Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout

I have changed this several times and it keeps changing back: The Gen Spaatz Award is the equivalent of the Eagle Scout----NOT the Gen Mitchell Award as listed in the article. I have been a member of CAP for over 18 years and the Commander of a CAP Cadet Squadron for many of them and I can assure you that I am correct in my facts!!! Please do not change it back!!! Thank you!! SEMPER VIGILANS —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I am the editor who is largely responsible for the featured article status of this article as well as the upkeep. I am a CAP cadet, and I disagree with your arguement. A Mitchell cadet may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-3, while an Eagle Scout may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-2. I am not disagreeing on the basis that the Spaatz is the highest CAP cadet award as the rank of Eagle is the highest Scouting award. If you want to compare based on percentage, the Eaker would actually be equivilant to the Eagle (as approx. 2% of all cadets get to Eaker; this is the same as the Eagle). So, unless there is an official statement from National indicating that a certain cadet grade is their equivilant of the Eagle rank, then I am reverting you. Please provide a source for your arguement. Also, please don't take over a topic but instead create your own. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well---CADET---you are incorrect and this site shows it! http://www.cawg.cap.gov/html/CP/Scouting.htm —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How so? I don't see a single thing that says that the Spaatz is equivalent to the Eagle. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

And that's not from National. That's from California Wing. I said cite me something from National. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

CALL--CAP HQ Cadet Program 334.953.7568 When applying for the Air Force Academy you are asked: Have you received the Eagle Scout Award or the General Spaatz Award? This seems like equivalency to me!! —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cap.gov/visitors/about/national_headquarters/hq_contacts.cfm —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Without modifying content, I have created a new subsection for this... issue. To the anonymous user who insists that the Eagle Scout and Spaatz Award are equivalent, you truly do need to calm down and look at the documented facts. Why? Because according to CAP National Headquarters, the US Air Force, and the US Air Force Academy, you are wrong. McNeight 02:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep your personal comments to yourself. I called--did you?? {If you would like to investigate this matter further please contact CAP Nat'l HQ Cadet Program at (334) 953-7568 or via eMail at keasterling@capnhq.gov} —preceding unsigned comment by Braaad (talk • contribs) 18:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Further---call a recruiter--you can enter the Air Force at E-3 with the Mitchel---but only E-2 in the other branches. You really should do better, more accurate, research before insisting that a Major with 18 years of experience as DCOC is wrong and needs to calm down...that is a very RUDE tone to take. There is dispute---yes---but your accuracy is flawed and I joined CAP before you were born! —preceding unsigned comment by Braaad (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, Major, you are on Wikipedia and as such you have absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over anyone, including myself. I am a CAP cadet, but this isn't CAP; this is Wikipedia. You just told a Wikipedia editor (McNeight) to zip it, and you just made me, a Wikipedia administrator, annoyed because of it. This is not "your" article, and McNeight is completely authorized to counter your point, especially if it's wrong. How about you provide an emailed response from National? We're not going to do it, so if you want to provide us with a good source that proves you right, you go right ahead. Do not continue inserting that phone number into the article, because it does not belong there. If you continue to disrupt the article, and more importantly, try to bully other Wikipedia editors, I will block you for 24 hours.

