Talk:504th Infantry Regiment (United States)

Battalions
I don't think adding the lineage information on the battalions is useful. It merely expands the article by repeating minutely different information on each battalion. Similarly, the postwar information is not particularly useful in that format. If we replace that with what the actual tasks of the regiment were (in paragraph form) it would be useful. Otherwise, I think we merely duplicate what CMH posts on the regiment, which begs the question of why put it in Wikipedia? --Habap 14:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I did the paragraphs you talk about as seperate files to cover each period, and have produced a consolidated file for the World War Two period. Look at the two ways of doing this, and let me know what you think. I will do the Post World War Two period in the morning.

I aggree on the Battalion information, except that if you closely at the Battalions, they don't each have identical lineages. Two of the three battalions have different lineages, and the Regiment is different from the Battalions as well. Those differences can be consolidated if you insist.

As to why put it all in wikipedia, not everyone is aware of the CMH, or its resources, first of all, and it is posted specifically for historians to make use of in outside documents. That is specifically why all of the US Government's documents are in the Public Domain under the law.

CORNELIUSSEON 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we do need to link to CMH and leave some of the information to them. The lineage is a fine example. It is unlikely that someone reading a general encyclopedia entry would be interested in which company in the initial regiment was the basis for which battalion. I need to read over the write-up. Excellent work thus far. Hopefully, we'll be able to do similar work on the rest of regimentals for the 82nd and 101st.... --Habap 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the battalions, has anyone found anything on the 504th Parachute Infantry Battalion? This was the original unit that was used as the Cadre for the 504th PIR. In other words, the 504th PIB was one of the test units that produced the whole Airborne concept. I'm sorry that CMH did not include it in the 504 PIR lineage.

CORNELIUSSEON 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The lineage for the 504th PI Battalion is part of the 503d PIR. When the 503d was activated in 1942, the 504th Battalion was redesignated as its 2d Battalion. Cyane 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * SSgt Seon, you will find that Cyane is correct - the 504th PIB became a part of the 503d. However, after Torch, it became the 509th PIB, which is the lineage ancestor of the 509th Infantry. Thus, the 504th PIB had nothing to do with the 504th PIR. It is quite possibly the most squirrelly lineage in Airborne. --Habap 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merger
The WWII article is pretty substantial, I think it's fine to keep it granular. Since nobody has done this merger or discussed it since February, it seems tehre isn't much interest either, though I will move the article to 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (World War II) to keep it consistent with thius article. Avraham 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting information with 504th Infantry Regiment
The 504 was never called a Infantry Reg. It has always been a Parachute Infantry Regiment since its inception in 1942

The article 504th Infantry Regiment, which was previously named 504th Infantry Regiment (World War II), also contains regimental and battalion history information, but the information between that article and this article do not agree. The former appears to describe the unit up to WWII, and this one is post-WWII. Both the similar titles of the two articles and overlapping regimental history info is very confusing. If in fact 504th Infantry Regiment is supposed to be about the unit's combat duty in WWII, and a separate article about that service is justified (which I question), then the WWII article should be pruned to substantially focus on those events. The Regimental and Battalion histories should be combined by someone familiar with the units' histories in this article. And if the other article is supposed to be just about the unit's service in WWII, why was it renamed? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a very good point there, Btphelps; I've had these pages bookmarked for ages. I wonder why I never noticed it before? I have Phil Nordyke's book, More Than Courage about the 504th in WWII and could try and help merge the two articles - that seems the sensible option; I don't think the regiment needs two separate articles. Would you agree? Skinny87 (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's the logical and appropriate choice IMO. The only reason for keeping the WWII article separate is if it were so lengthy that including it made the parent article undigestable (right word?). However, that does not seem to be the case here. I guess there are some guidelines on in WP:MOS about article length, though I do not know what they are. So if the combined articles would be within those guidelines, then I think merging is the appropriate step. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Based on the previously mentioned issues:


 * redundant content in the two articles
 * insubstantial content to justify separate articles

it is proposed that the article 504th Infantry Regiment be merged with this article. Comments? -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, er, agree :) Skinny87 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, this is the disambig guideline anyway, so no need for discussion --121.217.20.152 (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Completed merger. References are needed as the article almost completely lacks them. See the External Links for many possible sources. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Former commanders
Is every one of the former commanders listed notable? Seems like an unnecessarily detailed list that adds little value. Perhaps the section should be renamed "Notable commanders" and reduced to those that are truly notable. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Tucker will be as he commanded the 504th throughout the conflict, and probably Westmoreland as well. The rest can probably be dumped. Btphelps, do you have any sources on the 504th? If you do, we could pool our resources and build up a merged 504th article from the bottom up. Just an idea. Skinny87 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some new(?) links I found
 * 504th PIR
 * 504th PIR
 * Anzio 1944
 * The German Salient Expands to the West

-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy and paste from U.S. military web site
Substantial portions of the unit's narrative history was copied wholesale by CORNELIUSSEON from the 1st Brigade Combat Team's web site. While technically not a copyright violation, as the source is a U.S. Government publication, it does need substantial editing to improve the quality to Wikipedia standards and create a NPOV. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

504th Parachute Infantry Regiment.
This is the very first sentence of this article.

"The 504th Infantry Regiment was known during World War II as the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (504th PIR)."

It is still known as the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, not 504th Infantry Regiment. I spent 4 years with this unit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewAces (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and quite frankly, "I'm buying it". The link 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment redirects to this article.  Now my three years of service with this PIR was from 1986-1989.  Curious as to when you served, AndrewAces?  I figured that the unit had been re-designated from PIR to IR and I hadn't heard.  If this is not the case, as you seem to assert, then yes, I totally agree, the article title is totally FUBAR.  If there was a WWI IR (as there was for the 82d ID), the historical name for and existence of the IR should be a section in the article about the PIR.  I tried to find info about what they're currently calling the unit, the closest I found was http://www.bragg.army.mil/1bct/default.html.  It seems the name of the regiment never changed from PIR, so the article title is FUBAR.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I served with the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment from 2004 - 2009. I never heard of our unit as being referred to as a regular "Infantry Regiment." I really hope this is changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewAces (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I still see that this has yet been changed...ugh...


 * I looked at the Project page (link at the top of this page), and did not see an obvious way to point out the agreement that the Regiments' articles are misnamed. The problem is that it is all of them, 504, 508, 325, and I'm sure others, are incorrect, both from sources and from personal experience.  The 505th's page even contradicts its source (the source states "505th Parachute Infantry Regiment" but the article states "formerly the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment").  One wonders aloud who is editing these pages, whether it is Ivory Tower scholars or 15 year old schoolkids?  Either way, I agree it descends from inaccurate to just plain silly.


 * I guess the problem is that you and I are going off of WP:OR, and that always loses on WP to secondary sources. It's just too bad that the WP:V secondary sources in this case happen to agree with us, I guess.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still puzzled as to how to reword the first sentence. If anyone can help me with that I would be happy to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewAces (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the problem(s) when I tried to re-write the lead as you suggested. Not only is there a problem with accurate terms and tautology ("Pants are pants", thanks, that really helped), there's also a tense problem (past versus present) as the lead stands now.  Here's my attempt to re-write:

The 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (504th PIR) is a regiment of the United States Army. It is an airborne infantry regiment. It was constituted in 1942 as the first of three parachute infantry regiments in the re-designated 82nd Airborne Division.
 * Another part of the problem is defining terms for the reader 'with little or no knowledge of the subject'. I tend to rely on wikilinks to do this for me.  Hopefully, that reader can get a better idea of the concepts by reading the articles I wikilinked.  I would put this re-write in the article now, but I'm not convinced it is completely satisfactory.  It comes off as "a bit too juvenile" and I'm not quite sure how to fix it and still keep basic concepts linked properly.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you've all got a good point - a number of the regimental articles do seem mis-named. I've worked on a number of airborne warfare articles, including three US airborne divisions. I've written a fair few ledes as well, so what about:

The 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (504th PIR) is an airborne infantry regiment in the United States Army, first formed in 1942 as part of the newly-formed 82nd Airborne Division.
 * This has the advantages of putting the terms at the beginning, improving flow and readability, and also simplifies the language somewhat; you don't need to add that the 82nd was re-designated in the first sentence. Skinny87 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like your re-edit. It's fine.  I buy it.  Except for one, possibly nit-picky point.  The 82d was not created in 1942, it was created in 1917.  This historical point, I feel, must not be distorted.  As a compromise, I propose removing both our adjectives, "re-designated" and "newly-formed", from this article, and let the reader of the 82d article decide for themselves.  (That is, after all, why we wikilink stuff.)  (Note:  I really didn't want to get in to this; it's all AndrewAces fault for bringing it up.  I consider the articles on the PIR's and the 82d so laughably problematic that there's no point in even trying to start to fix them all.  I only cite the two articles on the 504th and the 82d on my User page because of my WP:OR; I used my eyes, ears, brains, hands and feet; I was there and I served.)  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me, fixes those problems indeed. Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey-dokey; done. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the title of this page still "Infantry Regiment" instead of "Parachute Infantry Regiment"? The 504th has never been a "leg" (non-airborne) unit, and has always been referred to as a PIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.131.237.2 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Badly positioned infobox
Can somebody please fix this article so that text appears to the left of the infobox? It looks horrible the way it is -- a short paragraph, then a huge naked infobox, then the balance of the article text below it. Lou Sander (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Confused account
In the section "Sicily, July 1943", there is a major confusion between the invasion of Sicily and the landings on the Italian mainland (Salerno) two months later. Additionally, the last paragraph mentions events (Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge) described in later sections.--93.206.40.28 (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Conjectural commentary on Afghan culture
The paragraph:

Curiously, the 1st Brigade Combat Team chose the name Task Force Devil during their service in Afghanistan, despite the fact that Islamic culture does not have the acceptance of satanic nicknames found in Western cultures. Especially in conservative Afghanistan, only the worst type of person would call themselves a devil. This level of cultural insensitivity was not aligned with ISAF's counter-insurgency mission and displayed the military's preference for preserving tradition over accomplishing its mission and general lack of awareness of the operating environment's cultural factors.

-- is without verifying references and accusatory with comments on "cultural insensitivity" without specific citations of Islamic culture and belief re: "devils" or other satanic allusions. In addition, it is accusatory in that it concludes that the unit's "...cultural insensitivity was not aligned with ISAF's counter-insurgency mission and displayed the military's preference for preserving tradition over accomplishing its mission..." resulted in lack of mission fulfillment. This seems to be pure opinion unless there's a military reference to this "lack of mission fulfillment".

I'd suggest a heavy revision and/or edit here with supporting references.

Webistrator (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)