Misplaced Pages

Talk:Civil Air Patrol: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:56, 30 November 2005 edit68.112.201.90 (talk) →Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:45, 6 September 2024 edit undoMilHistBot (talk | contribs)Bots140,648 edits Automatic MILHIST checklist assessment - C class 
(549 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{featured}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{Mainpage date|July 12|2005}}
{{Article history
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Civil Air Patrol Intro.ogg}}
|action1=PR
{{oldpeerreview}}
{{past AID|2 May|2005}} |action1date=16:14, 1 May 2005
] |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Civil Air Patrol/archive1
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=13089495


|action2=FAC
==Page-related discussion==
|action2date=01:27, 7 May 2005
===Featured Article Attempt===
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Civil Air Patrol/archive1
Hi everyone. It would mean a LOT to me if this article was edited to such a state that we would be able to nominate this thing for ] status. If anyone is interested, throw me a message on my ] page and post your interest here. ] 20:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=13492623


|action3=FAR
I '''seriously''' think that this article is ready for featured article status! ] 20:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
|action3date=19:21, 15 March 2008
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Civil Air Patrol/archive1
|action3result=removed
|action3oldid=197904819


|action4=PR
'''YES!!! FEATURED ARTICLE!!!''' ] 03:23, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
|action4date=00:19, 15 May 2008
====Current Status====
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Civil Air Patrol/archive2
{{FAPath}}
|action4result=reviewed
#]: '''Completed!'''
|action4oldid=212487803
#Do some research: '''Completed!'''
#]: '''Completed!'''
#]: '''Completed!'''
#]: We are currently getting peer reviewed. '''Completed!'''
#]: '''Completed!'''
#]: '''COMPLETED!'''
''Final results: 7 support, 0 object, 0 neutral''


|action5=FAC
====Tasks to be completed====
|action5date=16:33, 24 May 2008
We currently need the following tasks to be completed before we can even ''think'' about nominating this page for featured article status:
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Civil Air Patrol/archive2
#Perhaps a list of Wings and their patches?
|action5result=not promoted
#Adding ribbon table (cadet and senior).
|action5oldid=214609744
#Adding badge table (such as the various types of wings (pilot, observer, glider, etc) and other badges).
*On retrospective... the article is already huge. We don't need these in the same article. ] 20:34, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the above list. ] 20:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


|action6=GAN
====Things that have been complained about====
|action6date=22:19, 5 September 2008
#References not listed/seperated from external links
|action6link=Talk:Civil Air Patrol/GA1
#Too many short paragraphs
|action6result=listed
#Too many lists
|action6oldid=236295000


|maindate=July 12, 2005
==Civil Air Patrol-related discussion==
|aciddate=2 May 2005
===Time to split the article..?===
|topic=War
It's really friggin' big. Easily the biggest article I've ever seen on Misplaced Pages. It's probably time to split the History and Cadet Program sections off into their own articles. With no objections, I'll probably jump on that in the next few days. ] 18:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
|otd1date=2014-12-01|otd1oldid=636001115|otd2date=2021-12-01|otd2oldid=1058056177
:I have an objection. Please understand I'm not trying to be difficult. There are plenty of other articles that are about the same size or longer than this one (such as ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]... etc etc etc). Splitting the article would, if anything, hurt it, and it would nullify its featured article status (which I am in no hurry to see leave). ] | ] | ] 19:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
|otd3date=2022-12-01|otd3oldid=1124680718
:: It's getting a ''tad'' tough to navigate in there and I can see a lot of areas that need further expansion (especially Cadet Program and History). Now seemed like as good a time as any... ==> NetSerfer 19:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


|action7 = GAR
Linuxbeak, the History section really rocks now! I have a coupla minor queries about stuff that I think needs to be made clearer for readers as ignorant as myself:
|action7date = 18:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Civil Air Patrol/1
|action7result = delisted
|action7oldid = 1243267280
|currentstatus = DGA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|Aviation=yes|WWII=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Aviation}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
{{WikiProject Civil Air Patrol|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Annual readership|expanded=yes|days=183}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
'''Birth of the Civil Air Patrol'''. What's an "aviation writer" (as in Wilson)? That's a concept?
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
'''
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-03-02T15:10:39.741924 | Flag of the United States Civil Air Patrol.svg -->
Pilot Training and the Cadet Program.''' Uh, you're supposed to need "indoctrination" to become a licenced pilot, really...?
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 15:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


== Merger proposal ==
(And quite a few commented-out minor comments, too, but i know you've got those in hand.)--] | ] 16:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I propose merging ] (which is marked with "<nowiki>{{notability}}</nowiki>") into ]. I think the content in "National Blue Beret" can easily be explained in the context of "Civil Air Patrol", and a merger would not cause any article-size or ] problems in "Civil Air Patrol".] (]) 13:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


:Sorry for the (very) late response, but I would suggest that if it were merged anywhere the target should be ] rather than the main CAP article. It doesn't really have a place here. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— ] <small>(] ] ])</small></span> 20:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
I made an editing pass at this article tonight, mostly to the organization section, adding a paragraph on the Board of Governors and NHQ, along with some general re-organization and fixing some innaccuracies. The Cadet Programs section is still a bit of a mess, sounds like the perspective of a Phase II cadet almost (no offense intended, I was one once myself). -- Matt Johnson <mattj&#64;spaatz.org> ]


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-08-20T21:08:34.020077 | CAP Vertical Logo AUX.svg -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 21:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


== Why does a topic about an American institution use dmy dates? ==
===Links Dispute===
I noticed that was linked as an external link, does that mean that , , and should also be included as extrnal links? Personally I think that none of these should be linked. --] 23:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


These are not standard in America. ―]<span style="color:red">❤]☮]☺]☯</span> 06:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:I disagree with you. Why ''shouldn't'' they be included? ] | ] | ] 00:49, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


==GA Reassessment==
::They ''shouldn't'' be included because they are not part of the ''official'' organization of CAP. There are dozens and dozens of private and personal pages that are about CAP and it isn't the job of this page - nor Misplaced Pages - to reference them all. And, since we can't reference them all, then by rights we shouldn't reference any of them unless they are, in some way, exceptionally significant. None of these are, including CadetStuff. -- ]
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Civil Air Patrol/1}}

::I agree with NetSerfer here, if people want to find blogs related to CAP they can just Google for them. I don't think it's the role of Misplaced Pages to list them all here. Are there other articles on Misplaced Pages that do have a list of blogs and other personal sites in the external links? --] 16:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the Misplaced Pages guidelines, we've got two votes to one on the links. I'm going to restore them to the last major edit. Anyone care to cast a tie-breaker on the introduction? ] 18:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Although you may have a point with the blogs, I do not agree with you removing the references. Information from *before* I was the webmaster of that site was used. Plus, that same site has donated images to this article in the past, so it's rightfully a reference. It doesn't matter if I'm the webmaster or not; it's still factual. Please see the Featured Article Candidate discussion when references were discussed, and please do not remove the references again, because I will put them back. It's not a threat, but I know I'm right in this case. ] | ] | ] 01:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

::There is nothing on ''your'' squadron web site that is a significant reference in and of itself. CAP squadrons receive all directive and publications of significance from central authority. To reference any squadron is self-serving twaddle. Anyway, if you're right about linking your squadron, then let's go get some ]. ] 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::'''Self-serving twaddle'''? I'm going to ignore the fact that that could be considered a personal attack for right now. It appears that you are a relatively new editor (seeing that you've only got 166 article edits under your belt), so I'm going to assume good faith and suggest reading up on ] and ]. If you want to start a mediation case, by all means go ahead, but it will only be a waste of your time as well as mine. ] | ] | ] 12:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

::::Yep, '''self-serving twaddle'''. A personal attack? Not according to the definitions. First, let's address the 'references' in question. A ] should accomplish the following:
:::::* Giving credit to a source for providing useful information.
:::::* Providing more information to curious readers.
:::::* Convincing skeptical readers that the article is accurate.
:::::* Helping other editors quickly ], especially in cases of ].
:::::* Preventing and resolving editorial disputes.
:::::* Establishing general credibility for Misplaced Pages.
:::::* Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.
::::If the reference to RI-102 does anything on that list, it's '''Giving credit to a source for providing useful information'''. However, as I stated, there is nothing on that site that didn't come from NHQ and there is no reason to link in one particular squadron's site when there are dozens of contributors (representing dozens of sites) to this page. You want we should link them all?

::::Calling the link '''self-serving twaddle''' seems to have nothing in common with the ] or even the spirit of a 'personal attack' according to Misplaced Pages. It was a characterization of the post, not of the person making the post; labelling it as: '''Empty or silly talk or writing, serving one's own interests'''.

::::Okey dokey, sounds like you're all for mediation. I'll get the ball rolling... Actually, I'll tell you what: in the spirit of cooperation, please point out to me which sections of the CAP article are based on references from the RI-102 site. If you can justify it, I'll withdraw my objections. ] 14:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::I still think that "self-serving twaddle" is a personal attack, and I am quite comfortable saying that a number of other seasoned editors would agree. Anyway, although I find it a bit humourous that you're the one who's demanding answers from me, I'll give you what you want.
:::::#Every cadet grade image displayed is from the 102nd's website
:::::#The image of N9824L is from the 102nd's website (in fact, that was a picture that I took)
:::::#The entirety of the sections concerning emergency services, cadet programs, and aerospace education, are all heavily adapted from the 102nd's website
:::::#Although not listed on this page, every ribbon graphic in ] is directly adapted from images directly taken from the 102nd's webpage
:::::That's enough for me to sleep easy knowing that I provided the 102nd's webpage as a reference. ] | ] | ] 15:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
:::::And... "Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty." is key in reason number 3. ] | ] | ] 15:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


:::::If you want to pursue a 'personal attack' complaint, knock yourself out. This isn't about you, it's about this resource and what I consider to be your unfair use of it. Find my demands as humorous as you like, but as far as content is concerned we have equal standing here. Now, your points:
:::::#Some of the items you've listed as being from the 102nd's website (ribbon images, grade images) are not in and of themselves owned or unique to that site. They are available from any number of sources, including NER's 'rack builder' site, and could very easily be replaced from there.
:::::#The image of N9824L ''itself'' should be referenced back to you. That doesn't justify a link to RI-102 on every wikipage that might use that image. ''(Besides which, it's not that good an image: it's not well lit and the A/C in question isn't in CAP's preferred livery. The page would probably be better served by replacing it.)''
:::::#Considering the extremely heavy editing that's been done on the page since you pulled sections from RI-102, I don't think your characterization of them as 'heavily adapted' is reasonable. They differ materially and significantly from that initial pull.
:::::#Citing reason 3 - ''Avoiding claims of plagiarism or intellectual dishonesty.'' - is specious at best, since the images you claim (except for N9824L) as key to your arguments are taken from ''other'' sites and are being used here under 'fair use' or as public domain. RI-102 didn't create those ribbons or grades and you didn't create those images. Plagiarism isn't an issue for the simple reason that the article has been so heavily edited that your initial sections are unrecognisable.
:::::Beak, I honestly think you're too close to the issue and I'd prefer to work this out here - especially since we've already resolved this dispute once with a two-to-one vote in favor of trimming the reference links. However, if you're still up for mediation, I'm all about it. ] 20:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::Okey doke, I can see that you made an edit to the article, which means you've had a chance to see this and make a final decision on what you want to do. I guess I'll start the ball rolling... ] 13:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::Read ] and read up on the section that says "Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy. Also... as far as I can tell, it appears that this "second" vote that you cite from Grant Henninger doesn't even mention the references. So, as far as I can tell, you're down to 1 vs. 1. I'm on IRC right now, and I'm getting some people to look at the article as I type to see if the reference is appropriate. ] | ] | ] 13:36, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I fail to see why these links should be removed. They were used as sources and should be ] as such. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]]</sup> 13:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I also cannot see why the links in question should be removed. They in no way tarnish the credibility of the article or Misplaced Pages, and in fact seem to add something to the article. They are used as references, no more. And nobody is forcing a person to look at the link, it is just an option. ] 13:53, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::So, there you have it. 3 against 1, and both from active editors. If you think it's not enough, I can find more people to back me up on this one, NetSerfer. Another thing: I happened to create those ribbons you see on that page, thank you. Compare the ribbons on Misplaced Pages to the ones on the ribbon rack page... and look carefully. ] | ] | ] 13:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:::::::I also think that the links should stay. --]<b> <sup>(])</sup></b> 14:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

::''There is nothing on ''your'' squadron web site that is a significant reference in and of itself. CAP squadrons receive all directive and publications of significance from central authority. To reference any squadron is self-serving twaddle. Anyway, if you're right about linking your squadron, then let's go get some ]. ] 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)''

:: That's bull. You're arguing that the only links that have to be included are those from official mouthpieces. That's like saying that the only info about the ] and its (mis)operations has to come from the ] office of the ]. Nonsence, keep the links. ]. ] 14:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

::: Even though I've withdrawn, I will answer this by saying that since RI-102 website is CAPR-110 compliant, there ''can be nothing on it that isn't approved by CAP'' and that anything on it that isn't approved will be immediately taken down by orders of the chain of command. That's why putting a squadron web site on this page is 'self-serving twaddle'. If you want to put up dissenting opinions, then start linking in some of the very critical member blogs. But, that would seemingly violate NPOV. ] 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

:Okey doke, I can play well with others. I withdraw my objection. ] 14:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should silt the two! - CAP cadet

===Introduction Dispute===
I tightened up the introduction - which hadn't been changed since before the extensive history was added - by removing pieces of fairly in-depth historical information that were included are the history and you stuck them back in there. We also have some conflicts on what should and should not be included as links. Plus, Linuxbeak, I notice that all the links ''to your squadron's page that you maintain'' are back. I say we've got some issues here and I'm going to the ] page for a neutral opinion. - ] 13:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


He doesn't currently maintain the squadron website for your information sir. ] 17:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Uh, okay, thanks, I guess... NetSerfer 18:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

== Removal of AID tag ==

I removed the AID tag, because the article is now up for voting at Featured Article candidates. ] 00:52, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

==CAP and the Military==

In my opinion, it is very important to have a section in this article that makes it very clear that the CAP is not a branch of the ] and that CAP members are never placed in command of active duty U.S. troops. This was actually in the article quite some time ago, but edited out long ago probably through routine cleanups and not by any design to hide this info. Anyway, this group is confusing to non U.S. folks who see it as simply a branch of the Air Force. And, as a military reservist, I cant tell you how many times Ive bumped into CAP people who demanded to know why the active military did not salute them. Not that all CAP people are like that, of course, just thats its a point of confusion within the CAP itself. -] 09:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

== Japanese Fire Balloons ==

Added a sentence about CAP members patrolling for japanese fire ballons in WWII. When I was a cadet, one of the older CAP members in the Wing (MT) used to tell stories about riding around in his plane with a shotgun looking for these. Unfortunatly, the gentleman passed away several years ago and I don't have any further information. Hopefully someone can elaborate on this.

:This is very interesting. Would you be able to provide a print or online source for this? ] (that's ] to you) 12:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, like I said I don't have any further information, but if you know any senior members up in Montana they probably know who I'm talking about. I've lost touch with most everyone I knew from CAP. You might try cadetstuff.org and see if anyone there has any information, I'll ask my father and see what he remembers.

== Mitchell vs. Spaatz vs. Eagle Scout ==



:I am the editor who is largely responsible for the featured article status of this article as well as the upkeep. I am a CAP cadet, and I disagree with your arguement. A Mitchell cadet may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-3, while an Eagle Scout may enlist and be given a paygrade of E-2. I am not disagreeing on the basis that the Spaatz is the highest CAP cadet award as the rank of Eagle is the highest Scouting award. If you want to compare based on percentage, the Eaker would actually be equivilant to the Eagle (as approx. 2% of all cadets get to Eaker; this is the same as the Eagle). So, unless there is an official statement from National indicating that a certain cadet grade is their equivilant of the Eagle rank, then I am reverting you. Please provide a source for your arguement. Also, please don't take over a topic but instead create your own. ] (that's ] to you) 16:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


:How so? I don't see a single thing that says that the Spaatz is equivalent to the Eagle. ] (that's ] to you) 18:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
::And that's not from National. That's from California Wing. I said cite me something from National. ] (that's ] to you) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Without modifying content, I have created a new subsection for this... issue. To the anonymous user who insists that the Eagle Scout and Spaatz Award are equivalent, you truly do need to calm down and look at the documented facts. Why? Because according to , , and , you are wrong. ] 02:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


:With all due respect, Major, you are on Misplaced Pages and as such you have absolutely no authority or jurisdiction over anyone, including myself. I am a CAP cadet, but this isn't CAP; this is Misplaced Pages. You just told a Misplaced Pages editor (McNeight) to zip it, and you just made me, a Misplaced Pages administrator, annoyed because of it. This is not "your" article, and McNeight is completely authorized to counter your point, especially if it's wrong. How about '''you''' provide an emailed response from National? We're not going to do it, so if you want to provide us with a good source that proves you right, you go right ahead. Do not continue inserting that phone number into the article, because it does not belong there. If you continue to disrupt the article, and more importantly, try to bully other Misplaced Pages editors, I '''will''' block you for 24 hours.
:Furthermore, I find your comment about taking a very rude tone to be a bit ironic, seeing you just told someone to "keep their personal comments to themselves." I am the person who WROTE this damn article. I am willing to admit when I'm wrong (are you?), but unless you prove me wrong (and so far you haven't), then I will continue to revert you. ] (that's ] to you) 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realize that voicing a truth would be considered bullying anyone. Do my words threaten you? Also, I didn't ask for or expect your respect, kid, but--you seem to be unable to admit you are wrong about one thing--Mitchell gets you E-3 in the USAF and E-2 in all other branches. Further, why can't you leave the contact info for NHQ and let people make thier own decision? Are you sure you are mature enough to handle the responsibility it take to be the author of this article? Perhaps a call to your local recruiter will actually make you realize one of your errors. As for the Eagle equivalence---I no longer care. You have a great day now, youngster.
:I didn't say that voicing your take on the matter was bullying; I said to not tell other editors to stay out of it. That's bullying. Your words do not threaten me at all, but when you tell other people to keep their personal comments to themselves, that's not exactly fair to those who have worked on this. I want you to provide me with actual references and not just what you say to be correct with what you're claiming. I'm damn mature enough to know that putting a phone number inside an article for the purpose that you are putting it for is ''unencyclopedic'' and ''does not belong''. That's why I kept removing it. The discussion page is the place for stuff like that. So, for all intents and purposes, yes. I am mature enough to be the person who wrote this, and even if I wasn't "mature enough", it's irrelevant because I already did. This conversation is now over. If you want to follow the proper Misplaced Pages policy on making changes, then by all means do. But don't expect me to let you edit something which you can not verify and present evidence besides a phone number. I'm not going to call it, and neither will the vast majority of article readers. Get over it. ] (that's ] to you) 20:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


:Since you seem so insistent on being right, perhaps I should fully debrief you on just precisely why you are wrong?

:First, you are wrong because you can't follow the flow of a conversation. I joined CAP in 1986, served as both cadet and senior member, earned positions on squadron, group and wing staff and personally achieved both the Mitchell and Earhart awards. The "personal comments" you refer to belong to me, not ]. Perhaps the attempts by ] to moderate your tone have failed because you think you are talking to only one person?

:Second, you are wrong because you have to resort to bragging about your status in order to prove yourself right. Attempting to throw your weight around in this kind of public forum, by declaring your years of service or current staff position, will result in multiple people laughing at you. Any further attempts at intimidation either by age or "maturity" will result in ongoing public mockery.

:Third, you are wrong because you can't read the comments embedded in the history of the document you are attempting to edit. You continuously attempt to "correct" an article that, while perhaps not completely correct, was not wrong. Linuxbeak has even gone so far as to incorporate some of your issues into the text of the article, as they do have some merit. However, that does not give you licence to continuously abuse, nor does it give you the right to crow about it.

:Fourth, you are wrong because you can't follow embedded links. Above, I linked to pages at CAP National Headquarters (http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5156), the United States Air Force (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=163), and the United States Air Force Academy (http://academyadmissions.com/admissions/preparation/leadership_prep.php). All three links support the statement that the military considers the Mitchell Award and the Eagle Scout award equivalent for purposes of recruitment.

:Fifth, you are wrong because, beyond recruitment, the military '''does not care''' about Mitchell Awards, Spaatz Awards or Eagle Scouts. You can't wear any of them on a US military service uniform (and no, that does not include ROTC), no record of it is kept in your DD214, and no self-respecting soldier would continue to define themselves strictly based on an achievement made in high school.

:Finally, you are wrong because even you proved that you are wrong! Your original argument was that "The Gen Spaatz Award is the equivalent of the Eagle Scout". After pointing out that you were wrong, instead of admitting it and continuing a civil discussion as to why the Spaatz Award and Eagle Scout are comparable, you degenerated to bullying and confusing the issue by nitpicking. That the Army, Navy and Marine Corps will give a pay grade of E-2 to either a Mitchell Awardee or an Eagle Scout only '''further proves''' that your original statement is false and that, for those branches of the military, the Mitchell Award and Eagle Scout are exactly equivalent.

:If you really, truly want to keep embarassing yourself, perhaps you should dedicate a separate page to it. ] 22:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
::Anything that I was about to say has already been said. Thank you, McNeight. ] (that's ] to you) 22:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I bow down to your superior maturity.
:Do '''not''' remove content such as references from this article. This is considered vandalism and if it continues, you will be issued a 24-hour block. ] (that's ] to you) 01:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:45, 6 September 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civil Air Patrol article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former featured articleCivil Air Patrol is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 12, 2005.
On this day...Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 7, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
March 15, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
May 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
May 24, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 5, 2008Good article nomineeListed
September 5, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 1, 2014, December 1, 2021, and December 1, 2022.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 2, 2005.
Current status: Former featured article
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Aviation / World War II
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military aviation task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconAviation
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
B checklist
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: not checked
  2. Coverage and accuracy: not checked
  3. Structure: not checked
  4. Grammar and style: not checked
  5. Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
  • | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no>
  • | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no>
  • | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no>
  • | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no>
  • | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no>
assessing the article against each criterion.
WikiProject iconUnited States Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconCivil Air Patrol (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil Air Patrol, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Civil Air PatrolWikipedia:WikiProject Civil Air PatrolTemplate:WikiProject Civil Air PatrolCivil Air Patrol
WikiProject iconDisaster management Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging National Blue Beret (which is marked with "{{notability}}") into Civil Air Patrol. I think the content in "National Blue Beret" can easily be explained in the context of "Civil Air Patrol", and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in "Civil Air Patrol".MarcRic::Ruby (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the (very) late response, but I would suggest that if it were merged anywhere the target should be National Cadet Special Activities rather than the main CAP article. It doesn't really have a place here. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Why does a topic about an American institution use dmy dates?

These are not standard in America. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Civil Air Patrol

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an old GA that hasn't stood the test of time, unfortunately. Large number of uncited sentences and paragraphs, some from as far back as 2010. The article also overwhelmingly cites the CAP itself, which is a violation of WP:RS's requirement that articles be based on independent sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: