don't think we necessarily need to have primary topic, and that we should move Pioneer (disambiguation) to Pioneer, but I'm open to persuasion on that score. H.G. 13:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this appears to be a bit of relatively obscure etymology rather than primary use. I.e., if you were to do a man on the street survey, asking what the term "pioneer" meant, how many do you think would think of the military sense? Without clear evidence of the primacy of the military sense, it shouldn't be considered as the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- including support for moving the disambig page here, because there are at least two major meanings of pioneer, neither of which can be considered "primary". (sdsds - talk) 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The military usage certainly isn't primary. Andrewa (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments: --Muchness (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of units[edit]

Is there any real benefit to the disorganised and unwieldy list of units here? We probably shouldn't be trying to list every pioneer unit in existence, but it feels almost like this is what's being aimed for. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer, sapper, combat engineer[edit]

Do we really need three different articles for these soldier types? What are the differences anyway? 88.115.93.18 (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pioneer (military). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pioneer_(military)&oldid=1204725201"