Talk:Army National Guard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mreynolds12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs Work[edit]

Because the Air National Guard appears to have its own article, it seemed fit to create such an article for the Army National guard. However, I am unable to work on this article. Other user input for the article would be greatly appreciated. User:69.18.16.84 2006-05-25T04:18:22

Started a stub section to deal with the Army National Guard "transformation" that is a part of the overall US Army Transformation plan (divisions to brigades, etc.) We will need to expand the section to include specific plans for the ARNG. I will plan to do a little searching to see what current status is, what units are making the transformation first, etc. Mvialt 14:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARNG/ARNGUS[edit]

A distinction needs to be made between the state ARNGs and the ARNGUS, and some other Title 32 things. I'll work on it when I have time. --VAcharon 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:CORNELIUSSEON and I created a page for state-level ARNG units. I have now rolled that basic format out to a little over one-quarter of all states. See United States National Guard#National Guard Forces for a list of pages (sort of) showing status. In general, I started at the front of the alphabet and am working through all states. (Some states previously had state-level ARNG articles or redirects.) Since the 'template' I am using keeps getting incrementally improved as I move through these, the next article I update (probably Kansas or Kentucky) will have the 'latest' format for my template. If you want to help out, holler at me on my talk page. Mvialt 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source material for additions here[edit]

Look at this document: http://www.1800goguard.com/guides/pdf/part8.pdf The final four-five pages indicates the anticipated end state of the Guard on the national level, at the brigade level and above. I think that the material in it (open source--recruiting flyer from the U.S.G.) needs to be incorporated as well as the organizational structure it explains. I don't have time to do this now, but others may be able to. I already incorporated its elements into the 38th Infantry Division page, as you can see.Pharnabazus 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation Section[edit]

Good work Pharnabzus on the Army National Guard#List of Units Undergoing Transformation section! You have added a lot of good information. Question: When I started this section stub, I created a Divisions subsection and a Brigades subsection. Now that the division section is being expanded to add a lot of brigade information under their respective division, I am wondering if we should continue to keep the separate brigades section also? I can argue the case both ways. If we add subordinate brigade info to the divisions, then some part of the information in the brigade list (ordered by type of brigade and increasing brigade number) becomes redundant. On the other hand, with the new 'transformed' Army, it is principally the brigades that will be called up and utilized organizationally in action, not the divisions. So that might argue for the Brigade organization being primary and the division list being much more abbreviated.

I'm sure there are other pros and cons. What is you opinion? Or anyone's opinion on how we should best organize the Transformation section before we continue to add information to it? Mvialt 19:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we keep the divisions list with the attached brigades...but that we also identify the separate brigades, such as the support or aviation brigades, which are not assigned to the divisions. That is important, because the Army has already begun to use the divisions to command assemblies of brigades not organic to the unit. For example, the 42nd Infantry Division (NY NG) had a command role in Iraq in the past few years, with both active and NG brigades attached. Pharnabazus 03:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pharnabazus. I'd list the new arrangement of five-or-so manoeuvre brigades per div under those divisions, with a qualifying note in the main article saying how it is quite likely that the divs will never deploy with all their assigned brigades. Then separate out the independent manoeuvre brigades from all the other separate brigades. My $0.02. Cheers Buckshot06 08:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To put my professional hat on here, let me say that you are all on the right track, but there is still one thing you are forgetting. The basic structure of Guard units is not changing - they will be still structured to handle local and State problems - as well as handling their Federal Mission. That means that the maneuver Brigades will NOT leave the State just because their suboirdinate units do. Here is a good First Person example. My unit, the 719th Transportation Company of the NYARNG was one of four companies in the 369th Transportation Battalion. In World War II, when the battalion was the 369th Infantry Regiment, the Regiment was converted on 1941-01-13 to a Coast Artillery Regiment [The Regiment number was re-used for a National Army unit that was assigned to the 93rd Infantry Division. They have NO relationshipo with the original 369th, before or after the war.], inducted into Federal Service, and assigned to man Fort Ontario from 1941-01-15 until 1941-09-05. they then transitioned via Camp Edwards and Camp Stoneman, looking for a job to perform, when they were assigned to the Pacific Theater. They were moved to Hawaii in June of 1942. Upon arrival, the 369th CAR was broken up, and redesignated as follows: HHB was redesignated as HHB, 369th AAA Group; 1st Battalion was redesignated the 369th AAA Battalion (Gun); and the 2nd Battalion was redesignated as the 870th AAA Battalion (Auto Weapons). HHB, 369th AAA Group stayed in Hawaii, acted as a higher headquarters for other AAA units, and stayed where they were until 1944-12-11, when they were deactivated in place, and restored to State service. They provided AAA service at the various airbases around Hawaii. 369th AAA Bn (Gun) was retained in place until 1945, when they were forwarded to Okinawa, anbd arrived there on 1945-08-12. They remained there, transitioning to Occupation Duty at the end of the war, until they were rotated back to the Los Angeles Port of Embarkation on 1946-01-20. They were then moved to Camp Anza, California, wqhere they were deactivated on 1946-01-21, and returned to State Service. 870th AAA Bn (Auto Weapons) was deployed to Barbers Point, Hawaii on 1943-12-12, where they remained until they were forwarded to Okinawa, and arrived there on 1945-05-10, where their AAA guns were turned in and they re-trained as Infantry, retaking parts of Tokashiki Shima and where 1Lt. Robert Peagler earned the Distinguished Service Cross - transitioning to Occupation Duty at the end of the war. They returned to the San Francisco Port of Embarkation on 1946-01-13, and were deactivated at Fort Lawton, Washington on 1946-01-13 and returned to State Service.
The Regiment was reconstituted back in its home Armory in NYC as soon as the personnel could assemble there, and the unit was restored to its historical number as the 369th AAA Regiment, with the two Seperate Battalions assigned therein.
Several reorganizations later, the Regiment was reorganized as the 369th Transportation Battalion, with HHB reorganized as HHD; the 369th AAA Battalion reorganized as the 587th Transportation Compan (Terminal Service; the 870th reorganized as the 719th Transportation Company (Med Trk); and the remainder reorganized as the 1569th Transportation Compan (MT). The battalion did NOT leave the State again until Desert Storm, when we were the first Battalion to leave New York State. 719th Trans left first, being attached to the 301sr CSB under the 101st ABD; HHD and the 1569th left next, being attached to the 24th ID, with HHD 369th acting as a headquarters along the lines of the 301st, with the 1569th being the only unit from home serving as part of the 369th during the war. 5 other Companies from the Regular Army, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard were subordinated to the 369th. The Battalion that included the 719th Trans was one of three NG units, other units from the RA and AR included.
The 369th is today a Corps Support Battalion, including the HHD, the 719th Transportation Company; the 10th Transportation Detachment; and the 133rd Ordnance Company (Maint).
The point is that the Guard has always gone through reorganizations in order to remain relevant to the needs of the Army, and it has been very rare when we have gone out the door with our units intact - at least since World War II. That being true, I'd suggest concentrating on the individual basic units, and only focus on the higher headquarters should they ever go anywhere. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 04:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Training Requirements Oversight[edit]

