Talk:Civil Air Patrol

Template:Past AID Archived talk page 1

Page-related discussion

Featured Article Attempt

Hi everyone. It would mean a LOT to me if this article was edited to such a state that we would be able to nominate this thing for featured article status. If anyone is interested, throw me a message on my talk page and post your interest here. Linuxbeak 20:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I seriously think that this article is ready for featured article status! Linuxbeak 20:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

YES!!! FEATURED ARTICLE!!! Linuxbeak 03:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Current Status

1. Start a new article: Completed!
2. Do some research: Completed!
3. Write a great article: Completed!
4. Check against the featured article criteria: Completed!
5. Get creative feedback: We are currently getting peer reviewed. Completed!
6. Apply for featured article status: Completed!
7. Featured articles: COMPLETED!

Final results: 7 support, 0 object, 0 neutral

Tasks to be completed

We currently need the following tasks to be completed before we can even think about nominating this page for featured article status:

1. Perhaps a list of Wings and their patches?
2. Adding ribbon table (cadet and senior).
3. Adding badge table (such as the various types of wings (pilot, observer, glider, etc) and other badges).

• On retrospective... the article is already huge. We don't need these in the same article. Linuxbeak 20:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add to the above list. Linuxbeak 20:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Things that have been [constructively] complained about

1. References not listed/seperated from external links
2. Too many short paragraphs
3. Too many lists

Civil Air Patrol-related discussion

Time to split the article..?

It's really friggin' big. Easily the biggest article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's probably time to split the History and Cadet Program sections off into their own articles. With no objections, I'll probably jump on that in the next few days. NetSerfer 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have an objection. Please understand I'm not trying to be difficult. There are plenty of other articles that are about the same size or longer than this one (such as President of the United States, World War II, World War I, Star Wars, Linux, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, United States, Jesus, Christianity... etc etc etc). Splitting the article would, if anything, hurt it, and it would nullify its featured article status (which I am in no hurry to see leave). Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's getting a tad tough to navigate in there and I can see a lot of areas that need further expansion (especially Cadet Program and History). Now seemed like as good a time as any... ==> NetSerfer 19:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak, the History section really rocks now! I have a coupla minor queries about stuff that I think needs to be made clearer for readers as ignorant as myself:

Birth of the Civil Air Patrol. What's an "aviation writer" (as in Wilson)? That's a concept? Pilot Training and the Cadet Program. Uh, you're supposed to need "indoctrination" to become a licenced pilot, really...?

(And quite a few commented-out minor comments, too, but i know you've got those in hand.)--Bishonen | talk 16:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I made an editing pass at this article tonight, mostly to the organization section, adding a paragraph on the Board of Governors and NHQ, along with some general re-organization and fixing some innaccuracies. The Cadet Programs section is still a bit of a mess, sounds like the perspective of a Phase II cadet almost (no offense intended, I was one once myself). -- Matt Johnson <mattj@spaatz.org> talk

File:CAP MAJCOM shield.jpg

USAF MAJCOM shield for CAP

Links Dispute

I noticed that CAPblog was linked as an external link, does that mean that Auxiliary Power Journal, Cadet Power Journal, Civil Airman and Flying Minutemen should also be included as extrnal links? Personally I think that none of these should be linked. --Grant Henninger 23:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Why shouldn't they be included? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

They shouldn't be included because they are not part of the official organization of CAP. There are dozens and dozens of private and personal pages that are about CAP and it isn't the job of this page - nor Wikipedia - to reference them all. And, since we can't reference them all, then by rights we shouldn't reference any of them unless they are, in some way, exceptionally significant. None of these are, including CadetStuff. -- NetSerfer

I agree with NetSerfer here, if people want to find blogs related to CAP they can just Google for them. I don't think it's the role of Wikipedia to list them all here. Are there other articles on Wikipedia that do have a list of blogs and other personal sites in the external links? --Grant Henninger 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia guidelines, we've got two votes to one on the links. I'm going to restore them to the last major edit. Anyone care to cast a tie-breaker on the introduction? NetSerfer 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Although you may have a point with the blogs, I do not agree with you removing the references. Information from *before* I was the webmaster of that site was used. Plus, that same site has donated images to this article in the past, so it's rightfully a reference. It doesn't matter if I'm the webmaster or not; it's still factual. Please see the Featured Article Candidate discussion when references were discussed, and please do not remove the references again, because I will put them back. It's not a threat, but I know I'm right in this case. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing on your squadron web site that is a significant reference in and of itself. CAP squadrons receive all directive and publications of significance from central authority. To reference any squadron is self-serving twaddle. Anyway, if you're right about linking your squadron, then let's go get some mediation. NetSerfer 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-serving twaddle? I'm going to ignore the fact that that could be considered a personal attack for right now. It appears that you are a relatively new editor (seeing that you've only got 166 article edits under your belt), so I'm going to assume good faith and suggest reading up on Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you want to start a mediation case, by all means go ahead, but it will only be a waste of your time as well as mine. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, self-serving twaddle. A personal attack? Not according to the definitions. First, let's address the 'references' in question. A reference should accomplish the following:

