Talk:Army One

Comments
On 23 Mar 2005, User:84.66.195.243 added "Wherever Army One flies, it is met on the ground by at least one Soldier in full dress uniform."

But the soldier in the picture isn't. Did this policy change at some point, or is it simply wrong? &mdash;wwoods 17:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, my thought is that is states "when it flies" as opposed to "when it flew"; that might be the caveot. Just my 3¢.  —  THOR 17:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that means it is met by a soldier in full dress after the presidential helicopter lands. The soldier in the picture isn't in full uniform probably because Nixon was taking off, rather than landing. GoCardinal 01:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Army/Marine
"Note the Army Sergeant First Class standing at the doorway, instead of the Marine as usually seen after 1976."

This note seems kinda silly to me. Marines are seen outsite of the helicopter when the president lands because that aircraft is Marine One. They changed which service ran the aircraft, not just which servicemember stood outside the craft. Thoughts? — THOR 16:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Caption changed. GoCardinal 01:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Picture Cannot Be "Army One"
The picture cannot be "Army One" (or any other "One") because if Nixon had already resigned, then he is no longer President and by definition the aircraft carrying him cannot have a "One" designation.72.82.160.130 06:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

President Nixon's resignation did not take effect until sometime after the picture was taken. He had already transferred to Air Force One and was on his way to California. At the time the resignation took effect, the plane changed its call sign. M Pinck 02:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm, the Richard Nixon article has this same exact picture, except it's labeled as "Marine One" so which is it? - someone

Gerald Ford was sworn into office at noon on 8/9/74. Nixon left the White House at approximately 9:30 AM on 8/9/74 and took the helicoper (Army One) and boarded the plane (Air Force One). Approximately mid-flight from Andrews Air Force Base to California, Gerald Ford was sworn in as president and Air Force One became a regular Air Force flight, albeit a very unusual flight. You can reference this article from Time with a rough timeline.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942970-4,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.117.65 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole heck of a lot of good referencable material out there for Army One, including a book by the chief pilot who flew during Nixon. Seeing as more people reduce content rather than enhance content, I'll leave it to the bots to perhaps figure that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.32.125 (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge Executive One and AF2?
I've already taken the liberty of merging Army One/Two, Navy One/Two, and Coast Guard One/Two, all of which weren't short or significant enough to merit their own articles, into this article. But do we want to merge Executive One and Air Force Two as well? Executive One isn't used very often, and AF2 isn't particularly long p  b  p  21:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont have a problem in principal with one article but this should have been a new article at the moment it has hijacked the history of the Army One article so really needs the history moving back and starting again, I have also raised the problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft to see what is the best way to resolve the mess that has been made. MilborneOne (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with this carrying on the history of the Army One article, nor do I consider it a mess. p  b  p  15:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a copyright problem you have broken the history of the Army One article, the easiest thing is to move this back to Army One, you are welcome to start a new article with its own history, but this article will be moved back soon, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine why someone would think merging the articles on Air Force One and Air Force Two was a good idea. Canadian writer and curmudgeon Farley Mowat was barred from entry to the USA in 1984 or 85 -- due to massively excessive paranoia and general lack of clue on the part of humorless US security officials.  His publisher, and Disney, tried to get him a temporary visa just long enough for him to complete the rest of his US promotional tour. Mowat refused.  He said he was so angry, "You couldn't get me to enter the USA now unless President Ronald Reagan flew to my door in Air Force One with a personal apology!"  Eventually they succeeded and were able to get him a one-time, temporary, second-class visa.  They then pleaded with him to compromise.


 * The compromise he suggested was that he would agree to complete the tour if Vice President George Bush flew in Air Force Two, and met him at the border with that personal apology.


 * I was not aware that the Vice President didn't fly in Air Force One, when the President wasn't using it. It seemed absurd to me, baroque.  And it establishes for me that the two call designations are definitely two separate topics.


 * So what advantage did you see with this suggested merge, anyhow?


 * I can think of a whole mess of reasons why this is not a good idea. Consider the wikipedia reader or contributor who is only interested in Air Force Two, and thus has Air Force Two on their watchlist, and monitors when the article is changed.  If you merge the two articles, they have to put Air Force One on their watchlist, and most of the changes they will be advised of will be changes they aren't interested in.


 * The current situation is best, as navigating to the material we want to read, through clicking on a wikilink, and then returning to where we were, via clicking "back" is innately superior to scrolling around a merged article, that is now about two related topics. When two articles, on two separate topics, are merged, merely because they are related, the poor reader is forced to scroll around in the merged article, if a passing reference to the other topic triggers a momentary curiousity.  And when that momentary curiousity has been satisfied -- and they want to go back to what they were reading before?  Guess what?  They can't.


 * Please remember that the wikipedia is not paper.


 * I looked at all the related Marine One, Army One articles, some years ago. I don't remember any obvious reason they should have been merged.  And, I can't help noticing that you didn't actually offer an explanation here.  You seem to have assumed the justification for your merge was "obvious".  It is not obvious to me.  And, for a bunch of reason, including the one I offered above, I suggest we consider restoring them to the unmerged condition.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur, though perhaps we should keep this page as an overview. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested
Would this be a good source? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/archive/200902A21.html PBS Antique Roadshow, but since they were trying to sell or valuate these items, I'm not so sure how accurate the info. is.like this statement "APPRAISER: Army One at that time was flown by the Army. And in 1976 that unit was disbanded, and the Marine Corps took over the unit, which is now Marine One." Also, would PBS images ever be considered "public domain"-or free-use?Housewifehader (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Well after hunting for PBS © statement http://www.wgbh.org/info/terms.cfm, I'm thinking that they are "Non-Free","non-commercial" use. See item number 2)-non-commercial use, and this statement that applies to user-generated content that users upload to their website."You also hereby grant each user of the Site a non-exclusive license to access your User Generated Content through the Site, and to use, reproduce, distribute, create derivative works of, publish, transfer, transmit, publicly display and publicly perform such User Generated Content (in whole or in part) as permitted through the functionality of the Site and under these Terms.". I would still hesitate before grabbing an image from the article mentioned above, although I do think they would be great for this article. Also, I noticed that PBS grants rights for teachers as applied to content reproduction/...and PBS is an educational foundation. If anyone can point me in the direction of any detailed info. about PBS © as it relates specifically to Wikipedia I would be very thankfulHousewifehader (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)