Talk:2nd Infantry Regiment (United States)

Merge - 2nd United States Infantry Regiment (Civil War)

I'm not sure why, but there is a separate article, 2nd United States Infantry Regiment (Civil War), specifically about the 2d's ACW service. I would go ahead and redirect it, but there is some detail there that's not in this article. So...does anyone see a need for keeping an article fork specifically about one war? Rklear (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the co-author, author, maintainer and what have you of the 2nd Infantry Regiment (United States) site and I have no idea why this second site was started just for the Civil War. Because there is basically no information on the site, possibly the person that posted it was hoping someone would provide some. There is but I am not going to post it. If they are wanting to learn more about the 2nd Infantry during the Civil War this is surely not the way! --GUNNERGRZ (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this merge for the reasons given above. BusterD (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the US Army Center of MNilitary History, you are wrong about the Merge. In the first place, there haqve been a few Second Infantry Regiments in our history, most of which dissapeared at the end of the conflict they were raised for. In the case of the two articles we have here, they ARE connected, but nbot the way you think. That said, I will merge them acccording to the CMH Records. - SSG Cornelius Seon (US Army, Retired) (talk)

If you actually look at the Center of Military History Lineage for the 2nd U S Infantry you will see that there has been one since it was constituted in 1815, with a Lineage date of 12 April 1808. The "old" Second was constituted in 1791 and lasted until the 1815 date. We are talking about the 2nd U S Infantry, not all the other state, volunteer and what have you units, what is in the regiment’s history posted on the site is correct.--GUNNERGRZ (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I boldly redirect the page here, as there was so little content there that it wasn't really worth the effort, and most of the content was already here anyway. D O N D E groovily Talk to me

Edits to MOH recipient Daniel Burke

GUNNERGRZ, you have reverted or undone three edits of mine within 24 hours, violating Wikipedia's edit warring guidelines. I have responded to your message on my talk page asking you to provide a source for your edit, which you have not. I have left the information you added substantially intact, only asking that you add a source. I invited you on your talk page to discuss these edits on this article's talk page, which you have ignored. Instead, you sent me the following email which could be construed as threatening, quoted below:

From: GUNNERGRZ [1]

Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 5:25 PM
To: Btphelps
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Leave the posting on Daniel Burke alone. it is apparent to me that you do not have the correct information on him other then what I put on the 2D INF REGT ASSN site up to and including the CHM posting page. If you went to the Center of Military History site and looked up Burke in the CMH section you would see exactly what was on his citation. No where is what I put in the addendum in the citation, that is why it is an addendum. HE was commissioned on 18 July 1862 and did not accept until 8 November 1862. He did the same thing when he was promoted to Captain. Adding your twist to it does absolutely nothing to improve it. DON'T CHANCE IT AGAIN!

If you are so hell bent on embellishing it why haven't you done the same to Bondsteel's? DON'T

The information I added which you removed was factual and supported by reliable sources. Comments on talk pages and even email should be courteous and always assume good faith, which I am striving to do here. I did not remove your edit about the time during which Daniel Burke accepted the commission (a seemingly minor factual point), but added a {{fact}} template.

Editors are encouraged to work out differences on the article's talk page. If you have a source for the information you would like to add, please start the discussion here. Since I have been editing on Wikipedia for a few years, I am very willing to work with you to find a resolution. However, you have both ignored my requests to discuss these changes but threatened me via email. I am referring this matter to arbitration for administrative action. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion here, not via email, where all editors can contribute to the conversation. Thanks.-- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Btphelps, I could say the same as you concerning making changes but I will leave that go. I don't think there was any threat involved, I asked that you not make the changes. My version did not require a citation, yours did but not to worry I added the source to the Reference section. My version did not require any sources, it was there under References. Also Burke was commissioned a 2d Lt on 18 July 1862 not recommended for promotion. If he was just recommended his commission date would have been 8 November 1862 when he accepted. Also don't you think it is a bit redundant to have a link to the MOH site in both Notes, which you added and References, which I put in a while ago. One more thing, you need to review your edit one more time, it needs correcting and I am not going to do it and be accused of changing "your edit". GUNNERGRZ (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Per citations, it is not sufficient to add sources to the Reference section alone. "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, captions, and sections of articles—without exception; in the event of a contradiction between this page and the policy, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it." You can if you choose use footnotes that utilize parenthetical referencing that refer to the references you've already added. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the citation needed for the changes you made to Daniel Burke, you're the one that did it, you fix it. I added the source in reference, I sure hope you bothered to open it and read it. It verifies what I said earlier about his commission date and not his recommended promotion. Why exactly are you so opposed to writing it the correct way?

The citation needed for the location verification of the Ramrod was a discussion with the Battalion Commander. Originally General Carter Ham told me where it was at when we talked in June, 2007. I have a photo of that! Bit tough to place a citation other then what I stated. You got a better idea? I suppose I could just delete that part but then I suppose you would want some other citation which would still be the same. GUNNERGRZ (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

capitalization, etc.

