Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United States)

/Archive 1

5th Stryker Brigade
The lead section reads: "On 17 February 2009, President Barack Obama ordered 4,000 soldiers of the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Ft. Lewis, Washington to Afghanistan." But it is not clear to me what this has to do with the 2nd infantry division. Can someone who understands this subject better, please clarify. Thanks -ErinHowarth (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The 5th BCT was, at the time, part of the 2nd Inf Div. Further down on the page it reads: "In July 2010, the 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team was inactivated and reflagged as the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team." It's actually just the 2d BCT - the Stryker is a piece of equipment currently in use, but the designation of the unit is not dependent upon the presence of this vehicle in the inventory. The official designation of the 2d BCT, 2nd Inf Div (sans "Styker") is found at the website of the US Army Center of Military History:

http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/div/002id2bdect.htm

VilePig (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 5th SCBT might deserve an article of its own. — Ed! (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Role: Ambush
The term is used three times in the article, and only once to explain the role of the division. I think this needs to be elaborated on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.215.220 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2nd Infantry Division (United States). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/spdes-123-ra_ar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117030224/http://www.lewis.army.mil/3bde/ to http://www.lewis.army.mil/3bde/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2nd Infantry Division (United States). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/spdes-123-ra_ar.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707025859/http://www.2id.korea.army.mil/history to http://www.2id.korea.army.mil/history/
 * Added tag to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2018021938_apwastrykerdeployment.html?syndication=rss

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

combat patch
Please replace the combat "shoulder sleeve insignia" with the appropriately colored one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.174 (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Listing of units, 1989
, following 's comments at Talk:50th Armored Division (United States), as I said I would do, I reviewed Gordon Rottman's "Inside the U.S. Army Today", 1988, turned out to be page 31 where he lists the subordinate combat units of the 2nd Infantry Division as of *before* the date Rottman published that book, 1988. Page 31 (a) *does not* list assignments of battalions to particular ground combat brigades, and, in addition, (b) cannot be used as a reliable source for 1989, as it was published the year before. Because this verification has failed, I have removed the ground combat brigade data in line with WP:UNSOURCED; it fails verification. I would urge you, again, to make your actual original source known, since you say you were not working off the microarmormayhem list. Once I have finished going through all the uploads you've made from the original source "X" and removing them from all the divisions you've been adding them to in the last 72 hours or so, I will write up a consolidated complaint at WT:MILHIST. Your ardor is very valuable, but you appear to have been repeatedly breeching wikipedia rules, not properly citing your sources, even falsifying them - they fail verification. Please start citing the original source. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing Rottman as a source, which does not support the assignment of battalions to specific brigades. Because there is now no sourcing for the assignment of battalions to specific maneuver brigades, I have removed the maneuver brigade listing from the 2 ID list, and the chart. The sources you added for aviation, field artillery etc, also, do not always specify 1989; thus I have amended the heading from '1989' to '1987-1993'. I will copy this note to the main talk page discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have again regretfully had to make a slightly rude total revert on 's last edit to this page; there are no sources now provided for the '1989' listing. I would urge the user concerned to engage on individual talk pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Improving Journal citations
See examples of improved Journal citations added to this article at --2db (talk) 18:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

2ID monument photo
In your deletion and revert, you state there is too many photos. What is the source of this? Is there a Wikipedia standard that you are basing this on?--Shovonma17 (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Shovonma17 what makes that one monument to one battle so important that it needs to be retained? The 2ID has a long history and has been involved in many major battles, there are plenty of other more relevant photos than this one. Mztourist (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I already stated what the reason was when I reverted your change[]. Your original reasoning is "delete unnecessary photo". To that I asked you my above questions: What is the source of this? Is there a Wikipedia standard that you are basing this on? I have not found any image quantity limit rule on Wikipedia. The page isn't littered with photos so what makes it unnecessary? It takes some work to make photo uploadable to Wikipedia, especially a photo that does no harm to the page but adds to it. Is your action simply spiteful, that you took offense to your edit being undone, because that's what it seems to be. --Shovonma17 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you so concerned with having that photo on the page? There's no set policy that I'm aware of just general guidance as to balance etc. There's already a picture of the 2ID leaving Omaha Beach. So what does that picture of a rather ordinary looking monument with nothing that actually shows its at Omaha Beach, that doesn't provide any specific details about campaigns, losses etc. add to the page? Mztourist (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"just general guidance as to balance" - so it is clearly subjective matter and opined to individual editors, particularly yourself. I stated previously that the page isn't "littered" with photos and to me that would be over 30. The page, prior to your deletion of the photo, had less than 20 photos (probably under 15). Again, your original reasoning was 'too many photos' for the deletion. Photos or images make any reading interesting but it should not be overdone. And it's wasn't with this page. "So what does that picture of a rather ordinary looking monument with nothing that actually shows its at Omaha Beach, that doesn't provide any specific details about campaigns, losses etc. add to the page?" What is your credibility to judge a memorial structure of somber nature of its ordinariness and its lack of value for it's physical location or its dearth of information on the plate? Are you an architectural artist? Many memorial structures attempt to convey their meaning without the physical presence of letters and anything overly informative as it make it tacky. It is not a information plate about a zoo animal that it needs to be so descriptive. It is on the public viewing the monument to judge its worth. There are many things I learned about many subjects in Wikipedia that I didn't expect to based on the content of the pages, whether written or visual. I didn't know that there was monument memorializing 2nd Infantry soldiers internationally. It's good to know that. The picture is informative and adds value thru that. The picture of the monument captures the gravity of the loss in conjunction with the written numerical casualty figures on the page. --Shovonma17 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a very ordinary looking, uninformative monument that we don't even know the location of (there is no way to confirm the location of an upload of someone's own work without contextual detail). You say "I didn't know that there was monument memorializing 2nd Infantry soldiers internationally. It's good to know that. The picture is informative and adds value thru that." I disagree that it does that and that that has any value. Mztourist (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist You're reprehensible. Who made you overlord of Wikipedia? You're just going around the platform edit warring as you see fit, with no justification other than your own? If that photo was your own upload that you made for the start I would not care much. But this is not your work and this is not your platform. --Shovonma17 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First WP:NPA. Second you haven't presented any convincing reason why the photo should be retained. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist A quick glance at your Wikipedia page shows you thrive on this behavior - skirting the lines of policies while doing the best not to show any compromise or any diplomacy with other editors. You've done it long. It's your way or no way. I've given you my reasons but you fail to accept them. You don't own this page and I don't need to give you any reason any more. Shovonma17 (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Your personal attacks do nothing to advance your argument of why the photo should be included. Mztourist (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see anything wrong with adding the photo. SuperWIKI (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think it adds to the page? Mztourist (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I reread the edits again and again, seems I made a mistake as to which image you were referring to. Carry on. SuperWIKI (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

6-37th FA and 210th FAR
210th field artillery brigade and 6th battalion 37th field artillery are both under 2nd infantry division, based out of Camp Casey South Korea. I think this should be added to the page because they are a huge cornerstone in the Korean conflicts, as the artillery brigades are not only the first responders to North Korean movement, but also the biggest deterent. 116.44.87.14 (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)