Talk:3d United States Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 Requested move (2005) 1.1 Discussion 1.2 Result 2 For the umpteenth time: It is NOT the US 3d Regiment, it is the 3d US INF Regiment! 3 Howling with laughter 4 Partial Overseas Deployment 5 Title of article 5.1 Unwise Move 5.2 Re: Unwise Move 5.3 Recommendation to move discussion from MILHIST to this forum 6 NPOV tag 7 Official designation? 8 Mediation, Arbitration, and the name of this Godforsaken article 9 Requested move 9.1 Survey 9.2 Discussion 10 Unit Identity

[edit] Requested move (2005)

[edit] For the umpteenth time: It is NOT the US 3d Regiment, it is the 3d US INF Regiment!

Look, I speak as a former member of the Old Guard, and I can tell you with 100% sureness that the name of official name of the unit is the Third U.S. Infantry Regiment. Not the US 3rd, not simply the 3rd Infantry Regiment, but the 3rd (3d) US Infantry Regiment. Please fix this. Thank you. Ryecatcher773

I'll second Rycatcher's lament. If you want the official names of US Army units, go look at the names on the Center of Military history's website. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk to the WP:MILHIST, as I guess they have set up those standards. See Category:Regiments of the United States Army and note how all regiments are at U.S. # Inf Reg and not # U.S. Inf Reg. – Elisson • T • C • 12:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a message here, so, please solve the conflict with them before making any further moves. – Elisson • T • C • 12:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Elisson: that may be the way wikipedia structures it, but after several years in the US army I can tell you that the proper name for THIS regiment is in fact 3d US Infantry Regiment. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care where this article is, I just care for consistency. If this article should be moved, then all articles on US regiments should be moved. But before there is consensus for that, let's keep it this way. Either way, the discussion has started here, so go there and post your opinions. – Elisson • T • C • 19:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Consistency is not the issue, accuracy is the name. If it's # US Inf Rgt., then that's the way the wikientry should be. If its US # Inf Rgt. then that's the way it should be. Consistency should not come at the cost of getting the name wrong.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree on this point. Just because the majority of the folks in my town are called Smith, but I'm a Jones, should my name be changed to Smith for the sake of consistency? Just because Harry S Truman didn't have a middle name but most of the U.S. presidents did, does that mean we should invent one for him so his Wikipedia article can look like everybody else's? And that's my point. You're missing the forest for the trees, Elisson. Most of the U.S. units don't have the U.S. included in their name because it wasn't necessary to include it when those units were created--the U.S. designator is/was assumed. However, when the 3d US Inf Reg was created, along with the other units of its time, the U.S. designator was absolutely necessary given that two armies existed within the confines of the United States at the same time and they had to be distinguished between Union units and Confederate units. The Confederate army went away of course, but that doesn't mean the original name of the Union units changed, and that includes the 3d United States Infantry Regiment. The only reason more units don't have that specific designator within their official name is because most of the Union army units existing during the Civil War were eventually merged with other, newer units or disbanded entirely, causing the name to be deleted from the USA registry.

The only reason the U.S. designator is attached to the other American units on Wikipedia is because it is an international encyclopedia and the U.S. has to be in there somewhere to distinguish it from units from other countries. Because the U.S. is not a part of the units' official names, it is tacked on at the beginning of the title for simplicity's sake--otherwise it would change the name of the unit to something that is not its name. Accuracy is Wikipedia's goal, not consistency, especially where "consistency" would result in inaccuracy. Changing the official name of the unit just because another unit's name doesn't look the same is silly. You can insist that my name be changed to Smith, but Smith isn't my name so I'm not changing it for your benefit: the same concept should apply to military units. These units are not identified by just a random bunch of words and numbers that can just be changed at random; they have a very specific name, a specific name that doesn't ever change based on a whim and the need for things to look "prettier." Thus, for the same reason that the U.S. can't go in front of the 3d US Inf Reg, the U.S. can't go in the middle of the other American units on Wikipedia. If it makes Wikipedians feel better, the other units can have U.S. in parenthesis after the name, and that would make clearer that the U.S. is not part of its official name, but it is part of the United States Army/Armed Forces. Shoot, you could even tack on a (U.S.) on the end of the 3d US Inf Reg so it looks like 3d United States Infantry Regiment (U.S.) and thus looks like the other units, too. It's redundant certainly, but it's a whole world better than changing its name entirely for no discernable reason.--ScreaminEagle 17:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reason for the use of US in a unit designator on the level below Divisions is three fold. First of all, to separate the Regular Army and Reserve units from the National Guard units, secondly to identify Union units from Confederate units, and finally to identify US units from units of other national forces. This is especially true for most conflicts the US was involved in since World War I, and also for situations where US units are stationed jointly with units of other national forces. As to the placement of the term US in the unit name, and the use or non-use of the unit's branch identifier, this is a complex issue. There is no single standard as to where to place the US, except for all units created since World War I. All Pre-WW-I units decided for themselves where to place it, and was stuck with that placement once they were made official at the time of World War I. Prior to World War I, Brigade was the highest strategic unit placed in the field, and - most often - it was Branch Immaterial unless it was branch-heavy. For example, the unit that General Pershing commanded on the Mexican Border was the 8th United States Brigade. It was Branch Immaterial because it was organized along the lines of today's Divisions, and units were attached and detached as necessary. For example, when George Patton arrived at the 8th Brigade in 1915, he was on assignment to the 8th US Cavalry Regiment, but was attached to the 15th US Cavalry Regiment which was preparing to rotate to the Philippines as a replacement for the 8th, which was rotating in. He participated in the farewell formation and parties for the 15th, and then reported in to the 8th for his assignment as Platoon Leader. The idea of Brigades being permanently of one branch or other did not come about until World War II when the Square Division - with its three component Brigades of four Regiments - was streamlined to three Regiments, with the Brigades used for non-divisional assignments. The idea of Regiments designated as just Regiments - and not Infantry Regiments - dates from the time when there were no other type of Regiment, and it was slow to dissapear. When Regiments were assembled in the other Branches, they started life with their branch designation in the name. Infantry Regiments followed suit, but slowly. Divisions had a similar life - Cavalry Divisions were always Cavalry Divisions, but Infantry Divisions did not gain the designation until World War II. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the explanations. I am sure units from every former colonial power have their own peculiar names dating from their time of formation, especially when they were named on the whims of kings and emperors and not dependent on sequential numerical designations. Hotfeba 16:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howling with laughter

