Jump to content

Talk:Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol

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

Old stuff

[edit]

Just wondering something: none of the ribbons match up with the names of the awards. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the ribbon referenced next to its name, instead of the way it is currently?

Sorry about not signing that last one. RedNovember 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. Perhaps a nice table would make it better... Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet Advisory Council Ribbon

[edit]
Reverted the changes on the CAC Ribbon. Here is why:
  • CAPR 5-4, paras 1a, 1d, 1f, 2, 4, and 4b combine to tell us that regulations cannot be changed by letter except in emergency circumstances and those changes, when necessary, automatically expire after 90 days. Therefore, per the lack of any official (read: USAF-authorized) change to CAPM 39-1, the CAP Uniform Manual, this letter (in fact, technically, every letter-change to CAPM 39-1) is no longer in effect; whether they were really in effect at the time is even debatable in light of CAPR 5-4.
  • The net effect of this, though, is that the authorization for former-cadet Senior Members to wear the CAC ribbon is null (if it could be officially said to have ever existed).
  • As for the levels of CAC, this is described in detail in CAPR 52-16, the CAP Cadet Program manual, chapter three, para 3-8 and it's accompanying figure, Figure 3-1 (on page 35. This regulation, dated 01 October 2006, supercedes the corresponding section of CAPM 39-1, which is dated 23 March 2005. (In theory, a change to the manual should have been issued simultaneously.)
  • Finally, with a new National Commander (who, in her introduction letter in the Volunteer magazine and on the corporate website, refers to "Civil Air Patrol" and not "U.S. Civil Air Patrol"), all of these letter-only "changes" (which, again, are not authorized/binding as per CAPR 5-4 as noted above) may go away instead of being codified. Only time will tell. Personally, I want the CAC ribbon to officially be authorized for Senior Members, but a simple read of prevailing regulation at this time prevents it.
Semper Vi! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some good points there, except for the 39-1 stuff. A change in the rules regarding an already approved award would not require Air Force approval or a change in 39-1 (well, except to the order of precedence table). What needs to be changed is in 52-16 and 39-3, not in 39-1. In addition, in practice changes to uniforms, especially corporate uniforms CAN be done by interim change letters, as was done numerous times by the previous national commander. Also, the change regarding "US Civil Air Patrol" vs. "Civil Air Patrol" was not merely done because of a new National Commander, it was a mandated change by the National Executive Committee. As it currently stands, AFAIK CAP NHQ considers the ribbon authorized for senior members. Also, you are incorrect on your interpretation of CAPR 5-4 and the "90 days" limit:
a. ICLs outlining immediate policies to be followed for a limited time will be issued with a stated expiration date. Such expiration dates shall not be more than 180 days from the date the letter was issued.
b. ICLs outlining immediate policies that are intended to become permanent shall be incorporated into an appropriate publication within 90 days of the date the letter was issued.
While it is a cheap way around, and probably not what the writers of the reg intended, all it says is that changes intended to be temporary can last no more than 180 days, and that changes meant to be permanent shall be put in the reg within 90 days. It does not technically say that if this isn't done, the ICL becomes invalid or no longer in effect after 90 days. There have been discussions on CAPTalk regarding this, and yes it is a cheap work around, but that's what you get for ambiguous wording in regulations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. I did mean CAPR 39-3 for this instance (M39-1 is the most prolific recipient of these letters). Still, these letters were not produced as "Interim Change Letters" and even if they are and were not properly labeled (I'll stipulate that for the academic discussion), they cannot be issued as a uniform change hardly represents a "state of emergency" or an "unforeseen circumstance involving the preservation of life or property." (from CAPR 5-4, para 4). It would be a huge stretch to say that it qualifies under this paragraph as "other contingencies that may require prompt action" (and for that matter, how difficult is it to produce a formal change to a regulation).
I see how you read the 90-day-nonlimit. Excellent catch. I believe that this is clearly intended to make them expire, but if changes were being posted properly, it would be a moot point (as one would expect, and thus write the regulation the way it is).
You are correct that "CAP NHQ considers the ribbon authorized for senior members." That point I am not challenging. What I am pointing out is that CAP NHQ can "consider" whatever they want, unless it's in black and white, it is not regulation. It's a simple concept that permeates all (US) military services and auxiliaries.
A lot of things - some absolutely ridiculous - have been put forward in these uncodifying letters. The problem is that they have caused a lot of contradictions in policy. Until there is an actual CAPR or CAPM statement regarding these and not simply a letter (one not even designated as an ICL within itself), it cannot be said definitively that the regulations so state.
Again, I want to reiterate that this is simply an analysis of regulation and I personally want to see the CAC ribbon officially and regulatorily authorized for Senior Members. Until the day that a formal regulation officially codifies this "change", I'll keep to a strict literal read. That said, I appreciate and respect your view and hope that we're ultimately on the same page, perhaps just different paragraphs of that page, so to speak.
As a side note, you state that "in practice changes to uniforms, especially corporate uniforms CAN be done by interim change letters." While this may *ahem* be the case today, it wasn't always so. There used to be a time when things like CAPR 5-4 were followed and even slight changes to the Uniform Manual were published in changes. We used to have to write the changes in, then later the changes were of full pages, so it was a simple replacement. The difference between a letter (non-binding) and a change (binding) is minimal in the work to type it up. There is absolutely no logistical reason why these letters could not have been done as changes. It is only recently, very recently, that changes are done in this unofficial, unmilitary-procedure fashion of policy letters.
Semper Vi! VigilancePrime (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everything you said there. It is one of my big hopes that under the new leadership things get better. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I share your hesitant optimism. As I hoped above, I'm glad to see we're on the same page at least. Best Wishes and Semper Vi! VigilancePrime (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of January 25th the CAC ribbon wear by Senior Members is now official. --Evil.Merlin (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it is still a letter, and as noted above, it is not valid per CAP regulations for this sort of a change. If it was an actual change to the regulation (we all remember what those look like, right?), it would be binding. Let me be clear, I want the CAC ribbon to be permanent, but I have always taught to follow the regulations and to know the regulations, and for me to do any different would not be acceptable now. One day, hopefully soon, this will be properly codified. Until then, we here need to leave it vague as we had before. Letters simply are not binding in this matter. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but I have to disagree. Countless changes that are official and in use are in the ICL's alone right now. They are in practice and in use throughout the nation, and no one is treating them as illegal. I do not think it is the place of Wikipedia to document personal issues with the legality of what National is doing. The ribbon wear, along with the flag patch, the grade insignia on the BDU cover for senior members, and a dozen other changes are official, at least for the time being. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we aren't here to analyze, which is why, at least as I recalled, we were leaving it vague. Instead of saying that it is or isn't worn is left out entirely. I think that's the best option. That said, I didn't change it back as I feel this is a consensus issue more than a right-or-wrong issue. If the consensus is to incorporate the letters, than let's do it. If the consensus is to hold off and not state definitively either (my preference), then let's do that. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As documented"

[edit]

Evil Merlin, when you say "As the documented M39-1 update is in effect till at least 01/10/2008 Reverting back to as documented," can you explain what you mean? Unless there's something different (and newer) than we've discussed above, I'm missing where you see the expiration date of 01/10/2008. Where, other than the letters we have above-referenced, is the change updated? I'm asking because I could have missed something somewhere, but unless there's something other than the so-called Interim Change Letters (which were not published as ICL's), there's nothing unexpired. Because the letters themselves are (as we've discussed above) arguable, we've decided that we should keep the reference here intentionally vague until there is an official, CAPR5-4-compliant change to the regulation. VigilancePrime 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfindable ribbons

[edit]
Help! Where can I find anything formal (even one of those change letters!) about the following four ribbons?
  • Air Force Association Award to Unit Cadet of the Year
  • Air Force Sergeants Association Award to Unit Cadet NCO of the Year
  • VFW Award for Unit Cadet Officer of the Year
  • VFW Award for Unit Cadet NCO of the Year
I'm on the NHQ website as I type this and the only letter change to R39-3 is for the National Commander star to a Commander's Commendation (no comment). CAPR 39-3 only lists these awards in Section G: Special Awards and Honors, but nowhere in that section is a ribbon referenced. Further, the VFW awards are not listed in the precedence list (the AFA and AFSA ones are - attachment one).
Lastly, does anyone know where images of the medals to accompany these awards are? Many, many of the CAP awards have actual medals associated with them (think mess dress uniforms).
Many thanks and Semper Vi! VigilancePrime (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was awarded the AFA award for Unit Cadet of the Year and wore the ribbon. I'll find the exact regs on it (and the Air Force Sergeants Association) later tonight, I'm actually getting ready for my CAP meeting right now. I'll see if I can upload a picture of my AFA medal as well, though at least when I was given it I was told that it actually was just for show, not authorized for Mess Dress (further supported by the fact that cadets can't wear Mess Dress, and it isn't a ribbon/medal that carries over when you go Senior Member and actually CAN wear mess dress). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rational for Template:Splitsection on Silver Medal of Valor and Bronze Medal of Valor

[edit]

I feel that the information in this section is disproportionally large compared to the information in the other sections of this article. It might be enough for the Medal of Valor to merit its own page. scetoaux (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE. I have thought this for awhile. We should have a Medal of Valor (Civil Air Patrol) page, and both the Bronze and Silver sections of this page should use the {{main}} tag to link to it. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Personally I have never created a new article, and I don't have much in the way of time or patience to do so. Maybe somebody bold and enterprising could do it? scetoaux (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wilco. Give me about five minutes. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Semper Vi![reply]
Thanks aplenty. scetoaux (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edits

[edit]