2INFMAN,

I'm glad to join you and others as an editor of the article. Its one of the best I've seen on a US regiment.

-Capitalization of regiment, battalion, etc.: While the usage you suggest is certainly correct in other contexts, it is not the rule in wikipedia. See WP:MILTERMS for why lower case would be the way in wikipedia.

-Capitalization of distinctive unit insignia and coat of arms. These are not proper nouns and are, thus, not capitalized.

-COA and DUI section: I was actually attempting to more closely follow the way TIOH has it. The way the article was previously had the COA "Background" section at a different outline level, for example. In any case, I've got no sensitivities if anyone wants to shift it around.

-Indian outrages: The word "outrage" seemed it could be what wikipedia calls a "contentious label". See WP:LABEL. I attempted to remove the contentious label but still preserve the meaning of the sentence. There are probably better ways to do so than I did, so certainly have at it.

-Regiment (-): Please do not infer from my edit that your usage was incorrect. You and I both know what "Regiment (-)" means and that it is a common term in military usage. but to many wikipedia readers the meaning may not be clear. So, I tried to reword it in a way that will be clear to all wikipedia readers. Please don't be shy about trying to improve on my attempt.

-Motorized: As I look at it further, "Combined Arms Battalion-Heavy" should also be lower case along with "motorized" for the same reason that "regiment" and "battalion" are lower case. Again, other style guides might capitalize these, but not Wikipedia's. Of course, if the usage were "the 33rd Motorized Combined Arms Battalion-Heavy" initial capitals would be used.

I welcome the chance to further discuss any of these with you. This is really a great article and you and others have done some spectacular work.

Ocalafla (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ocalafla,

So what you are saying as far as capitalizations go Wikipedia has set a new standard for proper grammar and that we as authors on the site have to forget correct grammar because Wikipedia said so. That is baloney and you and Wikipedia should know it. Every reference to “the Regiment” is to the 2nd Infantry Regiment therefore regiment requires a capital R. One more thing, it is not a “style guide” it is a Rule of Grammar. As far as Distinctive Unit Insignia goes if it is not a proper noun what is it? It is the name of something, what else would you call it? EG, the 2nd Infantry Regiment what? If you used DUI would you put it in small letters? I guess you and Wikipedia need to tell the Institute of Heraldry that they are wrong on all counts.

If not outrages then what, attacks on the civilian population living on the frontier. Outrages is a shorter way of saying it. Leaving at as just Indians has a very racial connotation to it. It clumps an entire people into, a bad element that needs to be dealt with. You sir deleted the word I used, come up with a better one!

Regiment (-) may not be understood by all but it is by most. I put it the way it was presented to me because the missing unit was not recorded. Removing the (-) indicates that the entire regiment was present, which it was not so therefore not correct.

I’ll give you the “motorized” but not the CAB-H. It is a letter version of a “proper” name. You certainly would put moh for Medal of Honor would you?

Thank you for the compliment, I try very hard to put the most accurate information on the 2nd Infantry and what occurred at various periods in the Regiments history, especially the 1815 consolidations. I have spent years research all aspects and see that most still don’t quite “get” what it intailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2INFMAN (talk • contribs) 23:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia's policy on capitalization is not by any means unique to Wikipedia. It takes the same approach as the Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press, and many others, for example.

While the Chicago Manual of Style, AP, and other prominent style guides agree with Wikipedia on capitalization, many institutional style guides (particularly universities) would dictate that in internal use, for example, both:"the University of East Idaho is a century old" and "the University is a century old." That, I think, is what TIOH is doing. So, it is perfectly fine for TIOH to do so on its site, but since Wikipedia's style is different, we follow that policy on Wikipedia.Regardless, it is the guide for Wikipedia and whatever we think of it we should follow it. If we don't want to follow it we are always free to play elsewhere.

As for capitalizing the acronym "DUI" "CAB-H", and "MOH" the Wikipedia style guide addresses this clearly: "The capitalization of the original term is independent of it being acronymized, being lowercase for a term such as frequently asked questions (FAQ) but uppercase for a proper name such as the United Nations (UN)."

Regarding "Regiment(-)" I agree with you completely that deleting the (-) changes the meaning. That's why the change I made was from "regiment(-)" to "parts of the regiment." I certainly have no objection if you've got something clearer.

Regarding "outrages", I think the suggestion you made on "attacks" is a good one and I fully support the change if you wish to make it.

Ocalafla (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@INFMAN, since you've relied on Lt. Wright's work often as a source, I thought you'd be interested in how he approached capitalization. Throughout his text on the Second Infantry, he consistently refers to the Second as "the regiment"(all lower case).

Also, since you raised the issue of what The Institute of Heraldry's style/rule of grammar might be, you might be interested in theTIOH page for the 2nd Infantry where "coat of arms" and "distinctive unit insignia" are consistently lower case (except for headings where their style differs form Wikipedia's). Note also TIOH's FAQ page where these terms are also consistently lower case. Ocalafla (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ocalafla,

Whatever on the capitalization.

Parts of the regiment is incorrect.

I certainly hope that you are doing the same correcting on all the other regiment sites an2INFMAN (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)d not selectively just "repairing" this one.

2INFMAN, I'm open to any rewording of "parts of the regiment" that you feel is more accurate than what I have and that is likely to be understood by readers not familiar with common military terminology. Ocalafla (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The working is perfectally fine, there was an original Second Infantry, "old" and a "new", present Second Infantry. It is all explained in the text of the regiment. It is an opening statement about the regiment not the history.

Campaign Participation is a title for what follows. Isn't a title capitalized on Wikipedia either? If it is then all the other titles should be capitalized also. 2INFMAN (talk) 02:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as SHARING battle honors. What regiments? GUNNERGRZ (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The old 2nd Infantry was merged, along with several other regiments, into the present 1st Infantry. The 2 battle honors in question of the old 2nd Infantry were inherited by the present 1st Infantry and also, it seems, by the present 2nd Infantry. Thus, the phrasing that the present 1st and present 2nd "share" the battle honors of the old 2nd Infantry. Hope this helpsOcalafla (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to make the opening paragraph even clearer. Let me know what you think.

Regarding capitalization of titles, see WP:LOWERCASE which says that "The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized; subsequent words in a title are not". Per MOS:HEADINGS, the same is true for section headings within articles. Ocalafla (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've switched "constituted" for "consolidated" since this is the term used by the US Army Center for Military History. Also, I added the citation needed tag for the assertion that the new 2nd inherited the "history" of the original 2nd. The sources, as you have kindly shown me, clearly support an assertion that the new 2nd inherited some (maybe all) of the battle honors of the original 2nd. But, I don't know of a source that supports the broader claim about "history". I still don't think we've got language that clearly and accurately reflects what happened, but maybe we're making progress. Ocalafla (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Consolidation question

The article says "the War Department ruled that by the consolidations of 1815 the distinguished service and battle honors of the regiment prior to 1815 are to be credited to the 2nd Infantry Regiment". Does anyone know if this is intended to mean that the new 2nd Infantry inherited the honors of the regiments that were consolidated to form the new 2nd Infantry? Or, is it intended to mean that the new 2nd Infantry inherited the honors of the old 2nd Infantry? If the latter, does anyone have a source for this? Thanks! Ocalafla (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It means both! It is quite apparent by the 2nd Infantry Regiments campaign streamers and the 2nd Infantry’s early history. Only 3 infantry regiments (1st, 2nd and 3rd) and 1 artillery unit (5th) earned the Miami Indian streamer and only the 2nd Infantry was at Fort Bowyer (Alabama 1814). During the War of 1812 none of the regiments that were consolidated to become the new 2nd Infantry were in the south and the 2nd Infantry wasn’t in the north.

Read pages 414-415 at this link http://www.history.army.mil/books/R&H/R&H-2IN.htm 2INFMAN (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Good info! Do you know of a source that directly says the honors of the old 2nd were inherited by the new? I haven't found one anywhere. Ocalafla (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You could go with this, http://archive.org/stream/officialarmyregi1926unit#page/828/mode/1up

It lists the regiment’s history what the campaigns were and what the original units some of the campaigns came from. It was published by the US Army and War Department was still in use at that time. It actually requires one to read it. I am still trying to locate the other references I have among the 32 books and several thousand pages of documents that span from the regiments origins to the present. That is not even counting all the links on the web either.

I am still trying to understand why a citation is required for the 2nd Infantry Regiment being the 3rd oldest. All one has to do is go by the regiments Lineage date and number. The 3rd is the oldest, then the 1st, then the 2nd. Does everything have to be handed on a Silver Platter? Research people, research and comprehension goes a long way to understanding. As far as some of the information on the history of the regiment, it came from Colonel Frederick Shaw’s book, “One Hundred and Forty Years of Service in Peace and War, History of the Second Infantry United States Army”, Strathmore Press, 1930. I paid $250.00 for the copy I have.

Some information on the origins of the regiment like who the original people were came from that book and also “The Soldiers of America's First Army 1791”, Richard M. Lytle, Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2INFMAN (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I've edited the article to try to reflect what the sources tell us. It doesn't quite flow like it should, so I hope any other editors will have a go.

As for why citation is necessary, Wikipedia explains it best: "By citing sources for Wikipedia content, you enable users to verify that the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia while showing that the content is not original research. You also help users find additional information on the subject; and you avoid plagiarising the source of your words or ideas by giving attribution."Ocalafla (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I just read your edit and I don’t think you “got it”. A unit named the 2nd Infantry Regiment, exactly what the heck is that supposed to mean? Try reading this again, http://www.history.army.mil/books/R&H/R&H-2IN.htm

Lt Wright does not say a unit named the 2nd Infantry Regiment of Infantry he said the Second Regiment of Infantry.2INFMAN (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

My goal is to convey that there have been two somewhat distinct, though intertwined, 2nd Infantry Regiments. My use of the article "a" instead of "the" is my attempt to convert this concept. I certainly have no objection to any other editor trying to improve my admittedly poor attempt.

Regarding Wright's work, could you clarify why you want me to re-read it? Thanks! Ocalafla (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as the regiment being the 3rd oldest, there is no one single source. The first line in each of these lineages will indicate the constituted date for that regiment.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0003in.htm

http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0001in.htm

http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/inf/0002in.htm

3rd Infantry 3 June 1789

1st Infantry 3 March 1701

2nd Infantry 12 April 1808

http://mymilitaryhistorypages.bravehost.com/documents/USArmy1789-1820.htm

http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/in/infantry.htm

Proper terminology is required, it is not a unit named or a 2nd Infantry it was and is the 2nd Infantry. It was written correctly, there was the original one and the reconstituted one, both the 2nd Infantry Regiment. I asked you to reread what LT Wright wrote because that us what he conveyed and you are not getting it I ask that you change it back the way I originally wrote it. Try this source, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Regular_Army_units_with_campaign_credit_for_the_War_of_1812

And it wouldn’t hurt to read this, http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/in/infantry.htm

As for the next citation needed, the first enlisted man, it is from The Soldiers of America's First Army 1791, Richard M. Lytle, Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2004, pages 35-36, 358 2INFMAN (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly proper terminology is required and I hope we are both striving towards it. As you requested, I reread Wright's text. Here's what I found:

-On p. 415 says "A new Second Infantry was now formed". So, Wright also uses the article "a" and not just "the". His purpose appears clear: to make a distinction between what he calls an "original Second Infantry" and what he calls "a new Second Infantry".

-You might also have an interest in Wright's capitalization, on which I've added a note above.

I'm wide open to any language that does a better job than my poor effort. But, I do think the article needs to make more clear that there is some distinction between Wright's "original Second" and his "new Second". Ocalafla (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wright’s piece was written in 1898, do you know what the capitalization rules were then? Just where exactly did you find this Wright's "Original Second Infantry" and his "new Second"? I read his piece several times and I don’t see him claiming that it was his personal regiment. I do know that it is the United States Army’s Second Infantry Regiment, both the original and the present.

I don’t see where it is open to any language that does a better job; it was written quite well, that is until you decided that you didn't "get it". What do you mean by “a unit named the Second Infantry Regiment”? It was and is the Second Infantry Regiment!

You stated the following, “Do you know of a source that directly says the honors of the old 2nd were inherited by the new? I haven't found one anywhere” 2INFMAN sure did and right on Wikipedia, maybe you should spend more time on getting your ducks in a row and less time on attempting to “fix” everyone’s mistakes.

I think the entire piece was well written, it has information that isn't in any of the other "oldest regiments" histories and considering how old the 2nd Infantry is covers its history very well. Levi Galt (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Levi Galt, First, welcome to Wikipedia. Good to have you drop in. We're honored that that you picked this talk page for your first ever edit on Wikipedia. I'll try my best to address your questions.

-"Capitalization rules": The only capitalization rule that is really relevant is Wikipedia's. I mentioned Wright's capitalization to make it clear that the lower case "r" in regiment was not a case of "Wikipedia has set a new standard" as 2INFMAN had suggested. Again, this really doesn't matter, because Wikipedia's rule is clear.

-"Just where exactly did you find this Wright's 'Original Second Infantry' and his 'new Second'?": You will find both on page 415 as already noted above. My wording "Wright's 'Original Second Infantry'" was intended to mean "What Wright calls the 'Original Second Infantry'". Sorry for any confusion!

-"What do you mean by 'a unit named the Second Infantry Regiment'? It was and is the Second Infantry Regiment": It's not quite that simple. What Wright calls the "original Second" was absorbed with some other regiments into a "First Infantry Regiment." What Wright calls the "new Second" was formed from the old 6th, 16th, 22d, 23d, and 32d Regiments. To make matters more confusing, the "new Second" has been assigned campaign streamers from the "original Second." So, there is clearly a solid connection between the "original" and "new" units, but there is a distinction. That's what I was trying to convey. Feel free to have a go at language that better conveys the distinction than mine. Some of the other old regiment articles on Wikipeida handle this issue OK. Maybe we should look to their approach?