I see that among the battle honors for the Spanish American War is a streamer for East LA. If this actually came from the regimental website, then I can tell that attitudes in the ranks are no better now than when I was training Death Company new d***s for ceremonial qualification almost thirty years ago. My sides are still hurtin'... TOGS! Hotfeba 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, old folks remember that 2nd was often rendered as 2d and 3rd rendered as 3d with no confusion when everybody was still using manual typewriters here in America. Hotfeba 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's gone on long enough... somebody can be bold and get rid of the East LA battle streamer as the Old Guard was nowhere near Los Angeles at the time... If I do it, it'll start another edit war by anybody who can "prove" the regiment actually fought a battle there. Hotfeba (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. It was nothing more than silly vandalism. There wasn't any fighting on US soil during the Spanish-American War. It probably has just gone overlooked for a while. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partial Overseas Deployment

Should there be mention in the article of the deployment of D Co. of the President's Escort Battalion (1-3rd US Inf) overseas? To the best of my knowledge, the entire battalion has been exempt from overseas deployment since World War II ended as its tactical mission has been since then the defense of Washington DC (the biggest selling point for infantrymen looking to transfer in for a stable 3-year tour of duty). Perhaps this partial deployment is indicative of how stretched the entire Army of the United States is with its extended deployments in Iraq and elsewhere. The Old Guard has always had a tight schedule with the diplomatic requirements of welcoming and departure ceremonies for foreign dignitaries (can't dis the digs) and a large number of burials in Arlington National Cemetary as well as numerous cemetaries off-post (even in peacetime), and being short an entire line company must be a great strain on the rest of the battalion. Hotfeba 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you should go back even further to when Bravo Co. deployed in 2004 to the HofA. That marked the first time anyone from the 3d deployed since, what, Vietnam? That was the beginning of the new era of the new and improved 3d US Inf Reg, according to the CG at the time. --ScreaminEagle 18:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the Bravo Co. deployment to Africa. As far as I can tell, these are the only 1st BN deployments since they stopped issuing ruptured ducks. So Charlie Guard was skipped? I wonder if there was a consolidation of funeral and funeral backup weeks in the rotating schedule among the remaining companies. While with Delta Co. in the late 1970's, I was told the legend of how 2nd BN went into a valley that a regiment of ARVN wouldn't enter, and by the time the second chopper lift arrived for more wounded, there was nobody left to take out. As for editing this article, I have an old (1975?) recruiting brochure that not only includes a section called "Retrospect" and a list of battle honors and commanders, but also a list of battles with dates fought as they relate to each streamer. Hotfeba 00:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good resource to me. Bravo Co. was already deployed when the state funeral for Reagan happened (they actually deployed in Dec 2003), so obviously they carried on without them somehow. I found an article talking about just that here.

I included two references to the B Co. deployment at the end of the article, but never got around to adding the info to the article (completely forgot, actually). I never heard anything about Charlie Co. deploying, but perhaps they weren't meant to deploy in order. --ScreaminEagle 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article

It was pointed out to me the following by the user User:ScreaminEagle:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, TabooTikiGod! I have noted that you made a good-faith edit with regard to the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment article. You moved this article to the title of 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) per the renaming guidelines of the MILHISTWP. In most cases, this would have been just fine. However, the 3rd US Infantry is uniquely named: it's official name is the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment. "United States" is not a country designator in this case, it is actually part of the unit's official name. This dates back to the Civil War when units in America had to be distinguished between United States units or Confederate units. This particular unit has maintained the "United States" designator as part of its official title and removing that or switching it around results in an innaccuraely named U.S. unit. An administrator will change it back, so no further action is required on your part. I just wanted you to be aware that there are a few exceptions to the naming conventions that have been hashed out and rehashed out; this is just one of them. I appreciate your willingness to help the project, regardless. Keep up the good work and be sure and sign up for the MILHISTWP and a few of its task forces, if you're interested. --ScreaminEagle 17:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My response to this argument (TabooTikiGod)

Thank you for your observations ScreaminEagle, however I would point out to you and other Wikipedians who have particular concern in reference to the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment's name. The name of a Wikipedia article versus an official title of a person, place, thing, idea, etc. may vary and do not necessarily coincide with one another. If that were the case, then none of the U.S. military units listed would have (United States) following the name of the article. For example, 1st Infantry Division (United States), 7th Cavalry Regiment (United States), 173rd Airborne Brigade (United States), III Corps (United States) and so forth. This is merely done for organizational purposes and therefore does not reflect the official title of the unit. This particular Regiment should not be any different nor treated as a special case than the rest of the U.S. Army units and organizations on Wikipedia. -TabooTikiGod 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To further support my reasoning of this issue, although The Old Guard's official website [2] has the title header as 3d United States Infantry Regiment, however, many of the articles within the official website describe the unit as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) [3]. Furthermore, the official unit's association The Old Guard Association [4] refers the unit as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment. Additionally, the United States Center of Military History (USACMH) Lineage and Honors Information of the unit describes it simply as 3d Infantry [5] which is dated 22 May 1997 which is, I might add, is the U.S. Army's official military history resource which supercedes the unit's history which reflects the organization's official lineage. In conclusion, there are many different reliable and official resources which one can draw from and list as a resource and argue what the "official name" of the unit is. Even in trying to accomplish this task, there are many contradictions and misnomers for the unit known as The Old Guard. Again, I would reinforce the effort to rename the article as 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) to rectify this situation. -TabooTikiGod 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the name of the article in good will and was not meant as a malicious act or meant to upset the Wikipedia community, particularly the members of the MILHISTWP. The act of changing the article was done with logic and reason which I have provided my thought process and showed concrete evidence to further explain and support my claim. -TabooTikiGod 19:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You're a bit late on the discussion of this Taboo. The move has been made and remade and remade yet again. If you've read the previous arguments, it's not a matter of what you're reading into it. It's not a naming convention issue either. It's the official name of the unit. Trust me. It was my unit from 1991-1994. I know from firsthand experience what the official name is.

I have changed it to reflect the CORRECT name. Please do not change it again. Thank you.Ryecatcher773 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Even claiming to have been part of the organization does not make yourself a source, nor does it give you any right to change the name of the article on Wikipedia. It is a bias view and is against Wiki policy. -TabooTikiGod 20:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note for anyone interested: there's a version of this discussion at WT:MILHIST as well. Kirill 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the naming convention for military units does, in fact, call for the official name to be used where possible:

An article about a military unit or formation should be placed at "Name of unit (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs, or, for units that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature.

Rearranging the order of words in the name to fit an arbitrary pattern is not necessarily appropriate; we would not, for example, have The Royal Canadian Regiment at The Royal Regiment (Canada) merely because the term is a country name.

Note, also, that the more natural in-text version of "X Regiment (United States)" is "United States X Regiment", which is not the same as "X United States Regiment". While there are several variations of the regiments name used in literature, they are all derivatives of the latter form rather than the former; so it is quite legitimate to argue that it is the "proper" name of the unit. Kirill 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from the guidelines of the MILHISTWP, there lies the problem. I understand your argument in reference to The Royal Canadian Regiment but this is not the same case nor the same argument. I have already outlined various official sources for the "official name" of the unit that is commonly refered to as The Old Guard. I have already listed official and credible sources that have legitimate claim via internet websites. Ultimately (and legally), the source of the official name of the organization would come from directly from the original orders which were published by the United States Army that perscribed the formation of the unit. Which can be directly sourced from the United States Army's Center of Military History website which is dated 22 May 1997. http://www.army.mil/cmh/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0003in.htm

Consolidated May-October 1815 with the 5th Infantry (constituted 12 April 1808), the 17th Infantry (constituted 11 January 1812), the 19th Infantry (constituted 26 June 1812), and the 28th Infantry (constituted 29 January 1813) to form the 3d Infantry

This I might add, has not been modified nor changed since 1997 and unless further official publishing orders by the United States Army can be produced after 1997 then it remains as the official name of the organization. This is the official name of the unit 3d Infantry. I would also note that it is not unique that the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment has "U.S." associated with it's name since all Union organizations during the American Civil War had the "U.S." following the numerical number of the unit followed by the type of unit: 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment, 1st U.S. Dragoons, etc. in order to distinguish between federal and state militias (14th Pennsylvania Infantry, 54th Massachusetts Infantry, etc.). Therefore the argument of 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment or 3rd United States Infantry Regiment is not unique to just The Old Guard but to all United States Army units that can trace it's lineage to the American Civil War which fought on the Union side. -TabooTikiGod 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point. I'll admit that I don't know enough about the arcana of US military lineage to make an intelligent decision as to how authoritative the CMH site is relative to the regiment's own site. There are several possibilities here as to which name the US Army currently uses for the regiment (which may not necessarily be the same as the name the regiment uses internally, to boot); the question of which name is more official is probably best left to experts in this particular topic area. Kirill 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If I interpet correctly, the guidelines perscribed by MILHISTWP on Wikipedia, then it would appear that the official name of the organization supercedes the common name used in historical literature. Which would be 3d Infantry, not 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment or 3rd United States Infantry Regiment. I assure you that the United States Army Center of Military History is the authority when it comes to unit lineage and honors as it is outlined on the the CMH website:

Force Structure and Unit History Branch http://www.army.mil/cmh/unitinfo.html

Organizational History http://www.army.mil/cmh/html/forcestruc/orghist.html

Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS) http://www.army.mil/cmh/html/forcestruc/cars.html

United States Army online regulatory authorities as perscribed in a U.S. Army Regulation - The U.S. Army Regimental System (AR 600-82) 5 June 1990 http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_82.pdf

I have provided numerous sources on the authority and authentization from credible official U.S. Army websites that argument my point clearly which is outlined on the U.S. Army Center of Military History website and in AR 600-82 which is the United States Army's Regimental System which is an Army Regulation. On page 23, it clearly shows the organization, under the CARS as 3rd Infantry (0003IN)¹. -TabooTikiGod 21:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Duly noted; based on those documents, the argument that the "3rd Infantry Regiment" is the current official name seems a reasonable one. The remaining questions, I suppose, would be twofold: is this a new official name, or one that has been around for some time, and why, in either case, does it appear to differ from the regiment's internal usage? (Obviously, we seem to have former members of the unit that recall "3rd United States Infantry Regiment" in official use on their own orders; so I would assume there's something to this beyond a discrepancy on the sites themselves.) Kirill 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since 29 January 1813, it's always been 3d Infantry when the unit was constituted. I've provided Army Regulation that perscribes the Army's stance under the Regimental System in 1990 and 1997 (which to my knowledge there is no newer updates to AR 600-82 or the lineage and honors for the 3d Infantry unless proven otherwise). As far as the "internal usage," I've already provided articles which the unit's Public Affairs Office (PAO) has published articles within the website that describes the organization as 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) http://www.army.mil/oldguard/stories/aug142007.html So even within the unit's official website the organization's "common name" varies. One Wikipedia user who claims to have been a former member of the unit does not constitute leverage over this argument. The user Ryecatcher773 did not provide any substansial reason or support other than claiming that he was a former member of the unit (which again is irrelavent to the arguement and does not give him and "authority" over the matter). -TabooTikiGod 22:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that I've provided enough intelligent reason and logic and credible resources via the internet to close out this arguement. Is there a final resolution to this matter? -TabooTikiGod 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

NO. Look, I've tried to be polite and nice, keeping this private and such, but you've hauled out every conversation right into the open. Fine. So be it. You have relied on only one source, the Center for Military History, which I hate to point out can sometimes be incomplete, especially given the amount of information they must deal with and the very, very few volunteers they have to sort it all out. On the other hand, we have the official webpage of the unit itself, along with its mother unit, the MDW, which claims the EXACT same thing as the regiment. And giving the argument that sometimes it's 3rd United States and sometimes it's 3rd U.S. is ludicrous. U.S. is an abbreviation for United States, so both are correct but one is more complete. And simply because you think you've argued this case well enough in your own mind does not mean you're correct. I would rather rely on the Army unit itself, which has told me personally, that its official name is the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment, rather than an editor like yourself who may not know a thing other than how to navigate the CMH website. Feel free to give the unit a call and see if they tell you the same thing they told me. Until then, there is no resolution on this other than what had been agreed upon previously. --ScreaminEagle 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

ScreaminEagle, I personally do not like behind the scene conversations in reference to a discussion. Secondly, if you had actually read through the USACMH website and how the organization operates in reference to the CARS, lineage and honors and the AR 600-82, you would have noticed which is an official Army Regulation (not CMH) does have authority over the actual unit and the webmasters of the organizations and even the parent organization (Military District of Washington) website. Unlike yourself, I've actually provided real sources that can be accessed via web and is open source. Like I said, the legal authority of the "official name" is written in the publishing orders in which the organization was constituted. 29 January 1813. Even if you did contact the unit and had a memorandum from the Regimental Commander himself with signature, does that have any authority over the way in which the United States Army interprets the official history of a unit which is viewed by the entire United States Army? For your information, I happen to know a soldier who is in the Headquarters and Headquarters Company for the 1st Battalion in the Regimental Headquarters Public Affairs Office (PAO). If you would like, I can get an official memorandum dated, signed with proper heading and title of a statement by their office claiming the official name of the organization, have it scanned, upload it to Wikipedia and then publish it on this page. -TabooTikiGod 22:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "behind the scenes" on Wikipedia talk pages. ;-)

