Talk:Unofficial badges of the United States military

Sources

I think it is a little over-zelous to be demanding sources for information about an "unofficial" badge. No FM can be quoted exactly because it is an "unofficial" badge. You can do a google search and find a number of these badges up for sale, and I was a member of the cavalry and can vouch for their use and existence. An google search will even turn up member of the cavalry with pictures of them in uniform wearing the badge.

Here is one source: http://airdefense.bliss.army.mil/adamag/February%2001/badge.htm

(Atfyfe 04:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Its not overzealous at all, its Wiki policy to provide sources for any article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. As of right now, this article is unsourced. It may even border upon Original Research. Please do not remove the sources notice unless a source can be provided. -Husnock 14:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the source is simply the person posting the information, particularly in the case of information about themselves or (in this case) about the existence of an unofficial practice at their personal place of work. Since I was simply drawing upon my experiences in the Army, what website or article would you have me cite in the sources area? If someone had interviewed me and put the information up then I could cite that, but since the information is coming directly from me it doesn't count? I find your editing decisions on this article overzealous (all due respect to work you have done elsewhere), particularly after your absurd "original research" claim. If you read the "original research" policy it is concerned with something entirely different than what we are debating here. Secondly, notices can be removed under two circumstances (1) they are fulfilled (e.g. sources are provided), or (2) the wikipedia community finds the notice unnecessary. (Atfyfe 19:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

Drawing upon personal experiances and using them to write articles without sources is very clearly original research. And the "Wikipedia Community" did not find the tag unneccesary; in fact, no one but you commented upon having it. In any event, with sources now in the article it appears to look okay. Sorry you find these changes "absurd". I would advise not taking edits to your articles so personally...otherwise you might have a rough stay on Wikipedia as people change things all the time sometimes with little or no discussion. -Husnock 21:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to refrain from continuing a debate, but simply say that the references I posted were found by doing no more than a google search for "combat cavalry badge" and that I had no special insight into finding a place to cite for this information than anyone on wikipedia has. I don't mean to call you lazy since you do so much work on wikipedia, but I have a problem with what I think of as the "lazy-tagger" approach to editing. If someone wanted a source they could have googled the words and put the information up, rather than putting a tag up. Throwing up tags for deletion or sources or whatever when a simple google search would have allowed them to fix the problem they had with the article themselves. I hope you will add your input and time into this article, but I apologize if I get testy with tags which ask for widespread information. (Atfyfe 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC))

I will also refrain from continuing the debate but I would highly caution againt calling editors who ask for sources "lazy" (some would actually consider it a personal attack). The point is, on this site if you write an article, the readers should not have to go to an external web source and search for the sources. You should provide them and if someone adds an "unsourced" tag to an article you worked on, it is simple a notice to other editors that a source is needed and could someone add one if and when it is located. It is not a personal attack against you, its just part of the editing process. Food for thought. Keep cool and happy editing. -Husnock 22:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Atfyfe 220.101.4.140 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Title

If someone wants to change the name of this article they are welcome. Here is my reason for naming it how I did: There is a very similar article titled "Unofficial decorations of the United States Army" and so I tried for consistency. It seems reasonable, if you are going to change one, that you (whoever you are) change both.

The title you gave comes up with a red link. Perhaps you meant Unofficial decorations of the United States military? That article is named for the military since it references medals from all branches of the Army. This one appears to only be about the Army. -Husnock 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, that is the sort of name I meant to use for this article. I have changed it. (Atfyfe 09:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Badges from Other Branches

This article would really benifit from the addition of unofficial badges from other branches of the military. Anyone from the Navy or such branch know of such badges? (Atfyfe 09:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Bad link deleted

Someone provided a link as a reference to a quote given, only that thread no longer exists on that forum.