Furthermore, I find your comment about taking a very rude tone to be a bit ironic, seeing you just told someone to "keep their personal comments to themselves." I am the person who WROTE this damn article. I am willing to admit when I'm wrong (are you?), but unless you prove me wrong (and so far you haven't), then I will continue to revert you. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that voicing a truth would be considered bullying anyone. Do my words threaten you? Also, I didn't ask for or expect your respect, kid, but--you seem to be unable to admit you are wrong about one thing--Mitchell gets you E-3 in the USAF and E-2 in all other branches. Further, why can't you leave the contact info for NHQ and let people make thier own decision? Are you sure you are mature enough to handle the responsibility it take to be the author of this article? Perhaps a call to your local recruiter will actually make you realize one of your errors. As for the Eagle equivalence---I no longer care. You have a great day now, youngster. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that voicing your take on the matter was bullying; I said to not tell other editors to stay out of it. That's bullying. Your words do not threaten me at all, but when you tell other people to keep their personal comments to themselves, that's not exactly fair to those who have worked on this. I want you to provide me with actual references and not just what you say to be correct with what you're claiming. I'm damn mature enough to know that putting a phone number inside an article for the purpose that you are putting it for is unencyclopedic and does not belong. That's why I kept removing it. The discussion page is the place for stuff like that. So, for all intents and purposes, yes. I am mature enough to be the person who wrote this, and even if I wasn't "mature enough", it's irrelevant because I already did. This conversation is now over. If you want to follow the proper Wikipedia policy on making changes, then by all means do. But don't expect me to let you edit something which you can not verify and present evidence besides a phone number. I'm not going to call it, and neither will the vast majority of article readers. Get over it. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well--then I challenge you---show me anything from NHQ that supports your insistance that I am wrong. Be a 'damn' adult and prove that I am wrong. I'll bet you can't!! Good luck with your anger-management skills. p.s. Does using 'damn' in your responses to me make you feel like a grown-up?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you seem so insistent on being right, perhaps I should fully debrief you on just precisely why you are wrong?

First, you are wrong because you can't follow the flow of a conversation. I joined CAP in 1986, served as both cadet and senior member, earned positions on squadron, group and wing staff and personally achieved both the Mitchell and Earhart awards. The "personal comments" you refer to belong to me, not Linuxbeak. Perhaps the attempts by Linuxbeak to moderate your tone have failed because you think you are talking to only one person?

Second, you are wrong because you have to resort to bragging about your status in order to prove yourself right. Attempting to throw your weight around in this kind of public forum, by declaring your years of service or current staff position, will result in multiple people laughing at you. Any further attempts at intimidation either by age or "maturity" will result in ongoing public mockery.

Third, you are wrong because you can't read the comments embedded in the history of the document you are attempting to edit. You continuously attempt to "correct" an article that, while perhaps not completely correct, was not wrong. Linuxbeak has even gone so far as to incorporate some of your issues into the text of the article, as they do have some merit. However, that does not give you licence to continuously abuse, nor does it give you the right to crow about it.

Fourth, you are wrong because you can't follow embedded links. Above, I linked to pages at CAP National Headquarters (http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5156), the United States Air Force (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=163), and the United States Air Force Academy (http://academyadmissions.com/admissions/preparation/leadership_prep.php). All three links support the statement that the military considers the Mitchell Award and the Eagle Scout award equivalent for purposes of recruitment.

Fifth, you are wrong because, beyond recruitment, the military does not care about Mitchell Awards, Spaatz Awards or Eagle Scouts. You can't wear any of them on a US military service uniform (and no, that does not include ROTC), no record of it is kept in your DD214, and no self-respecting soldier would continue to define themselves strictly based on an achievement made in high school.

Finally, you are wrong because even you proved that you are wrong! Your original argument was that "The Gen Spaatz Award is the equivalent of the Eagle Scout". After pointing out that you were wrong, instead of admitting it and continuing a civil discussion as to why the Spaatz Award and Eagle Scout are comparable, you degenerated to bullying and confusing the issue by nitpicking. That the Army, Navy and Marine Corps will give a pay grade of E-2 to either a Mitchell Awardee or an Eagle Scout only further proves that your original statement is false and that, for those branches of the military, the Mitchell Award and Eagle Scout are exactly equivalent.

If you really, truly want to keep embarassing yourself, perhaps you should dedicate a separate page to it. McNeight 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Anything that I was about to say has already been said. Thank you, McNeight. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 22:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I bow down to your superior maturity. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove content such as references from this article. This is considered vandalism and if it continues, you will be issued a 24-hour block. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 01:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove content such as links or one line additions from this article. This is considered vandalism! At the least the added link isn't "self-serving twaddle," so it should be left alone---even by the great author himself!! After all---anyone can edit on Wikipedia---but admin-types shouldn't vandalize valid additions. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My one line addition is totally factual and clarifies your lengthy commentary. Removal of it will be grounds for further complaints about the tone of the rebuttals by the author/s. ANYONE can edit on Wikipedia--removal of valid, single line clarifications is NOT acceptable behavior---even for a mature and reasonable author. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

