Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Archive 2

message: I was looking on the December first page and for CAP's founding and I saw this "1941 - World War II: Mayor of New York City, Fiorello LaGuardia, and the director of the Office of Civilian Defense, sign an order creating the Civil Air Patrol" Pardon me if I am just ignorant, but the mayor of NYC wasn't involved in CAP was he?--Cadet hastings 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, he wrote Administrative Order 9, which created CAP, though I do not believe he was ever directly a member (just the person who authorized its creation).  He was both NYC Mayor and OCD Director at the same time, albeit this overlap was only for a very short period. That entry is poorly written, though, so I've changed it for grammar purposes.  -- Huntster T • @ • C 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, I wasn't sure if the mayor was a guy or a girl. Names like that confuse me. Cheers ;)--Cadet hastings 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you just read the Fiorello LaGuardia article?  Don't they teach US History in your school? Alright, it was a little over the top, but it wasn't that bad, geez!  --rogerd 19:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that an attack like that is necessary, and no, not every position throughout all of history is taught in school. I'm pretty sure we never covered the head of the Office of Civil Defense when I was in US History, I learned it from my time as a cadet in CAP. --OuroborosCobra 20:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, Wikipedia has rules against civility, so please choose your words a little more carefully in the future.  I know neither LaGuardia nor OCD was taught in my high school, nor in my history classes in college.  Cheers! -- Huntster T • @ • C 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And I haven't even takn US History yet O_O. Didn't think of reading the article or even looking it up. I was kind of in a hurry when I posted that. And thanks to those who defended me ;)--Cadet hastings 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[December 1]] 1941

message: It should be noted that the CAP shield has been changed, and now reads U. S. (where CAP is ), and Civil Air Patrol (where Air Force Auxiliary is). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.61.133.231 (talk • contribs) 13:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know where high-res copies of that new image may be? -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Found a low-res copy of the image in a PDF sent out by National Headquarters.  Uploaded and used temporarily until a high-res version can be found. Scetoaux 02:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that.  I may try to do some graphics work and convert the high-res older graphic to the new standard, though I don't know if my photoshop abilities can properly replicate it :) -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there any documents or official announcements stating that this is the new version?  I've seen nothing. -- Huntster T • @ • C 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAP Shield 

message: OK, I lied, I'm asking this question b/c it ISNT in the uniform regs. What buttons are supposed to be on a CAP service dress uniform? CAP buttons (have no ides what they look like), USAF buttons, or hap arnold buttons? Same for the tie tack/bar, are you supposed to have a CAP emblem, the USAF seal, or the hap arnold winged star device?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.76.156 (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CAPTalk might be the best place to go for this type of question. --OuroborosCobra 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful if you go to CAPTalk, though; they are not very tolerant of what they consider "stupid questions" and will likely tell you to "look it up in 39-1."  In my day in CAP, though, the choice of CAP or Air Force buttons, tie bars, etc., was fairly down to member choice.Dyscard (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform Regs 

message: I brought this up over at Talk:Cessna NGP, but I thought people here might also have information on this. At the Civil Air Patrol Northeast Region 2006 conference it was announced by Col. Richard Greenhut that CAP was going to be the launch customer to what he then called "Cessna's Cirrus killer", presumably this aircraft. Does anyone have any documentation or reliable source to support this? I was at the conference, and know that the announcement was made, but as we all know politics and such can change and this may no longer be the case. I'd like to get independent confirmation before adding it to the article. Any help would be appreciated. --OuroborosCobra 08:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cessna NGP 

message: Pineda was clearly removed from office, stripped of his rank and his membership was indeed terminated by the Civil Air Patrol Board of Governors on 2 October 2007.
When these facts (no reference because they are clearly visible facts that everyone can see with their own eyes) are posted to the main page, somebody rips them back off again. Personal attack edited out by -Jéské (Blah v^_^v)
Now my ip shows that these additional people are threatening with harsh wikaliation (retaliation)? What gives? I fully understand the "source" material, but if you see a rat that had been run over on the side of the road, it is still dead. No matter how many of your fiends and neighbors you call over, all must agree, the flat rat is indeed dead. Personal attack edited out by -Jéské (Blah v^_^v)
The fact is that Pineda was a corrupt "leader" in the Civil Air Patrol, he got caught and he got busted. He was stripped of his rank and he had his membership terminated... is there really anyone out there in the real world who can deny this?
I thought not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.190.9 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no fan of the man and am very happy that he is gone...I think Courter will be a refreshing change from the past several Commanders.  We also aren't "denying" that he was stripped of rank and terminated.  But one of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that material presented in articles must be backed up with verifiable and reliable sources.  News articles, academic journals, reliable press releases, etc; but not blogs, forums, personal websites, and similar.  The whole point of this needless exercise is that you need to provide such a source...it isn't acceptable for those statements to simply be taken as fact.  The page Wikipedia:Verifiability is an official policy, and read its first sentence: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."  Many people bitterly dislike this idea, but that is what we have to work with. -- Huntster T • @ • C 02:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal attacks removed from above. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corruption and Abuse of Power 

message: No mention is made anywhere in this article about CAP aircraft routinely flying nightime "intruder" missions into restricted airspace over Washington DC and other major cities every few weeks, for the purpose of letting the Air Force practice tracking and intercepting them.  The CAP planes on these missions are tracked with ground-to-air missiles, and intercepted by Coast Guard helos or US Air Force F-16 fighters.  These CAP missions were originally classified by the Air Force when they first began after 9/11 but they were later declassified and the Washington Post ran a feature article earlier this year.  This is arguably one of the most interesting, dangerous,  and important missions currently performed by CAP, directly contributing to US Air Force combat readiness with respect to defense of Washington DC.  Since the page is blocked for edits, would one of the editors please add the relevent info?
 
Here is the link to the Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601755.html  
CNN Primetime video feature on same thing:
http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/files/CAP.CNN.web.mov
68.98.151.209 03:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not anymore; I almost forgot that I had to unprotect it if no talking was forthcoming.  Add it in. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Falcon Virgo Exercises , CAP  involvement 

message: The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM.  —Dekimasuよ! 00:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "United States Air Force Auxiliary" is a title of the organisation, not part of its actual name.  Even the CAP website does not use this.  Further, Wikipedia naming policy asks that common names be used over formal names, if that common name is more widely recognised.  In this case, Civil Air Patrol is the more common.  In other words, this is a controversial move. -- Huntster T • @ • C 05:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US Air Force doesn't seem to call CAP "United States Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol" either, nowhere is it stated on their page . --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: * There are many civilian air patrols in the world. United States Air Force Auxiliary Civil Air Patrol is a more specific name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested move request