Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry

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

Opening Statements[edit]

As is customary, we shall begin the mediation with each person making an opening statement. Please state your position regarding (a) what you believe the official name of the unit is and (b) what you believe the title of the Wikipedia article should be (and why). Please be brief, probably just a couple of sentences for each point, and please refrain from responding to the comments of others in their sections – stick to your own sections. I'm, for now, going to ignore the other two points noted in the mediation because "Users using personal uncivil remarks in reference to the topic." is not easy to mediate (the conclusion will just boil down to "don't be uncivil") and because "WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY" look like extensions of the first two points. If I am wrong about that, you can also attempt to clarify those two points. -- tariqabjotu 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TabooTikiGod[edit]

Other evidence of this can be found and is outlined in The U.S. Army Regimental System (AR 600-82) 5 June 1990 on page 19 as 3rd Infantry.

There is a Special Designations for the nickname of the unit, THE OLD GUARD on the Center of Military History website which is further explained in Page 16, Chapter 6 of AR 870-5.

There are innumerous sources for the colloquial term of the 3d Infantry, even on the "official website" the unit itself refers to itself under various names. These sources can be found on The Old Guard's official websites.

With the new transformation of the U.S. Army, there are now what are called Brigade Combat Teams, of which the 3d Infantry is now part of since it is comprised of several battalions which form the "Regiment" although the organization is now officially a BCT.

There are other United States Army units which are titled differently than the "official name" for example 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) is titled 101st Airborne Division (United States); 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment and the Wikipedia article is 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States). There are just two examples where the MILHIST project failed to uphold to the "official names" of units versus what is practical in terms of naming units for Wiki organizational purposes.

Furthermore, there is already a precedence of the structure of Category:Regiments of the United States Army on Wikipedia as well as Category:Battalions of the United States Army, Category:Divisions of the United States Army, Category:Corps of the United States Army, etc. which can all be found on Category:Military units and formations of the United States.

In reference to the "WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY", the users ScreaminEagle, Ryecatcher773 have responded to comments which I have made on the talk page without citing references for their reasoning only to claim that they were former members of the unit, this claim is bias and is a POV on the subject matter which is the only grounds of their argument.

-TabooTikiGod 06:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to discount NPOV, NOR, and VERIFY as being part of a separate issue for now; they do not appear to be especially important except in the context of the other two issues. -- tariqabjotu 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScreaminEagle[edit]

  • The unit calls itself the 3d (or 3rd/Third) United States (or U.S.) Infantry Regiment [1]. Its parent organization, the Military District of Washington (MDW), also refers to the unit by this specific designation [2]. The Public Affairs Office of the unit in question always refers to it as the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) on its official documents and press releases [3][4]. The command leadership organizational charts for the regiment name it the 3d United States Infantry Regiment [5]. I venture that if anyone knows the official name of the unit, these organizations do.
  • Because the unit itself, including its leadership and Public Affairs Office, and its parent organization of the MDW, refer to the unit as the 3d/3rd United States (or U.S. for short) Infantry Regiment, I believe that this is what the article should be called on Wikipedia. The idea is to call something what it is known as, officially and/or otherwise, not an obscure and old/former title that no one would think to look under. The Wikipedia article on Jon Stewart is not titled "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz" because no one knows who that is, even if that is the name he was born with decades ago. That is simply not who he is anymore--his name has been officially changed to reflect what he is known as today. In similitude, the name of the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment may have been the 3rd Infantry Regiment many years ago, but it is not any longer, evidenced by the above paragraph. In addition, intentionally adjusting the name of the unit to resemble other, dissimilar military units on Wikipedia simply for the sake of consistancy defeats the very purpose of the guidelines laid out by the MILHIST project; the point of the naming guidelines is to avoid confusion between two units with the exact same title but with different home countries or nations (there is no other unit on earth named the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment). The guidelines are meant to extend the accuracy of the unit's name to include its nationality if that nationality is not apparently clear by the title of the unit. The goal of consistency is and always has been secondary to the accuracy of the title itself. Deleting the "United States" from within the accurate title itself, only to reposition it to the end of the title in a disambiguating afterthought is the opposite of what the naming convention's goals were and are.
  • Regarding the NPOV charges. Being that I have never been a member of the 3rd U.S. Infantry--or even a member of the United States Armed Forces at that--I can only state that I possess no personal bias toward one name over another with regard to my personal history. The only bias I claim is that towards accuracy and the aim to see this article named properly. --ScreaminEagle 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryecatcher773[edit]

Insofar as the NPOV dispute is concerned, the claim is bogus. The opposite of neutral is biased, yes? There is absolutely nothing in the name 3rd US Infantry that can be construed as being biased. Where is the so-called bias? Is Wikipedia not inclined towards accuracy? Is the intention of accuracy a bias? A breach of WP:NPOV would be reflected in a biased viewpoint expressed in the article, using heated language, rhetorical strategies to persuade, antagonizing statements, etc. As none of this is the case here, neutrality has nothing to do with the argument. The name of the article, as it stands, has no tone or bias whatsoever.

