Talk:504th Infantry Regiment (United States)

message: I don't think adding the lineage information on the battalions is useful. It merely expands the article by repeating minutely different information on each battalion. Similarly, the postwar information is not particularly useful in that format. If we replace that with what the actual tasks of the regiment were (in paragraph form) it would be useful. Otherwise, I think we merely duplicate what CMH posts on the regiment, which begs the question of why put it in Wikipedia? --Habap 14:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we do need to link to CMH and leave some of the information to them. The lineage is a fine example. It is unlikely that someone reading a general encyclopedia entry would be interested in which company in the initial regiment was the basis for which battalion. I need to read over the write-up. Excellent work thus far. Hopefully, we'll be able to do similar work on the rest of regimentals for the 82nd and 101st.... --Habap 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The lineage for the 504th PI Battalion is part of the 503d PIR. When the 503d was activated in 1942, the 504th Battalion was redesignated as its 2d Battalion. Cyane 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SSgt Seon, you will find that Cyane is correct - the 504th PIB became a part of the 503d. However, after Torch, it became the 509th PIB, which is the lineage ancestor of the 509th Infantry. Thus, the 504th PIB had nothing to do with the 504th PIR. It is quite possibly the most squirrelly lineage in Airborne. --Habap 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battalions

message: The WWII article is pretty substantial, I think it's fine to keep it granular.  Since nobody has done this merger or discussed it since February, it seems tehre isn't much interest either, though I will move the article to 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (World War II) to keep it consistent with thius article.  Avraham 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a very good point there, Btphelps; I've had these pages bookmarked for ages. I wonder why I never noticed it before? I have Phil Nordyke's book, More Than Courage about the 504th in WWII and could try and help merge the two articles -  that seems the sensible option; I don't think the regiment needs two separate articles. Would you agree? Skinny87 (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's the logical and appropriate choice IMO. The only reason for keeping the WWII article separate is if it were so lengthy that including it made the parent article undigestable (right word?). However, that does not seem to be the case here. I guess there are some guidelines on in WP:MOS about article length, though I do not know what they are. So if the combined articles would be within those guidelines, then I think merging is the appropriate step. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Based on the previously mentioned issues:
* redundant content in the two articles
* insubstantial content to justify separate articles
it is proposed that the article 504th Infantry Regiment be merged with this article. Comments? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, er, agree :) Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: yes, this is the disambig guideline anyway, so no need for discussion --121.217.20.152 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Completed merger. References are needed as the article almost completely lacks them. See the External Links for many possible sources. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal 

message: Substantial portions of the unit's narrative history was copied wholesale by CORNELIUSSEON from the 1st Brigade Combat Team's web site. While technically not a copyright violation, as the source is a U.S. Government publication, it does need substantial editing to improve the quality to Wikipedia standards and create a NPOV. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy and paste from U.S. military web site

message: Can somebody please fix this article so that text appears to the left of the infobox? It looks horrible the way it is -- a short paragraph, then a huge naked infobox, then the balance of the article text below it. Lou Sander (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badly positioned infobox 

message: In the section "Sicily, July 1943", there is a major confusion between the invasion of Sicily and the landings on the Italian mainland (Salerno) two months later. Additionally, the last paragraph mentions events (Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge) described in later sections.--93.206.40.28 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused account 

message: The paragraph:
Curiously, the 1st Brigade Combat Team chose the name Task Force Devil during their service in Afghanistan, despite the fact that Islamic culture does not have the acceptance of satanic nicknames found in Western cultures. Especially in conservative Afghanistan, only the worst type of person would call themselves a devil. This level of cultural insensitivity was not aligned with ISAF's counter-insurgency mission and displayed the military's preference for preserving tradition over accomplishing its mission and general lack of awareness of the operating environment's cultural factors.
-- is without verifying references and accusatory with comments on "cultural insensitivity" without specific citations of Islamic culture and belief re: "devils" or other satanic allusions. In addition, it is accusatory in that it concludes that the unit's "...cultural insensitivity was not aligned with ISAF's counter-insurgency mission and displayed the military's preference for preserving tradition over accomplishing its mission..." resulted in lack of mission fulfillment. This seems to be pure opinion unless there's a military reference to this "lack of mission fulfillment".
I'd suggest a heavy revision and/or edit here with supporting references.
Webistrator (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conjectural commentary on Afghan culture