I've done some major reconstruction on this article tonight. I think all the old sections are there; will check later. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to limit the number of items appearing in the Table of Contents. However, I still think that each award should have it's own header. I'm trying to use {{TOClimit|3}}, but it's not working. Items with 4 equals signs are still appearing. See the Medals of Valor for what I mean. I'd appreciate any help if someone knows how to do this. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've fixed it. Remember to always nest your subheaders properly...always go two, three, four; not two, four as you had. I've limited to showing just the top level headers. Also, please do not place external links in the prose of the article...limit all external links to the bottom...if those existing external links are being used as sources, then create a References section with {{reflist}} and use <ref> tags to have them show up there. I would strongly suggest finding sources for each section, and each separate idea if at all possible. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The external links were already there. I didn't actually add anything to the article, only moved it around. I plan to keep working on the article tonight. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've once'd over the article, adjusting the images and adding a few links here and there. When I get a chance I'm going to remove all the links to Cadet Captain and other links that are redirects to Cadet grades and insignia of the Civil Air Patrol; right now the two articles are highly coupled, and it's just not good. There are many blind redirects and it's really hurting the representation of this information. We should really sit down and look at how this information is best presented - and it's not by retyping the information in a manual :^/ Fightin' Phillie (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened? I think it was better organized when it was split into senior members and cadet ribbons. 72.74.99.134 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restructuring the article. Most of Wikipedia's reader's aren't interested in a laundry list of ribbons that CAP members can earn. I'm trying to bring it closer to a normal Wikipedia article by creating sections and will soon be rewording most of the content. If you really want to know how ribbons are earned, you should be reading the appropriate manual - not looking at Wikipedia (I'll be referencing the manual as well). Fightin' Phillie (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you all know that I am working on a major reworking of the article. You can see my progress here. I'm trying to be very systamatic about things and will make my way through slowly and surely, but would love any suggestions others may have.--dave-- 02:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dave, looks good so far. I should raise two points though. First, the images on the page will soon be deleted, as it was determined that Civil Air Patrol-produced images are not public domain. Second, check out how the references at University of Tennessee Anthropological Research Facility#References are set up, which will help with the clutter of having the exact same references appear multiple times. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I'll cross the deletion bridge when I get to it. Surely, it won't be a problem to create my own PD versions of the ribbons and medals. I'll look at the clutter free references this evening.--dave-- 11:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, since the design is Civil Air Patrols, even a derivative may be copyrighted, but it definitely depends on the simplicity of the design, of which most of them are very simple. You might be able to get away with designs that omit the grey stripes that represent the fabric. The old ones with designs on the front may not be salvageable, though since they date from WWII, I could probably claim they are PD-USGov-Military-Army (or Army Air Force). I'll look in to it. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Badges

[edit]

Just throwing in my ideas: I think there should be a section on badges of the Civil Air Patrol, too. 72.74.113.120 (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I'll get to work on that ASAP.--99.17.106.242 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award ribbons

[edit]
BMV Ribbon

With a simple, paint-rendered version of the BMV ribbon like this, would we be able to get around the fact that these are not PD US Military awards? It seems that any design so simple that a few boxes on MSPaint can reproduce it should not be copyrightable, but I'm certainly no expert.--dave-- 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While considering the Public Domain-ness of CAP insignia, ribbons, etc., I came across this page. It states that "CAP’s aeronautical badges, sleeve insignias, buttons and lapel attachments along with awards from January 1942 until June 1964, was Designed by the Heraldic Branch, Office of the Quartermasters General, Washington DC, this office is the official designer of all United States Military Decorations, Seals, and Awards." The Heraldic Branch is the predecessor of today's Institute of Heraldry. It seems that anything they designed from 1942 to 1964 would be PD--whether it was designed for the Army or for a private organization like the CAP. Is that a reasonable assumption to make? So as long as we can figure out when each item was created, we can still use the {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}} permission tag.--dave-- 20:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, the biggest problem will be determining which ones are from that era. Your assumption is definitely correct. You know, I'm going to have to look into things a little bit more, but if each image was hand-made by someone, and not uploaded from a CAP source, they may *all* be okay as-is. Hmm. By the way, make sure you save as a PNG, not JPG, since those scale better (that is, if I determine that new images are necessary). SVG would be even better, since they will scale perfectly, if you have any experience with that format, and I may be able to figure that out at some point myself. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, and thank you for using the CC0 license, much better than PD-self and similar! — Huntster (t @ c) 12:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to guess, a prior to 1964 limit would knock out most of the cadet achievements and awards. Technically I'm not certain on that, but the bulk of the current cadet achievement system was created with the program realignment in 1964, that's when the milestone system with Mitchell and Spaatz and most of the other achievements came into being. Some of them are even later, I think Eaker wasn't created until the early 1990s, Armstrong in 1999 iirc, and Feik even later on (2004?). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI...you can see my progress in CAP awards on the page I've created at the Commons. I'm adding them to my sandbox and they'll be included when I transfer that over to the main page. Let me know what you think!--dave-- 21:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

[edit]

Well...I've made a bold edit to cleanup several sections of this article. I have been working on it in my sandbox, but thought I'd at least get the decorations, senior PD, and aerospace ed awards put in the article before I finished cleaning up the rest. Let me know what you think.--dave-- 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Awards and decorations of the Civil Air Patrol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CAP Civil Defense Ribbon

[edit]

Is there any reference anymore to the 1970s era Civil Defense ribbon? 75.57.23.134 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Awards_and_decorations_of_the_Civil_Air_Patrol&oldid=1218731155"