Talk:3rd Reconnaissance Battalion (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal[edit]

I would like to purpose the addition of This as a Section into 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion worked into This Section, or (I really don't think it belongs here) United States Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions or even Khe Sanh page, (since they were on patrol at the time as look outs for this base). I'm sure some, if not many editors will remember the discussion of "Flight Time" as it's own page and was found not notable enough on it's own, it is not intended as a memorial, that can be found Here. The significances are there were many men and teams lost, but the fact remains this was the "Last" full 3rd Recon team to be lost during the Vietnam war, on June 4, 1969 and the official end of the (Police Action/ War) wasn't until April 30, 1975 (six years without this occurrence). If the "First" full team could be identified it to should have it's own section. The (See also, References and External links) sections would of course be added to the corresponding existing sections of the page, and of course checked for possible duplications.


Discussion[edit]

You need to do more paraphrasing. Right now it looks like a WP:COPYVIO. Do you expect objection in general? If so, would you give me a little context? Maurreen (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Also, "The Virtual Wall" might not be considered a reliable source. Maurreen (talk) 08:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all I would like to thank Maurreen, Moxy and Kudpung for their replies. Second I was not ready (which is not a bad thing) I came to you guys for input on how to and if I should throw this into the ring, (that's why it's still in my "sandbox") well looks like that's no longer a question. Now with that being said let me stop right here and move this to an appropriate venue. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Maurreen, in no way am I asking about quality as it stands, I'm not looking for Good Article input. What I am asking / looking for is a consensus that this bit of information is inportant enough to be "safely" worked into an article, I just don't want to add it to 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion#Vietnam War or somewhere in Khe Sanh and then a few day later have someone delete it claiming relevance or notability. As to your "Do you expect objection in general?" I do because of (just of the top of my head) these few archived sections starting Here. and as to you question "WP:COPYVIO. Yes the "Last Known Activity" is a printed statement from the military, just as This Is. I just Want to be able to work in this information in the main article without worry it's going to get cut in the near future, yes it still needs editing I'm not contesting that. Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the information is concerned, it seems perfectly relevant to me. Maurreen (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like more publicity, you might try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force. Maurreen (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considered amendment / format[edit]

After considering AustralianRupert and Kudpung comments (and I don't want to "paint" myself into a corner at this point), maybe something along the lines of the "On July 12, 1965" paragraph / section could be workable, and (it seems) at the same time would address both editor's concerns at this point. And I say this still knowing that the section is not a "finished product" there's a lot of editing still needed but I have to start somewhere. Mlpearc MESSAGE 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense as a model. Maurreen (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to "Model" my point exactly, Thank you "Again" Maurreen Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current working re-write and proposed section "to be" inserted can be seen Here Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreseen Thumbnail Issue[edit]

I can see after placing flight time's paragraph in there's going to be a problem with the thumbnail. I Propose removing the thumbnail at the Medal of Honor section, If anybody wants to take the time and research it I am the editor that placed the thumb in the Medal of Honor section, my reasoning for removing (if needed) from there is I also placed the same at the recipients individual pages also, this way the Medal of Honor men keep their thumbnail at their respected pages and, Flight Time gets to keep theirs. Note: click on the thumb, the three red bricks above the Marble Medal of Honor stone and the three red bricks below are the six members of "Flight Time". Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  • Support (copied from Mlpearc/Sandbox 3.1 by Kudpung) I am still at a loss as to how this guys cant have there own article, yet there are over 7,000 porn stars listed...So yes anyway we can mention this horrible event i support....Moxy (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supported - Your intended inclusion does not really need a debate; editors are encouraged to expand articles as per WP:BOLD. Someone will always make changes or suggestions on the article talk page or on your talk page if it needs further attention or appears not to be appropriate. Also, if they are really necessary, debates of this kind can be done on a sub talk page of the article concerned rather than in your own user space. However, to comply fully with Wkipedia policy, as per Maurreen, you will need to ensure that you are not copying a large chunk of text verbatim from elsewhere, and you will certainly need to provide inline sources per WP:V, and WP:CITE. You can however cite the paragraph in italics or as a blockquote according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations (subsections attribution, and Block quotations) as long as you provide a referenced source for it as described in the MoS. The reference should prefereably be taken from the original archive of the document rather than from another website that also quotes it. (See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). That said, I'm not sure if for the deceased servicemen killed in action VirtualWall can be considered an RS. There is currently a lot of ambiguity and interpretation as to RS, so my suggestion would be to try it and see if you get any objections. Also, on this topic, contrary to some suggestions that may have been made elsewhere in Wikipedia talk pages, I'm not altogether sure if it is our policy to include biographies of every Vietnam casualty - but I understand that this is not your intention anyway. War is of course a sad thing but if the encyclodia were to have bios of every war casualty, even in recent 20th and 21st century history, it would run into the millions of short entries. --Kudpung (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: in principle support, however, please be careful to not to exceed WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. While I can perfectly understand your desire to tell this story, I think that anything more than a paragraph on the incident in the article would unbalance it given the length other incidents receive. Additionally, a list of names such as currently shown in the sandbox could quite possibly be seen as a memorial (I've seen other such lists on other unit articles be removed citing the NOTMEMORIAL policy). As such, I'd suggest writing a succint paragraph in the Vietnam War section, listing the names with limited details in a footnote. That way, no one could say that you had exceeded those two policies. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dawson River[edit]

The Vietnam section includes:

Four years later, a recon platoon took part in Operation Dawson River (West). On 1 January 1969, a recon platoon was inserted via four helicopters near the Laotian border west of Khe Sahn during the operation. The platoon reconnoitered landing zones for the infantry battalions of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade. The clandestine reconnaissance allowed the rifle platoons to land safely without needing a prelanding artillery or aerial bombardment, giving the unannounced arrival an advantage from any lurking VC or North Vietnamese Army (NVA) forces.

The significance is not clear. I'm not sure what sets this apart from anything similar. Maurreen (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal I do agree and dont see how its realy worth a mention.... I see no wikilinking to any thing relevant in the statement and its not referenced aswell....Moxy (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal I went to the main page to see what this section was connected to, the intro "Four years later" at least to me implied it did and it might, but I don't see the connection. If someone can show the connection (to what I assume, the Reasoner incident) and show the relevance to it, Please make your statement known. As it stands I see it as a report of everyday operations at Khe Sanh. Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Four years later" aspect is my doing. When I started on the section, several elements each began with "On (date) ..." My intention was to make better transitions and make context more clear. I didn't do as well with this part, because it has so little context. Maurreen (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I think the subject seems to try to connect to something metioned before, but I still don't see the conection Mlpearc MESSAGE 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just delete the paragraph. Maurreen (talk) 03:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Company?[edit]

The article intro gives two sentences about Company B, but doesn't mention any other units of the battalion. The organization section focuses on companies. This is confusing about the rest of the battalion. Maurreen (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reworked the intro a bit and agree that it was confusing. When Marine Special Operations Command was started it gutted the Reconnaissance Battalions that supported the Fleet. I think the answer is that 3rd Recon Battalion only has the one operating company right now, Company B. While still a Battalion in name they, like many units in Okinawa, are very much under strength. Hope this helps. Thanks for catching it. I am sure some of the editors with Recon experience will be along shortly to retweak my edits. They are fairly active around these parts.--Looper5920 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought that might be the case, but I couldn't tell. Maurreen (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3rd_Reconnaissance_Battalion_(United_States)&oldid=1219928548"