Talk:United States Army Corps of Engineers

message: Concerning Flood Control Act of 1928 reference that Sheldonville added, this is the only law that had any type of explanation of the legislation itself, and the explanation referenced just one small but important part of the legislation.  The explanation IS important and notable, but it might be best to actually go under the main article Corps of Engineers civil works controversies.
Also, since the Great Flood of 1927 was linked as the reference to FCA 1928, I went into it and put in the detail and a reference that actually connects the Great Flood with FCA 1928.  199.123.72.97 (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flood Control Act of 1928 

message: Perhaps something about the controversial nature of calling a piece of land a "wetland". There have been at least one Supreme Court case where the Army Corps of Engineers lost its case.
:That is a topic well worth persuing, but really should be under the article on wetlands. When I get some time I will start it.  When I first came to Wikipedia, I contributed the Army Corps definition of a wetland to the wetland article and it was reverted very quickly with the comment that the arrticle was not about U.S. wetlands. Not a good start for a newbie, but I quickly got over it ;^) - Marshman 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wetlands Takings 

message: Given that Gen. Strock has now admitted that design flaws in the Corps-designed levees were responsible for the flooding of New Orleans, shouldn't that become part of the Corps history?
Agreed. There be should SOME mention of the mistakes made by the Corps insofar as the construction of the New Orleans levees somewhere in this entry. I've heard that the levees were supposedly rated for a "three" hurricane, but the Katrina flood surge was only equivalent to a "two". Yikes. --Weirdoactor 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Katrina 

message: I'm thinking of starting a section called "Pork, boondoggles, and blunders". If it gets too long it can be moved to a new article. Any comments? --Jagz 02:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would that be better/different than "Civil Works Controversies"? It seems like the same idea, only without the neutrality. -Gueneverey (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I created that section. --Jagz (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pork, boondoggles, and blunders 

message: I think that the Operational Facts and Figures of the article on the United States Army Corps of Engineers should be much higher in the article because most people do not know about the extent of USACE's impact on the United States and they might not wade through the other "boring" (though relevant :)  ) information to find these facts and figures out.  From that standpoint, I think that it warrants being higher up in the article.   Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, the trivial facts and information should be placed towards the bottom of the article. For organizational purposes, it does not make sense to show the statistics on an encyclopedia as the first part of the article. Wikipedia is not designed to be an informational outlet to "sell" the Corps of Engineers with facts and figures to the general public. -Signaleer (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hear what you are saying.  I sort of agree and am not necessarily looking at selling the Corps.  Most people only know of USACE in one context and do not know the extent of the Corps' reach into society.  I guess the question would be ... how do you quickly get this real information out?  I think it is more important than organization and somewhat more important than notable projects (and possibly history).  Perhaps if some of the more mundane figures (e.g., the employee population, the number of districts, etc.) were culled to make it more relevant....  What do you think? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated previously, bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Not a "quick reference" in order to pull statistics about the organization. There are very few if any Wiki articles that place the trivia, facts or statistics up front in an article. On the contrary, it should be placed at the very bottom instead of the middle. -Signaleer (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was trivia, I'd agree; in fact, I'm trying to find a way to reduce the trivia section.  And I certainly agree that it shouldn't go at the top.  But as I look over the article, I see that some of my concerns are covered in the text above this section.  At the same time, some of this should NOT be in the text above because it would dilute the focus of those particular sections.  I guess I can live with it where it is, more or less.  I've tweaked some of it already anyway; maybe moving/tweaking some more will work.  Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Operational Facts and Figures

message: I am confused as to Kozuch added the  tag to this article.  The references include the following:
*USACE's public website
*USACE's intranet 
*An independent written publication
*Army Engineer Association magazine
*US Civil War center professional bulletin
*An organization opposed to USACE
*An educational institution
*A senator's website
*Local news media
*An independent FOIA request
*State of New York report
That is a pretty wide range of references.  Granted, some of the references are from the organization itself; however, when describing an organization, its missions, its history, and its goals, that would not be unreasonable.  
I have removed the tag for now.  Others may want to join in the discussion if desired.  
Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added several more in-line references and removed the footnote tag.  If I looked correctly, each major section now has at least one footnote in it.  More will not necessarily improve the "verifiability" of the information provided. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I came to this article trying to find out information and/or links to Wiki articles about the military side of the USACoE, "combat engineers" including civil engineering in combat zones, training, training schools, etc. Frankly, I found the article rather weak in references and links to articles which would bear on those subjects. I realize that there may be many articles on Wiki which cover the subjects I mentioned, but it seems that I would have to do my own searchs to find them. The US domestic civil engineering side of the CoE is well covered in this article as it should be, but I think that it would be better served with more links to the military side of the CoE.--TGC55 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there is room to add information on combat engineers.  USACE is a unique military organization in that it has two distinct missions.  Good, bad, or otherwise, most of its work is dedicated, though, to the non-military activities; and this is also evidenced on their own website (www.usace.army.mil).  Note, for example, its composition and organization; most of the subordinate elements are focused on the non-military.  However, there are subordinate military units listed herein with some of them having their own wiki articles.  You can also look at Sapper, Combat engineering, and Military engineer; perhaps we can find a way to link those herein.  Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of links to Wiki military articles  

message: Is it appropriate that of the tens of 1000's of pictures available, a West Point-graduate daughter of a retired army general is selected as an illustration of engineering "warfighting"? I don't see a connection between the subject matter and the illustration. Just saying. Perhaps a picture of Engineers in- I dont know... combat? signed: WPPA
* Please sign your username next time by typing in ~~~~. Second, did you bother reading the article and seeing the image, it directly coincides with the article. Please discuss information on the talk page to improve the article. -Signaleer (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture inappropriate?

message: USACE has spent a lot of time, effort, and taxpayer dollars working on its "branding" and trademarking.  The preferred way to reference USACE from a branding standpoint is "US Army Corps of Engineers" ("U.S. Army Corps of Engineeers" is also seen frequently enough to be a dual personality).  They almost never refer to themselves as "United States Army Corps of Engineers", even in formal press releases.  
I'm wondering if it would be better to make the title to this article the "US Army Corps of Engineers" and make "United States Army Corps of Engineers" as the redirect rather than vice versa as currently is.  
Thoughts?
There are currently the following redirect pages; the bolded ones are the USACE preferred methods of self-reference:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Corp of Engineers
US Corps of Engineers
US Corp of Engineers
U.S. Corps of Engineers
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
U.S. Corp of Engineers
Corps of Engineers
Corp of Engineers
Army Corps of Engineers
Army Corp of Engineers
USACE
USACOE
ACOE
COE
Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Page titles and redirects exist  to aid readers in navigating the encyclopedia. We should avoid the use of abbreviations in page titles regardless of the Corps PR department. Every conceivable plausible alternate term already redirects here so that's not a problem either. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How should USACE Branding efforts affect Article's name, if any? 

message: I suggest that the names of incumbents in executive positions is not sufficiently notable to mention them here, unless the individuals themselves are notable. It requires unnecessary maintenance. This article is not a proxy for the USACE PAO website function. Just keep the current Chief of Engineers in the infobox--that should be sufficient. Those wanting to know names of incumbents can follow links in references that support the description of the command structure. User:HopsonRoad 18:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of incumbents in the staff hierarchy 

message: This long list of bullets contains items that should be references supporting descriptive text in this section. One has no idea of what are contained within the cited laws without clicking on each link to search through what one finds there. This is contrary to the intent of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style. User:HopsonRoad 03:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:   [[United States Army Corps of Engineers#Public Laws affecting the Corps of Engineers|Public Laws affecting the Corps of Engineers]] 

message: This New York Times article might be useful as a reference for this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/decade-after-katrina-pointing-finger-more-firmly-at-army-corps.html  "http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/decade-after-katrina-pointing-finger-more-firmly-at-army-corps.html" Eastmain (talk • contribs)  19:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times article on USACE responsibility for Hurricane Katrina flooding 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States Army Corps of Engineers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120106170052/http://www.usace.army.mil:80/History/Documents/Brief/03-transportation/transport.html to http://www.usace.army.mil/History/Documents/Brief/03-transportation/transport.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080913145536/http://www.usace.army.mil:80/missions/warfighting.html to http://www.usace.army.mil/missions/warfighting.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216234240/http://www.usace.army.mil:80/missions/Security.html to http://www.usace.army.mil/missions/Security.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081014175133/http://www.usace.army.mil:80/missions/infrastructure.html to http://www.usace.army.mil/missions/infrastructure.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218221846/http://www.usace.army.mil:80/missions/environment.html to http://www.usace.army.mil/missions/environment.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120515154107/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/aff2ac0b5a2c828c8625735a0073d4fd?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/AFF2AC0B5A2C828C8625735A0073D4FD?OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: what percentage of US military personnel with a combat engineering rank/role is actually a part of this corps? 37000 ppl with only 2% military seems to indicate that most aren't  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.26.211 (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification request 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on United States Army Corps of Engineers. 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/20080415174741/http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/vignettes/vignette_1.htm to http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/vignettes/vignette_1.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/jan08/story2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060319204716/http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/ to http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109014147/http://operations.sam.usace.army.mil/Hydropower/ to http://operations.sam.usace.army.mil/Hydropower/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060329154834/http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/vignettes/Vignette_90.htm to http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/vignettes/Vignette_90.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060111042808/http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/Vignettes/Vignette_89.htm to http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/history/vignettes/Vignette_89.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080119100812/http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/05/20070514.html to http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/05/20070514.html
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) 07:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi Folks, does anybody know where the Europe Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (a proper corps). This article Ernest James Harrell seemed to be in command of then. I cant see an article about that Division. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 21:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Europe Division

message: In the past, the USACE installed benchmarks at various points to aid in surveying land and structures, as in this photo. Does USACE still install these markers? Or is this only something that was done in the past? Either way, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Pete unseth (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  USACE benchmarks