Talk:172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

172nd Infantry Brigade (United States) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 15, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
August 15, 2008	WikiProject A-class review	Not approved

Current status: Good article

Military history: North America / United States / World War I / World War II / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Additional information:
/
	This article has failed an A-Class review.

United States: Military history Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

Reactivated as...?[edit]

Does anyone know if the Brigade was reactivated as an Active duty separate brigade, like the 173rd Airborne Brigade? -Ed! (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Units[edit]

currently the Brigades maneuver elements are: 2x Infantry Battalions, 1x Armor Battalion and a Cavalry Troop - which in the future will become 1x Cavalry Squadron, 1x Infantry and 1x Armor Battalion - does anyone know which Infantry Battalion will be disbanded? --noclador (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment[edit]

At some point someone needs to reference the fact that the 1-34th BCT ultimately served the longest deployment ever and that because of that Congress acted to insure no unit would ever be deployed that long again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.21.243.200 (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this be addressed in the 172d SBCT article? Would it not be more appropriate to address this in the 34th ID article?--If a soldier isn't complaining about something, there's a real problem.... 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional question regarding the deployments of the 172d SBCT and 1/34 BCT: the way the article refers to 1/34 BCT it implies that the brigade served longer than 16 months in Iraq. It would probably be best to provide actual dates if available for both brigades for comparison--all I could find was reference that the 172d served from 16AUG05 to 03DEC06 from the unit award, while 1/34 served from MAR06 through JUL07. If 1/34 was deployed longer we should find something to back that up better than a month range.--If a soldier isn't complaining about something, there's a real problem....PushkinsBarber (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status, and they all seem pretty minor. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Minor issues, see below.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Minor questions to be dealt with:

"The 172d Infantry Brigade (Separate) was first constituted" is there a reason this is 172d? should it be 172nd?

This is actually an issue that has been addressed before with no clear outcome. The US government omits the "n" in all Army unit numberings (172d is the "official" designation) but essentially no one else does so. This has been an issue before (such as on the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment page, which was moved to "2d" for a while) what in your judgment should be done? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should chose one version and use it consistently throughout the article (including the title). Create a redirect for the other and then make a note, perhaps as a footnote or perhaps as a hidden comment (your choice) explaining the issue, using sources where appropriate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Done~~

I don't actually see a note anywhere. I think making one is important because otherwise this article might get moved around suddenly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 12:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There it is! GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~"During this time it was also assigned to For the majority of the US involvement" - I think something is missing here~~.

Done

~~The links to First Army etc. go to disambiguation pages, find something specific to link them to or delink them.~~

Done

"Thus, all three brigades that were designated as the 172nd Infantry Brigade since 2006 will be serving together in Iraq." - I might have missed something above, but what does this actually mean? That all the above brigades have been named the 172nd since 2006? --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three units have been designated "172nd Infantry Brigade" since 2006. The first brigade was reflagged as the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division in 2006, and the second was reflagged from the 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division in 2008. Both of these brigades will be serving in Iraq along with what is now the 172nd Infantry Brigade. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So . . . The unit that was the 172nd brigade is now 1st Brigade, 25th Division, another unit bore the designation 172nd for a time but is now 2nd Brigade, 1st Division and now a third brigade (raised from where? scratch?) has the name? Is this right? Is there a way you can make this clearer in the article? If the unit using the name keeps changing, does the new unit to bear it maintain the associated history or do they have their own traditions from whatever designation they had before they became the 172nd?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that US Army unit designations can become very convoluted...let me explain again and see if the article reflects this well. The first unit ("Brigade A") was the 172nd Infantry Brigade from 1998-2006, until it became "1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division". Same soldiers, new name. The 172nd officially ceased to exist then, as no unit had the designation. Brigade B was the "2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division" until 2008, when it was redesignated as the 172nd Innfantry Brigade. "Brigade C" was "3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division" until Brigade B had its name changed, and then Brigade C became "2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division." The ultimante goal for all these name changes is to realign army units as they are moved around, as well as build new units as part of Grow the Army. The brigade that will take the name that Brigade C previously had is being built from the ground up. So, the three brigades that were at one time the 172nd Infantry Brigade are all going to Iraq. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it very well, is there anyway you can explain it in an encyclopedic way in the article? If its too difficult don't worry, I won't prevent the article from becoming a GA on this account.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I just removed it instead. I thought it would be an interesting little bit of trivia, but it's not that important and explaining it just throws the article off topic. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 00:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. For what it is worth, it is an interesting bit of trivia but I think you're right about the difficulty of explaining it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move article to 172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)[edit]

User:Dcfowler1 has moved this article several times to remove the Brigade Combat Team title from the title of the article.

Against The article has sources naming it specifically as a brigade combat team. Dcfowler has simply removed these sources saying they are incorrect while offering none of his own. Since the reliable sources name the unit as the 172nd Brigade Combat Team and since no verifiable evidence has been presented otherwise, I say the article should remain as the 172nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team -Ed!^'(talk) 04:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against moving: Following randomly selected sources are naming the brigade a brigade combat team. I could name several more.

Website of Task Force Mountain in Iraq, December 27, 2008
TFM in every single issue of the Mountain View
Stars and Stripes, December 27, 2008
The Department of Defense in a news article
DoD in a casualty announcement, April 07, 2009
Army Times, May 15, 2009
... and so on...

It's up to Dcfowler1 citing his changes with proper sources. Otherwise, the article should be removed again and the user should be required to refrain from moving it again. Greetings --Tafkas (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we are talking about the structure of that brigade, I inserted the organizational charts on the right. What in your (meaning Dcfowler1) opinion is missing for organizing an IBCT? --Tafkas (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Brigade itself is organized not as a Brigade Combat Team but as an Army of Excellence unit and on its own homepage the Brigade refers to itself only once as "Infantry Brigade Combat Team"[1] and 109 times as "Infantry Brigade"[2] - therefore I decided to move the page. --noclador (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the difference between an Army of Excellence and an IBCT unit:

IBCTS have a Special Troops Battalion
IBCTs have only one Infantry Battalion
IBCTs have a full Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, not only a troop
IBCTs have no independent Signal Company, have no Engineer Battalion, no independent Headquarters and Headquarters Company and have no independent Military Intelligence Company

--noclador (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]