Talk:Civil Air Patrol/Archive 3

Image problem

Referring to the image used on the uniforms section, it is listed as a public domain image as a government work, but this cannot be correct because CAP, as a private corporation, holds copyright on anything it publishes (the seal, the name, etc. are all copyrighted). I see it as, if anything, a personal photo released by the taker. The bigger problem I see is the uniforms. Three cadets in the new uniforms, but is the cadet on the far left not supposed to have a nametag like the other two? Is the flight cap on the on on the far right not too low (it's touching her eyebrows)? ALSO, the one in the center is a male (wearing a male jacket - flap on lower pocket, appears to cross left-over-right) but isn't wearing a tie with Class A's? (If I'm wrong, let me know; it has happened before!) I have always been one for insuring that images (such as those in the CAP News, back in the day, and now the Volunteer) reflect correct standards and whatnot. I don't mean to be nitpicking (which is why I didn't remove the image); I just wanted to check if I was seein this correctly and if anyone else really cares about it anyway... Semper Vi! VigilancePrime 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the copyright issues, but allow me to explain some of the uniform issues. First off, the photo was taken during the short period that the "new style" Blues Service Coat did not have a nametag. The male cadet on the left would seem to be wearing the "new style" during that period of time, while the female cadet on the right is wearing the "old style" (both of which are still authorized for cadet wear to this day). The center cadet does have the crossover correct for "her" uniform and is wearing the female tie equivalent (it is a female cadet, now senior member, I actually know her personally). Not sure about the pocket flap, maybe the old style female service coats had them. The flight cap on the right is a little low, but if that is the only problem, it could be worse. --OuroborosCobra 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Just checking. Actually, I feel better about it, especially considering I thought it was a female cadet...I was a little worried about how I wrote the above. I initially thought that it was the tab, but it was ambiguous enough between that and a shadow (and the cut of the jacket seemed a little lower than I'd expect), so I couldn't be sure. I had thought that Cadets always wore a nametag and only Senior Members had the no-tag version, but I wasn't sure (hence asking the question). Anyway, thanks for clarifying and I hope no offense was taken in the question or my manner in asking; it was a genuine "I'm not sure" inquiry. VigilancePrime 07:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah, no offense at all. Public image and a professional look are very important to me as well :)

Wish I could help more on the copyright stuff. I wonder if the fact that it was taken at the Civic Leadership Academy (where they do stuff like shadow congressmen) makes a difference? --OuroborosCobra 07:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The problem is simply fixed if the image-taker is the one who "released" it. Granted, I'm usually on the receiving end of "this image has copyright issues" and "delete this" issues... I will not be the deletionist!!!  :-) Anyway, I think a better image could be derived or created eventually. For now, I'm happy with this and your answers to the uniform consistencies questions. Remember the old CAP News photos of Seniors (not to sound anti-Senior, cause I'm not, but they usually were) in front of a plane and every one was in a different half-of-a-uniform or something? Those were (not) the days... Semper Vi (emphasis on "Semper") VigilancePrime 07:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

NCASE

I was surprised to find that there was no article on the National Congress on Aviation and Space Education and thus created the page. I mention it here just NCASE some others could/would check it out and help build it up some more. Semper Vi! VigilancePrime 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is likely because CAP no long puts on NCASE. While NCASE still exists and CAP is still involved with it, it is no longer a CAP conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.198.9 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That isn't entirely accurate, per [1]. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar

The new sidebar needs to be modified or changed. CAP is not a military unit, plain and simple, and should not use the sibebar made for one. Then there are the arbitrary decisions being made in content, choosing website for information over actual regulations, dismissing CAP's major involvement in 9/11 merely because they did not shoot a gun, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be killed with an ax. With our massive TOC, the article will be a mess for users with lower resolution screens. As you have said, CAP is not a military unit, and quite frankly, I do not see any value in using an infobox, period. What needs to be done is a total overhaul of data organisation on the page, so that it is easier to locate. I might work on this over the next few days. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bah Humbug; I'm unilaterally removing the infobox for the time being, given that it was unilaterally added. Before such a contentious change is made to the article, it needs to be discussed. As I stated before, I agree that no infobox is needed. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 19:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Total Agreement. This article could easily be split into different sections... Cadet Program (CAP mission), Emergency Services (CAP), (maybe Missions of Civil Air Patrol instead?), History of Civil Air Patrol, Membership in Civil Air Patrol, and/or Uniforms of Civil Air Patrol even? The only issue I see is maintaining the "Featured Article" status... how much can we reorganize this without losing that distinction? VigilancePrime (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An article can be reorganized without falling out of the FAC, so long as little of the actual content is changed. I also don't think that creating subarticles is necessary unless there is plenty of information to both populate the new article and provide a synopsis on the main page. Since this is straying from the topic, I'm starting a new one below. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisms

• Requested Admin intervention with the vandal.
• Multiple Warnings
• Doubt it's true vandalism? Translate the phrase yourself.
• VigilancePrime (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't even think to translate that, but I should have realized just looking at it that it wasn't Latin. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

More vandalisms and warnings.

Requested INDEF BLOCK, but I'm not holding my breath.

VigilancePrime (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

MAJCOM Patch

I had changed the Civil Air Patrol MAJCOM patch in the article to an image of the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" MAJCOM patch. Now that we're once again just the Civil Air Patrol, can someone change it back? That would be greatly appreciated. Scetoaux (talk) 04:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I made the change now. Scetoaux (talk) 04:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to change it back. While the NEC approved removing the "US" from "US Civil Air Patrol" on correspondences and such, they have not approved removing it from the nametapes, or changed the MAJCOM patch back. The most recent ICL from the National Commander, dated 25 Jan 2008, still has the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol" MAJCOM patch, that is still what Civil Air Patrol is using. I imagine that will change within the next year, but it hasn't happened yet. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry for any inconvenience. Scetoaux (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that either patch may be used per that same link (section "2.i"); the Winter 2008 NB meeting will have the final say as to whether it permanently stays or goes. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I hate "options" like that. Defeats the point of "uniform". Since both are acceptable, which do we want for the article? Do we have any idea which is more representative (as in used more) in standard CAP use? For that matter, is there any way we could determine that with a reliable source? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on that link, I would suggest that the U.S. option is the more appropriate at this time, since the NEC only approved a proposal to remove, not passed a resolution. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but the US version is the "correct" one for the article. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

They just made the change in a CAPM 39-1 revision released yesterday, here. So I'm going to go ahead and change it back. to what it is now. —  scetoaux (T/C) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The work I have been doing

The work I have been doing on this article is in an effort to bring it back up to featured quality so that it can once again become a featured article. Just FYI. :) —  scetoaux (T/C) 23:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're to get it back to FA status, it's going to need a major overhaul. Please revisit the Reorganisation section above and let's work on this. I'm more than up for rewriting things, but I don't like doing things unilaterally, which is why I've avoided doing anything before now. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

I have opened the article to peer review here. —  scetoaux (T|C) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Some things

This is a good article, with lots of information, but there are a couple of issues I'd like to point out in the hopes of helping it eventually at FAC.

• Sources: Of 40 sources, 32 are internal to the Air Force or CAP. In your peer review you suggest that if you find an internal and external reference for something, you use the one that is more comprehensive - I suggest you use both, to provide some corroboration to CAPs view of itself.

• Working on copyediting to remove the relentless use of "Civil Air Patrol" at the beginning of each paragraph. Some alternatives I've been using are "the patrol" "the organization" "CAP" (not at the beginning of a paragraph, though), or (most preferably) not starting a paragraph off with any of the above.

• The cadet program section should probably be expanded or removed, no need for a one line section really.

• The history section - I realize it is a summary of a separate article, but I think the issue of changing command over time should either be clarified or removed from the summary. Its a little confusing and unclear as to what actually happened and why. I've added the name of capacity of LaGuardia to the Administrative Order 9 bit. I'll have to look at the history article, haven't yet, but if its not in really good shape but contains important information about this subject that could be a problem on review.

• I'll have more as I move through the article. Avruch^T * ^ER 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding changing "Civil Air Patrol" into something else, I recall that there was some kind of official requirement for the name to be fully spelled out when used in print (since space is cheap), thus no "patrol" or "CAP". Doesn't have to be abided by on here, but it may explain why the usage is so proliferate through the article. I would strongly recommend against "the patrol" being used...feels like bad grammar since the name is a proper noun, yet "the Patrol" is also incorrect because that isn't the proper name, and a name really shouldn't be sliced and diced just to be able to call the program different things. Will be interested in additional comments. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Article reorganization

The article itself has become quite a mess, with various topics inflated beyond need and material scattered around. Below is a proposed Table of Contents layout of material, with notes inserted.

• History
  • Origin
  • World War II
  • Post-war
  • Modern (1)
• Missions
  • Emergency Services
  • Cadet Programs
  • Aerospace Education
  • Homeland Security (2)
• Organization
  • Administration
  • Membership
    • Officers
    • Cadets (3)
  • Promotions
  • Uniforms and insignia
  • Funding (4)
• Equipement (5)
  • Aircraft
  • Ground vehicles
  • Communications
• Relationship between CAP and the military (6)
• Media

1. Modern - New section that would detail events that have occurred since the aftermath of WWII. Whether this can be sourced with verifiable information is another story.
2. Homeland security - This is effectively our fourth mandated mission...even the public website lists it as one of the core missions. I'm sure there is some material out there, but we have to be careful to keep FOUO stuff out.
3. Any material in the "Cadet Programs" section that details the actual cadet members should be moved to this section. They are two separate things: the cadets themselves, and the mandate of cadet development.
4. The issue of funding must be raised somewhere, but I don't know where it would best fit. It's placement above is just a guess, but I'm sure some place better can be found.
5. In "Equipment", the Other section can be folded primarily into aircraft, since it deals mostly with ARCHER and SDIS. The LPER mention could go in the lead paragraph. Alternatively, a subsection titled "Technologies" could be created and these and other things included there.
6. There are currently two "Relationship between" sections. These can easily be folded into one without any subcategories, and the current "Changes for a new century" needs to be axed up and distributed elsewhere.

Of all the material that is currently in the article, I think History is the only one can can effectively be folded into a subarticle, with an outline existing here summarizing each section. Most everything else needs to be in the main article, as there just isn't enough information.

As changes are made, care needs to be taken to weed out that material which is not verifiable, or that is simply extraneous to the scope of this article. Wherever possible, sources must be found to support any claims made. If it is questionable, make a note of it in the section below and we can figure out whether it should stay or be tossed. Please think up other ways to more efficiently organize the information...there is plenty of room for consolidation. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Hunster. I DO think that History of Civil Air Patrol desperately needs its own page, and I also think that Missions of Civil Air Patrol could be pulled out, keeping a short paragraph for each and a link to the main article. The Cadet Program itself should have enough content and references (in a perfect world!) for its own WikiArticle! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

While true, consider also that a significant amount of information in that section could be pared down to avoid creating a subarticle altogether, especially since little of it is sourced. Some could be excised altogether, especially the cumbersome list of names in the "Cadets and the military" section. To be honest, the article does not currently deserve its FA status, considering the astounding lack of sources...it certainly would not pass if nominated today, perhaps not even GA status. Don't hesitate to consider completely reorganising material to present it in a better format. Also, if/when reorganisation occurs, rather than immediately going live, consider that a sandbox page can be created so that collaboration can take place. This is best done at Civil Air Patrol/sandbox. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think about this page? Needs work. Civil Air Patrol/sandbox History of Civil Air Patrol VigilancePrime (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Check out the combined edits I've made to it...basically rearranging material, but also writing a mostly new lead whilst getting rid of the Overview section. Definitely still needs a lot of work, but I truly suck at research, and the only material I have access to are the online CAP publications. CAPP 50-5 seems to be a good resource, but we need third-party sources as well. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm usually not that good at re-writing articles (Capybara was an exception!) and instead am better at creating articles, making major additions, and fixing issues (especially NPOV and grammar/spelling/punctuation) with existing articles. I can research, but researching something I know is more difficult. The Civil Air Patrol series is so large and monstrous, that itself is enough to be burdensome: the sheer size of it all. It's like the "where to start?" problem. But yes, it is much better. I think the bite-sized approach will reap the best results. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring this article will take a LOT of work, and it's a bit more than I'm currently capable of doing. I'm sure I could do it, it's just that I'm going to have to devote a lot of time to it, and it's not generally the type of work I do here. But I'd like to help out. Mostly what I've been doing is clarifying stuff, cleaning up tone and language, fixing errors, and adding references. I'm going to see if I can work on a "History" article to be completely separated from the main article. I'll work on the sandbox link VigilancePrime provided (which I'd have preferred not be in the article namespace, but whatever). —  scetoaux (T/C) 18:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I never even noticed that VigilancePrime had been indefinitely blocked. I guess it's just you and me now, Huntster. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, 'spose so. Linux is busy off doing Adminy things, and Ouroboros is MIA I suppose. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still here (sort of). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

---

What happened to the Cadet Programs section under missions? And why is the contents table not showing subsections? Mjf3719 (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Split to Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program

I added {splitsection} to that Cadet portion of the Membership section. This is by far the longest section of the article, and goes into great detail about the cadet program. I feel that the Cadet program is worthy of it's own article, especially given all the work I am/have/will_be put(ting) into the NCSA articles. I also feel that the Ranks and Insignia article could use some significant muscle. In general, I feel like, as a whole, CAP on Wikipedia needs work. But, wanting to take things one step at a time, the CAP Cadet Program is deserving it's own article. Mjf3719 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: While the CP section of this article is long, I think time would be better spent cleaning up this article. Wikipedia shouldn't be a repository of everything possible about the cadet program or CAP. This article should be an overview, not a detailed description of everything related to CAP. Grant (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article further, and reading a bit more of the discussion, it seems as if the Cadet Program section of the article has been screwed up quite a bit. As is mentioned above, there are two different things that need to be discussed: 1) the Cadet Program and 2) Cadet Members. Most of the Cadet Member section should really be under Missions/Cadet Program. There still needs to be a section under Members, but it needs to be much shorter and just include information on the membership type. There is also no mention of the other types of membership, such as Patron Members and Cadet Sponsor Members. Grant (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Cadet Programs Patch

What is that patch from? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've searched Google Images up and down and cannot find anything. I'm tempted to remove it as unofficial. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If we really want something there, the Cadet Programs Badge would seem more appropriate to me. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah--but-- the Cadet Programs Badge is worn by Senior Members and NOT by Cadets so that would not be more appropriate...would it?! Delete if a violation exists...not just because you are TEMPTED...that would suggest a power struggle and appear highly immature. Cadet Programs (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Cadet Programs (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We are "tempted" to remove for the very reason that it is unofficial, unlike how you have been trying to pass it off. What squadron are you from, "captain?" --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have documented it as UNOFFICIAL and as a NOVELTY, on several occasions. You have said I was misrepresenting this patch....I have not. Of course, if YOU say it enough times....you will believe it; that still will not make it so. As for my Squadron information....sorry, I don't give out personal information. You may be a stalker....you certainly have been relentless in your baseless accusations to this point. What a warm welcome you have extended to me. Thank you for your maturity and professionalism. Cadet Programs (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

I created a User page on the 18th of December....today is the 21st and I am sorry I ever looked at Wikipedia! Cadet Programs (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Baseless? You continually placed this patch in this article, in the cadet programs portion, as if it was an official and national patch. You then claimed on your talk page that it was authorized in regulation CAPM 39-1. Both were utterly false. "Warm welcome" isn't permission for new people to trash articles with false information. In the mean time, you've called me "caeser", compared me to a Nazi, and numerous other behaviors unprofessional and quite frankly unbecoming of a CAP officer. I do not believe you are a CAP Captain, and most certainly do not believe an earlier claim on your user page that you have a "Master Rating" in Cadet Programs. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Cadet Programs, if you can provide even a single reliable source for your patch, I'll include it. Otherwise, although it may be authorized in your specific squadron/wing, it is currently not a National patch. Perhaps, in the future, it will be - but, until then, the patch should not be inculded with this article. Perhaps, if you created an article Upcoming uniform changes in Civil Air Patrol, but be careful not to violate WP:FUTURE. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I never compared you to a Nazi. Your jackboots are like those of a motorcyle officer. I would NEVER make such a reference to someone who claims European Jewish heritage. YOU are very rude to suggest such a thing. I have also CLEARLY stated that this novelty patch is VERY correctly worn on the baseball hat IAW CAPM 39-1. You are wrong in your interpretation of 39-1. I am SHOCKED to believe that YOU are a Spaatzen! Please feel free to delate anything I have done or uploaded. I will NOT be back. Cadet Programs (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

39-1 says no such thing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

http://level2.cap.gov/documents/u_082203102943.pdf Page 41. Figure 2-6 Item 4

"4. CAP Baseball Cap: May be worn with the utility uniforms if authorized by the unit commander. The color, material, unit designation, or silk screen organizational emblem or badge will be prescribed by the unit commander. Emblem or badge, if authorized, will be centered 1/2 inch above visor."

"...will be prescribed by the unit commander." The UNOFFICIAL NOVELTY patch featuring a kick-ass Cadet Programs emblem IS in fact authorized by CAPM 39-1 in that the UNIT COMMANDER can "prescribe" the insignia to be worn on the baseball-style hat. NOT Nationwide...never said it was...YOU kept saying that! How did you ever make the Spaatz? Could you possibly be any more lame? 68.187.89.72 (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say "novelty patches" or anything about non-official patches, only that the Unit Commander may designate what patch. It does not say that among the choices are non-official patches. Nor does it make your patch anything related to the national cadet program, where you put it in the article. Even if the reg did mean what you claim, it is irrelevant, because it in no way does what is being asked of you, authorize that patch as the patch of the CAP cadet program. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

CP, although you may be authorized to wear whatever your unit commander wishes on your baseball caps, it is not an explicitly authorized item and thus continuing to call it a patch is pointless. You two gentlemen should stop bickering over whether it's authorized or official, and refocus yourselves --> does this item benefit the readers of this article? I think not. However, if someone were to create a Cadet Programs page (*hint hint*) I do believe it would fit there, official or not. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 04:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Why at all would it fit there? Being completely unofficial, having no actual connection to the Cadet Program at all, why? We have a Cadet Programs Badge which is real if we really want that. I cannot think of any benefit to an article like that. Would we put a NASA logo invented by a random person in Alaska with no actual connection to NASA, or official status, on the NASA page? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the logo in question used many times at Cadet Programs functions; even though it isn't official, it certainly is recognizeable as a CAP logo. I'm surprised you haven't Cobra; is there another reason you don't want it used other than it's not official? Fightin' Phillie (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please show me where you have seen it. Neither Huntster nor I have, ever. Neither of us can find it anywhere else online, either. The fact that it is unofficial should be enough. Seriously! I don't even see why this is a debate. You don't use an unofficial symbol, created by some person with no connection to the head or leadership of an organization, to represent the organization. It makes no sense at all. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Group 5, California Wing. A modified version of it in Texas. A Squadron in California. I've also seen it before on event flyers in PAWG, but I cannot recall specifically which flyers. I agree that it shouldn't be included here; but why so bitterly hostile towards someone's enthusiasm? You know that hostility only breeds hostility. Sometimes, just say no & move on. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

CAP gets enough incorrect press and falsehoods spread about it as it is. So yeah, I vehemetly defend it from getting more. Especially when someone has been comparing me to a Nazi, Caeser, etc., and claims to have the highest rating in the senior member cadet programs specialty when most obviously they do not. Stolen valor is a big deal to me. By the way, if you look at those patches you pointed out, you'll find the California one is a modification of their wing patche. They are still local only, and do not represent the nation as a whole. They also are not identical to the patch that was uploaded here. Now, if you want to upload one of those wing cadet program patches, and label it as such, that would be fine. Those have far more of an "official" status than the one uploaded so far. I would still oppose it being used in the article, but that can be discussed separately and would be on different grounds. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Gallery

Civil Air Patrol Patches!! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_Patches 68.187.89.72 (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC) p.s. I am ACTUALLY a Master Rated Cadet Program Officer!

That is fine within your organization, but whatever position you hold in CAP or any other organization means nothing here. See WP:OWN. There is already a link to the Civil Air Patrol ‎category in commons in the external links that will contain anything in commons that is under the category of Civil Air Patrol. --rogerd (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, your utter contempt for CAP standards, and respect for others (you have now gone to calling people even other than me "North Korean" or "Stasi") shows that you are NOT what you claim. Getting to a Master Rating in the Cadet Programs Specialty Track (another indication, you can't even use the proper terminology) is not an easy task, and one not accomplished by people with your behavior. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

New CAP Website

CAP is in the process of moving from cap.gov to gocivilairpatrol.com . Although I doubt that cap.gov will ever truly go away, they have already stopped posting news articles and they have some sites already refering to the new website. I imagine that cap.gov will remain an official CAP website, much like capnhq.gov is still a CAP site. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good deal, thanks for the clarification. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The old website cap.gov is not longer in use. If you go to that site, you are automatically redirected to gocivilairpatrol.com Animal lover16 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Animal lover16

Yeah, I've done a bit of link replacement in the article...ugh, this is a nasty situation. CAP is quickly losing credibility; it would reason that "cap.gov" would look more 'official' to outsiders than "gocivilairpatrol.com", but maybe it's just me. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just CAP acting as a non-profit corporation instead of an official government organization. I agree the GO portion of it is somewhat unofficial sounding, but when I first heard of the new website it was explained as "a new recruiting website." I guess they decided to make it more than just recruiting. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The new website looks more visually appealing and modern than the old one. So I guess more people would be interested in it from a recruiting standpoint. Animal lover16 (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Animal lover16

I guess my hatred stems from the site being all Flash. Flash websites are inherently evil :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

USAF vs. USAF Auxiliary

I contend that the branch of service is United States Air Force Auxiliary, since that is what the organization is officially known as versus United States Air Force. Not to confuse to two separate organizations, namely the fact that members of the USAF Auxiliary (Civil Air Patrol) are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and those members Department of the Air Force (DAF) are subject. Two very distinct organizations and missions. This should be noted in the information box and not reflect upon the USAF, since it is affiliated and supported but separate. Furthermore, it is mentioned in the information box that the organization, Civil Air Patrol/U.S. Air Force Auxiliary is part of the U.S. Air Force. -Signaleer (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

You are not understanding the meaning of the field. It is asking for the "parent" branch of the military...remember, the infobox is {{Infobox Military Unit}}, so the branch would be whichever service the unit belongs to (and yes, the infobox isn't the most appropriate since CAP isn't truly part of the military, but it is the closest we have). "United States Air Force Auxiliary" is not a branch of the miliary; the branches are Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. Given that the Air Force is the primary "sponsor" of CAP, it would be most appropriate for that field. The article itself makes very clear that CAP is not part of the armed services. And yes, "United States Air Force Air University" should be shorted to just "Air University", since that field is asking for the parent division. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read the page Template:Infobox Military Unit and it specifies under branch "– optional – the service branch, in militaries that have them; typically army, navy, air force, Army National Guard, etc"

I argue that the Army National Guard is not a service branch, since it is a component of the United States Army. Therefore, one would conclude that the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary is a component of the U.S. Air Force. -Signaleer (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. The National Guard is certainly not a branch, and thus should definitely not be mentioned on that page. I'm asking about that on the template's talk page now. I'd suggest removing the bit altogether if nothing comes of that discussion, since it is entirely redundant to point to United States Air Force Auxiliary, when that is the same thing as "Civil Air Patrol". — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, one would conclude that the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary is a component of the U.S. Air Force. Concur. I don't think there's any ambiguity as to which service CAP is an auxiliary of. If anything, it would be worth noting that CAP members are only considered under the AF when on AF assigned missions with an AF assigned mission number -- but that's too much detail for an infobox IMO. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• False, the Civil Air Patrol are not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) nor are they considered to be part of the United States Air Force, even during emergency operations. see 10 USC, Chapter 909 Civil Air Patrol, 1 March 2007 which clearly outlines the mission, capabilities and roles. No where does it cite that the Civil Air Patrol becomes part of the United States Air Force. The Coast Guard becomes subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice during certain situations. Please remain civil, no need for degrading my interpretations of 10 USC (i.e., using the term wiki-lawyering). The language is in black and white. -Signaleer (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Umm, actually, not false. From 10 USC 9442(b): Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force [emphasis added]. (b) Use by Air Force. - (1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force. (2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States [emphasis added] with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force. The applicability of the UCMJ does not, in and of itself, part of an armed service make, wiki-lawyering aside. Newguy34 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• In other words, the Civil Air Patrol is a subsidiary branch, as of a government, by means of which functions or policies are carried out. Since you highlighted the term instrumentality of the United States, not of the United States Air Force. Therefore, the members are not part of the United States Air Force, even when the Secretary of the Air Force or Department of the Air Force uses their services. They do not become part of the organization, they remain a subsidiary branch of the USAF. 10 USC clearly outlines this role and function. No need for being uncivil and using the term wiki-lawyering. -Signaleer (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure I'm following you "signalboy" (typed as a term of endearment). If they "remain a subsidiary branch of the USAF," would it not be consistent with the Info Box template to list their associated branch as the USAF when it calls for "the service branch, in militaries that have them; typically army, navy, air force, Army National Guard, etc."? Oh, and don't mistake my sarcasm for being uncivil. I have a full "product use" advisory on my user page. Newguy34 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[After EC] I agree with Fightin' Phillie. The branch can not be the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary as that is obviously not a branch of the armed forces. The congressional charter makes the Civil Air Patrol the civilian auxiliary of the parent branch of the armed services, namely the United States Air Force. Newguy34 (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Civil Air Patrol became the official auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, hence the U.S. Air Force Auxiliary. To list the branch as "United States Air Force" is creating a false impression that the organization is the U.S. Air Force, which clearly it is not. See the statements above, especially regarding the military information box. Reverting the branch from United States Air Force Auxiliary to United States Air Force is contrary to what information should be provided, the component of the organization. -Signaleer (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to border on silliness. The infobox calls for "the service branch, in militaries that have them; typically army, navy, air force, Army National Guard, etc." The infobox should not link back to itself, as doing so is just plain, well, dumb. CAP is part of the USAF, through the Air University, as the civilian auxiliary. Therefore, using commonly understood colloquial speak, CAP is part of a branch of the armed services, not a branch of the armed service itself. Your edits appear to give CAP the status as a branch of the armed services in contradiction to what congress intended when they chartered CAP. I am not going to get into an edit war over this, but am hoping others will weigh in before I insist on accurate use of the infobox. Newguy34 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

• Addressing the wikilink, yes, I think it's pretty dumb to have a wikilink within an article linking it back to itself. Easy fix, remove the wikilink. The information box listed the Civil Air Patrol branch as United States Air Force. The Civil Air Patrol/U.S. Air Force Auxiliary is a component of the U.S. Air Force, I'm not arguing that. But to note that the branch of Civil Air Patrol is the U.S. Air Force gives a false impression. The Civil Air Patrol is the official U.S. Air Force Auxiliary, clear distinction between the CAP/USAFA and USAF. For example, that is like saying the Air National Guard is the United States Air Force, this is a false statement, it is a component of the organization and not represenative of the entire United States Air Force. -Signaleer (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

USAFX isn't the parent organization of CAP - CAP is the USAFX. CAP's parent organization is the USAF. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I still don't quite get how you are getting caught up in the semantics of the word "Branch". USAF Aux is not a Branch, it is a subsidiary of the branch of the armed forces called the Air Force. Ergo, the USAF is the appropriate term for the field. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You both are not tracking, look at the military information box template. See what it says under "branch," Huntster understood exactly where I'm coming from. I think you're only seeing half the story. Look at our initial conversation between myself and Huntster. You're talking about subject B when I'm talking about subject A. -Signaleer (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, yeah, I worded that incorrectly. I understand why you are thinking the Branch field can be used for a wider variety of entities, but I don't understand why you would think USAF Aux, National Guard, etc, could be considered "Branches", when they are simple subsidiaries of the larger, unique entities (Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Goard). — Huntster (t • @ • c) 18:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Still not tracking what the problem is. CAP is the USAFX; therefore it makes no sense that CAP is a branch of the USAFX - especially since there is nothing else in the USAFX, except for USAF units that directly support CAP. Therefore, what level of the Chain is appropriate? President, DoD, USAF, AETC, AU, or the AFRCC? DoD is not a branch, nor is AETC or AU; USAF is the only one that is a branch. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And the "Part of" field handles the chain situation...in this case, Air University. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- Unless your stating that we should use a different infobox. I could support that, only I'm not sure which nor am I comfortable enough in their creation to build one from scratch myself instead of use one that already exists. Fightin' Phillie (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If an appropriate one can be found, then perhaps, though I consider this one more than appropriate enough. I would strongly be against creating an entirely new box for this article...we have too many as it is. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at my edits to the infobox and see if this will suffice for the time being. I am at a loss as to why this is such an issue to begin with, but maybe my deft editing of the infobox fields will help put this controversy to rest. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NEC

Will someone please spell out what NEC is for the readers? It is currently unexplained. ColDickPeters (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Never mind, I will do it myself. ColDickPeters (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lifestyles

Since a CAP member has developed a twist, allow me to rephrase; what exactly does "lifestyle" mean in the article? What is the CAP policy? ColDickPeters (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gee, couldn't possibly mean "lifestyle" now, could it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In 2010, who can tell? ColDickPeters (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for CAP Wikiproject?

I'm currently writing articles about PAWG, Hawk Mountain Ranger School, the Ranger Program as a whole, and a PAWG Commander. As I continue expanding these articles, I see more and more possibilities for other CAP related articles. I think there would be enough articles to support a wikiproject, and especially since there is a historian specialty track for Senior Members. As it is, there are only a handful of articles in Category:Civil Air Patrol. We can without a doubt pull together and make several hundred CAP-related articles. For starters:

• Each wing could have it's own article. Many of the history sections would be similar, but ultimately if enough material is present an article could be written covering all wings (eg CAP response to 9/11)
• Each NCSA could have it's own article.
• Each ES rating could have it's own article, or several ratings could be clumped together in an article (GTM3->GTM2->GTM1->GTL->GBD, etc...)
• There are several notable CAP personnel worthy of articles. National Commanders are of similar notability as a CEO. Alternatively, we could write articles for the position, and mention a brief biography of each person who has held that position.

However, I'm unsure of whether we should create our own wikiproject, or just be a task force of the US Air Force wiki project. Any thoughts? Mjf3719 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

While the idea of a WikiProject hasn't been brought up before (that I know of), creating articles for those things mentioned has. Forgive me for raining on the parade, but many of these are simply not notable in and of themselves. There are currently four Wing articles in existence, and the only one that comes close to showing notability is Connecticut. Sorry to those who have worked on them, but I'll likely AfD the Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota articles, along with the Wings navbox template. They simply cannot stand on their own. Mjf, while I encourage you to write new articles, please make sure they express notability in their own right, not just because they are part of Civil Air Patrol, and certainly don't replicate parts of the main article (such as history) just to flesh out these Wing articles. Consider Connecticut to be only marginally acceptable...while it is of decent length and scope, not a since citation uses a valid third-party source (the blog does not qualify).

As for the other points:

• We already have a broad article listing the NCSAs, and each event receives minimal coverage there. This needs to be expanded significantly before you even consider writing individual articles (and I really don't believe any individual event is notable enough for its own article).
• For the same reason, ES ratings definitely do not need individual articles. You can try to write about them as a group, but again, I'm not sure that they are notable in and of themselves. I think a mention elsewhere would suffice for the whole group.
• People, on the other hand, especially national commanders, are worthy of individual articles, and this is definitely a worthy goal to pursue. Just make sure that citations come from a broad variety of sources...not just from the CAP Museum and national websites.

Finally, regarding a WikiProject, I just don't see it necessary. We can use this page to discuss topics relating to the whole program for the time being, and if/when our coverage of CAP grows, we can consider forming a project then. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to hold off on AfD'ing the Wing articles pending commentary here. If someone wishes to have a go at them, might I suggest these Google News links which provide a few third-party articles: Maryland, Massachusetts and Minnesota. If you are going to attempt to build a Wing article, definitely seek out such third-party sources, rather than rely entirely on official CAP websites. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment about how most Wings are not notable. If not all wings, most have significant personal development programs of their own that train Youth and Adults from that state. Most receive funding from their state governments (some more than others). Some also recieve taskings from not only AFRCC but also local fire departments or state police requesting assistance for Search and Rescue. All wings have their own RF Infrastructure, Aircraft, and ground equipment. I'm thinking of CAP more along the lines of the Air National Guard, with each wing having it's own quirks and History that differs greatly than those of other wings. In PAWG, there is a much greater emphasis on ES operations and Homeland Defense, whereas NYWG has nearly no ES operations, but has very strong Cadet Programs. UTWG was heavily involved in the 2002 Winter Olympics, whereas NJWG had nearly no involvement whatsoever.

I also disagree with your assessment of NCSAs. Although some are very similar to other programs ( such as United_States_Space_Camp, many have a rich and detailed history. Each wing also operates it's own Summer Encampments, which could either be summed up in one article, or each wing could have it's own article.

I do see your point about a general lack of notability though. Unfortunately, CAP is largely ignored by the major public unless something goes dreadfully wrong. Perhaps CAP should put a stronger emphasis on external public affairs so we have more information to use in articles. Mjf3719 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you individual Wing notability, though each article should exemplify that notability rather than rely on a general idea of "noteworthiness". Being from TNWG, I guess I view the program through different coloured glasses...while I know the rest of the country is active to different degrees, TNWG does virtually nothing, and is steadily losing squadrons.

NCSAs, however, are another matter. Do you really mean that each wing's summer encampment could support its own article? There's just no possible way! Aside from newspaper announcements saying generic stuff like "CAP encampment at such-and-such location, July 5-10," it is highly unlikely for there to be enough material available to build a well-rounded article for each place. A separate article for all of summer encampments could be justified, since they are by far the most populated NCSAs. But take things one step at a time...start expanding and cleaning up the "List of NCSA..." article first, determine what information can be found before trying to build individual articles. I'd still encourage the biographical articles over NCSAs though.

You're last statement is 100% accurate. CAP consistently needs to place emphasis on public relations, and consistently fails to make any kind of effort. Part of it is the difficulty in finding volunteers willing to act in such a role, and part of it is trying to get the local/regional press interested in what we are doing. As always, though, much blame can be placed on National for simply sitting back and providing zero leadership in any area. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 21:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start working on the NCSA list and also activities that I'm familiar with. I also agree that perhaps Summer Encampments and CLS' would be better served with a main article, and if any one wing's stands head-and-shoulders above the rest, then maybe it could have it's own. In the mean time, I'm kinda surprised how few people have responded. Hooray for the young, enthusiastic wikian! Mjf3719 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If only one NCSA could be chosen for its own article, HMRTS definitely deserves one. After that probably Blue Berets or the PJ orientation course. That's how I would do it. DerBarJude (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

HMRTS? I'm totally unfamiliar with that acronym, and couldn't find anything CAP related. Are you referring to Hawk Mountain Ranger School? You might have a go at improving that article if you can find some decent reliable sources. Also, check out Category:Civil Air Patrol and its subcategories, especially the Cadet Programs categories, to see what articles currently exist. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Officer vs. Senior

I changed back the titles where I found them.

While many have been unofficially using the "suggested" terminology of "Officer" vs. "Senior Member", the official designation for adult members has yet to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.155.125 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What about General Pindea's memo dated 24 August 2006 were use of the term officer was authorized and encouraged? I am sure someone can pull it from the file, a .jpg copy is located at http://capblog.typepad.com/capblog/2006/08/senior_members_.html 96.42.112.180 (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ICLs and memos don't exactly have regulatory authority 4 years after the fact. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What is your source to claim that this order has expired or been replaced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.225.238 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Update to Cadet Members, Organization, Benefits, IACE

Changed "...C/Capt a cadet may attend..." to "...C/Capt, cadets age 17 and older may attend..." Age requirements for IACE can be found in CAPR 52-16, Chapter 8-3, Para. b, section 1. AS1983 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Circular references

The article refers to Title 10 and points to the WP article. The article says nothing to suggest it is related in any way to CAP. It also points to Title 36. The only reference in that article (to CAP) is a link that points back to this article. The sentence should be deleted or the references should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.82.150 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added citations in this article to the Government Printing Office pages for those Titles. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

This page is in not in compliance with the Wiki Manual of Style in terms of [letters.] While I understand that when this article say Air Force it means "United States Air Force," that does not allow or require us to capitalize the shortened form.

That is to say "air force" may only be capitalized when it has a limiting phrase, First Air Force or French Air Force.

Why this is a subject of discussion is beyond me. The rules seem very clear. Rather than engage in a revert war, I hope my explanation is clear. In a day or so, I shall re0correct the page to bring it into line with the manual. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely lost as to what you're talking about. When referring to the United States Air Force as a distinct entity, it is capitalised. When referring to an air force as a concept or an unfocused entity, it is lowercase. Basically, treat the "United States" portion as understood: while it may not always be included, it is taken for granted that it is being referred to. More practically, using upper case here makes it easier for the reader to know that "Air Force" means "USAF" and not anything else.

I believe you are misinterpreting the MoS, as I'm not seeing anything that mentions this. Not to mention, I've always known this to be a basic tenant of the English language. You will not "re-correct" the page; please refer to WP:BRD. You were bold, two of us have reverted your changes, now there is discussion to find consensus or an alternative approach. Also understand that the MoS is not policy, just a guideline. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the section in question is WP:MILTERMS which seems to back PaulinSaudi's position. I think the MOS takes the wrong approach on this issue, one counter to many authorities. But, that is irrelevant. It is what is it is. So, "the U.S. Air Force" but "the air force." By extension, this also means "the U.S. Marine Corps" but "the marine corps" which I think is going to upset some of my friends in the Marine Corps/marine corps. Ocalafla (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Clear language requires clear rules. We follow the rules so as to move the writer into the background and let our thoughts flow to the reader unimpeded. If you think there is a rule of grammar that allows and requires "air force" to be capitalized, then kindly cite it. (The AP and NYT style guides would be places to look.) Our style guide has decided that "air force," "marine corps" and "city council" are all common nouns. I suspect we can all agree that the precise use of precise language is our goal. I propose we follow the rule here and elsewhere. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the use of Air Force in the article. All instances I changed the usage is as a proper noun as a synonym for United States Air Force. It should remain capitalized. The style guide has not 'decided that "air force," "marine corps" and "city council" are all common nouns.' What is states is that if the usage is as a common noun, they should not be capitalized, but if used as a proper noun they should. It then gives a non-exhaustive list of examples, none of which match the usage in the article. So in this case we rely on the first sentence of WP:MILTERMS which states "The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized." For example see http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C909.txt as well as countless others. It looks like the examples in WP:MILTERMS should be clarified so this confusion is reduced. Bte99 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, and need time to reflect upon them. It is near bedtime here. I do especially appreciate your quote of the appropriate MoS passage. On the other hand, I hope we can agree that the USC is not really the best place to find ideal grammar. The sentence you cited is there for a reason. It must mean something. Let me call it up tomorrow at my office computer and contemplate it over coffee. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bte99 makes a good point on the general rule. But, it seems to me that the more specific language in wp:milterms "Thus, the American army, but the United States Army" is nearly directly on point in directing that "air force" not be capitalized even when referring specifically to the U.S. Air Force. I disagree with the MoS on this, but it does seem fairly clear what it says. Ocalafla (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Err, that's not what it's saying. "Thus, the American army, but the United States Army." This means the general idea of an American army is not capitalised, but the specific proper noun United States Army is capitalised. This is exactly what I've been stating all along. Thanks for finding it...I guess my eyes skipped over it the first time. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Huntster, you've applied the MoS correctly in your example: the specific proper noun "United States Army" has a capital A. The MoS further seems to say that there would be no capital A in, for example: "The army's 82d Airborne landed in Normandy." This interpretation is bolstered by the examples of other units in the MoS:

Correct: the Fifth Company; the Young Guard; the company rallied.

Incorrect: The Company took heavy losses. The 3rd battalion retreated.

I don't like that this seems to be what the MoS is saying and would support changing it. Ocalafla (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your giving me the time to think it over. I have also taken the time to chat with my fellow English teachers. I am afraid I cannot change my position on this.

Look at the "correct" example cited by Ocalafla above;

Correct: the Fifth Company; the Young Guard; the company rallied.

You see the third one? "The company rallied." Even though we know from context we are talking about Fifth Company, we cannot capitalize the common noun.

I would suppose the confusion comes from the common usage in newspapers. But in newspapers special rules seem to apply. Another source of confusion comes from German, which has the perfectly reasonable rule of capitalizing all nouns. But be that as it may, this is not the rule in non-newspaper English.

Consider our article on the United States Army. It is a mess, sometimes we capitalize “army,” and sometimes we don’t. One way or the other has to be right.

In the absence of a rule saying we can and must capitalize, I maintain we cannot and must not. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with that interpretation, Paul, but I understand where you're coming from. Also, but gods Wikipedia needs to pick a single unified and well established English grammar guide and stick to it, rather than trying to meld different forms into an ugly hybrid. Anyway, it occurs to me that MoS also states that "Guard" alone should be capitalised, as it is a well known but unofficial alternative to "National Guard of the United States", "Army National Guard" or "Air National Guard", whichever applies in the given situation. It seems that would also apply to "Air Force", when it is implicitly understood that the phrase is specifically referring to the "United States Air Force".

Basically, MoS is a huge contradictory mess that I wish would burn in hell. I also tend to think the policy WP:IAR should apply here, in which we go with what makes the most sense, and what is going to most benefit the reader. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You made me laugh with, Basically, MoS is a huge contradictory mess that I wish would burn in hell. While I let "Air National Guard" and even "National Guard" go, I do take excepton to "Coast Guard," "Guard" and "Guardsmen." I also fight an endless battle over "Marine" and "Soldier." When I was in the army, I learned to write one way. When I became a civilian, I had to learn another. In any case, we have a rule in the Manual of Style. We might as well follow it. But let us take no action for 24 hours to allow everyone to make comments. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Have we reached an agreement on this? May I go through and correct the page in line with the MoS? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, not sure where an agreement is. The MoS is still conflicting, as it gives examples both ways, and there is no consensus to change here. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, I fear I am being thick. I see no conflict in the MoS, even if you pointed it out to me previously. To restate my position, I see no example anywhere in standard English where "air force" is capitalized without some sort of limiting adjective or phrase. I will not move forward until we agree. (If you can show me wrong, I will have a lot of apologizing to do. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are four examples where Air Force alone is used as a proper noun:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=155048395
• http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av026/landing/
• http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/15/2851600/2-injured-in-fla-air-force-crash.html
• http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/15/3660432/us-restarts-competition-for-planes.html

Virtually all news sources use this scheme. When used this way, 'Air Force' is no doubt a proper noun. The same is true for 'Army' and 'Navy' and 'Marine Corps' and 'Coast Guard'. Since the MoS clearly states that we should rely on the sources to determine if a term is a proper noun, and therefore should be capitalized, these should be capitalized in Wikipedia articles as well.

The problem is when the wp:milterms section gets specific, it doesn't give a complete list of usages of terms such as 'Air Force'. It doesn't address usage when terms such as this are actually used as a synonym for the complete name. Note that I am not saying the MoS is incorrect or inconsistent, just that it is incomplete. It is impossible to describe all possible usages. That is when we must rely on the general rule. Bte99 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the MOS is clear and does has no conflict: lower case is appropriate. Further, the MOS on "institutions" clearly also directs using lower case when the term is used as a synonym for the complete name:

Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences.

Correct (generic): The university offers programs in arts and sciences.

Correct (title): The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.

The sources shown by Bte99 show how I wish wikipedia would do it (with capitals). But, Wikipedia's MOS seems to specifically counter that approach, so the the general rule "that wherever a military term is an accepted proper noun, as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources, it should be capitalized" is preempted by the specific examples shown. Further, there are many sources contrary to the examples shown by Bte99, including http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/CapitalizationTitles/CapitalizationTitles56.html so I don't think we can say we have "consistent capitalization in sources" anyway.

Again, I think capitalization is the way it SHOULD be in wikipedia, but lower case is the way it actually is. Any more experienced wikipedians know how to go about proposing a change? Ocalafla (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ocalafla. Certainly the press over-capitalizes. In addition the military insists on over-capitalization. But neither the military (thank God) nor the newspapers determine our style here on Wikipedia. The MoS determines our style. So I say again, I see no case in standard English where "air force" is capitalized by itself. My cite is the MoS. I ask that we agree to bring this article into compliance.

Also I want to thank you all for a polite discussion of all this. It is (I suppose) a very minor matter, and we all should keep that in mind. Too often, trivialities like this set off firestorms. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I wish to disagree that the MoS is specific in its instructions. I see conflicting information, as I've pointed out earlier. Again as well, the MoS is merely a suggestion on how to format things, albeit widely used. Individual articles are free to do things in whatever way is deemed most appropriate for that article, which is where the concept of "just because one article does it, doesn't mean it is the only way" comes from. WP:Ignore all rules exists for just this situation. As I see it, aside from the MoS issue, it seems that the majority here think it should be capitalised, so there is absolutely no reason why it can't be that way. — Huntster (t @ c) 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if there is a reason break the rules, break them. I simply see no advantage of violating a rule 'just because.' Capitalization does not help the reader, so why bother doing it? (But we could at least agree that the article ought to do it one way or the other. The United States Army article is a darn mess.) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the point. The MoS is not a rule, just a guideline for style. It isn't a policy. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If using fnny capitalization helped, I would be all for using it. Since it adds nothing to the article, I cannot see a reason for using it. Why bother? The language of Shakespere can most likely handle an article on the CAP without reinvention. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I give up; logic apparently has no place here ("funny capitalisation"? It's a bleeding proper noun!). I've stated my case, I've pointed out the inconsistency in MoS, I've pointed out the common English usage, but all for naught. I just don't have the time or patience to argue any more. Unwatching. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

That looks great! Somehow, USAF reads much better than "Air Force" or "air force." Wonderful solution. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there is, at a minimum, a need to clarify the MoS policy and, in some quarters, a desire to change it, is anyone interested in proposing edits to the MoS? Anyone know how to do this? Ocalafla (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one writes on the MoS talk page. Frankly, those pages are guarded by even worse grammar Nazis than am I. Best of luck. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

History section

The two confirmed Civil Air Patrol U-boat kills and ten U-boats hit appear to be summaries of optimistic wartime reports from official documents like CAP Pamphlet 50-5. When reported numbers of planes shot down were compared to enemy records after the war, there simply were not enough enemy aircraft manufactured to support the cumulative number reportedly destroyed. Individual claims may still be accepted if surviving records of circumstances surrounding aircraft loss are inadequate to resolve the discrepancy. The 636 U-boats lost at sea, however, are documented by comprehensive German records. Shortly after the war joint committees of the various armed forces compared captured German records of missing U-boats to Allied reports of attacks on U-boats and attributed each loss to a specific attack report. Later historians changed some of these initial military findings by correlating some of the presumably sunken U-boats with unsuccessful attacks recorded in surviving U-boat log books. This continuing process has changed the presumed fate of 148 (23%) of U-boats lost at sea; but there are no U-boat kills for which CAP claims seem more credible than other causes of loss. Most contemporary wartime histories include dates and locations for claimed victories missing from CAP Pamphlet 50-5. Even without this information, the period of CAP operation (5 March 1942 to 31 August 1943) and location of patrols (within 150 miles of the United States Atlantic coast) leaves only 13 possibilities:

• 14 April 1942: U-85 positively identified by remains at 35°55′N 75°13′W where sunk by USS Roper
• 9 May 1942: U-352 positively identified by survivors at 34°21′N 76°35′W where sunk by USCGC Icarus
• 13 June 1942: U-157 believed sunk by USCGC Thetis at 24°13′N 82°03′W
• 30 June 1942: U-158 believed sunk by a USN VP-74 Martin PBM Mariner at 32°50′N 67°28′W
• 3 July 1942: U-215 wreck located at 41°28′47.9″N 66°22′47.9″W where attacked by naval trawler HMS Le Tigre
• 7 July 1942: U-701 positively identified by survivors at 34°50′N 74°55′W where sunk by a USAAF 396 Sqn Lockheed Hudson
• 15 July 1942: U-576 believed sunk by USN VC-9 Vought OS2U Kingfishers and motor vessel Unicoi at 34°51′N 74°22′W
• 30 July 1942: U-166 wreck located at 28°37′N 90°45′W where attacked by USN submarine chaser PC-566
• 31 July 1942: U-754 believed sunk by a RCAF 113 Squadron Lockheed Hudson at 43°02′N 64°52′W
• 20 November 1942: U-184 missing after battle with convoy ON-144 northeast of Newfoundland but possibly having enough fuel to patrol US coastal area with a damaged radio.
• 15 May 1943: U-176 believed sunk by Cuban submarine chaser CS-13 at 23°21′N 80°18′W
• 2 June 1943: U-521 positively identified by a survivor at 37°43′N 73°16′W where sunk by USN submarine chaser PC-565
• 7 August 1943: U-84 believed sunk by a USN VB-105 Consolidated B-24 Liberator at 27.55°N 68.03°W / 27.55; -68.03

Thewellman (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Valid source?

BTE undid my revision relating to controversy over CAP uniforms on the grounds that CAPTALK is "not a valid source." What makes it INvalid?Dyscard (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Captalk is a forum, which is never an acceptable reference on Wikipedia as it is user generated. It's no different than trying to cite another Wikipedia article. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Surrogate Predator program

The USAF and CAP are embarking on a joint program to use a Cessna 182 with a Predator's sensor turret mounted under the left wing to train Predator pilots. http://www.capvolunteernow.com/todays_features.cfm/cap_pilots_to_fly_surrogate_predators_to_assist_military I found out about this at the swivelchairpatrol.com webcomic site.

Unfortunately the website swivelchairpatrol.com has been taken down, this time apparently on a permanent basis.--75.17.200.3 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)C

"Cadet Members" section contains irrelevant information

The second paragraph of the "Cadet Members" section under "Membership" contains mostly irrelevant information as far as cadet members are concerned. Though the chain of command for cadets is mildly relevant, the degree to which this is discussed warrants a modification of the material or a movement to another section (SM section immediately preceding most likely, or possibly the cadet programs above that) in order to best keep the information pertaining to cadet members.

--Moved this section to the end of the "cadet programs" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesa7 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with the "part of" label

The Civil Air Patrol is most certainly not part of Air University. CAP/USAF, which is the Air Force's liaison to CAP is part of Air University, but CAP itself is not. CAP answers only to its Board of Governors, which in turn answers directly to Congress. It is, in no way, part of the Air Force chain of command. Furthermore, the link cited in the article attesting to CAP being a member of Air University makes no such assertion. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 09:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, that legally, the CAP is a (Congressional-chartered, albeit) corporation. It is, therefore, ipso facto not part of the Military. AFPD 10-27 affirms this as well. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 09:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusion may arise in that CAP-USAF is part of Air University, however CAP-USAF is an Air Force unit that acts as the primary liaison between the USAF and CAP. CAP-USAF is not part of CAP and vice/versa. Hence, the "part of" label has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krapenhoeffer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Confusing Wording for "Senior Members" Section

An excerpt from the Senior Members subsection under the Membership section: "Senior members are members who are over 21 years old, who joined CAP for the first time past the age of 18, or who are former cadets who transferred to the senior member program..." I and several other people I have showed this article to were very confused by this wording. As we understood it, it meant cadets who were transferring to the senior program, as well as non-cadets over 21 could join CAP as a senior member. To my interpretation, it meant that senior membership would have excluded people who were non-cadets and were below 21. I have applied for membership as a senior member to CAP at the age of 18 without CAP experience, and all of the current CAP members I inquired via email have responded saying that people doing so is perfectly fine, therefore contradicting the Wikipedia article. I did not notice a source to this, so I decided to see if anyone would like to look into this or perhaps edit it. I was uncertain in doing that myself. Thank you. --Blemo 23

I agree that the wording is awkward. As a former member of the CAP, I know that membership as a "senior" member is open to adults who are 18 or older (assuming the individual meets the other requirements, such as the FBI background check). Cadets may remain in the cadet program until their 21st birthday, but may transition to the senior program at any time after their 18th birthday, if they so choose. A member might choose to remain in the cadet program past his or her 18th birthday in order to complete the requirements for a particular achievement, or in order to further develop his or her leadership skills, or simply for social reasons (i.e. other CAP members who are part of the member's peer group are still cadets). Etamni (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing counter-view

Article should have a criticism section to match JROTC and other such articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozillaman (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 April 2010

Why? They probably don't belong in those other articles rather than being lacking in this article. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not like every single article on Wiki must have a "Controversy" section. Rather, that is a distinctly Wikipedia phenomenon, rather than an encyclopedic feature. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If there was a major criticism or controversy about the organization, it might make sense to have such a section. I don't know of any, beyond minor issues that come up in any non-profit volunteer group, so there is no reason to add such a section here. For anyone who hasn't read the JROTC article, the criticism section there (as of 06:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)) relates to the existence of the JROTC program being in the schools. The critics complain that the teachers are chosen by the military instead of the local school districts, that the teaching methods are outdated, that it is more of a recruitment tool for the military than a purely academic subject, and other related issues. Those issues simply don't apply to the CAP, despite some similarities in their respective cadet programs. (Full disclosure: I'm a former member of both programs, but my CAP membership lapsed well over 20 years ago, and my JROTC days ended well before that!) --  Etamni |  ✉  06:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies between infobox and article text

The infobox has membership numbers that are newer (by almost 2 years) than the membership count within the article (opening sentence of the "Membership" section). I would update both of these, but it appears the best source of information is the source used for the infobox, but that source is for members only, and my membership lapsed over 20 years ago, so I'll leave that edit for someone else. Kudos to everyone who has worked on this article -- it looks great!  Etamni | ✉ 

A second inconsistency exists between the infobox and this statement (which is found in the membership section, under senior members, currently (08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)) in the second paragraph: Current CAP National Commander Maj Gen Carr has recently unveiled plans to restructure the CAP NCO program to allow individuals to 'enlist' as an NCO and progress through a specific professional development program. Of course, the infobox mentions a different CAP National Commander, and I suspect it is the more current information. My request is that someone more familiar with the current state of this initiative update the information and, if applicable, credit General Carr with having started it during his tenure as commander. If nothing came of it, then perhaps it should be deleted from the article completely. --  Etamni | ✉  08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Civil Air Patrol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529041710/http://www.cap.gov/documents/Atch8_History_of_CAP.pdf to http://www.cap.gov/documents/Atch8_History_of_CAP.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)