Talk:2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division (United States)

Comments
Do sub-units of divsions really need need their own articles? This is getting ridiculous. Every *@!!# brigade should have an article? These can be reduced to a paragraph inside the particular division's article. Most of these are cut and paste jobs from army sites without any attempt at converting them to NPOV or wikifying. Chrissakes, "...the brigade returned to Ft Hood. Black Jack Brigade was called upon once again to be America's Vanguard." Incidentally, just because Peter Schoomaker decides, incorrectly, that the word "soldier" should always be capitalized and then orders all official military documents, press releases, magazines, newspapers, etc. to follow suit, doesn't mean that wikipedia has to follow. I'm considering posting this rant on every unit talk page... Nobunaga24 07:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. No, every brigade doesn't need its own article, especially one that is so blatantly loaded with self-congratulatory nonsense about non-notable exploits in Iraq. This should be re-directed to U.S._1st_Cavalry_Division, as is 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division (I'd do it myself, but I don't know how, or what the proper procedure is for such an action). Mike f 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)