Talk:1st Civil Affairs Group

IP reverts

There are quite a number of IP edits making reverts — back to abbreviated Wikilinks rather than full name. With no edit summaries, there is no apparent reason, though it appears that they are simply reverting good edits. I've added a short-term semi-protection for this article. If you are unable to edit this article as a result of the semi-protect, either register and edit, or leave a note here. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Various IP addresses are being used to make the same reversion — adding information on CWO2 D.T. Harrington. Please use this talk page to discuss reasons why you think this addition should be kept. If community consensus says to keep it, then it will be kept. But, including an individual person's name just because they were a part of the unit is insufficient reason for keeping it. IPs making this edit will be blocked unless the edits are discussed. Semi-protection of the page again to prevent such edits is the next step. — ERcheck (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like vanity edits to me. —Kenyon (t·c) 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW the IPs are all from the same ISP, Verizon. —Kenyon (t·c) 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Likely the same person. — ERcheck (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced History section — details

The 3rd CAG and the 4th CAG are two parallel groups. Their articles are not. The History section of the 3rd CAG is unreferenced and does not have a neutral voice. The commanding officers are named with unreferenced, comments about their contributions. Unless there is clear documentation, I propose that the section be deleted until verifiable, encyclopedic information is available. — ERcheck (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Due to continuous vandalism by anon editors, this article has been temporarily semi-protected. If you have questions, reasons why this should be lifted earlier, please contact me. — ERcheck (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Combined Joint Task Force - Consequence Management

An ANON added info about a deployment of 2 Marines from 3rd CAG in support of this task force. This information was removed. Recommend not adding deployments by units consisting of only 2 Marines, which was probably an IA anyway. FieldMarine (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The only WP reference that I see for CJTF-CM is with Cornell A. Wilson, Jr.. Now if this exercise is notable, an article should be written. Mentioning CJTF-CM in this (3rd CAG) article, without context, is not helpful. IOW, develop the CJTF-CM article first, then "send the Marines", (however many of them). --S. Rich (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous unsourced references on Wikipedia that are based solely on first-person accounts. If all of these unsourced references were removed from the site, Wikipedia would probably lose much of it's content. These were not IA Marines...these were specific TO line numbers, specific to the task force's mission (critical to it's mission in fact). The task force was stood up to meet a specific, unique need, hence it's relevancy.

First person accounts often fail NPOV. If in fact this was notable, there should be no problem finding plenty of 3rd party reliable sources. Please use a source when adding information or it will be eliminated. FieldMarine (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see my previous comment, and please stop reverting my constructive edits. They will be restored if they are deleted again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okinawadato (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Your previous comment has not addressed the fact that the info is unsourced & appears to fail NPOV. Pleas address these issues or the info will be removed. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, please see my previous comment, and please stop reverting my constructive edits. They will be restored if they are deleted again. There is much on Wikipedia that is unsourced, and rely on first-person accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.140.55 (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Labeling constructive edits as vandalism

Please do not label constructive edits as vandalism. The unit C/JTF-CM was not an insignificant deployment for 3rd CAG, despite it only sending two Marines. The purpose of C/JTF-CM was to interface with the Kuwaiti government in the event of a chemical and/or biological attack by Iraq during Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (the mission is referred to as Consequence Management). It had approximately 200+ US personnel (Joint) and over 1,500 foreign (Combined) manpower for the Task Force. It was the only type of unit in the history of the US military up to that point, hence it's substantive relevancy to the 3rd CAG history.

FieldMarine, please do not continue to delete this information, or you will be reported for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okinawadato (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If this is significant for 3d CAG, please add reference why it is so for the CAG. I have not seen where we add deployments of 1 or 2 people into a unit history in Wikipedia. So if it is significant, please include information with reliable 3d party sources as to why it is so. FieldMarine (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a great deal on this page that is of general knowledge and unsourced. For example, "In the late 1990s, 3rd CAG Marines and Sailors supported the active components of all branches of the U.S. military during exercises and operations in Thailand, Korea, Kenya, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Japan, and the United States." Where is this referenced? What are the sorces for the information? What is the sorce for 3rd CAG's support of Operation Pacific Haven? If 3rd CAG provided "limited tactical psychological operations support for mission accomplishment" during Desert Storm, why mention it at all if it was so limited?

