Jump to content

Talk:193rd Infantry Brigade (United States)

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

JUST CAUSE

[edit]

I made a major re-write of the paragraphs dealing with Operation JUST CAUSE based on original 193d Brigade documents. 67.182.70.230 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not much of what was added could be used because it is either unsourced, very POV and/or filled with personal opinion. Also, the detail is too great for a Wikipedia article about the brigade. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! Serious, dude? It's pretty clear the guy was virtually quoting that stuff from the two sources he added. How can you say it was unsourced? Yeah, foot-noting could have been improved, but a knee-jerk deleting of all that info? Why not ask to see if he could clean up the foot notes before getting chop happy? Heck, the original version was REALLY badly sourced, had NO footnotes and was full of mistakes - but no one chopped all that out! What's with the double standard?
And what's with this 'too much detail line'? Look at the length of the Wiki article on the Battle of Mogadishu - which was a real close parallel to what 4-6 and JSOC did at the Commandancia. Let's see, bad intel; an operation planned on sunshine and roses goes badly wrong; 3 helos get shot down; a half battalion spends all night fighting in isolated 1-2 squad-sized packets surrounded by the enemy; it loses 7 APCs in the process (more than any US division's armored fighting vehicle losses in DESERT STORM!); even under those condtions, that battalion saves all of the JSOC guys butts ('cept one helo driver). AND, it got the Valorous Unit Citation. And you chop out ALL mention of the fight? Seriously? Not only that, you cut out ALL description of the Brigade's combat everywhere else, too! There was NOTHING in there worth retaining? Nothing that would have been worth rewriting to a better form? Take a look at the 173d Brigade's Wiki page and tell me you're using a uniform standard for 'too much detail'. C'mon, what's really going on here?
I gotta say, the POV problem I see is that you censored everything that could possibly look negative. I thought this was Wiki, not the DoD public affairs office. Yeah, there were some POV problems, but they should have been rewritten - not completely yanked. 98.150.3.155 (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, judging for all the mispellings, it's clear that it was highly edited (rather than just virtually quoted). Around here if things aren't properly sourced, especially when they are contentious, any editor has an obligation to remove them. And, we are talking about this article not others that I haven't seen and don't care to look at now. So, what's "going on here" is trying to keep the quality of this Wikipedia article as high as possible, clear of something resembling the blog of an anonymous yahoo that is apparently very pissed off at "the man" at DoD. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, I was pretty closely paraphrasing from the duty logs and the AAR - I wouldn't read too much into my poor late-night typing skills and bleary-eyed proofreading! Apologize for not including sufficient footnotes; I was incrementally working on this between other task and hadn't gotten all the p's & q's taken care of. I'll include the other unit AARs and oral history interviews as I get to them. Looking back at what I wrote, I'm afraid that following the ARR so closely did result in it looking . . . well, like it was an extract from the combat summary section, which it pretty much was. Will rewrite & reduce the sections dealing with the combat phases. There was no intent to 'stick it' to any man, DoD or otherwise. Every operation has mistakes and failures, many that are not significant, and some that are. The intel and planning failures leading up to the Commandancia raid were real, as were the consequences, and I'll document them as I write that section. If someone differs with those views, I'm sure they can be address in a 'controversy' type paragraph. Same with the decision not to fold TF Semper Fi and TF Bayonet under the 82d (TF Pacific) as specified in the OPLAN. Given the fratracide problems in DESERT STORM and more recent operations, I don't think it is unreasonable to at least mention them here. Same with the failure to plan for post-combat phases, a problem that has since surfaced a couple times more. Some of the POV problems may be rectified as I include their sources: if the Brigade says unit X did a magnificent job, it sounds like boasting; when LTG Stiner (COMJSOTF) says it, it sounds more like a sober, professional assessment. Will work to reach middle ground. Thanks. 67.182.70.230 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have at it. I'm sure we can find our way to ease up a bit while you complete your edits; I know I am happy to do so with your assurances that you are working to improve the article. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I served in the 193rd in 1967 1968 in Panama, I wish to locate the badge to put on a US Army cap. Can anyone tell me where I can get one.Paul Horrex papapaulh@yahoo.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.78.145 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:193rd_Infantry_Brigade_(United_States)&oldid=1195972312"