Jump to content

Talk:1st Infantry Division (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee1st Infantry Division (United States) was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed


Untitled

[edit]

Under the Vietnam War summary, it might be more readable to rewrite it, including a listing of the various operations (which avoid linking to the Rolling Stones). That listing would provide useful additions to the Vietnam War category of lists of operations.--Buckboard 10:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While the 1st Brigade page does need some work to fill in gaps between WWII & ODS, neither brigade's page should be merged with this one. This page is already getting long as it is. Marktaff 06:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for you lovers of Big Red One they are starting a new brigade in Ft Hood part of the 3rd brigade. it will be up and running by april 07 and deployable april 08

1st and 2nd Infantry Brigades

[edit]

Both brigades have a history that preceeds that of the 1st Infantry Division. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 05:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have "Big red one" redirect here?

OOB for Omaha

[edit]

It seems to me that the attached supporting units, like the two tank batalions, should be added given the role they played in the divisional plan --Mrg3105 11:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Units?

[edit]

With the modularization of the Army, the current structures and unit affiliations are no longer correct. For instance, 1st Sqdn, 4th Cavalry, now belongs to a Brigade at Ft. Riley, it is not a Separate. I can correct some of the incorrect information, but most of it will be difficult, since even published Army campaign plans for modularization are not going into effect as they had been planned. I guess that is the beauty of transforming and fighting a war simultaneously.—Andrew 17:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto section

[edit]

Why is there a separate section for the motto in the article when the exact same information is already conveyed in the unit infobox? Quite repetative, wouldn't you agree? --ScreaminEagle 17:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did that due to a suggestion on the a-class review (failed) --Pupster21 Talk To Me 22:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Still seems awfully silly to me. If there were some history put in there about the motto or some other information besides just the motto itself, I could certainly understand its inclusion. But as an exact copy of something almost next to it, definitely superfluous. --ScreaminEagle 23:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History??? --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Just kidding. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. That has a point. I still say keep it. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Article contains many red links and should be in a written format instead of trivial lists.
2. Factually accurate?: Artilce only cites one source, the rest of the article needs references.
3. Broad in coverage?: Article discusses many key points in its coverage.
4. Neutral point of view?: No WP:NPOV problems.
5. Article stability? Article has been stable.
6. Images?: Article contains images.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — JA10 T · C 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006 invasion of Iraq

[edit]

Are you kidding? The invasion occurred in 2003, there was no new invasion in 2006, it's occupation, if anything. C'mon, let's get truly NPOV.--Vidkun 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

As with all other US-Army Divisions I've created a graphic of the structure based on the information I could find. The graphic is half complete as I could not find any information as to which units are now part of the made to complete the graphic. --noclador 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

click to enlarge
The follwoing comment was left on my commons talkpage:
4th Brigade is a Light Infantry Brigade. 2-26 and 1-28 are light infantry battalions, similar to units from the 10th Mountain. 24.214.28.179 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that is not correct, with the new reorganization of the US-Army the 1st Inf. Div will consist of 4 Armored Brigades without any light infantry units. --noclador 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Negative, I am a member of 1-4 CAV. 4 IBCT is a light infantry BDE. Additionally 3 IBCT at Ft Hood is light. 2-26, and 1-28 are light infantry battalions. (No bradleys.

The army is going to having three different types of brigades, Heavy (HBCT), Stryker (SBCT), and Infantry (Light)(IBCT). If you look at the units on the Riley web page, its clearly marked 4 IBCT. http://www.riley.army.mil/ . I wouldn't worry about division nomenclature so much, the army has switched to a brigade-centric deployment and capability system, rather than a divisional one. Hal06 (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N, CAB 1ID doesnot have a 4-1 Aviation Battalion, it is called 1-6th Cavalry Squadron. http://www.riley.army.mil/Units/CAB/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike6 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Brigade Support Battalion" is not the correct name. The correct term is "Forward Support Battalion." I was with the 299th FSB for two years, and that's what it's always been called. LukeFF (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation PowerPoint Slides

[edit]

http://www.2bct.1id.army.mil/Primary%20Sites/headlines/New%20Unit%20Designations.ppt This presentation outlines the changes in unit designations for the 2 "Dagger" Brigade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmoose (talk • contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time-travelling Division?

[edit]

In Vietnam narrative there's an interlink to the Battle of An Lộc. Narrative states battle occurred during the first half of 1969 and then claims 1st I.D. left Vietnam in 1970, but article about the Battle of An Lộc says the battle was fought in 1972.

Was there another battle named An Lộc fought in 1969 or what? --Ukas (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1st Parachute Division

[edit]

I have read several times that in WWI that had Plan 1919 been carried out that the US 1st Infantry Division was going to be turned in the US 1st Parachute Division and dropped on the city of Metz to capture the bridges when the Allied forces approached the city.Graham1973 (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2011 (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) 03:56, 10 June 2011 (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) 03:57, 10 June 2011 (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) 03:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commercialism

[edit]

What is the Wikipedia policy regarding external links whose only purpose seemingly is to draw business to a commercial website, in this case www.combatreels.com? I've no doubt that the DVDs are interesting to many people, but there is no information on that site that isn't carried in the Wikipedia article itself. Seems kind of inappropriate to me. Is it?--172.190.116.12 (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If they were actually footage of the division, they might be permissible, but it seems the links are only there to sell merchandise. Wikipedia is not here for that. I've removed them. —Ed!(talk) 20:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The reference link for the Big Red One patch is now out of date. It should be http://www.1stid.org/patch.php. If there are any other questions about the Society's website I can help, as I am the webmaster. Jpflyers929 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've fixed it. —Ed!(talk) 20:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SSI

[edit]

How can the second possibilty of the origin be a gray piece of cloth when the patch has always been on green? There was an Army prior to the disaster called the ACU. Never saw a gray 1st ID patch prior to that ever, and I collected shoulder sleave insignia for 30 years. Should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radar2102 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 1st Infantry Division (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1st Infantry Division (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1st Infantry Division (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 1st Infantry Division (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1st Infantry Division (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st ID SSI

[edit]

Why is the 1st ID SSI listed as being obsolete (ceased being used in 2015) and replaced by the golden bordered CSIB, when the current website for the 1stID [1], still uses it? Was there an official change sometime in 2015 that I didn't realize? SamSennett (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Organic

[edit]

The article says "The original table of organization and equipment (TO&E) included two organic infantry brigades of two infantry regiments each, one engineer battalion; [...]".

The link to "organic" says that organic units are permanent sub-units of a larger unit, and are generally specialized. Well, these are infantry brigades; those are about as unspecialized as they come. And note that the adjective "organic" is attached to the infantry brigades, not to the specialized battallions listed after. So it looks like we mean simply "permanent".

"Organic" appears to be a term of art, otherwise it wouldn't need a wikilink. So can we just replace it with "permanent", since that's evidently what we mean? That would make it easier for a layman to understand, without detracting in any way from the present meaning.

MrDemeanour (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of organic is apparently outdated. Organic has been used in the US military to describe units that are part of a larger unit's structure in a semi-permanent sense for some time (at least since before the Vietnam War). Permanent doesn't really work well, as those units can be shifted (or even disappear depending on the organization idea of the month). Intothatdarkness 19:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1st_Infantry_Division_(United_States)&oldid=1196341063"