More seriously, though: if we could get some sort of written statement from somebody official about what the unit's name is, that would put us in a much better position, I think. Kirill 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means, get the document from your friend, although I fail to see how the 1st BTN would have more information than the Military District of Washington would. I'll even drive to Ft. Myer myself if it will help, but first we'll see what your official friend has to offer. And as for not providing sources, I could have sworn that stating the 3rd US Infantry's website, as well as the MDW's, counted as sources. I only assumed most interested parties could google just as well as I could. --ScreaminEagle 23:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've provided more than ample enough evidence citing a multitude of sources and reasoning and logic where as the latter has failed to do so. I am currently in the process of contacting my fellow soldier who is currently serving in the HHC, 1st Battalion, 3d Infantry's PAO office which represents the organization and the unit in order to drive a nail into this arguement for once and for all but even if I did procure this document I'm sure there would be Wikipedians who would not be satisfied even with such a document. The truth of the matter is that there is overwhelming evidence and support already presented on the table where those individuals who oppose this change have failed to present any intelligent logic, reasoning or evidence. Please refer to the following Wiki policies WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY. -TabooTikiGod 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Any such discussion typically takes at least a few days to coagulate around a rough consensus; proclaiming a "final resolution" after a few hours would be pretty unprecedented (doubly so when there have only been two people participating ;-). I'd like to see, at the very least, some editors with more experience in this topic area comment.

We're in no real rush, in any case; the project will be no worse off if we move the article next week than if we move it today. Kirill 22:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it true that Wikipedia is not a democracy? And how the guidelines are interpreted by the administrators? I see the logic in having a general consenses to avoid edit wars or socket puppet vandals. Whether or not there's enough interest from other users to weigh in on this discussion should be interesting since probably most people throughout the world (and even within the United States or for that matter, the United States Army) have enough background knowledge or "expertise" to make a call. In any case, it should be interesting. -TabooTikiGod 22:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will also note that if all units were to be and I quote:

An article about a military unit or formation should be placed at "Name of unit (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs, or, for units that do not have an official name, the most common name used in historical literature.

Then all U.S. Army units on Wikipedia would have to be changed, since they are not known as 1st Infantry Division (United States) but simply as 1st Infantry Division. -TabooTikiGod 20:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the name of the article back to 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) since the user Ryecatcher773 failed to list his reasoning or logic in response to what I have said in response to changing the article. -TabooTikiGod 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiki, it has been argued in depth already. Scroll up the page, you'll see all the reasoning you need. Democracy has nothing to do with it anyway. It has to with with the official name of the unit -- which is also explained by others besides myself -- above. You are arguing something you don't know about -- I was in The Old Guard for three years, and I know what the name of the unit was. It's not a matter of naming conventions in this case. The 3rd US Infantry is the official name of the unit. It's NOT named the 3rd Regiment, or the 3rd Infantry. It is named as it was listed before. Ryecatcher773 00:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwise Move

Hey Kirill. I don't know any other admins who would know about this, hence why you've been pegged. A concerned editor has moved 3rd United States Infantry Regiment to 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States). From past experience, I know I can't move it back without causing some sort of meltdown in Wikipedia's main reactor, so could you please do it for me? In the mean time I will leave a note for the editor explaining the issue (even though the unique unit's name has been discussed to death even inside the article itself). Many, many thanks. --ScreaminEagle 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Unwise Move

Oh no, not again! ;-)

But I think I'll let the discussion on WT:MILHIST play out for a bit before moving it back, so as not to risk devolving into a revert war on the thing. Kirill 20:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Although it seems that someone else has moved it back anyways, making the point rather moot. Kirill 20:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved it earlier, and Tiki moved it again. Look, this was something that we cleared up months ago before he/she came along and decided -- against the arguments that were already made -- to change it. I don't even think he/she has even read he arguments, otherwise he/she would understand that this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Wikipedia naming conventions for military units.

Bottom line -- this was settled a while ago. I don't care what someone who was not in The Old Guard 's opinion is on what the right convention is. The way it is listed now is completely inaccurate. It needs to be moved back to 3rd US Infantry. I'll go to war over it. It was my unit, and it's my honor to defend it. Tiki, scroll up this page top where the argument took place last year and again earlier this year. Ryecatcher773 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the comment left on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATabooTikiGod&diff=157047775&oldid=157028037 I refuse to get into an edit war with you over the title. I've presented an intelligent argument that has support and reasoning behind it, I would hope that other Wikipedians and administrators can examine this discussion by interpreting the guidelines and the facts without personal bias towards the subject. -TabooTikiGod 11:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal bias hasn't got a thing to do with it, you're assessment is simply inaccurate, plain and simple. I'll fight over it because I know the right answer in this case. I pointed that out to you, as did others (on several occasions). I switched it back in the first place because it was inaccurate. It was you, not I, who proceeded to make an editing war out of it by moving it the third time. You took it upon yourself to reopen a closed argument on a subject that you a) don't have first hand knowledge of and b) did not bother to read the lengthy discussion on prior to making your edits. There are historical reasons why The Old Guard's regimental designator contains the 'US'. You cite Wikipedia guidelines, but what you are asking for doesn't apply to this example. It would mean changing the formal name of the unit, which is something Wikipedia is not asking for. A guideline is a guideline. And in this case, the change in question oversteps the boundaries of those guidelines. Ryecatcher773 16:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, however, this isn't a NPOV issue. It's reality, and the only bias I have is towards accuracy. Switching the article name would be inaccurate. May as well change the name of the article on the USA to The America (United States of). That would be inaccurate and look silly right? Ryecatcher773 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Military_history&diff=157183901&oldid=157143639

• In the United States military, if there is a problem, you do not go to your superiors and point out the problem without providing a solution to the problem. So you claim that my assessment is simply inaccurate. What evidence and logic can you present to prove and support this claim? So far, I haven't seen any intelligent discussion other than claiming to have been a former member of the unit and even that does not give you any right to the article or the interpretation of other users to make legitimate changes. Furthermore, my logic and reason to change the article differs from what other users have provided in the past. This is the reason why I decided to create a separate topic on this particular matter. I can find three Wiki Policies that are in violation.

  All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.

  WP:NPOV

  Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories...The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.[1] Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

  WP:NOR

  The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

  WP:VERIFY

-TabooTikiGod 19:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the official website address: http://www.army.mil/oldguard/index2.htm

The name is written across the top. And I do not 'claim' to have served there, rather I DID serve there. Presidential Salute Guns Battery, 1991-1994. The current CO of the Regiment, COL Buche (who was CPT Buche, the CO of H. Co when when I was there). H Co. is no longer in existence, as Guns (along with Caisson) moved to HHC a few years back. You can contact TOG HQ and ask them the unit's official name. Here's the address:

HHC 3rd US INF (TOG) Ft. Myer, VA 22211

Heck, you call them on the phone if you don't want to wait for the mail: (703)696-3354. Ryecatcher773 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I have already addressed the issue about the website header on the unit's official website earlier in this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A3rd_US_Infantry&diff=156983659&oldid=156945849 -TabooTikiGod 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation to move discussion from MILHIST to this forum

According to Wiki Policy, I recommend that all future comments please remain on this talk page and not the WP:MILHIST talk page.

Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress. Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place

• I would also remind Wikipedians of the WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY policies. -TabooTikiGod 12:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I believe that for the sake of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:VERIFY, the name of the regiment can be established by going to www.army.mil, which is as official as one may get when discussing units of the Regular Army as part of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. On this website, the Center for Military History (CMH) is merely another REMF directory that is subordinate to www.army.mil, and CMH is not authoritative in this matter as it is a secondary, derivative source. A search initiated from the www.army.mil homepage for "3rd united states infantry" produced the following results, among others:

3d United States Infantry Regiment

... The 3rd US Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) Fife ... The corps also travels throughout the United States in support of public affairs missions for the Army. ...

www.army.mil/oldguard/ - 17k - Cached

3d United States Infantry Regiment

... Commander’s Message: Welcome to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd United States Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard). Headquarters ...

www.army.mil/oldguard/FRG/hhcreg_frg.htm - 11k - Cached

It is important to note that the directory name www.army.mil/oldguard is identical to the CMH special designation of Old Guard for the "3rd Infantry" or "3rd Infantry Regiment", depending on what CMH page one is viewing at the time. In any case, CMH is merely a recorder of history, however inaccurate that secondary historical record may be. As every infantryman knows, the tradition of the Army is that a commander is the best source of her or his unit's name, and if one disputes a unit commander on that matter, then one is at peril by the commander's sincere wish to make one disappear. As a practical matter, one must always remember that deadly force is the essential power of the state, and in this matter, the headquarters commander is the state.

I served with the Old Guard for several years, and not Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor even the President of the United States as my Commander in Chief ever disputed the formal, official name of the Old Guard as anything but the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment. Of course, anyone is free to do the legal research and find a citation from United States Reports or Congressional Record to refute that: Good hunting.

I have made previous comments on the use of 3d for 3rd as a trivial variation, but note its current third-millennium use on the official US Army website as observant of the historical tradition of the unit. In general, I consider the instant Wikipedia article to be mis-named, or named with an informal derivative of the unit's actual name, as any unit is officially named with the organizational level designation of the unit, in this case "Regiment". Of course, any discussion of the history of a unit's name is grist for MILHIST. In any case, the persistence of this argument goes a long way to explaining precisely why the Wikipedia is not considered to be an authoritative source for academic research (see WP:FAIL). Hotfeba 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The original publishing orders that created the 3d Infantry are authority to the official name of the organization. There is no dispute to the legal aspect of this matter. This is published on the CMH website.

Since you decided to cite Congress, Supreme Court and the President can you list any credible sources for this claim?

The bottom line, this article should be standardized like the rest of the US Army units listed in Wikipedia and should be titled: 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) and not 3rd US Infantry. For example: Everyone knows the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) is the official name of the division, however for organizing purposes, the title is named 101st Airborne Division (United States) and not 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). -TabooTikiGod 13:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and standardize away. We as veterans of the unit (who you do not recognize as a source contrary to the "personal knowledge as primary source" clause of WP:NOR) will just accept the article as a non-citable tertiary source with its own biased point of view. In this matter, www.army.mil is much more acceptable. You are free to find and include other credible primary sources supporting your viewpoint as you choose. Hotfeba 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: A search of CMH supporting the official name 3rd United States Infantry Regiment may be found at CMH link to "Third Regiment of Infantry"; note the date of publication as shortly after "fall of 1894" under the order of the major general in command of the United States Army at the time.

I've already provided a list of credible sources which are by the way, from www.army.mil and listed my reasoning and logic behind it. -TabooTikiGod 05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Army_Combat_Arms_Regimental_System#Infantry for additional regarding the name of the organization under CARS which I have already provided on the official US Army website: http://www.usaac.army.mil/accw/div/pna/Actions/r600_82.pdf and http://www.army.mil/cmh/html/forcestruc/cars.html -TabooTikiGod 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific text of the two citations you give are from tables of regiments located in AR 600-82 and at CMH, and in each case, the word "Regiment" is necessary to refer to them both properly and formally when not "in context" away from those tables. Selectively taking bits of data "out of context" and then claiming that data as authoritative -- especially when the data is the name of a combat arms unit with a recorded and honored tradition that is even now being written with the blood of infantry soldiers -- is an un-acceptable research technique at Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter, a discussion that is likely to emerge in a forum for dispute resolution. I was trained as a battalion staff officer, and was a battalion S-4 "assistant chief of staff for logistics" who stood in that assignment for two general inspections by field-army-level inspectors prior to my assignment to the Old Guard, and I do know how to read and interpret the Army Regulations series of publications. As for CARS, the specific citation under paragraph 5-5, AR 600-82 (which does have the force of a published order for all DA personnel, including all public affairs personnel subordinate to HQDA) reads: "It is not the intent of HQDA to change the tactical organization of the brigades, battalions, squadrons, or armored cavalry and ranger regiments. Regiments (with the exception of armored cavalry and ranger) are nontactical organizations intended to perpetuate the history and traditions of regiments for soldiers." The tradition and history of the unit supercedes the original activation orders, and if anything, the most recent Regular Army 1/3 INF and 2/3 INF battalion activation orders (which nobody has produced yet) are applicable. According to Jimbo, if you can't produce them, tough luck; under established Wikipedia policy, we go with the CMH's Army of the United States (1896) as the best source so far available. The usage of "3rd U.S. Infantry" in the unit historian's name is merely the short form of "Third United States Infantry Regiment", like "PhD" is a short version of "Doctor of Philosophy", and the only reason the author's name did not include the word "Regiment" was because there was no other level of designation for such a unit in the Army of the 19th century, a shibboleth for the un-initiated. Hotfeba 03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

FURTHER, AR 220-1 Unit Status Reporting establishes the pattern of unit designation for use by commanders to their superiors as number, type, and level of organization, citing AR 200-5 Designation, Classification, and Change in Status of Units, which describes under that regulation's paragraph 2-3, subparagraph (3): "The word 'regiment' is understood and is not included in a unit's official designation." It is the tradition and history of regiments under CARS to name themselves to non-military institutions to which they do not report (such as Wikipedia) in the standard number, type, and level format used for any other level of command for the sake of consistency. This is the standard command interpretation of AR 600-82 with respect to reporting a regiment's full name to non-military publications, in compliance with the plain language of that Army Regulation. Certainly, this is the Old Guard commander's interpretation, the Department of the Army's interpretation, and www.army.mil's interpretation as evidenced by that website's own search results as cited above... OR SOMEBODY IN THAT CLUSTER OF GENERALS AND ADMIRALS WE REFER TO AS THE PENTAGON IS DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING ORDERS. Yes, that last part is MY INTERPRETATION, but it is also the Pentagon's interpretation, as evidenced by no Army officer ever being forced to resign her or his commission for referring to the Third United States Infantry Regiment in any publication for public consumption or in any speech to a bunch of Wikipedia editors who don't even rate as new d***s. If anybody wants to pick a fight with the Pentagon over this, especially after 9/11, go right ahead... and if you win that fight, be sure to have me recalled to active duty so I can be court-martialed and put on bread and water for the rest of my un-natural life until they shoot me at dawn. Hotfeba 06:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone knows about the 101st. Funny that you mention that particular unit in that, ironically, you are pointing out is another unit that maintains part of a name for historical reasons. The unit is generally referred to as The Old Guard, and is generally not as familiar to those who have not served. But that doesn't mean the article should be called The Old Guard. Why? Because that's not the units official name. Everyone who has actually served in the Infantry, knows that it's The 3rd US Infantry (TOG) and understands that the name is a historical break from what has become a relatively standardized system. I don't really care what your feelings are on standardization. And to reiterate what Hotfeba has alraedy said, the CMH bends its knee to the DOA and the DoD. I've got official orders that list the name of the unit, my DD-214, 3 AAM's, a GCM and an ARCOM all with the name listed as The 3rd US Infantry (TOG). The only part that should be in parentheses should be TOG. You are arguing just for the sake of arguing, not for any necessity. You cite that Wikipedia is not a democracy when we show you a consensus, yet you lobby other users to weigh in as though you yourself are polling. Please, give it a break already. Ryecatcher773 17:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Taboo: In addition to the fine comments made here already, I need to reiterate one further point. The standardization policy of naming units within the scope of the MILHISTWP was designed for the sole purpose of reducing confusion between two units with the exact same numerical name. The policy itself points out that if the name of a unit is already sufficiently named to distinguish itself from any other unit on earth, then providing the disambiguator in parenthesis is totally unnecessary. In the case of the 3rd US (or United States--who cares) Infantry Regiment, there is no other unit on this green earth that could possibly be confused with this unit, and thus it does not need the country name tacked on at the end. You are insisting on sacrificing accuracy simply for the sake of consistency, except that the policies that were created were not meant for consistency's sake but rather for clarity's sake. You are intentionally creating a new title on behalf of a policy you don't even comprehend. The Army itself is not consistent in everything it does; how can you possibly expect to falsly create consistency to make up for it, only to create unaccuracies in the end? Your logic is completely incomprehensible and illogical. Please review the purposes for the country disambiguators before you attempt to apply them across half of Wikipedia. --ScreaminEagle 21:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears from the 1894 CMH citation above that the "United States" was inserted and formally accepted as the official designation of the unit by "Nelson A. Miles, Major General, commanding the Army" at "HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D. C., NOV. 15, 1895" for the publication of The Army of the United States in 1896. The insertion is natural to differentiate the United States unit from any Confederate units of the same numerical regimental designation (note the traditional distinguishing headstone styles for US versus Confederate veterans at Arlington National Cemetery for a clue on that line of thinking back then). MG Miles' introduction follows:

It is with pleasure that I avail myself of an opportunity to commend this effort of the Military Service Institution to provide an authentic and condensed account of the services of the Army, from the creation of our military establishment to the present day. Each staff-corps and regiment of the line has here its chosen historian and its modest memoir replete with biographical as well as historical data. Its form gives it a unique character of special value as a work of reference. It represents a completion of a series of historical sketches which have appeared from time to time during the last few years in the Journal of the Military Service Institution of the United States, and comprises an amount of gratuitous labor by contributors and of public spirit on the part of the publishers that merits public acknowledgment. I have no hesitation in saying that it deserves a place in every public library, and is worthy of preservation by all collectors of military works.

The fact that the publisher was Maynard, Merrill & Co. is not surprising, given that the standard Army Officer's Guide was and has been published by the nice civilians at Stackpole Books up to now, together with the signature block of the Army Chief of Staff at the time of publication for each edition.

According to the new, most recent discussion of this matter at MILHIST, the official name of units is the means of titling articles at Wikipedia, and I believe the most authoritative source is the general commanding the Army of the United States at the time, since in 1894, this would have included the entire United States Army (the Regulars) as well the militia in federal service of the several states; the enclosure of that senior officer's signature block gives any such publication the force of a published order, even if it supercedes any previous order originally establishing and organizing a regiment. As a practical matter, this is an issue of military law on the interpretation of revised orders that, as a matter of discipline not typically found at Wikipedia, is not in dispute within the Armed Forces of the United States.

If one who is not a primary source for information on the Old Guard wishes to dispute that, then one should feel free to call for Wikipedia:Mediation in the matter. Personally, I am done with unpaid pseudo-work at MILHIST as I have bigger fish to fry in the real world (see SDG&E), and sans legal representation, I have hearings to attend and arguments to prepare. Hotfeba 01:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Oh common now! What on earth makes you think that the reason we are debating the name of this unit is because we are biased? If we are biased, it is toward accuracy and the truth and against asinine claims to the contrary! You've made the claim that the others are biased because they actually served in the unit; that is the most ridiculous reason I've ever heard. If anyone knows the correct title, it is people who have served in the unit! And what's my excuse? What possible reason do I have to be biased toward one title or another other than I want to see the real unit name being used? Please stop with this insanity already.--ScreaminEagle 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the wiki-showdown is on: the REMF historical revisionist against the veterans of the unit who know where they served. The problem with revisionists is that they are so married to their ideas that they cannot accept anything that disproves their ideas because it is seen as a disproof of themselves. So far, nobody has shown a scintilla of evidence to refute my citation of the CMH source given above showing that the official name of the unit is 3rd United States Infantry Regiment.

Anyone having been drafted as a party to this mediation request and then agrees to take part should do so only on making the request for my mandatory joinder in this matter, along with the inclusion of the above CMH citation -- after all, CMH is where he told us to look, and CMH is where I found it; without my joinder, the one calling for mediation has apparently chosen to ignore the citation that decides the result. I am sorely tempted to forward this entire talk page to my state representatives regarding the amendment of California Education Code section 33322 for the purpose of denying funding to any school district or post-secondary institution that relies on unverifiable sources in diploma/degree-granting programs, where the publisher of the source cannot certify the academic credentials of contributors, or the source is open by the policies of the publisher to questionable revision/random anticipated acts of vandalism. Hotfeba 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger that Hotfeba. I've exchanged words (and more) over my unit's honor before, and I'll do so again. Call me a caveman, but I think empirical evidence trumps all. Seen it, done it, have the t-shirt to prove I was there. I say, let's go then. Put em up. The Infantry fights. The REMFs just like to pose in their uniform. Bring it on. Ryecatcher773 06:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I will remind the users, Ryecatcher773, Hotfeba, and ScreaminEagle of the following policies: WP:APR, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:GROWAPAIR. -TabooTikiGod 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall personally attacking you, only your agenda to unnecessarily change the name of the unit. The last "policy" is directed toward people who think others are attacking them personally, which you apparently do. I'm confused as to why you added it to the list that we need to pay particular attention to. Oh, and I sure hope this mediation business doesn't last long; I'm delivering a baby in two weeks and if it isn't done by then, forget it. --ScreaminEagle 12:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence of bias in any attempt to suppress credible published sources, a violation of accepted Wikipedia policy. There is evidence of personal attacks in any attempt to discredit primary sources who actually know what they are talking about, another violation of accepted Wikipedia policy. There is evidence of bringing discredit to Wikipedia in doing either of the above, a third violation of Wikipedia policy. If one considers this to be a personal attack, then I remind that person that not one editor ever shed or otherwise waived her or his assembly, expression, petition or press rights under the First Amendment to contribute here, and to the extent that GFDL, accepted Wikipedia policy, or any WikiMedia Foundation policy is contrued to abridge those rights, the supreme law of the land in the United States of America does apply, as the Internet over which these words are transmitted is an incorporating extension of the ARPANET and its successor wide area networks, all projects that receive funding in part by, and are in use by, the government of the United States, the facts of which has been seen in previous matters before the United States Supreme Court to extend the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights thereupon. Cavemen rock: Noli me tangere. Hotfeba 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official designation?

This isn't a troll. I have read much of this talk page, and related archived discussions from last year. I see the terms "official name" and "official designation" used. Do they mean the same thing? My understanding is that a unit has only a single official designation at any one time, and I don't think that's disputed. I gather there are many opinions about the official name, and if they're the same thing, that would extend to the official designation. But if there is only one official designation, has anyone found an unequivocal citation saying what it is? I don't mean a website, sign, book or article that uses one term or another, I mean a reliable source that says something like "The unit was officially designated as 'blah' on such-and-such-a-date," or says "These are the U.S. Army's official unit designations as of such-and-such-a-date...."

What to title the article is a related but different question, and I'm not asking about that here, just wondering on the offficial designation. -Agyle 23:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is being mediated at present. Having served in The Old Guard, and looking at what's written on my official orders assigning me to the unit 26 Feb 1991, as well as the certificates for the medals I earned there, which are signed by the Secretary of the Army, I can give you the answer. But, right now, it's being disputed. So let's just leave it at that until the Wikipedia mediation committee has convened. Ryecatcher773 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be picky, but I think you misunderstood my precise questions. I don't mean sources that give a unit name or unit designation, but a reliable source that explicitly (not implicitly) states an official designation (using army terminology). I mean "reliable source" in the Wikipedian sense, which generally means "a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (see WP:RS), and generally excludes unpublished personal documents, even official ones, which can be perfectly reliable in a non-Wikipedian sense. I am also trying to understand if "official name" and "official designation" are being used by everyone as synonyms in this discussion. I read the mediation request, and am trying to better understand the issue; my questions don't seem to be answered elsewhere. -Agyle 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to understand the issue -- there is plenty of documentation on official US Army /DoD forms (e.g. DD Form 214, Official DOA Orders, Medals, the unit's official website, the signs painted all over Fort Myer, my Old Guard Coin...) What is being contested is the placement of the US, and how it is effected by Wiki guidelines with respect to keeping things in a certain format consistent with other military units. The point, Argyle, is that there is tons of documentation, yet there are some who just want to argue for the sake of arguing how to name an article that features the official name of the unit. Here are a couple official websites where you can see some immediate examples for yourself: The Military District of Washington: http://www.mdw.army.mil/factsheets.htm ; and the 3rd US INF (TOG) Official Site: http://www.army.mil/oldguard/command.htm

Ryecatcher773 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One question in the mediation request was to decide the official name, which I think is the same as the official designation. (Any opinion on that?) The links you gave are official sources, which use a name, but don't mention an official designation. By "explicitly," I mean a sentence like "The official designation of this unit is blahblahblah," rather than an official source that uses a name. Other official sources use other names, without saying it's official, as with the CMH here or here. -Agyle 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)\

If you want to get in on the mediation, by all means, add your name. Until then, you're going to get short answers to your very questions that are being debated until the decision is finalized. In answer to one question, I believe that some of us have used name and designation interchangably being that one relies upon the other. If I'm not mistaken, the name would be 3rd U.S. Inf. Reg. while the designation would be The Old Guard. Anything else and you're just going to have to wait and be patient for the mediator's decision. --ScreaminEagle 20:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think the sort of source I was seeking hasn't been cited. I read that in army parlance, "designation" refers to the unit name, while "special designation" refers to its nickname, which can be either a "traditional designation" (a special designation in use more than 30 years, like The Old Guard) or a "distinctive designation" (in use less than 30 years.) "Organizational History" page 7 explains special designations, and page 15 defines designation as "The official name of a unit, consisting usually of a number, a branch or function, and a command echelon, e.g., 145th Medical Battalion, 353d Civil Affairs Command, 1st Cavalry Division." (Note usually.) -Agyle 06:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

comment - i closed the unclear RfC which included comments from 2005, please open a new one if there is a need to. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation, Arbitration, and the name of this Godforsaken article

I hate to jump in uninvited and stir the pot some more, but regarding the name of this article ... the mediation has been closed without an official resolution, the Arbitration Committee is a vote away from refusing to hear the case, and even today TabooTikiGod moved the article yet again to "3rd Infantry Regiment (United States)" over the objections of at least four other editors (Ryecatcher773, Hotfeba, ScreaminEagle, and Kirill).

