Talk:Civil Air Patrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments
C) 22:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civil Air Patrol article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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.
AVIATION This 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Former featured article Civil 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 12, 2005.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Scetoaux (talk • contribs • email)
Huntster (talk • contribs • email)
OuroborosCobra (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

This talk page was last archived through November 2007.

Contents


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Vandalisms

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Peer review

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

[edit] 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. AvruchT * 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)

[edit] Bizarre UFO query

Some of the regular editors at this page might be able to help us.

At the UFO page, a question came up as to etymology of the term "UFO. There is a claim that "UFO" as a term was "invented" in 1956 as a more general synonym for "flying saucer", though the OED finds the first use of "unidentified flying object" in a 1953 magazine that seems to be closely associated with the Civil Air Patrol. I was under the impression that "unidentified flying object" was, in fact, a term that was occasionally used by Civil Air Patrol and perhaps other Army Air Force reports coming out of WWII (see Foo fighters, for example). Can anyone substantiate or source this hunch? Was the term "U.F.O." borrowed from this organization?

Please respond at Talk:Unidentified flying object.

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)