From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

My son is in the 3rd ID—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.164.35 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 June 2005.

---

Can anyone provide any info on the source of this division's nickname?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.177.225.18 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 November 2005.

removed 'our nation' in favour of 'the United States.' Not out of dishonour, mind you, of international mind.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.186.199.13 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 December 2005.

Also: removed politically unbalanced text.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.186.199.13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 December 2005.

Note to someone who knows how: The patch is the wrong way around. It should be rotated 90 degrees (in any direction)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.214.41.115 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 December 2005.

The unit got its nickname from its World War I service. The patch has been replaced by the official image.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] You're in the Army now

Can somebody who knows more about it than me (there has to be somebody...) ID what army Western Task Force was ID as? Trekphiler 15:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More information about OIF (specifically OIF I)

Is it just me, or should there be a lot more information about the "Road to Baghdad" and the ground operations during OIF I and OIF in general. --Signaleer 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name?

Is it really supposed to be '3d Infantry Division (United States)' instead of 3rd? Does the army not use the 'r', uhh, except that it's used all over the place elsewhere

MGlosenger 02:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea it's kind of messed up. Someone already moved the page to reflect the fix and I fixed the non linked occurrences. Curious how this happened in the first place, a cultural thing? Flamesplash 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, a Google search for "3d infantry" does result in about 59,300 matches, though "3rd infantry" results in about 493,000. There's even a US Government "Division Matrix" web page that refers to them as the '3d Infantry', but that was last updated November 12 2004 and some of the images have broken links.

I'd guess they're used interchangeably within the US Army, but it makes more sense to me to use the standard spelling than to use some spelling that is apparently unique to the US Army. MGlosenger 01:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that there is an archaic use of '3d' instead of '3rd', but before I moved it I checked the division's official website and it used '3rd'. I'm all in favor of using accurate technical terminology, but when a particular institution uses bizarre/archaic versions of normal words or contractions, I don't think we are obliged to follow. E.g. (on a quite different topic) the Pennsylvania Railroad always used the archaic 'employe' instead of 'employee' in all offical documents, but I don't think we thereby have to follow that in our article about them, unless we're verbatim quoting an official document. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the division referred to as a Marine division in the article.

• This may be a joke but I'll bite. No where in the article is the word Marine used. The division is referred to as the "Rock of the Marne" due to their actions in WWI. Hope this suffices--Looper5920 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

no not a joke i thought "marne" said "marine" when i was reading it. sry, thxs for clearing it up