Talk:3rd Reconnaissance Battalion (United States)

message: I would like to purpose the addition of  This as a Section into 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion worked into This Section, or (I really don't think it belongs here) United States Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions or even Khe Sanh  page, (since they were on patrol at the time as look outs for this base). I'm sure some, if not many editors will remember the discussion of "Flight Time" as it's own page and was found not notable enough on it's own, it is not intended as a memorial, that can be found Here. The significances are there were many men and teams lost, but the fact remains this was the "Last" full 3rd Recon team to be lost during the Vietnam war, on June 4, 1969 and the official end of the (Police Action/ War) wasn't until April 30, 1975 (six years without this occurrence). If the "First" full team could be identified it to should have it's own section. The (See also, References and External links) sections would of course be added to the corresponding existing sections of the page, and of course checked for possible duplications.
==== Discussion ====
You need to do more paraphrasing. Right now it looks like a WP:COPYVIO. Do you expect objection in general? If so, would you give me a little context? Maurreen (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Maurreen, in no way am I asking about quality as it stands, I'm not looking for Good Article input. What I am asking / looking for is a consensus that this bit of information is inportant enough to be "safely" worked into an article, I just don't want to add it to 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion#Vietnam War or somewhere in Khe Sanh and then a few day later have someone delete it claiming relevance or notability. As to your "Do you expect objection in general?" I do because of (just of the top of my head) these few archived sections starting Here. and as to you question "WP:COPYVIO. Yes the "Last Known Activity" is a printed statement from the military, just as This Is. I just Want to be able to work in this information in the main article without worry it's going to get cut in the near future, yes it still needs editing I'm not contesting that. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the information is concerned, it seems perfectly relevant to me. Maurreen (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like more publicity, you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force. Maurreen (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

text: After considering AustralianRupert and Kudpung comments (and I don't want to "paint" myself into a corner at this point), maybe something along the lines of the "On July 12, 1965" paragraph / section could be workable, and (it seems) at the same time would address both editor's concerns at this point. And I say this still knowing that the section is not a "finished product" there's a lot of editing still needed but I have to start somewhere. Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense as a model. Maurreen (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As to "Model" my point exactly, Thank you "Again" Maurreen Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: You need to do more paraphrasing. Right now it looks like a WP:COPYVIO. Do you expect objection in general? If so, would you give me a little context? Maurreen (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Maurreen, in no way am I asking about quality as it stands, I'm not looking for Good Article input. What I am asking / looking for is a consensus that this bit of information is inportant enough to be "safely" worked into an article, I just don't want to add it to 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion#Vietnam War or somewhere in Khe Sanh and then a few day later have someone delete it claiming relevance or notability. As to your "Do you expect objection in general?" I do because of (just of the top of my head) these few archived sections starting Here. and as to you question "WP:COPYVIO. Yes the "Last Known Activity" is a printed statement from the military, just as This Is. I just Want to be able to work in this information in the main article without worry it's going to get cut in the near future, yes it still needs editing I'm not contesting that. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the information is concerned, it seems perfectly relevant to me. Maurreen (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like more publicity, you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force. Maurreen (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Discussion''' 

message: :After considering AustralianRupert and Kudpung comments (and I don't want to "paint" myself into a corner at this point), maybe something along the lines of the "On July 12, 1965" paragraph / section could be workable, and (it seems) at the same time would address both editor's concerns at this point. And I say this still knowing that the section is not a "finished product" there's a lot of editing still needed but I have to start somewhere. Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense as a model. Maurreen (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As to "Model" my point exactly, Thank you "Again" Maurreen Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Considered amendment / format'''

message: I can see after placing flight time's paragraph in there's going to be a problem with the thumbnail. I Propose removing the thumbnail at the Medal of Honor section, If anybody wants to take the time and research it I am the editor that placed the thumb in the Medal of Honor section, my reasoning for removing (if needed) from there is I also placed the same at the recipients individual pages also, this way the Medal of Honor men keep their thumbnail at their respected pages and, Flight Time gets to keep theirs. Note: click on the thumb, the three red bricks above the Marble Medal of Honor stone and the three red bricks below are the six members of "Flight Time". Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Foreseen Thumbnail Issue'''

message: *Support (copied from  Mlpearc/Sandbox 3.1 by  Kudpung) I am still at a loss as to how this guys cant have there own article, yet there are over 7,000 porn stars listed...So yes anyway we can mention this horrible event i support....Moxy (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Support''' 

message: The Vietnam section includes:
 Four years later, a recon platoon took part in Operation Dawson River (West). On 1 January 1969, a recon platoon was inserted via four helicopters near the Laotian border west of Khe Sahn during the operation. The platoon reconnoitered landing zones for the infantry battalions of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade.  The clandestine reconnaissance allowed the rifle platoons to land safely without needing a prelanding artillery or aerial bombardment, giving the unannounced arrival an advantage from any lurking VC or North Vietnamese Army (NVA) forces.  
The significance is not clear. I'm not sure what sets this apart from anything similar. Maurreen (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal I do agree and dont see how its realy  worth a mention.... I see no wikilinking to any thing relevant in the statement and its not referenced aswell....Moxy (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal I went to the main page to see what this section was connected to, the intro "Four years later" at least to me implied it did and it might, but I don't see the connection. If someone can show the connection (to what I assume, the Reasoner incident) and show the relevance to it, Please make your statement known. As it stands I see it as a report of everyday operations at Khe Sanh.  Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Four years later" aspect is my doing. When I started on the section, several elements each began with "On (date) ..." My intention was to make better transitions and make context more clear. I didn't do as well with this part, because it has so little context. Maurreen (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, I think the subject seems to try to connect to something metioned before, but I still don't see the conection Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just delete the paragraph. Maurreen (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawson River 

message: The article intro gives two sentences about Company B, but doesn't mention any other units of the battalion. The organization section focuses on companies. This is confusing about the rest of the battalion. Maurreen (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I thought that might be the case, but I couldn't tell. Maurreen (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion