Talk:Gun truck

Merge from Technical (fighting vehicle)

This article and Technical (fighting vehicle) are essentially about the same topic. The only reason that one has a separate existence is because the term "technical" became fashionable and was associated with warfare in developing countries. The distinction is fake, and could be considered discriminatory (why not just name the other article "Gun truck manned by brown people"?). The two should be merged under this title. —Michael Z. 2007-06-25 23:52 Z

I don't think so. A technical is a subject much broader than gun truck. Maybe the gun truck will merge in Technical article. Ak70g2

BTW Gun Trucks have also been used in the 2nd World War (e.g. the italian AS 42 or the british 2pdr Portee). I see a distinction between these vehicles and the "technicals", the latter beeing a more improvised combination of vehicles and guns. I opt for keeping two articles (though they should be connected by a "see also"). --Dabringer 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No. basically distinct stuff. SYSS Mouse 01:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this article (Technical (fighting vehicle)) is very distinct, and the information about the use and history of both the term and the type of vehicle is sufficiently unique it should be independent. Technicals are employed by different types of groups for different purposes than the gun trucks described. Technicals could be mentioned as a subclass of gun truck, but a merge is unnecessary. Sylvank 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Its diffrent..

Hm. No factual information or references explaining the distinction. The stated reasons I can glean from the objections above:

1. Ak70g2: "A technical is a subject much broader than gun truck"—meaning a gun truck is a type of technical, although the defining characteristics aren't stated. Reference? [I would disagree: a technical is a truck with a gun; a kind of gun truck.]
2. Dabringer: "Gun Trucks have also been used in the 2nd World War" [implying that technicals are a newer phenomenon? Actually, according to our article Gun truck, they have been used since 1916]. The name "technical" is new, but what is so new about these trucks with guns?
3. Dabringer: "'Technicals' ... beeing a more improvised combination"—but our article says that a gun truck is also "an improvised military armored vehicle". Is a "technical" defined as more improvised than a "gun truck"? How do you define the amount of improvisation? This is a meaningless distinction, without any references to support it.
4. Sylvank: "Technicals are employed by different types of groups for different purposes than the gun trucks described"—and who decided to describe them in separate articles? Please describe the respective "types of groups" and purposes of technicals and gun trucks.
5. Sylvank: "Technicals could be mentioned as a subclass of gun truck, but a merge is unnecessary"—I agree with the classification, but I argue that the merge is necessary, unless somebody can actually mention a real characteristic distinguishing technicals from other trucks with mounted guns.

Number 4 is the only objection relying on actual facts. But it doesn't mention the specific facts it relies on. Which "types of groups", and for what "different purposes"? "Local irregular military forces"? Is "local" really another word for "brown"?

I've looked through all of the references in Technical. There is no hard definition. Technicals are only described as:

• "Armored cars with weapons on them"
• "Battlewagons mounted with heavy weapons"
• "Four-wheel-drive vehicles bristling with weapons"
• "Battlewagons"
• "Trucks mounted with machine guns"
• "Jeeps with heavy machineguns mounted on the back"
• "Pickup trucks with machine guns or anti-tank weapons mounted on the back"
• "Armed vehicles"
• "Four-door Nissan pickup trucks with special machine gun mounts attached to the truck bed were modified by Iraqi contractors north of the capital city at the Taji Military Training Base"

Trucks with guns. Gun trucks. Sometimes armoured. Nothing about certain types of people. Nothing about the vehicles' purpose in the definitions, with one exception.

Only a single "reference" goes mentions the people who use technicals: the anonymous, unreferenced article at bellum.nu.[1] So maybe it is the people who define the difference between a "gun truck" and a "technical":

• "an improvised fighting vehicle, usually used by a local irregular para-military forces and guerilla fractions [sic]. The concept imitates the armed terrain vehicles used by a traditional military force (like the Light Strike Vehicles) and is basically used in the same manner or as an form [sic] of improvised armed troop carrier."

Our articles' definitions:

• A gun truck is an improvised military armored vehicle, based on a conventional cargo truck, that is able to carry a large weight of weapons and armor
• A technical is an improvised fighting vehicle, typically by a local irregular military force and usually being a modified civilian vehicle or other similar machine.

What's the difference? When a gun truck is used "by a local irregular military force", it turns into a "technical"?

Let's look further for this distinction of people and purposes.

Examples cited in Wikipedia articles

Technical

Gun truck

"In 1987, technicals from Chad" "in the 1990s Somali Civil War" "at the defeat of the militia of warlord Abdi Qeybdid at the Second Battle of Mogadishu" "President of Puntland, General Adde Musa personally led 50 battlewagons to Galkayo to confront the Islamists" [irregular?] "US Special Forces are known to use technicals for patrol of the rugged terrain of Afghanistan." [not local or irregular] "The Taliban also used technicals while they were in power." [not irregulars] "Technicals were used by Iraqi forces in the 2003 invasion of Iraq" [not irregulars] "Technicals saw use by Iraqi insurgents" "The Coalition also supplied technicals to the Iraqi police." [not irregulars] "Private military contractors also use technicals" [not local or irregular]

"British Army in Dublin during the Easter Rising in 1916" "World War II ... allied ... and italian forces ... in northern africa" "During the Vietnam War,... the [United States] Army's 8th Transportation Group ... fitted two-and-a-half-ton trucks with sand bags and pairs of M60 machine guns to act as convoy escorts "The conditions of the Iraq War have led to the re-invention of the gun truck. [U.S.] M939 Trucks were initially equipped with improvised 'Hillbilly armor'"

Brown people in column A, even when they are part of a national military and the vehicles are made by white people. Only white people in column B. There are two exceptions in col A: "in order to let Special Operation Forces operate under cover" and "those who think that it is all about steroids and weapons," according to the cited references. So white people may use technicals when they are trying to look like brown people, or when they are acting like arseholes.

The article Technical also offers some historical background about "such fighting vehicles", but these white-operated machines are referred to as "precursor vehicles" or "Technical-style vehicles".

The history of such improvised fighting vehicles stems back through the era of the automobile and the machine gun. During World War II, the British Long Range Desert Group (LRDG) was noted for their exploits in the deserts of Egypt, Libya and Chad on similar precursor vehicles. A popular American television series The Rat Patrol of the 1960s very clearly illustrated the use of Technical-style vehicles during WWII.

But as we see from all of the examples above, improvised gun trucks have been used by various forces for as long as there have been trucks (including truck-based tachankas of the Russian Civil War). They have been used by white and dark people, in insurgencies, police forces, special forces, and national militaries. The definition "typically by a local irregular military force" is false.

Please don't become enamoured with the image of Third-World "warlords" and their "battlewagons". "Technical" is simply a term that happened to become fashionable to use for improvised gun trucks in a certain time and place. A truck with a gun is a "gun truck" and its distinction from a "technical" is not real.

To insist that "technical" is not just another term for gun truck, but a different thing belonging in its own article is to unwittingly tie the definition to race. Don't define a kind of gun truck as a "technical" just because it is presumed to be used by "different types of groups" who are considered less civilized, or non-Western, or non-white.

Let's just merge the articles and find some more references. —Michael Z. 2007-07-28 07:35 Z

Are you trying to say that the term "Technical" as it applies to a fighting vehicle is racist? I'd disagree with that. Before I even started reading into this little debate I thought of what I considered each to be...

• A Gun Truck is an armored vehicle used by formal military forces and manufactured for that purpose (ie. warfare).
• A Technical is a civilian truck used by non-formal military, or civilian combatants, and manufactured for civilian use (ie. non-warfare).

Skin color never occured to me. Then I read the articles. They don't seem to mention skin color either. They also seemed correct to me as per what each was defined as in my mind. I say no merge. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Then how is a technical different from a gun truck? Our articles have to reflect what reliable, verifiable sources say, not what is defined "in our minds". —Michael Z. 2007-07-28 14:53 Z

I described the difference above, and the articles do read that way. The point of "defined in my mind" was to illustrate that when considering the definition of "technical" as a noun, skin color didn't factor into my mental image. It was not to say that articles should be written that way.

But you don't sound like you're going to change your mind, and I don't expect that I will change mine without fresh arguments. As such I will pay attention but I don't think I'll be debating this much more. The "vote" as near as I can tell is 5 to 1 against merging. Certainly not final yet, but if there isn't more support in a week or so I expect that the merge tag will go away. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I could change my mind, but it is unlikely to happen without a single verifiable source supporting the counter-argument.

Nor am I convinced by your definitions. They contradict the text of the articles.

1. Physical description: you say a "gun truck" is purpose-made, but the article says it is improvised, as are all of the examples which comprise its text. I don't see any substantial physical difference between the gun trucks and technicals described in the articles, nor is there a reliable source describing one.
2. Employment: you also define the difference as the use by "non-formal military, or civilian combatants", as opposed to "formal military forces". But according to our article, technicals were used by the forces of the President of Puntland, U.S. Special Forces, the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan, Iraqi Republican Guards and Fedayeen, Iraqi police (purpose-built technicals), and U.S. military contractors. Were these examples of gun trucks and not technicals? Again, there is no reliable source supporting this definition.

Seriously, I would like a better indication of where the term "technical" belongs. If there is a recent dictionary definition in the OED or elsewhere, I would like to see it. If you think that the definition of gun truck should be modified, or if you want to reformulate your definitions to better explain the current articles, that would be great to. But so far, I don't see justification for Technical as a separate article from Gun truck. —Michael Z. 2007-07-28 17:31 Z

Hmmm... upon another look I discover you are right about the intro to Gun Truck. It should be changed I think. My vote is still for two spereate and distinct articles. But I think that maybe they should be reworked to fit my definitions (ie. improvised vs. purpose-built, civilian vs. military). I am fully aware how that sounds, and I'm NOT saying we should work articles to fit my reality. That'd be silly. I'm just saying that it seems to me that that IS reality. They're two different things. You can't call a Humvee a Technical, and you can't call a Nissan pick-up with a machine gun mounted in it a Humvee. They're different.

As to a definition, Princeton's WordNet has one. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good start. The WordNet definition is very spare, and doesn't mention people or purpose, or even improvised nature: "a pickup truck with a gun mounted on it".

Since you are talking about the distinct concept of purpose-built gun trucks, I would suggest starting a new article from references.

But in the meantime, we have two article about improvised wheeled combat vehicles to deal with. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 14:38 Z

I don't think we need a third article, and I don't think these need to be merged. Reworked a bit maybe. Have at it. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)