Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry

message: As is customary, we shall begin the mediation with each person making an opening statement. Please state your position regarding (a) what you believe the official name of the unit is and (b) what you believe the title of the Wikipedia article should be (and why). Please be brief, probably just a couple of sentences for each point, and please refrain from responding to the comments of others in their sections – stick to your own sections. I'm, for now, going to ignore the other two points noted in the mediation because "Users using personal uncivil remarks in reference to the topic." is not easy to mediate (the conclusion will just boil down to "don't be uncivil") and because "WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY" look like extensions of the first two points. If I am wrong about that, you can also attempt to clarify those two points. -- tariqabjotu 12:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to discount NPOV, NOR, and VERIFY as being part of a separate issue for now; they do not appear to be especially important except in the context of the other two issues. -- tariqabjotu 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Statements 

message: *(a) The official name of the unit is 3d Infantry according to the official Lineage and Honors Information outlined on the 3rd Infantry Lineage website, the authority describing the lineage and history can be found on Page 13, Chapter 5 of AR 870-5. 
Other evidence of this can be found and is outlined in The U.S. Army Regimental System (AR 600-82) 5 June 1990 on page 19 as 3rd Infantry.
There is a Special Designations for the nickname of the unit, THE OLD GUARD on the Center of Military History website which is further explained in Page 16, Chapter 6 of AR 870-5.
There are innumerous sources for the colloquial term of the 3d Infantry, even on the "official website" the unit itself refers to itself under various names.  These sources can be found on The Old Guard's official websites.
*3d U.S. Infantry Regiment BCT Mission Statement 3d U.S. Infantry Regiment BCT
*Mission Statement of 1-3 IN BN 1-3 IN BN
*1/3 Infantry Battalion Website 1/3 Infantry Battalion
*Article that describes the organization as "3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)" 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)
*2nd Battalion 3rd Infantry Regiment 2nd Battalion 3rd Infantry Regiment 
*History of the the 3rd Infantry Regiment the 3rd Infantry Regiment (Note: AKO account is required to access website, please refer to the "2/3 IN BN Webmaster" for access on the webpage.) http://www.lewis.army.mil/2-3_in/
With the new transformation of the U.S. Army, there are now what are called Brigade Combat Teams, of which the 3d Infantry is now part of since it is comprised of several battalions which form the "Regiment" although the organization is now officially a BCT.
*(b) Since the official name of the organization is 3d Infantry, I believe the Wikipedia article should be named 3rd Infantry Regiment (United States) for organizational purposes.
There are other United States Army units which are titled differently than the "official name" for example 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) is titled 101st Airborne Division (United States); 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment and the Wikipedia article is 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States).  There are just two examples where the MILHIST project failed to uphold to the "official names" of units versus what is practical in terms of naming units for Wiki organizational purposes.
Furthermore, there is already a precedence of the structure of Category:Regiments of the United States Army on Wikipedia as well as Category:Battalions of the United States Army, Category:Divisions of the United States Army, Category:Corps of the United States Army, etc. which can all be found on Category:Military units and formations of the United States.
In reference to the "WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY", the users ScreaminEagle, Ryecatcher773 have responded to comments which I have made on the talk page without citing references for their reasoning only to claim that they were former members of the unit, this claim is bias and is a POV on the subject matter which is the only grounds of their argument.
-TabooTikiGod 06:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to discount NPOV, NOR, and VERIFY as being part of a separate issue for now; they do not appear to be especially important except in the context of the other two issues. -- tariqabjotu 17:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TabooTikiGod

message: *The unit calls itself the 3d (or 3rd/Third) United States (or U.S.) Infantry Regiment .  Its parent organization, the Military District of Washington (MDW), also refers to the unit by this specific designation .  The Public Affairs Office of the unit in question always refers to it as the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) on its official documents and press releases .  The command leadership organizational charts for the regiment name it the 3d United States Infantry Regiment .  I venture that if anyone knows the official name of the unit, these organizations do.  
*Because the unit itself, including its leadership and Public Affairs Office, and its parent organization of the MDW, refer to the unit as the 3d/3rd United States (or U.S. for short) Infantry Regiment, I believe that this is what the article should be called on Wikipedia.  The idea is to call something what it is known as, officially and/or otherwise, not an obscure and old/former title that no one would think to look under.  The Wikipedia article on Jon Stewart is not titled "Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz" because no one knows who that is, even if that is the name he was born with decades ago.  That is simply not who he is anymore--his name has been officially changed to reflect what he is known as today.  In similitude, the name of the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment may have been the 3rd Infantry Regiment many years ago, but it is not any longer, evidenced by the above paragraph.  In addition, intentionally adjusting the name of the unit to resemble other, dissimilar military units on Wikipedia simply for the sake of consistancy defeats the very purpose of the guidelines laid out by the MILHIST project; the point of the naming guidelines is to avoid confusion between two units with the exact same title but with different home countries or nations (there is no other unit on earth named the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment).  The guidelines are meant to extend the accuracy of the unit's name to include its nationality if that nationality is not apparently clear by the title of the unit.  The goal of consistency is and always has been secondary to the accuracy of the title itself.  Deleting the "United States" from within the accurate title itself, only to reposition it to the end of the title in a disambiguating afterthought is the opposite of what the naming convention's goals were and are.
*Regarding the NPOV charges.  Being that I have never been a member of the 3rd U.S. Infantry--or even a member of the United States Armed Forces at that--I can only state that I possess no personal bias toward one name over another with regard to my personal history.  The only bias I claim is that towards accuracy and the aim to see this article named properly.  --ScreaminEagle 19:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ScreaminEagle

