Talk:4th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Military history: North America / United States / Early Modern / Napoleonic era / American Civil War / World War I / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War C‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)
	American Civil War task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

Montana Low‑importance

	Montana portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Montana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontanaWikipedia:WikiProject MontanaTemplate:WikiProject MontanaMontana articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The material in the article segment you object to is from the US Army Center of Military History, anhd thus is not subject to Copyright since it is in the Public Domain.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all of the offensive information, and replaced it with the official history.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

operation enduring freedom needs to be added to the wars/battles of the info box —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.51.70 (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANOTHER CLEANUP AND SET OF CORRECTIONS

I cleaned up the article again, and made several corrections, including the connections between the various 4th Infantry Regiments, and the 30th Infantry Regiment.Also, removed the error about the troops who went to the Philippines via Suez. They were NOT the first US Troops to deploy via the Atlantic. The US Marine Corps has that honor since they sent troops to North Africa to put down the Barbary Pirates in the early days of the Republic. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk)

SSG, Wouldn't it make sense if the text simply reflected that they were the first Soldiers (as in the proper noun, a Servicemember in the Army, exclusive of what are seen as traditionally Navy/Marine Corps or what are now Air Force roles), to do so? It would be more respectful to the Marine Corps that way, the Barbary Pirate Wars are where they get a major set of their traditions from (as does the Navy), and the Marines are nuts about their traditions. But they fight and bleed with us, so thats good enough for me.

Also, I really think the infobox needs to reflect the OPFOR role, the article does, but the infobox doesn't. I'd imagine that you have probably have considered it Sarnt, because you seem to know a bit about the way the Army does things. Just in case, and for anyone else who cares, if you never served in an OPFOR unit, you probably won't get the breadth of what these units do, because its different. And with the advent of the AWG and tight integration into the Center for Army Lessons Learned as well as some Intelligence programs and such, you have to be a hell of a trainer and extremely flexible, or "agile" as TRADOC would have put it when I was in to be any good. And you have to be better than the units training against you on your turf.

You also have to keep up on both ends of your job, aside from whatever you're doing OPFOR wise in any unit that carries out OPFOR tasks, as this article makes very clear (and that 11ACR's page should, but does not express clearly enough in my opinion) and if they're anything like the Blackhorse Regiment, they're experts in the role of training as well as in their own jobs.

V/R 184.90.127.191 (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distinctive Trimmings

The article states, "On 19 February 1925 the unit was permitted to wear the red-green-red distinctive unit insignia." The Distinctive Insignia as a "Trimming" was approved in 1925, while the DUI was approved in 1987. When DUIs were first being designed and authorized units also had the option of using distinctive trimmings in lieue of a DUI, which the 4th Infantry did. They used a ribbon loop of the same color scheme as the DUI, worn over the epaulet of the service coats. This of course meant that the trimming could not be worn as an RDI, nor could it be worn on the garrison cap, black pullover sweater, or mess uniform lapels. That is likely why the regiment requested authorization for a DUI. I believe it would be good to add this in to the article because the use of distinctive trimmings was relatively rare outside of a handful of units like the 3d Infantry Regiment.

For the DUI in 1987, check the US Army's Institute of Heraldry, http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Heraldry/ArmyDUISSICOA/ArmyHeraldryUnit.aspx?u=3619. There is an Adjutant General document numbered "AG 421.7 4th Infantry", dated February 19, 1925, lists the approval for the distinctive insignia as a trimming. Currently the only source for this document I have found is from a private citizen's website, so if I find a better source I will post it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintrix (talk • contribs) 09:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 4th Infantry Regiment (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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theoldarmy.com/Sykes_ORs/sykes_ORPW002.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714194344/http://ironwarriorsix.web.officelive.com/default.aspx to http://ironwarriorsix.web.officelive.com/default.aspx

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

Y 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. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 4th Infantry Regiment (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609010022/http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/spdes-123-ra_ar.html to http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/spdes-123-ra_ar.html

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) 01:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 4th Infantry Regiment (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) 18:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1st Battalion Lineage

Why does the lineage of 1st Battalion end in 1815????

https://history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0004in001bn.htm

That battalion was cited in a news story from 2018!

https://www.army.mil/article/211842/modernizing_the_armys_opfor_program_to_become_a_near_peer_sparring_partner — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStiv (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor CE request

I see some British English formatting (mostly dates) but I don't trust myself to reliably CE that out. Can someone take a look at it? I believe American English would suit better as this is an article that centres on part of the United States military. Sennecaster (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]