FACT: A former cadet who enters the United States Army, United States Marine Corps, or the United States Navy will enter at paygrade E-2. (NOT E-3) Please contact your local recruiter to verify and then fix your error. See my reference below from the text of Mr McKnight's comments above. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

After pointing out that you were wrong, instead of admitting it and continuing a civil discussion as to why the Spaatz Award and Eagle Scout are comparable, you degenerated to bullying and confusing the issue by nitpicking. That the Army, Navy and Marine Corps will give a pay grade of E-2 to either a Mitchell Awardee or an Eagle Scout only further proves that your original statement is false and that, for those branches of the military, the Mitchell Award and Eagle Scout are exactly equivalent. -----And still you refuse to fix the error??? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 December 2005

The unsigned comment is actually a quote from McNeight as seen above. I'm confussed now---who is the bully?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 06:36, December 5, 2005

In this case, your are still the loud-mouthed bully, complaining about abuses that are legendary in your own mind. However, as far as adding signatures to your pseudo-anonymous postings, in this case it was Nlu. McNeight 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FACT: Civil Air Patrol's National Headquarters makes no official statement about equivalency. Please refrain from changing my VITAL addition to your lenghty dialogue. After all, the whole section is merely opinion---is that encyclopedic??? My addition is correct and grammatical; reversion of it would be vandalism. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

FACT: A former cadet who enters the United States Army, United States Marine Corps, or the United States Navy will enter at paygrade E-2. (NOT E-3) Please contact your local recruiter to verify and then fix your error. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 10:47, December 5, 2005

If you are so insistent on this being correct, and can prove that it is correct, then why don't you make the changes to the article and see who reverts your edits? McNeight 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Everybody, again, tone this down. Anybody got any published resources or established Web links that shows one way or another? As discussed below, no edit wars again on this. --Nlu 18:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)\

As a matter of fact, yes. The official regulation stating that someone with a Mitchell Award can enter the Air Force at a pay grade of E-3, while an Eagle Scout can enter at a pay grade of E-2, is listed in Air Force Recruiting Service Instruction (AFRSI) 36-2001, 01 APR 2005, Table 2.1, Rule #8. A PDF of the regulation is available at http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/afrs/36/afrsi36-2001/afrsi36-2001.pdf McNeight 18:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

May I ask why it matters? The way the paragraph is written right now isn't informative at all. If somebody that doesn't know anything about CAP comes and reads the article they will be given three options on what is equivalent to being an Eagle Scout, that's not too helpful. Equivalency should be, at most, a one sentence topic since it isn't that important to the overall article on CAP. What should be included is the benefits cadets and seniors get at each grade. We should include what pay-grades cadets get for each Award in the various services and we should also include the things Senior Members get to do like attend Air War College because of their CAP grade (of course that would go in the Senior Member section). I'm not going to stick my neck out and make these changes without some people agreeing with me, but I think these would be the right changes to make and would let us avoid this entire debate. Grant 19:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with you. Originally, there was a single sentence within the paragraph starting with 'The major awards' (reference http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civil_Air_Patrol&oldid=29374670#Structure) that read:

"The Billy Mitchell Award is considered by the US military to be the equivalent of the Eagle Scout designation."

Both Vandy and Linuxbeak reverted the "contributions" by users Braaad and 68.112.201.90, who both stated that the Spaatz Award is equivalent to the Eagle Scout. After 68.112.201.90 complained of being reverted too often for being wrong, Linuxbeak inserted the current paragraph about equivalency in an effort to be fair.

Reading the full length of this thread, which 68.112.201.90 has attempted to delete on multiple occasions, you can see the lenghts to which this user will go in order to continue an argument. Now, 68.112.201.90 has decided that because he is often wrong, that we should pay attention to him the few times he might be correct.

He offers no documentation or proof of his claims other than "call someone else about it", and persistently whines about being persecuted while being abusive towards all other points of view.