• Giving credit to a source for providing useful information.
• Providing more information to curious readers.
• Convincing skeptical readers that the article is accurate.
• Helping other editors quickly verify facts, especially in cases of sneaky vandalism.
• Preventing and resolving editorial disputes.
• Establishing general credibility for Wikipedia.
• Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.

If the reference to RI-102 does anything on that list, it's Giving credit to a source for providing useful information. However, as I stated, there is nothing on that site that didn't come from NHQ and there is no reason to link in one particular squadron's site when there are dozens of contributors (representing dozens of sites) to this page. You want we should link them all?

Calling the link self-serving twaddle seems to have nothing in common with the discrete list or even the spirit of a 'personal attack' according to Wikipedia. It was a characterization of the post, not of the person making the post; labelling it as: Empty or silly talk or writing, serving one's own interests.

Okey dokey, sounds like you're all for mediation. I'll get the ball rolling... Actually, I'll tell you what: in the spirit of cooperation, please point out to me which sections of the CAP article are based on references from the RI-102 site. If you can justify it, I'll withdraw my objections. NetSerfer 14:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think that "self-serving twaddle" is a personal attack, and I am quite comfortable saying that a number of other seasoned editors would agree. Anyway, although I find it a bit humourous that you're the one who's demanding answers from me, I'll give you what you want.

1. Every cadet grade image displayed is from the 102nd's website
2. The image of N9824L is from the 102nd's website (in fact, that was a picture that I took)
3. The entirety of the sections concerning emergency services, cadet programs, and aerospace education, are all heavily adapted from the 102nd's website
4. Although not listed on this page, every ribbon graphic in Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol is directly adapted from images directly taken from the 102nd's webpage

That's enough for me to sleep easy knowing that I provided the 102nd's webpage as a reference. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

And... "Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty." is key in reason number 3. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 15:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to pursue a 'personal attack' complaint, knock yourself out. This isn't about you, it's about this resource and what I consider to be your unfair use of it. Find my demands as humorous as you like, but as far as content is concerned we have equal standing here. Now, your points:

1. Some of the items you've listed as being from the 102nd's website (ribbon images, grade images) are not in and of themselves owned or unique to that site. They are available from any number of sources, including NER's 'rack builder' site, and could very easily be replaced from there.
2. The image of N9824L itself should be referenced back to you. That doesn't justify a link to RI-102 on every wikipage that might use that image. (Besides which, it's not that good an image: it's not well lit and the A/C in question isn't in CAP's preferred livery. The page would probably be better served by replacing it.)
3. Considering the extremely heavy editing that's been done on the page since you pulled sections from RI-102, I don't think your characterization of them as 'heavily adapted' is reasonable. They differ materially and significantly from that initial pull.
4. Citing reason 3 - Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty. - is specious at best, since the images you claim (except for N9824L) as key to your arguments are taken from other sites and are being used here under 'fair use' or as public domain. RI-102 didn't create those ribbons or grades and you didn't create those images. Plagiarism isn't an issue for the simple reason that the article has been so heavily edited that your initial sections are unrecognisable.

Beak, I honestly think you're too close to the issue and I'd prefer to work this out here - especially since we've already resolved this dispute once with a two-to-one vote in favor of trimming the reference links. However, if you're still up for mediation, I'm all about it. NetSerfer 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Okey doke, I can see that you made an edit to the article, which means you've had a chance to see this and make a final decision on what you want to do. I guess I'll start the ball rolling... NetSerfer 13:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Read WP:NOT and read up on the section that says "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. Also... as far as I can tell, it appears that this "second" vote that you cite from Grant Henninger doesn't even mention the references. So, as far as I can tell, you're down to 1 vs. 1. I'm on IRC right now, and I'm getting some people to look at the article as I type to see if the reference is appropriate. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why these links should be removed. They were used as sources and should be cited as such. Alphax ^τεχ 13:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I also cannot see why the links in question should be removed. They in no way tarnish the credibility of the article or Wikipedia, and in fact seem to add something to the article. They are used as references, no more. And nobody is forcing a person to look at the link, it is just an option. Firestorm 13:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, there you have it. 3 against 1, and both from active editors. If you think it's not enough, I can find more people to back me up on this one, NetSerfer. Another thing: I happened to create those ribbons you see on that page, thank you. Compare the ribbons on Wikipedia to the ones on the ribbon rack page... and look carefully. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I also think that the links should stay. --Phroziac ^(talk) 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing on your squadron web site that is a significant reference in and of itself. CAP squadrons receive all directive and publications of significance from central authority. To reference any squadron is self-serving twaddle. Anyway, if you're right about linking your squadron, then let's go get some mediation. NetSerfer 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

That's bull. You're arguing that the only links that have to be included are those from official mouthpieces. That's like saying that the only info about the CIA and its (mis)operations has to come from the Public Relations office of the CIA. Nonsence, keep the links. It had to be played on the Jukebox. Project2501a 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Even though I've withdrawn, I will answer this by saying that since RI-102 website is CAPR-110 compliant, there can be nothing on it that isn't approved by CAP and that anything on it that isn't approved will be immediately taken down by orders of the chain of command. That's why putting a squadron web site on this page is 'self-serving twaddle'. If you want to put up dissenting opinions, then start linking in some of the very critical member blogs. But, that would seemingly violate NPOV. NetSerfer 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Okey doke, I can play well with others. I withdraw my objection. NetSerfer 14:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should silt the two! - CAP cadet

Introduction Dispute

I tightened up the introduction - which hadn't been changed since before the extensive history was added - by removing pieces of fairly in-depth historical information that were included are the history and you stuck them back in there. We also have some conflicts on what should and should not be included as links. Plus, Linuxbeak, I notice that all the links to your squadron's page that you maintain are back. I say we've got some issues here and I'm going to the Third Opinion page for a neutral opinion. - NetSerfer 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

He doesn't currently maintain the squadron website for your information sir. Phr3d 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Uh, okay, thanks, I guess... NetSerfer 18:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Removal of AID tag

I removed the AID tag, because the article is now up for voting at Featured Article candidates. Linuxbeak 00:52, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have changed this several times and it keeps changing back: The Gen Spaatz Award is the equivalent of the Eagle Scout----NOT the Gen Mitchell Award as listed in the article. I have been a member of CAP for over 18 years and the Commander of a CAP Cadet Squadron for many of them and I can assure you that I am correct in my facts!!! Please do not change it back!!! Thank you!! SEMPER VIGILANS

I am the editor who is largely responsible for the featured article status of this article as well as the upkeep. I am a CAP cadet, and I disagree with your arguement. A Mitchell cadet may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-3, while an Eagle Scout may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-2. I am not disagreeing on the basis that the Spaatz is the highest CAP cadet award as the rank of Eagle is the highest Scouting award. If you want to compare based on percentage, the Eaker would actually be equivilant to the Eagle (as approx. 2% of all cadets get to Eaker; this is the same as the Eagle). So, unless there is an official statement from National indicating that a certain cadet grade is their equivilant of the Eagle rank, then I am reverting you. Please provide a source for your arguement. Also, please don't take over a topic but instead create your own. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 16:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

CAP and the Military

In my opinion, it is very important to have a section in this article that makes it very clear that the CAP is not a branch of the United States Armed Forces and that CAP members are never placed in command of active duty U.S. troops. This was actually in the article quite some time ago, but edited out long ago probably through routine cleanups and not by any design to hide this info. Anyway, this group is confusing to non U.S. folks who see it as simply a branch of the Air Force. And, as a military reservist, I cant tell you how many times Ive bumped into CAP people who demanded to know why the active military did not salute them. Not that all CAP people are like that, of course, just thats its a point of confusion within the CAP itself. -Husnock 09:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Japanese Fire Balloons

Added a sentence about CAP members patrolling for japanese fire ballons in WWII. When I was a cadet, one of the older CAP members in the Wing (MT) used to tell stories about riding around in his plane with a shotgun looking for these. Unfortunatly, the gentleman passed away several years ago and I don't have any further information. Hopefully someone can elaborate on this.

This is very interesting. Would you be able to provide a print or online source for this? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I said I don't have any further information, but if you know any senior members up in Montana they probably know who I'm talking about. I've lost touch with most everyone I knew from CAP. You might try cadetstuff.org and see if anyone there has any information, I'll ask my father and see what he remembers.