Talk:65th Infantry Regiment (United States)

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://veteransforpr.com/history.htm
** In Hispanic Americans in World War II on 2011-03-29 08:37:47, 404 Not Found
** In 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) on 2011-06-19 20:41:25, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://korea50.army.mil/history/factsheets/hispanic.shtml
** In Fernando Luis García on 2011-03-19 05:30:31, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In Hispanics in the United States Air Force on 2011-03-29 08:38:34, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 65th Infantry Regiment (United States) on 2011-06-19 20:42:36, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: A good number of things in this article is sourced to a website called valerosos.com. This is a nice self-published homage site. And as such, it should be used with extra care. Although it may be a good source for Internet stumbling/reading about the subject, it's not reliable as a source for an encyclopedia. Nothing that is published there is peer reviewed, and the site's overall tone is that of "honoring those who served, fought, and sacrificed their lives defending American ideals". --damiens.rf 18:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure all his published books would be acceptable by Wikipedia rules, despite the obvious conflict of interests from Pentagon praising them. But my question was about his self-published webpage. How is that reliable? Do we just trust everything he writes, regardless of peer reviewing? --damiens.rf 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valerosos? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:PurpleHeart.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: Hi All! I'm removing the following paragraph, because, despite what the sources says, it is completely incorrect information. It might be helpful for a bill to have a lot of co-sponsors, but there is no formal or informal requirement that a bill have a certain number of co-sponsors in order to pass. The only requirement is a certain number of votes. I'll be correcting that misconception. Bills pass all the time that have 0 co-sponsors. Furthermore, only one of the bills needs to pass, not both of them. The same one just has to pass in both chambers.
:In order to pass, the bills will require 290 co-sponsors in the U.S. Congress and 67 co-sponsors in the U.S. Senate, before the 113th Congressional Session adjourns in January 2015. Otherwise, the bills will have to be re-introduced in the 114th Congressional Session, and the entire legislative process will have to commence all over again. As of 8 May 2014, the bills have received more than 290 co-sponsors in the U.S. Congress, so they have already surpassed the U.S. House co-sponsor minimum for congressional consideration. However, the necessary companion U.S. Senate bill currently has 92% of the required senate 67 co-sponsors - but it still needs more senate co-sponsors. Borinqueneers Congressional Gold Medal Alliance. Retrieved 1 February 2014.Recognize the Borinqueneers Ahora!; Fox News Latino; 8/26/13; by Larry Brystran. Retrieved 26 August 2013.
Let me know if my explanation here or in the article is unclear. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that this great legislation has passed, I suggest it would be a good time to pare back the section of the article.  In particular, the text about the path the bill took through the legislative process is not particularly needed.  Ocalafla (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my post of a month ago (above) I've pared back the Gold Medal section.  I'd suggest it probably could be further reduced but didn't want to do so without offering it up for discussion here. Ocalafla (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Tony, my only concern is that the Gold Medal initiative is starting to overshadow the actual amazing accomplishments of the unit.  In looking at the articles on the Montford Point Marines, the Nisei units, the WASPS, etc., they combined devote less space to the Gold Medal than does the 65th's by itself. I just worry that in focusing on the political process of getting the medal the article loses focus on the solid military achievements and proud history of the 65th. Semper fi/Hooah!  Ocalafla (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional Gold Medal legislation 

message: I think that the CGM section has been shortened too much already. Please note that after Ocalafla posted his recommendation on June 10, 2014, I trimmed nearly 3,000 bytes of information from the section just two days later - on June 12, 2014. I then trimmed an additional 478 bytes of unsourced material on June 30. Perhaps this wasn't taken into account, when Ocalafla returned 3 days ago (on July 22) and stated "Per my post of a month ago, I've pared back the Gold Medal section." Ocalafla then made further deep cuts that I believe were unnecessary.
As far as the "political process leading to a loss of focus on the military achievements," this article is long, thorough, detailed, and deeply sourced with many secondary source citations. One section about the CGM campaign does not detract from the rest of the article, which is 95% of the article.
It is very likely that the other units (Tuskegee, Montford, Nisei) did not encounter the difficulties in getting the CGM that the Borinqueneers encountered, and that is why those other units do not have as detailed a CGM legislative history. The Borinqueneers existed 25 years before all these other units. They served in World War I, World War II, and the Korean War - whereas all the other units fought only in World War II. Yet all those other units received the CGM prior to the Borinqueneers. This indicates that the Borinqueneers CGM legislative history was much more difficult, and more critical, to the granting of the CGM. For this reason, the CGM history has a more detailed treatment in the overall article.
The CGM struggle is, in and of itself, a part of the Borinqueneers history. It is a part of the constant struggle of Puerto Ricans, to get the basic recognition that they deserve. I don't think it should be subordinated.
Regarding the creation of a separate CGM article - remember Tony, that the reason we didn't do this in the first place, is because the article might not have survived a "Notability" attack. That same concern exists today.
For all these reasons, I believe the CGM section should not be shortened any further. In fact, I believe it should be restored to its June 30, 2014 condition, after I trimmed nearly 3,500 bytes of material in response to Ocalafla's June 10 request. Please review the June 30 version, and factor this into your considerations.  Sarason (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some valid points.  But, I know many would take issue with your attempt to compare the CGM struggles of various groups.  However, if your assertion along those lines is true, then instead of using a greater word count as your method of demonstrating it, just state it in the article that the Borinqueneers CGM struggle was greater and provide a citation to a reliable source.  If what you say is true then you should have no trouble with notability in a separate article.I'd concur with Tony's suggestion. Ocalafla (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A greater word count was not utilized to demonstrate a greater or lesser CGM struggle. A CGM section was written and sourced, to document the events and dynamics of the Borinqueneers' specific experience. Pursuant to Ocalafla's June 10 request, nearly 3,500 bytes of information were already removed. Tony, what are your thoughts at this point? Sarason (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Sarason, regardless of the relative difficulty of various groups obtaining the CGM, much of what was, and some of what still is, describes the legislative process for any bill.  Each and every bill gets voted on in both the House and Senate and is signed by the president.  There are two sentences still left in the article about this that probably aren't necessary, either. Also, there is too much duplicative info in the lede; instead of a second paragraph about the CGM it could be condensed into a single sentence there noting that the 65th received the CGM.  I agree with Tony that a separate article is the way to go to make sure that the great 65th has a great wikipedia article. Ocalafla (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony the Marine Tony, I see you've created the article on the legislation (looks great!), so I've edited the article on the 65th per my comments above.  What do you think? Ocalafla (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tony, my deletion of your link to he new article was accidental. My apologies. Thanks for restoring it. Ocalafla (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The CGM section should ''not'' be shortened. It should be partially restored 

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) 21:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There seems to be a gap between the section "Battles of Outpost Kelly and Jackson Heights" and the section "Mass court martial".  The sort of content which is needed is probably in the article Battle of Jackson Heights to explain what led to the court martial. 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:418D:BE1A:53C1:1AE1 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause of court martial 

message: The redirect 65th Infantry Regiment (United States has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 07:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:65th Infantry Regiment (United States]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]