The bottom line is that although you may not see it as relevant, that does not mean it isn't. Please stop the unconstructive vandalism. (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any unsourced info from this article. If info is relevant & notable as you say, there should be plenty of 3d party references supporting the addition of it. Use that when adding information which appears of questionable notability. FieldMarine (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the information in military pages can only be sourced from CAC-card enabled sites. This is difficult to source directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.205.224 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, we must omit. WP:VERIFY says readers have got to have access. We are not here to put CAC-card only available info into the articles.--S. Rich (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, information from military pages that are written by the units themselves are not 3d party sources. FieldMarine (talk) 04:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Material supplied by units themselves are not unacceptable in all circumstances. WP:ABOUTSELF does provide guidelines. Only problem is most such pages by military units fail the first criteria -- unduly self-serving. In this case, however, we have no material describing CJTF-CM. (But my Google search came up with 11,500 hits.) --S. Rich (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy all on your point about material supplied by units themselves. However, IMHO, a unit history should not include info based on a deployment of 1 or 2 Marines, which were most likely supplied as individual augmentees rather than a subordinate organic element, like a CA detachment. IMHO, this is not notable unless the element is listed as a subordinate unit in the force structure of the task force. I have no doubt that CJTF-CM is notable, however, I’m not convinced the 2 Marines out of a task force of 1,700+ is a notable element of the TF. Just some thoughts on the issue. FieldMarine (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This deployment consisted of a Lieutenant Colonel and a Colonel from 3rd CAG, and a Colonel from 4th CAG. Hardly insignificant. If this were just an "insignificant" IA deployment I don't think they would have sent three high ranking officers to do CA work. The scope of C/JTF-CM's mission was important enough that these three Marines were the primary interface between the Kuwaiti national government and the task force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okinawadato (talk • contribs) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds insignificant to me, in the scope of the entire unit's history. The rank of the individuals doesn't really add much weight to that argument, and in any case, you haven't cited any reliable sources. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This really rests on personal opinion, it seems. Those who do not see relevancy, and those who do. This is a significant deployment for 3rd CAG, as I have already stated why. If there is no source material, then much of Wikipedia should be deleted as it cannot be substantiated by a link.

Please provide a source when adding info to this article & include why this is notable. If it was significant, then I'm sure there would be plenty of reliable sources about it. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reaching Consensus on CJTF-CM

• Not include, unless a reliable 3d party source is included as to why this is significant for the history of the unit, I recommend not including info on CJTF-CM in the article. IMHO, we should not include deployments of 1 or 2 Marines from a unit in its unit history unless there is a compelling reason to do so. FieldMarine (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Dump it: sounds like insignificant nonsense to me. A two-man augment can't even properly be called a "deployment", nor could a lot of the other small teams mentioned in the unit history. I know that this unit is unique in how it goes about its business, rarely deploying as a large group, but a Wikipedia article isn't supposed to serve as a personnel roster or deployment directory, anything . Okinawadato would do well to learn about our policies on citation and NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE; but both him and FieldMarine should read WP:3RR as none of the edits in this edit war were clear vandalism. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC) 19:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not include Fails at notability, off the bat, if it's just two Marines. However if enough neutral third party sources can be found, it may be included. Bottom line, do not include this material without sources. Doesn't matter if 10,000 articles out there are unsourced or written badly, the focus is on this one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Not include An article about CJTF-CM would be nice (see above). Otherwise the addition of this tiny bit of unit history is out of context and not helpful.--S. Rich (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Include Much of this article is unubstantiated, according to Wikipedia rules. Much of it would be redacted or deleted altogether if such a rule were to be applied in such a generalized manner. "Just two Marines" is an overly simplistic means of dimissing the importance of the 3rd CAG participation of the task force - as has been stated before it is a significant deployment, there was no other unit of this type before ir since. This is not a "personnel roster," "deployment directory," neither is it out of context...though for the sake of argument a source has been noted. - okinawadato — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okinawadato (talk • contribs) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)