Regarding the matter of the unit's official name, at what point is the line drawn? Since my own primary source information -- which I have provided as a former Old Guard Soldier -- has been categorically discarded, I would then point to the most immediately available source one might view as evidence without even having to leave the comfort of ones computer keyboard: the official 3rd US INF (TOG) website. It would seem that the name is quite clearly stated in numerous areas what in fact the name of the unit is, should suffice. Why question it? Its a self evident source! Regardless of any other available source, and completely disregarding what the Wikipedia Guideline for categorizing may be, the name of the unit, as it is commonly known by members of said unit, the unit's chain of command, as well the rest of the MDW and the US Army Command groups for that matter, is The 3rd US Infantry (The Old Guard). Everything from the unit's official letterhead, to the signs in front of every building occupied by the regiment at Ft. Myer and Ft. McNair, bears the name.

If we are going to discount the unit's own proclamation of title, then why should any source be acceptable in such cases? Consider this: is the article named Sting reflecting inaccuracy because the man's legal name is Gordon Sumner? Perhaps someone should haul that article in for a mediation hearing as well. Ryecatcher773 06:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill[edit]

  • The official name of the unit appears to be the "Third (or 3d or 3rd) United States Infantry Regiment", at least as far as the unit itself knows. There are obviously a variety of alternative forms used in various documents—parts of the name can be easily understood from context, and are thus often omitted—but I have seen little evidence to suggest that the regiment itself is unaware of its proper name.
  • Given the above, the name of the article should be 3rd United States Infantry Regiment, as specified by WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. The intent of that particular guideline was to allow military units the same degree of self-identification that other groups and organizations (e.g. political parties, companies, etc.) enjoy. There would need to be a very convincing reason, in my view, for us to ignore what a unit self-identifies as; an alternate name being overwhelmingly more common would be one, but mere desire for a more "consistent" name structure is not. Kirill 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotfeba[edit]

  • (a) The official name of the unit is Third United States Infantry Regiment, where the first word is an ordinal number that is alternatively rendered as 3rd or 3d, the second and third words often abbreviated as US, and the final word Regiment is left un-written in providing unit status reports to higher levels of command when there is no ambiguity in leaving off the word for the unit's level of organization, but Regiment is required in non-military publications and websites, such as the Wikipedia, and especially in its first appearence such as in the title of an article. The most current on-line usage of the full official name is on the regimental homepage, where the unit is styled as 3d United States Infantry Regiment, and among the sources describing the offical naming of constituted and activated military units found at www.army.mil are: Army Regulation (AR) 220-1 UNIT STATUS REPORTING, AR 220-5 DESIGNATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND CHANGE IN STATUS OF UNITS, AR 600-82 THE U.S. ARMY REGIMENTAL SYSTEM, and Army of the United States (1896) which includes a regimental history penned by a regimental officer who appended 3d U.S. Infantry to the author's name. Under AR 600-82, individuals assigned to the regiment are indoctrinated in the traditions and history of the unit, including the form of its full official name for use in public ceremonies as part of duties with the presidential escort battalion, 1st Battalion of the 3d United States Infantry Regiment in the Military District of Washington. The official name (typically without Regiment) is used on US Army orders, certificates, and awards, and the full official name is always used by the US Army in formal communications and official publications directed to non-military members of the public.
  • (b) The title of the article should be Third United States Infantry Regiment in accordance to the WikiProject Military History style guide; I have no objection to using 3rd or 3d for the first word in the title. The MILHIST project style guide recommends an optional disambiguator following in parenthesis, but it is not required in this case where the name of the country is already embedded in the name of the regiment. The MILHIST project style guide appears to comply with the ordinary accepted Wikipedia use of verified sources in its recommendation of official unit names for titles of articles; the naming of regiments also follows this style in the article United States Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotfeba (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1: The official name of the unit[edit]

I'm going to start off with this issue – the official name of the unit. I observe that a couple people have supported their positions on the official name of the unit using U.S. military sites and come up with slightly different names (e.g. 3d Infantry or 3d United States Infantry Regiment). Perhaps there's the possibility that the unit may be known by multiple (albeit very similar) names. But regardless, what bearing does the official name have on the article? I see the name of the article has been placed as part of a separate issue. Is the official name of the unit important only for deciding the name of the article? -- tariqabjotu 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there's no substantial dispute over the content of the article itself. The matter of which variant is the "official name" has come up only because the relevant naming convention gives preference to using a unit's official name as the title of the associated article. Kirill 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no dispute as to content in the article at all. That is why this mediation request seems a bit OTT. The issue had already been addressed about a year ago, and upon reviewing the evidence and the arguments, Kirill, the main Admin for WP Military History had concurred that the name 3rd US Infantry was not only acceptable, but that his view was that it should be unabbreviated (i.e. 3rd United States Infantry Regiment); which, briefly, it was. Then this debate began all over again when someone wlse came along and decided that it was wrong.
The issue here is that the unit's name, as I have gone to lengths to make clear, is not a simple matter of Wikipedia organizational protocol. The unit may be referred to by others (wrongly, or incompletely -- take your pick) as the 3rd Infantry Regt., but I assure you that in this case the unit's official website should is the accurate one. It's the oldest active infantry regiment in the US Army, and follows a different naming convention based on a tradition that pre-dates the modern conventional era. Ryecatcher773 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the previous two comments by Kirill and Ryecatcher772 regarding the full official name. Other variations appear in various official US Armed Forces military sources as shortened forms within tables or lists of military units, espeically lists of regiments at that level of organization, but initial references to the unit on its own in offical sources give the ordinal number of the unit, then the national affiliation and type, then the level of organization. This has been consistent in the United States Army since at least 1894-1896, long after the unit was originally constituted by an earlier Act of Congress, with subsequent reorganizations before 1894.
The issue of the full official name is significant even if OTT, as a number of other names cited above by the caller for mediation do not refer to the regiment as a whole but to at least one individual battalion within the regiment (elements of three battalions of the regiment are officially shown by the US Army as active), or to a staff work-product document referred to as a Brigade Combat Team Mission Statement which is identified as referencing the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment by name. If the name is not significant to the article editors, then the question devolves to the significance of the article to Wikipedia users who happen to be veterans of the unit, to have served in its chain of command, or to have had a loved one buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Hotfeba 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, there is no dispute over the article's content. The entire issue is based on the "Wikipedia article title" versus the "official name" of the unit. The 3rd Infantry has not been given a unique name/designator. An example of a unique name is the Americal Division formerly 23rd Infantry Division which is an exception. The significance of the article for users who are veterans of the unit is WP:POV and has no grounds for this arguement. -TabooTikiGod 07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the NPOV is not an issue here -- this is not a neutrality dispute. What you are saying is inaccurate, and it is hardly just a matter of being significance to those users who are veterans of the unit. You are pushing an issue based on what you are convinced is right, staking your claims on sources that are subordinate to the MDW Command. Essentially -- that is, if you want to keep making this a POV issue -- you are presenting your own POV, so would you care to explain how that make you any less biased than what you are accusing any of us of being?
I have an idea: it appears that the mediator resides in Silver Springs, which is in close proximity to Ft. Myer, Virginia. Perhaps Tariqabjotu could take a quick spin by post and see what the signs say outside every official Old Guard building, or even call 3rd US INF HQ @ 703-696-3354 and ask. COL Buche was my company CO back when I was there. He's a congenial man, and I'm sure either he or his XO would be happy to give us the answer. Ryecatcher773 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, there is an official special designation for the regiment: Old Guard, a nickname that was approved by the Chief of Military History of the US Army; the cmh directory of the above source was one place where the caller of mediation pointed other editors to for research into the unit name. The official special designation, Old Guard, is used in the US Army (oldguard is the directory name under www.army.mil where the regiment's official homepage may be found) and to my recollection does not appear to be directly involved in the current dispute concerning either the official name of the unit or the title of the article, but its mention goes to the issue of accuracy in citation for this mediated discussion. As for the caller of this mediation, he has made both his disregard of the mediator's limits on this discussion and his disrespect for those veterans as primary sources quite evident at this point, and I have little hope of seeing an agreeable compromise arise from this discussion. The question of significance to veterans and other persons who have been a part of the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment's rendered funeral honors, arrival and departure salutes of foreign dignitaries, and other ceremonies of national and international importance, appears to go directly to the utility of the Wikipedia for all Internet users who expect to find reliable, credible, and accurate information. Hotfeba 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am not going to go to Ft. Myer, Virginia, for a variety of reasons. I cannot believe you even suggested that.
Second, I'm struggling to see the dispute over the official name of the regiment. As I said in my comment at the beginning of this section, it seems like military sites, based on the links provided in the opening statements, have been using variations of the same name to refer to this regiment. What do the naming guidelines (presumably from the Military WikiProject) suggest for the article title when the official name is difficult to discern? Essentially, Krill notes "the relevant naming convention gives preference to using a unit's official name", but what's the second preference? -- tariqabjotu 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The full text of the guideline is:

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.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like the "most common" clause is helpful here, considering the small number of sources and the minute differences between the various versions. (Plus, it's clear that the unit does have some official name, as it's currently operational; if we move away from that for less-than-serious reasons, we'll run into other problems.) Kirill 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a considerable number of sources of which, all I provided are straight from the official website of the unit. Furthermore, the entire basis of this mediation is for an outside party to divulge the "'...the official name used b the armed forces to which the unit belongs." The fact that the unit is operational is irrelavent to finding out what the official name of the unit is, this organization could be a non-deployable unit versus a line unit and still have the exact situation. -TabooTikiGod 16:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why you're having a problem seeing the dispute is because there is really only one party disputing the name. I didn't think it was that unreasonable to pass by Ft. Myer by the way... or at least phone over there. If nothing else, it certainly, for the sake of this argument, would provide a pretty quick resolution to the name. I'm all about going to the source for answers. ;-D
You know, if it's simply a matter of fitting the naming convention, just title the article 3rd US Infantry (TOG) (United States). Sure, it'd look silly to list the US part twice, but at least then it follows the convention and is gives the accurate name. Ryecatcher773 21:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing from this, as there is nothing important going on here that is taking this close to an acceptable, workable compromise with any degree of academic integrity. It remains to be seen if the Wikipedia will ever achieve any credible status as citable source for any serious academic work. Until that time comes, I will have to advise students and instructors in my state to avoid using these articles for citations in any academic work that leads to credit for degrees or diplomas, to the extent that such tax-funded academic work in degree/diploma-granting programs cannot be sanctioned by law. Hotfeba 23:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear, to me, what sort of compromise is still needed; unless I'm mistaken, everyone except TabooTikiGod seems to agree that some variation of the current 3rd US Infantry is the correct title. I'd still suggest moving it back to the full 3rd United States Infantry Regiment, but, other than that, I don't think there's much to be done here. Kirill 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably over-stepping my bounds a bit here, but your characterization of Wikipedia, Hotfeba, is excessively pessimistic and has no basis in this mediation. This mediation is a rather light dispute, with minor differences in the proper name of this particular military unit being at the heart of the issue. I fail to see how this matter has anything to do with Wikipedia's academic integrity or credibility or why the end result of it would lead to you proclaiming what you proclaimed in your last sentence. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Kirill's comment, I agree. I would have moved it back to that in the first place, but it wouldn't let me. That's why I listed it as the shorter version. Ryecatcher773 16:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused as to why this mediation request has been ongoing for all these weeks, especially when it was considered only a minor issue by the mediator. What other information was the committee waiting for for so long that wasn't already presented by all parties involved? It seems as if perhaps these things are just played out until a party drops out or we reach a consensus on our own, in which case, what was the point of mediation? This process has been terribly disappointing, if nothing else. --ScreaminEagle 20:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be pessimistic, but it is grounded in the laws of California, specifically California Education Code section 33322 which authorizes new funding of degree/diploma-granting programs provided all of the mentioned criteria are met. Wikipedia does not satisfy the lawful criteria in that it fails to verify credentials of editors to provide evidence that subject matter experts collaborated on the creation or editing of articles, fails to effectively prevent vandalism of its on-line text that is available for citation, and is generally unable and unwilling to certify to the State of California that the material contained in Wikipedia articles is in a stable form for any period of time that would permit adequate citation of those articles in academic work submitted for credit leading to degrees or diplomas granted by California institutions of public education. Wikipedia may be the Cliffnotes of the Internet, and to the extent that our articles have provided credible sources and in-line citations, Wikipedia is a starting point for academic research that reaches those credible sources, but Wikipedia itself is not citable as an independent source anywhere in California from kindergarten to the University of California system, unless some educator or administrator wishes to place her or his application for public program funding at risk of being denied through the use of substandard academic materials. This mediation process merely highlights those deficiencies, such that a single editor with an agenda may hijack the name of an active military unit for that editor's own purposes, against the informed opinions of primary sources, to the degree that such hijacking has successfully constituted grounds for that editor to raise issues subject to mediation/dispute resolution. While it may be beyond the mediator's scope or charge to reach that conclusion, I am perfectly capable of seeing the difference between (1) the California Education Code that governs taxpayer-funded public schools, colleges, and universities in that state and (2) the Foundation-supported policies relating to Wikipedia editing as they have emerged in this mediation as unaccountable to those taxpayers; I merely observe that any credentialed teacher, instructor, or professor would be able to see the same. If a reasonable interpretation of uncontested public law has no purpose or basis in this mediation, then all the more reason for my withdrawal while concurring with the most recent comments by Kirill. Hotfeba 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation closed[edit]

For those who haven't noticed, I closed this mediation over a day ago because of the fact that one of the parties withdraw from the mediation. -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and we thank you for that timely information. Hotfeba 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/3rd_US_Infantry&oldid=1065863280"