Talk:161st Intelligence Squadron

Contradictions
It appears that there has been slow motion edit warring over the issue of whether the 161st Intelligence Squadron is or is not the same unit as the 161st Tactical Fighter Training Squadron. The page at various times has said that it is and that it isn't, with both propositions citing the same sources as support. Obviously the DAF/A1M and NGB documents cited cannot say both things.

The current page expressly states (without support) that there is no connection between the two squadrons and all material referring to the Fighter Squadron has been removed from the article. Yet, 161st Tactical Fighter Training Squadron redirects to this page. There does not appear to to have ever been a page using the fighter squadron's most recent designation, 161st Fighter Squadron. Lineagegeek (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, one cited source, DAF/A1M 170t, is obviously misused. First, this is a document issued by the Manpower and Organization section of the Air Staff, acting on the authority of the Secretary of the Air Force (not the USAF), and is not a National Guard Bureau form. Second, the date of 2006 is not possible. DAF/A1M 169t was issued on 12 January 2010, and DAF/A1M 171t was issued on 26 January 2010. Although DAF/A1M organizational letters are not issued in strict chronological order, a four year discrepancy is not possible. Lineagegeek (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Who has the ultimate decision-making authority in regard to ANG squadron lineages? The (Kansas) TAG? the National Guard Bureau? or the Air Staff, operating possibly with input from AFHRA? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the Army National Guard often reuses numbers (here referring to the number 161) without allotting or arranging the same lineage. See for example in the Kentucky Army National Guard, 149th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States). Buckshot06 (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)