-"You stated the following, 'Do you know of a source that directly says the honors of the old 2nd were inherited by the new? I haven't found one anywhere' 2INFMAN sure did and right on Wikipedia, maybe you should spend more time on getting your ducks in a row and less time on attempting to “fix” everyone’s mistakes.": You'll find that this is how Wikipedia works, with editors working together through this kind of exchange. In many, perhaps most, cases, its not a matter of "fixing mistakes" but more trying to make things "better." Sometimes edits make things better, but sometimes they don't. Then, further discussion is helpful. I hope if you stay on Wikipedia, you will join in on this sort of discussion. If you do, you might read Wikipedia's policy on civility here: WP:CIVIL. Ocalafla (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a military history buff and have enjoyed reading all the regiments histories but saw that there were a lot of differences for their early years and only what is on the 2nd Infantry Regiment history explained it correctly. As of late I saw these changes that confused the history and decided to find out why so I came on to the TALK page.

Now, would having two separate articles on the 2nd Infantry be the answer? The first one would be about the Second Infantry Regiment 1791-1815 and a second article titled 2nd Infantry Regiment. That would probably eliminate the confusion that some people have with the present article but then others would want to know why there are two articles. Then there is the issue of why a regiment with a lineage date of April 1808, formed by an act of Congress dated March 1815 and taking place in May 1815, both dates are after the War of 1812 ended, has a battle participation streamer for a campaign that took place in the 1790-1795 time period (Miami). Another is the campaign participations streamer for a battle in the War of 1812, Alabama 1814. None of the regiments that were consolidated to form the 2nd Infantry fought in the south. Shouldn’t there be an explanation for this? Simply put, the present 2nd Infantry has the campaign participation and history that goes along with those campaigns as part of its history and honors. This is presently in the article.

Every one of the histories on the first eight regiments that I have read either on Wikipedia or elsewhere ignore the fact that they were all established in 1815. They start with the lineage date and go to the War of 1812. Every lineage for the first 8 regiments has a line that begins with, “Consolidated May-October 1815” but no one seems to get that far, but 2INFMAN has both in the history and here on TALK. It just requires reading it all and comprehending it. When has the military ever done things the easy way? Levi Galt (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"When has the military ever done things the easy way?" Amen to that!!!

Regarding two separate articles, my personal opinion is to keep one article. The factors you mention that link "original" and "new" seem to me to mean one article is best. But, if there is a consensus for two articles, I'll certainly work with that. Ocalafla (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

2INFMAN, thanks for your edits to the article. I made a few tweaks on minor issues and also re-added the citation needed tag for the statement that the 2nd Infantry "is the third oldest Infantry regiment in the US Army." In the absence of a source that directly makes such a statement, the statement represents original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I see what you're saying about taking the dates from other infantry regiments' information on the CMH website and drawing a conclusion form that. But, this still represents a synthesis that must, under Wikipedia policy, be cited to a secondary source. See WP:SYN for more info.

Note that I'm not saying that the 2nd is or is not the 3rd oldest infantry regiment in the US Army. I'm just saying that under the rules of Wikipedia such a statement has to come from a reliable secondary source and cannot be the result or your synthesis of info form sources.

Regarding language clarifying the distinction between the "old" and "present" 2nd Infantry, I still don't think the article is clear enough. I'll do some thinking and toss some language out there for your consideration soon.Ocalafla (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the citation needed in the opening paragraph! You can not have the battle honors without the history. No history no honors, they sure as heck didn't get there out of thin air. 24.1.149.179 (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

2INFMAN, the "history" of these units is a murky area. There are a few units that claim part of the "history" of the old 2nd. Look at the 1st Infantry article on Wikipedia for but one example. In the absence of a reliable source to support that the new 2nd inherited the "history" of the old, we must stick with stating that for which we do have a reliable source: "battle honors". Maybe there is a reliable source out there that does so. Hence, the "citation needed" tag. Ocalafla (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Murky! Maybe it's because no one bothers to read the information that is presented to them. The history of the 2nd Infantry is there for all to read. The entire discription of the 1815 consolidations is in the information I posted here in TALK. The original 2nd Infantry was consolidated into the new/present 1st Infantry Regiment, that is a given. What you and others don't seem or want to comprehend is the fact that the battle honors and therefore the history of the original 2nd Infantry is a part of the present 2nd Infantry. Again it is right there in the regiments Lineage and Honors found throught the Center of Military History. I don't particularly care what others have written about the other regiments, if they don't want to really reseaerch their work, shame on them. After working on the 2nd Infantrys history since 1992 I know what is correct. I didn't make it confusing the US Congress and War Department did, I just did my best to sort it all out. Take it or leave it!

2INFMAN (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

2INFMAN, I agree completely that the confusion results from the government! We mere mortals are left to pick up the pieces.

That said, because of this confusion, one can't simply say that battle honors=history. I think it's safe to say that battle honors are a part of a unit's history, but there is much more to it than just battle honors. For example, you've shown me that the new 2nd is credited with some of the battle honors of the original 2nd. But, in the same source, one can see that the 1st Infantry is credited with battle honors from the original 2nd Infantry (Alabama 1814) and also the 2nd Sub-legion (Miami). The Institute of Heraldry notes that the 1st Infantry's coat of arms has the color red since this is the color of the 2nd Sub-legion. The Center of Military History lineage page for the 1st Infantry notes that the 1st Infantry was "Constituted 3 March 1791 in the Regular Army as the 2d Infantry".

So, there are some examples of the original 2nd Infantry's history that was inherited by some unit other than the new 2nd Infantry. And, it might not even accurate to say that all the original 2nd's battle honors went to the new 2nd since the 1st seems to have some of them, or at least shares some of them. Maybe its most accurate to say that the new 2nd Infantry shares the battle honors of the original 2nd with the 1st Infantry.

I think the main takeaway is that in this government-created confusion, we have to be careful about stating only what we know through reliable sources. Ocalafla (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ocalafla, So you are saying that the battle honors can appear out of nowhere because there doesn't have to be any history behind them, the Army just gave them out for no reason. You are so wrong on that one!

If the 2nd Infantry inherited the battle honors of the regiments consolidated into it plus the original 2nd Infantry honors wouldn't it stand to reason that so would the 1st Infantry and the 3rd Infantry and so on?

Yes it would be accurate to say that the present 2nd Infantry inherited the original 2nd Infantry battle honors because there are and were only the 2. The 2nd Infantry fought in St Clair's Defeat in November 1791 before there were sub-legions and then again at Fallen Timbers as the 2nd Sub-Legion, the battle honor covers both. There was only one regiment present at the first battle at Fort Bowyer in Alabama in 1814, the 2nd Infantry, thus the battle honor Alabama 1814. The original 1st Infantry and 3rd Infantry were also involved in the Miami Indian Campaign so it was earned not inherited.

So bottom line here is that you are trying to skirt around the entire issue just like everyone else has. The regiment was consolidated with a lineage date of 12 April 1808 and then fought in the War of 1812 and the heck with the fact that the consolidation didn’t happen until 15 May 1815 after the war ended, we’ll just ignore that. Then we can also ignore the Miami Indian Campaign battle honor because we can’t understand how something from 1790-1795 could be a battle honor of a regiment with a lineage date of 12 April 1808. Heck that is as clear as mud to me! Better yet why don’t I just put this instead of what’s there now, everyone will understand it, right! Then I can delete everything that is there concerning the original 2nd Infantry. Poof, all the confusion is gone! 2INFMAN (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2INFMAN, I'm very sorry, but I don't understand much of what you've said. I certainly want to get what you're saying and welcome the chance to do so.

But, let me address some of the issues that you've raised:

• "There was only one regiment present at the first battle at Fort Bowyer in Alabama in 1814, the 2nd Infantry, thus the battle honor Alabama 1814" I take at face value that there was only one regiment present. Note, however, that both the new 2nd Infantry and the new 1st Infantry are credited on the Center for Military History (CMH) site with campaign participation credit for "Alabama 1814". And, the http://archive.org/stream/officialarmyregi1926unit#page/828/mode/1up you pointed me to states that both the new 1st and the new 2nd received the "Alabama 1814" battle honor from the "old 2nd Infantry". Thus, some of the original 2nd's history/battle honors seem to belong to the new 1st.

• " The regiment was consolidated with a lineage date of 12 April 1808 and then fought in the War of 1812" Actually, according to the CMH, the regiment was constituted on 12 April 1808 (as the 6th Infantry), not consolidated. It (the 6th) was consolidated, as you note, in May 1815 with the 16th Infantry, the 22d and 23d Infantry, and the 32d Infantry "to form the 2d Infantry".
• "So you are saying that the battle honors can appear out of nowhere because there doesn't have to be any history behind them, the Army just gave them out for no reason. You are so wrong on that one!" I certainly didn't intend to give this impression. If you'll point me to where I did so I'm happy to try to clarify my intent. Ocalafla (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ocalafla,

Let me begin by saying, once again, that I am not concerned with the 1st Infantry or what any other regiments histories say, my concern is what the 2nd Infantry’s history is. If the 2nd Infantry was permitted to retain its “old” history and inherit the honors of the regiments consolidated into it then don’t you think the others were also?

Sorry, I used the wrong word but also I am sorry to say that there is not quotations around as the 6th Infantry. You are missing the key point here, basically what was done was the date of the oldest regiment consolidated with the others to create a new regiment was used as that new regiment’s lineage date. This is not the date that the regiment was actually consolidated, therefore it could not have been in the War of 1812.

I must be missing something very important here! I was under the impression that this was a history, an accurate history. It has become apparent to me that an accurate history isn’t what is required. It is what makes sense to you and all that read the regiments history. If I had done as others have done with the other regiments histories and just ignore certain information completely it can’t be questioned and therefore makes it ok.

I was trying to present all the facts not just the ones that made it look good. One glowing example is just going by a lineage date for a regiment and not much that comes after. IE, the lineage date of the 2nd Infantry Regiment is 12 April 1808 but the actual consolidation date of the regiment was 17 May 1815. The War of 1812 ended on 24 December 1814 with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent. Now if the regiment did not exist prior to May 1815 when exactly did it participate in the War of 1812 let along the Miami Indian Campaign? But if one overlooks the actual consolidation date then everything is alright. This holds true for the 1st thru 7th Infantry Regiments, just go by the date of the oldest regiments consolidated into these regiments and fake the rest. Don’t read further in the lineages, don’t question it, don’t attempt to research it and most of all don’t try to understand it.

You stated that “one can't simply say that battle honors=history”, I don’t see how you can have one without the other. 2INFMAN (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2INFMAN, forgive me if I am misreading what you've said, but I'm reading what you've said to suggest "consolidated" indicates the start of a new unit. The CMH term for this is "constituted" which they define as "To place the designation of a new unit on the official rolls of the United States Army." The CMH defines "consolidate" as "To merge two or more units into a single unit." (For what its worth, the term "lineage date" is not defined (or used) on the CMH site so it may not be useful to continue its use here.)

So, according to CMH this is what happened: a new unit (called the 6th Infantry) was placed on the rolls of the Army on 12 April 1808. This unit was merged with other units in May 1815 and called the 2nd Infantry.

Now, I think I read your statement "just go by the date of the oldest regiments consolidated into these regiments and fake the rest" to disagree with the CMH approach and imply that the new 2nd Infantry shouldn't really claim the battle honors of the units consolidated into it or of the original 2nd Infantry. If so, you make an interesting point. Ocalafla (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

OCALAFLA, Did I not say that I used the wrong word? Now you feel the need to explain the meaning of the 2 words to me! Really! Using the lineage dates of the regiments determines the age of the regiments, there are still some in the Army that take a lot of pride in their unit and in how long it has served the country. Lineage used this way means birthday or anniversary. Like the 2nd Infantry celebrated its 200 anniversary in 2008.

I said nothing about the CMH faking the rest and I have no problem with the lineages. I was refering to all the other histories including a lot of those that have been written about the 2nd Infantry. To just read the first line of the lineages and ingore most of what follows is not the way to go. But in doing it that way all bases are covered without putting much thought into it.

How about I just say that you are right about everything and I am wrong. That I have wasted my time both here on TALK and on the 2nd Infantry Regiment's history. My comprehension skills are terrible and I don't know what I am talking about and never did. You just go ahead and put it right and all will be right with the world. We certainly can't have one history different from the others. Adieu!

2INFMAN (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam

GUNNERGRZ, There is no indication in the article that the text comes verbatim from press release. If the text is quoted verbatim from a source it should be enclosed in quotation marks or a formatted as a block quote. Further, if it is a direct quote it probably requires a more explicit attribution to the source beyond what is currently provided. Hope this helps resolve any confusion! Ocalafla (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd Infantry edits

Ocalafla,

You just can’t get past this can you? I recommend that you read the Infantry section of this link very closely, nowhere does is state that the honors are inherited. If you have any further questions concerning this you should address them in the talk section for this site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Regular_Army_units_with_campaign_credit_for_the_War_of_1812

Why exactly did you delete the sentence about the Miami Campaign being the oldest streamer? Do you know of one that is older? Lastly, what’s the difference between original or old? There has been two 2nd Infantry Regiments, the original one and the present one. GUNNERGRZ (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Official Army Register", cited in the paragraph in question, shows the source of inherited battle honors for each regiment. With regard to the deleted Miami Campaign language you mention, the info is already covered elsewhere in the article. It makes more sense to cover it elsewhere in a section regarding the current 2nd Infantry as opposed to the old 2nd Infantry.

Hope this helps. Going forward, please ensure your talk section comments are informed by wikipedia's policy on civility available here WP:CIVIL. Ocalafla (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Lansmun, I have restored my original edits. It is possible you are confused about what vandalism is and isn't. May I respectfully suggest you review WP:VANDAL before making any further reversions based on vandalism. Thanks! Ocalafla (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocalafla, In answer to both of your responses to GUNNERGRZ and me, "The Official Army Register", cited in the paragraph in question, the register says nothing about any regiment inheriting anything.

Your edit does nothing to clarify anything; as a matter of fact it confuses it more. You now have 2 units “inheriting” the honors with no explanation. 1st Infantry, 2nd Infantry, old unit, new unit and what have you. You took a simple statement and turned into something else. As far as what is in the site GUNNERGRZ referred to, it said nothing about inheriting battle honors, the only time the word is used is concerning history not battle honors. It does state the following, “the current 1st through 7th Infantry Regiments would be allowed to claim battle honors earned by the earlier infantry regiments having the same number”, that is certainly quite clear to me, plain, simple and to the point.

As to the sentence you deleted, guess that is like you moving the Motto header and narrative to a location totally out of chronological order. The sentence was there because it was something concerning what the narrative was covering. Lansmun (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Lansmu/GUNNERGRZ, I'm afraid I don't understand everything you've said above. But I will try my best to address what I do understand. "The Official Army Register" entries for regiments list battle honors for each regiment. For some of these battle honors, there is text in parentheses that indicats the source of the battle honor when the battle honor was not earned directly by the unit in question. Thus, in the entry for the 1st Infantry's battle honors it says "Alabama (1814)(old 2nd Infantry)" indicating the current 1st Infantry inherited that battle honor from the old 2nd Infantry. If you do not like the use of the word "inherit" please feel free to propose another term.

With regard to the deleted sentence, I do not disagree that it "was there because it was something concerning what the narrative was covering". But, the information already appears elsewhere in the article and is, thus, redundant.

I hope this helps your understanding. I am happy to answer any further concerns you have. Ocalafla (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocalarfla, Good way of avoiding issues, once again you, don’t UNDERSTAND, so you feel that anything you have to say is correct and anything others have to say “you don’t understand”. Is that because you don’t want to read what is presented to you or because you don’t want too. Then when someone says something that you don’t like you threaten to have them ban. “Right or wrong ,you are right”. What I wrote is self-explanatory and you know it! I have Army Registers from numerous years in this particular time period and each one says something different just like the wiki site states about the changes. Concerning battle honors how about this; The present 2nd Infantry did not participate in any of the battles in Upper Canada during the War of 1812 but does carry the recognition for these battles on its colors. Following the 1815 consolidations the War Department ruled that the honors earned by the consolidated regiments would become the new regiment’s honors. Therefore the regimental colors bear the campaign streamers for Canada, Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane. The present 2nd Infantry was also allowed to keep the battle honors of the original 2nd Infantry for the Miami Campaign (1790-1795) and Alabama 1814. The 1st Infantry does not need to be in this paragraph but this in all like hood this will not be acceptable to you because you are an expert on the subject and feel that it needs to be “clarified”. The deleted sentence belongs there because unless one continues to the end and actually read and comprehend what is presented they will not equate one with the other. But again you are the expert!Lansmun (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Lansmun, I regret I still can't say I have an understanding of your concerns. Is the language after "how about this:" language you are proposing? If so, I do believe language needs to be included that paints the full picture of what happened to the old 2nd Infantry's battle honors. Saying the presnt 2nd Infantry was allowed to keep the battle honors of the old 2nd Infantry does not paint the full picture. A reader might still be confused about the connection between the old 2nd Infantry and the current 2nd Infantry.

Addressing another part of your post, I think I read it to be an accusation that when someone says something I disagree with I "threaten to have them ban". May I respectfully request you to retract this false accusation since you have no basis for it.

I am happy to continue the discussion with you, but I strongly urge you to read and conform to WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH first. Ocalafla (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocalafla, What we were trying to get across is that the regiment has them without going into a lengthy explanation and adding more than is necessary. The way you pose it actually opens up a whole can of worms as to the whys and wherefores. You say that the 1st Infantry also has them but do not explain why. The beginning of my sentence in the previous post, “The present 2nd Infantry was also allowed to keep the battle honors” is covered by the first part of the paragraph and in no way is including the 1st Infantry necessary. ! If you do that then you will have to explain why the 3rd Infantry has the 1st Infantry’s campaign recognitions and on and on.

I think that the best way to handle this part about the “old” 2nd Infantry campaign recognitions is to ignore then like just about every other history of the regiment does. They are part of the regiment with no explanation. Lansmun (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

After notifying Wikipedia several times about the quite apparent copyright infringement that has taken place with the 2nd Infantry Regiment history and the inaction from Wikipedia I think they don't really care about it. Putting a notice at the top of the page has done nothing to correct the problem and in fact it seems to have encouraged one individual, ocalafla, to actually try to put their spin on it so as to make it appear the infringement isn't so bad. As Wikipedia has said on the subject changing a word here and there doesn't correct the problem. I think that better than 75% of the article should be deleted or as Wikipedia told me "reverted". Plagiarism is plagiarism no matter how one tries to spin it.David M Ray (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response to David on my talk page. I will look more into this but the Wikipedia article could be the source for this document or maybe the same author who made it added it to Wikipedia. The edits look gradual in 2008 which may indicate it is not a copyright infringement. I will take a closer look tomorrow.--NortyNort (Holla) 20:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The document in question is a "backwards copy" of the Wikipedia article, no copyright violation. I tagged the page above, you can see a detailed explanation there.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2nd Infantry Regiment (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828175238/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54243 to http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=54243

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)