Talk:9th Reconnaissance Wing

message: :Oppose, These are two "separate and distinct entities", the extant 9th Operations Group is an active organization and the direct continuation of the 9th Bomb Group. The 9th RW is not, although it has been authorized to display "bestowed honors" of its subordinate component. The two are no more the same thing than any regiment is the same thing as the division it was part of, and that is specifically stated in Air Force policy on lineage from 1954 through the present. Secondly, both articles are too large to be merged as is. No offense to whoever did the work, but the "history" section of the wing article appears to be a regurgitation of several air force sources. Third, the 9 RW article duplicates information that belongs only in the 9 BG article. Per the current AFHRA pages (the link in 9 RW article is out of date) 9RW and 9 OG the 9 OG's data is no longer part of 9 RW history or lineage.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, The Air Force has a grey area between a group and a wing histories. They are usually the same and these are the same units. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely wrong. The Air Force has only five active flying wings (out of 58) that have consolidated group histories & lineage with their wings: 15th AW, 16th SOW, 80th FTW, 100th ARW, and 355th Wing. Note that 9RW is not one of them.  Any "gray area" is thoroughly covered by policy, and that policy is for units without overlapping history. For those of you interested in intellectual honesty and not arbitrary and unilateral actions, the relevant and current policy is:The ad hoc committee that reviewed these requests rejected the idea of redesignating combat groups as wings. Instead, the committee recommended that combat groups and wings be maintained as separate and distinct organizations, and that the histories and honors of combat groups be bestowed upon the similarly designated combat wings. Although the ad hoc committee's proposed bestowals ran counter to a longstanding policy of the Air Force against transferring history and honors from one organization to another, Headquarters USAF accepted the recommendations. Beginning in November 1954 the Department of the Air Force in a series of letters bestowed upon each combat wing the history and honors of its similarly designated predecessor combat group; for example, 9th Bombardment Wing received by bestowal the history and honors of the 9th Bombardment Group.In the years since its implementation, bestowal has generated much confusion. Many throughout the Air Force did not understand that the group and the wing remained two separate and distinct entities. To alleviate some of the confusion, the Air Force in the 1980s consolidated some combat wings with their predecessor combat groups.(57 to be exact, most then inactive and none ever having had a like-numbered group since its establishment. Four were the 15, 80, 100, and 355.) These consolidations were limited to wings and groups whose period of active service did not overlap, since consolidation of organizations with overlapping active service adds confusion, violates lineage principles, and contravenes Air Force policy. By consolidation, the wing and group became one organization, eliminating the need for bestowal of group history and honors on the wing. Bestowal, however, continued to be the policy for the majority of active Air Force wings. And: Lineage. Air Force Instruction 84-105, para 2.1.1, states, "The lineages of permanent organizations are continuous. Neither inactivation nor disbandment terminates their lineage or heraldry." Lineage entails tracing the organizational actions affecting the history of an organization. The official USAF statement of lineage forms the foundation of the organization's history and governs the organization's inheritance of emblem and honors. A basic policy of the Air Force is that each organization will have a unique lineage. This policy was in effect in the War Department when military aviation was under the Army and has been continued by the United States Air Force since its inception in 1947. No two organizations can have the same lineage, although at different times in their existence they may have possessed similar or even identical designations. A description of the lineage system may be found in Air Force Instruction 38-101 "Air Force Organization." The Air Force is composed of primary organizations called units and establishments. Units divide among three primary categories: squadrons (the numbered flight is considered a "small" squadron), miscellaneous (a category including such organizations as bands, infirmaries, hospitals, etc.), and headquarters. The headquarters organizations serve as headquarters for establishments. Establishments are Air Force organizations at group echelon or higher, having a headquarters organization as their primary component.  Do what you will with your arbitrariness, young man, but you were dead wrong, and all the moreso because you know absolutely nothing whereof you speak.--Reedmalloy (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your rational. Although I like making pages and usually argue against most deletions, I think that not merging some pages would invite other editors to propose a merger and confuse readers who would wonder if A is related to B and why A and B are not on the same page. There seems to be a thing among the pages here to keep these pages as simple as possible. I also think that this separation would be a giant pain on ANG pages, as they really do a bad job at keeping their own histories. One reason that I supported the merge was that the group stated that it was around when it wasn't. Personally, I think that the article flows better now as the merger removed repetitive information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 9th Reconnaissance Wing. 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/20141006160215/http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123426574&source=GovD to http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123426574&source=GovD
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150927115638/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19398 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19398
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130222091109/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9643 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9643
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified