Talk:93rd Infantry Division (United States)

message: I'm dumping this here because it isn't wikified, and it seems to be just a copy/paste dump from the USCMH website, which could lead to copy vio issues.  If I'm wrong, put it back -- but Wikify it. --Jpbrenna 02:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dump

message: I just noticed it - and it's wrong.  Unfortunately, ninety years ago they didn't conform to Wikipedia numbering rules.  Listing this at "U.S. 93nd (can that really be the correct Wikipedia or British English abbreviation?) Infantry Division" is historically incorrect.  Just as we don't have  United States Army Air Forces at "United States Army Air Force" or Royal Welch Fusiliers at "Royal Welsh Fusiliers," so we shouldn't have this here.  It's historically incorrect, it was wrong to move it, and if you don't like that then tell it to the Marines.  --Joe 06:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I think you were trying to move it to "93rd?"--Joe 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I checked, "93d" is correct. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/topics/afam/93div.htm --Joe 06:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: "93rd Infantry Division" is historically correct.  The sources give it as "93d Infantry Division."  Also, this has been moved repeatedly without discussion and in such a manner as to create double redirects.  The novice Wikipedians who are doing this need to check the discussion history before moving.--Joe 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me, I was looking at all the redirects and accidentally moved the wrong one.--Joe 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop moving this page

message: :  No one said they didn't fight - they just didn't fight as a division.  The division was broken up and its regiments were seconded to the French Army, as noted in the article. We just need to get the French units to which they were attached and the battles in which they fought.  I have added the Second Battle of The Marne (369th Inf) to the infobox, but I don't have information on the other units yet.  --Joe 02:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 11:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment hidden in page text

message: The 93d was never officially known as anything but a "Provisional" division during the war.  It was never officially termed the '93rd Divisions (Colored)',though it may have been informlly referred to as such.  The divisional headquarters was organized on a provisional basis according to a skelteon manning, and there never was an intent to plus it up to regular strength, nor was it ever so organized.  It's provisional status for the short life of the division (just 5 months) reflects this, as the artillery brigade, the division troops and the division trains were never organized.  Authorized strength for the provisional division was nver more than one third of a regular division (9,000 vs 27,123).  The division headquarters was expressly organized merely for ahort-term administrative control, rather than operational control.  The four infantry regiments and division headquarters never serve together as a whole unit, with the regiments flowing overseas throughout a 5 month period.  The division headquarters was disestablished just 3 weeks after the last infantry companies arrived in France.
In addition, the chart showing which French units the regiments fell under is confusing (two columns showing army, and one column showing division), inaccurate and incomplete.  For instance, it shows the 170th Regiment serving under the French 26th Division during the period 1 Aug to 23 Oct; in fact the regiment never served with that division.  It served under the French 73d, 133d, 10th, 34th Div (II Colonial Corps), 36th and finally (on 4 Sept 1918) the 59th Division.  (All info in the preceeding paras comes from The Order of Battle of the United States Land Forces inthe World War, Vol 2.)
Finally, the idea that the 'main American Expeditionary Force' refused to serve with black units is an unsupportable assertion; the idea that the beliefs of an organization totaling one million men from all parts of the nation could be reduced to one sentiment on this issue is patently absurd.  
Unless anyone objects, I'll modify the article in a couple of days.
98.255.89.22 (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI