Talk:101st Chemical Company (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force
Associated task forces (periods and conflicts):
	World War II task force

The article seems to belittle the other unit.Oldwildbill

--------------------

I was in the 21st Chemical Company and I agree with the call on neutrality. The so-called "rivalry", in reference to the deployment issue, shouldn't even be in the article. I know of this rivalry myself because my unit used to kidnap people from the 101st and hold them captive until they gave us back the unit flag they stole (or Vise Versa for something else). However, wikipedia requires actual source material for the articles, not "hearsay". Where is the citation for this part of the article? I could say I can catch bullets in my teeth, but it wouldn't make it true.

Also, the following sounds like the original author's “opinion”, which further makes this article an even worse POV issue:

“

The Fourth platoon of the 101st Chemical Company was the final element to leave Fort Bragg on March 3, 2003. This platoon by far was the least experienced. About 80% of the platoons NCO's were OEF veterans, however, the privates through specialists where all either recent arrivals from basic training or recent transfers from other units.

”

Where are the citations for this? In fact, where are any citations at all? I’ll admit I’m a little biased towards this article because of my association with the 21st Chemical Company. However, These articles are supposed to be from a neutral point of view. Also, where is the information on this unit’s history? It doesn't even mention WWII!

Here is some of the history that should be at the page:

Constituted 21 June 1942 in the Army of the United States as the 101st Chemical Impregnating Company

Activated 11 July 1942 at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland

Redesignated 20 September 1943 as the 101st Chemical Processing Company

Inactivated 30 November 1945 in the Philippine Islands

Consolidated 16 August 1983 with the 101st Chemical Detachment (active) (see ANNEX) and consolidated unit reorganized and redesignated as the 101st Chemical Company

ANNEX

Constituted 18 April 1967 in the Regular Army as the 101st Chemical Detachment

Activated 25 August 1967 at Fort Riley, Kansas

Inactivated 18 December 1967 at Fort Riley, Kansas

Activated 16 September 1979 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina[1]

I'm sure someone could derive at least a couple of paragraphs from this information alone. It seems like the author used his ego and fuzzy memory rather than solid facts to create this page. This article needs a major rewrite!!!(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 03:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

------------------------------------------------

This article is a "stub" at best. Here is what the military history wikiproject says constitutes a stub:

“

The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible

”

This article is both short and has a rough collection of information. It cites no sources and does not even mention the unit's actual history. Again, this article is a stub at best. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 20:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] NPOV Clean up

I have removed the 2 "offending" sentences of obvious non-NPOV / hearsay. I felt this was reasonable as the article is still unsupported by any sources. MrsPlum 10:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)