message: Insofar as the NPOV dispute is concerned, the claim is bogus. The opposite of neutral is biased, yes? There is absolutely nothing in the name 3rd US Infantry that can be construed as being biased. Where is the so-called bias? Is Wikipedia not inclined towards accuracy? Is the intention of accuracy a bias? A breach of WP:NPOV would be reflected in a biased viewpoint expressed in the article, using heated language, rhetorical strategies to persuade, antagonizing statements, etc. As none of this is the case here, neutrality has nothing to do with the argument. The name of the article, as it stands, has no tone or bias whatsoever. 
Regarding the matter of the unit's official name, at what point is the line drawn? Since my own primary source information -- which I have provided as a former Old Guard Soldier -- has been categorically discarded, I would then point to the most immediately available source one might view as evidence without even having to leave the comfort of ones computer keyboard: the official 3rd US INF (TOG) website. It would seem that the name is quite clearly stated in numerous areas what in fact the name of the unit is, should suffice. Why question it? Its a self evident source! Regardless of any other available source, and completely disregarding what the Wikipedia Guideline for categorizing may be, the name of the unit, as it is commonly known by members of said unit, the unit's chain of command, as well the rest of the MDW and the US Army Command groups for that matter, is The 3rd US Infantry (The Old Guard). Everything from the unit's official letterhead, to the signs in front of every building  occupied by the regiment at Ft. Myer and Ft. McNair, bears the name. 
If we are going to discount the unit's own proclamation of title, then why should any source be acceptable in such cases? Consider this: is the article named Sting reflecting inaccuracy because the man's legal name is Gordon Sumner? Perhaps someone should haul that article in for a mediation hearing as well. Ryecatcher773 06:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ryecatcher773

message: * The official name of the unit appears to be the "Third (or 3d or 3rd) United States Infantry Regiment", at least as far as the unit itself knows.  There are obviously a variety of alternative forms used in various documents—parts of the name can be easily understood from context, and are thus often omitted—but I have seen little evidence to suggest that the regiment itself is unaware of its proper name.
* Given the above, the name of the article should be 3rd United States Infantry Regiment, as specified by WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME.  The intent of that particular guideline was to allow military units the same degree of self-identification that other groups and organizations (e.g. political parties, companies, etc.) enjoy.  There would need to be a very convincing reason, in my view, for us to ignore what a unit self-identifies as; an alternate name being overwhelmingly more common would be one, but mere desire for a more "consistent" name structure is not. Kirill 17:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kirill

message: *(a) The official name of the unit is Third United States Infantry Regiment, where the first word is an ordinal number that is alternatively rendered as 3rd or 3d, the second and third words often abbreviated as US, and the final word Regiment is left un-written in providing unit status reports to higher levels of command when there is no ambiguity in leaving off the word for the unit's level of organization, but Regiment is required in non-military publications and websites, such as the Wikipedia, and especially in its first appearence such as in the title of an article.  The most current on-line usage of the full official name is on the regimental homepage, where the unit is styled as 3d United States Infantry Regiment, and among the sources describing the offical naming of constituted and activated military units found at www.army.mil are: Army Regulation (AR) 220-1 UNIT STATUS REPORTING, AR 220-5 DESIGNATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND CHANGE IN STATUS OF UNITS, AR 600-82 THE U.S. ARMY REGIMENTAL SYSTEM, and Army of the United States (1896) which includes a regimental history penned by a regimental officer who appended 3d U.S. Infantry to the author's name. Under AR 600-82, individuals assigned to the regiment are indoctrinated in the traditions and history of the unit, including the form of its full official name for use in public ceremonies as part of duties with the presidential escort battalion, 1st Battalion of the 3d United States Infantry Regiment in the Military District of Washington. The official name (typically without Regiment) is used on US Army orders, certificates, and awards, and the full official name is always used by the US Army in formal communications and official publications directed to non-military members of the public.
*(b) The title of the article should be Third United States Infantry Regiment in accordance to the WikiProject Military History style guide; I have no objection to using 3rd or 3d for the first word in the title. The MILHIST project style guide recommends an optional disambiguator following in parenthesis, but it is not required in this case where the name of the country is already embedded in the name of the regiment.  The MILHIST project style guide appears to comply with the ordinary accepted Wikipedia use of verified sources in its recommendation of official unit names for titles of articles; the naming of regiments also follows this style in the article United States Army.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotfeba (talk • contribs) 01:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hotfeba

message: For those who haven't noticed, I closed this mediation over a day ago because of the fact that one of the parties withdraw from the mediation. -- tariqabjotu 20:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and we thank you for that timely information. Hotfeba 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation closed