Effectively, an anonymous user with a large mouth is dictating content by complaining about how nobody is listening to the wrong opinion. I would be completely happy to delete the entire paragraph and go back to the single sentence which simply stated that the military consideres the Mitchell Award to be equivalent to the Eagle Scout, which is the truth. McNeight 19:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why does that sentence need to be included at all? Why not say that the US Air Force gives Mitchell Award recipients the grade of E-3 upon joining and the other services give them E-2, and leave out anything about the Eagle Scout equivalency? Grant 19:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the Eagle Scout reference was originally "shorthand" for the fact that military recruiters will give an increased pay rate for Eagle Scouts, assuming that this is common knowledge. In the end, really, you are correct. There doesn't need to be any mention of Eagle Scouts, and the simple sentence you suggested works just fine. McNeight 19:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

NO EQUIVALENCY CAN BE SHOWN IN ANY CAP DOCUMENTS —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. What I am proposing is the removal of all references about any CAP Award being equivalent to being an Eagle Scout. Instead, we should include the benefits of each award, such as the fact that a Mitchell recipient will enter the Air Force as an E-3 upon enlistment. What do you think of making these changes? Grant 22:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you GRANT!! Question: Are the comments by Linuxbeak and McNeight personal attacks? They sure seem to be angry at me for showing that they are not actually right...and that the whole matter is pointless. I sure hope that they can refrain from the insults. Aren't personal attacks against Wikipedia policy?? —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Even after all this there are still factual errors in the article!! FACT: A former cadet who enters the United States Army, United States Marine Corps, or the United States Navy will enter at paygrade E-2. (NOT E-3) Please contact your local recruiter to verify and then fix your error. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

(Please sign your edits, 68.112.201.90; it's very difficult to follow otherwise.)

My question is still this: do you have documentation? I don't personally have expertise to judge, and that is why we need documentation. --Nlu 22:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nlu, here is the documentation I have found so far: AR 601-210 states, "Has completed all phase II requirements of the Air Force Civil Air Patrol and has been awarded the Billy Mitchell Award may enlist at any time at pay grade PV2." AETCI 36-2002 states, "If the applicant...Was awarded the Billy Mitchell, Amelia Earhart, or Carl Spaatz award or has a letter from CAP/AF/TTHE, Maxwell AFB AL, certifying successful completion of award requirements...then the grade will be...Airman First Class (A1C)". I haven't yet found the documents for the Navy, Marines or Coast Guard, but I will point them out when I find the. Grant 22:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to be known by my address. So--is saying that I have a "large mouth" a personal attack?? Golly gee--I sure wish I was as grown up as McNeight!! —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe Linuxbeak or McNeight have made any personal attacks against you. They got a bit heated in their discussion in places, I will grant, but I do not see any personal attacks that they made. If anything, they failed to assume good faith in your edits and arguments for your edits. However, this was because you came off as hostile and were prone to yelling. Please understand, I am not taking sides in this debate, I'm just saying how your actions appeared to others, not the intent behind them. I'm just trying to find a compromise and help improve this article utilizing everybody's suggestions.

In any case, you are right, other services besides the AF do not give Mitchell recipients E-3 when they enlist. This is something I stated when I originally proposed my compromise. Part of taking out the statement about Eagle Scout equivalency is that we can and should be more precise in what cadets receive for each award Grant 22:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

PERSONAL ATTACK BY McNeight: In this case, your are still the loud-mouthed bully, complaining about abuses that are legendary in your own mind. However, as far as adding signatures to your pseudo-anonymous postings, in this case it was Nlu. McNeight 18:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Loud-mouthed bully----sounds kinda personal to me!! —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made the changes that I thought appropriate as I had discussed before. Feel free to make any changes you feel are necessary but please do not include anything about any CAP award being equivalent to being an Eagle Scout unless you can show some documentation saying that is the case. Grant 23:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, most Eagle Scouts who also earned the Spaatz Award will tell you that Eagle is roughly equivalent to the Earhart Award in terms of difficulty and effort required to attain. Aloft 09:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tune this down, please

Everyone, take a step back and calm down. A WP:3RR violation has occurred, although I am not going to block yet, depending on the subsequent behavior, since there was no prior warning. However, regardless of whether a block happens, if this keeps up, I will protect the page from editing. --Nlu 01:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify; no WP:3RR violation has happened today. The violation was in the past, and that's another reason not to block right now, but folks, please do turn it down. --Nlu 01:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My legitimate edits have been continually reverted by Linuxbeak and McNeight.....perhaps they are the problem?? If you truly read the discussions you will see that I am, perhaps, a bit obnoxious---but---they are able to close down my legitimate points without regard and that seems like dictatorial arrogance to me. I am shocked at their incredibly unprofessional words. I may be abbrasive but one or both of them have used cuss words and been EXTREMLY unwilling to admit that the article has factual errors. I will not waste more time---but you should take a solid look at how many times they have reverted me. I am a nobody--a novice to Wikipedia--they are supposedly adults who just refuse to admit fault. Yeah--it's a good article--but that doesn't endow the author or his cronies with superior abilities or rights---does it?? Look at some of the responses to OTHER people besides me. I am disgusted by the whole matter. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 December 2005

I am not qualified to judge whose version is the "correct" one. I can only enforce the 3RR rule so that this article doesn't fall into an overly heated edit war. There are ways in which you can get other people's input to see if you will get your version accepted. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Nlu 09:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank yo for your input, Nlu I hope that the FACTS will speak for themselves. A simple call to CAP NHQ will verify that my comment is correct. There is NO official statement about equivalency and that is a fact, not my opinion. I would reissue the challenge to the author to produce ANY factual references to show otherwise. The whole section on equvalency is the opinion and speculation of the author. Perhaps the author should check the FACTS before reverting my edits?? I hope that the author and his friends can acknowledge that their opinions are NOT the FACTS of the matter and be more professional. I do not think that speculative opinions are worthy of of inclusion in an encyclopedic article. —preceding unsigned comment by 68.112.201.90 (talk • contribs) 15:44, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More about 3RR

By my count, the next revert on this page is going to be a 3RR violation. Be warned. --Nlu 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. Going back further, I've determined that 68.112.201.90 has violated 3RR. He will therefore be blocked. McNeight, be forwarned that your next revert will be a 3RR violation as well. --Nlu 23:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but no further reverts are needed. McNeight 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If I may say, as an Eagle Scout and a Mitchell Cadet. I am still part of Civil Air Patrol as a Major and ready to be in command of my second squadron. That, in all respect, the regulations will have more of a say so than what is said here. In my personal opinion, I feel that earning my Eagle Scout was much easier than going for my Mitchell. Comparing the Spaatz with the Eagle can be similar because it can be the "end of the road" for advancement in both organizations. However, there are further advancement after you receive your Eagle Scout award in the form of Palms earned after more merit badges are earned so, technically, it isn't the end of the road in Scouting. Now with that said, the Mitchell Award isn't the end of the road for CAP cadets. So I would compare earning the Eagle Scout Award with more like the Earhart or the Eaker Award in that sense. But for advancement in the military services, I do not know. I didn't know until I read this page that holding the Eagle award even qualified for such advancement. It seems that if there were any Eagle Scouts/CAP members that could give more input on this issue, the better. But I don't see why there is argument about it on here.--capeagle4.224.39.153 05:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the correct way to talk on here or not (forgive me if I shouldn't, I'm still fairly new), but I'm an Eagle Scout as well as a Civil Air Patrol Cadet. Part of the problem with comparing Eagle to any CAP award is that it is that the difficulty of earning the Eagle award somewhat varies depending on where it was earned. Some troops (scouting) don't opporate the way that they are supposed to, and end up making the achievment very easy to attain. I've seen that before, but I also know that there are troops out there that do run their program correctly, and it is then a VERY hard award to earn. Most of my advancements in Civil Air Patrol have been fairly easy (I'm currently a C/CMSgt). Grade advancement in Civil Air Patrol is different than in BSA. Another thing that makes it hard to compare is that Civil Air Patrol is mostly tests, while BSA awards are much more skill based.-planes