Not having participated in the exhaustive debate over the last few months, and considering that I have never served in this unit, or know anyone in the unit or in the MDW, or lived anywhere near Washington, D.C., nor do I have any emotional attachment to one name or another, I consider myself somewhat impartial in the matter. I also consider myself to be quite familiar with the workings of the U.S. Army and its units.

Considering that, I offer this perspective to whomever still cares:

1. The name of the unit appears to be some variation of "[3d/3rd] [United States/U.S./US] Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)." I cite the manner in which the unit refers to itself on its own website.

2. Whether this is the "official" name, or simply the name by which it is most commonly known and referred to is irrelevant. It is clearly the most common and recognizable name.

3. The manner in which any other individual sources (including the CMH) refer to to the unit has little to do with this matter. It's a mistake to assume that because a given organization refers to a unit in a certain way, it implies any degree of "official-ness." Those organizations could have any number of reasons for why they refer to a unit in a given way -- they may have their own internal style used for consistency, they may simply be mistaken, etc.

4. WP:MILHIST guidelines state that the title of a unit's article should either be the official name or the most common name, with an optional parenthetical disambiguation if necessary.

5. Given #1, 2, and 4, the name of the article would be most appropriate at one of the following:

• "3d United States Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)"
• "3d United States Infantry Regiment"
• "3d U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)"
• "3d U.S. Infantry Regiment"
• "3d US Infantry Regiment"

Note that "3d" and "3rd" are interchangeable in these examples, as the unit's website is somewhat inconsistent in that respect.

Further, it appears to me as an outside observer that TabooTikiGod is the only one arguing for a name other than a variant of one listed above. While his arguments are extensively sourced, the interpretation of those sources and WP:MILHIST naming convention guidelines is specious at best. And as I mentioned before, there are at least four (five including me) other editors that agree (generally speaking) on what the name should be, and only one that dissents. Is allowing this debate to continue not giving undue weight to that one editor's opinion? Enough already, just move the article to where it should be and lock it there. Mike f 06:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• As a side note, while I would support any variant of the article names I suggest above, I think it would be most appropriate to choose a title with each word spelled out instead of abbreviated. I try to avoid abbreviations in titles in most cases, and there seems to be a precedent for that when you look at other WP articles (e.g., "United States Army" instead of "U.S. Army," the optional disambiguator "(United States)" instead of "(U.S.)," etc.). Also, the abbreviation "TOG" isn't readily understandable to the average reader ... it should really be spelled out (at least at its first use in the article, and especially the title) or eliminated. Mike f 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, avoiding abbreviations where possible is a good idea. As an aside, once we figure out what the final title is, somebody should clean up all the double (and triple, and so forth) redirects that are being left around. (I think we've managed to detach the talk page from the article, incidentally.) Kirill 17:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Done—reattached the talk page and renamed the article without abbreviations. I predict those changes won't last long before the inevitable revert, so can we get a little consensus here to at least acknowledge that of the half-dozen or so editors that have weighed in on this matter, five agree on a name and one dissents? I know, I know ... not a democracy, and "voting" is bad. But 80%+ seems like a pretty solid consensus among editors to me ... why is a lone editor being allowed to hijack the process? Mike f 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree -- Ryecatcher773 —Preceding comment was added at 23:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Mike f and Ryecatcher. We had a consensus a year ago and it looks like we still have one, save one editor who appears to be inconsistent in what he thinks the article name should be and why. The title as it is now (3d United States Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)) makes the most sense from every angle given the mountain of evidence we have to suggest it is the title of choice for the unit itself and the units associated with it, parent or subordinate. --ScreaminEagle 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • And if hotfeba hadn't become disillusioned with this process, he would have agreed as well, given his many comments in favor of this title.--ScreaminEagle 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Agree belatedly... -- Hotfeba (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

TabooTikiGod, before this erupts into a full-blown revert war, can you please re-join the discussion on this talk page, instead of repeatedly moving the article to your name of choice without comment? As you can see from this thread, there are 4-5 editors that agree about what the title should be, based on reliable sources (the unit's own website). You seem to be the only dissenting voice, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing, as I pointed out above, I think your position (while quite prolifically sourced and convincingly argued) is based on a mis-interpretation of the WP:MILHIST naming convention guidelines. Endless reverts and months (years!) of arguing aren't doing anybody any good, least of all WP as a whole. I think we can solve this without mediators or arbitrators ... we're pretty close to a final consensus now, as you can see above. We'd all appreciate your help in bringing this to an end. Thanks, Mike f 05:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There's now (after some confusion) an open WP:RM request on the matter; hopefully the discussion for that (below) will finally resolve this once and for all. Kirill 05:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Unit Identity

Under the rules laid down by the US Army, the identity of the 3rd Infantry Regiment is the 3rd Infantry Regiment. The only reason it started to get a national identifier was its Civil War service, where it had to be identified so as to not confuse people with a unit of the same identity in the Confederate Army. At that time, it was identified as the 3rd Infantry Regiment, Union Army, but this passed into oblivion at the end of the war. As of World War I, it was identified as the US 3rd Infantry Regiment to delineate it apart from the uints of the same identity of the British and French armies in France. The same was true in World War II, for the same reasons. Given our international stance post war, the use of the US prefix has been maintained - even though internally the unit is the 3rd Infantry Regiment to this day. As to the use of the motto The Old Guard, it is NOT part of the unit name, and never has been.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been debated ad nauseum on here -- to the point of Wikipedia arbitration hearings and the like -- and the findings were inconclusive as the official sources stated different info. So far as the name of the article is concerned, it was decided by consensus to name it as you see here today (3rd US Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard); though I must respectively disagree with you on the final point -- TOG is part of the official name. It's appears that way on all of my orders issued while I served there as well as the certificates accompanying medals I was awarded while there as well. And, most importantly for our purposes, the unit refers to itself that way and lists its name in the entirety you see here on the Old Guard official website, which is operated by the MDW. Thanks for your input though. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)