Some mention of TRO relationships between the Separate Brigades and the Division HQs should be made.

For example, the 155th HBCT (MS), 256th IBCT (LA) and 45th IBCT (OK) as well as the TX Guard's organic combat brigades, 56th IBCT and 72nd IBCT. Also included are the support brigades that are often overlooked; 36th Combat Aviation Brigade (TX), 36th Combat Support Brigade (TX), 36th Sustainment Brigade (TX), 45th Fires Brigade (OK), 185th Combat Aviation Brigade (MS) and the 225th Engineer Brigade (LA). RTO Trainer 14:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is clear consensus that no disambiguation is needed here.-- Staberinde (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]


Army National Guard → ? – The name should be either "Army National Guard of the United States" or "United States Army National Guard", let's discuss which is better. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons uses: Commons:Category:United States Army National Guard. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, the article name is too "USA-centric" for Wikipedia. We can't assume that everyone reading it will know which country the Armed Forces division is from without reading further than the title. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course its USA centric. The only entity called the "Army National Guard" is in the USA. Readers might also not know which country the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the National Security Guard, or the Special Forces Support Group are from but they can find out in the respective articles. The title should be as succinct as possible as long as their is no ambiguity. —  AjaxSmack  22:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - of all the LatAm Guardia Nacionals was any ever called "Army National Guard"? While the article title invites examination to see if it is really unambiguous, and while National Guard is a disamb, "Army National Guard" does seem to be distinct to USA. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AjaxSmack. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The Army National Guard of the United States receives personnel from the Army National Guard. Neovu79 (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The move would cause unnecessary disambiguation. There are not other articles in Wikipedia with "Army National Guard", so this move serves no purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Any confusion can be clarified with a hatnote. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed it should be to Army National Guard (United States). The organization is called Army National Guard, but it might need to be disambiguated from similarly named organiazations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is its common name and should be located here acording to Wikipedia policy. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not other "Army National Guard" exists. Hot Stop (Talk) 06:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Army National Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination[edit]

I'm nominating the article on the Army National Guard as a good article. I did a lot of work to re-work and expand it several years ago, and it's remained relatively stable since then.

Billmckern (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Army National Guard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) 11:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


To sum up, the article has definitely improved a lot over the last year or so, and Billmckern's efforts on sourcing etc. have made a real difference. To meet the GA standard, though, it needs a bit more work on the prose - in particular ensuring that each section and paragraph flows together. Some of the lists could be moved to standalone articles, and the space used to cover the wider set of issues around the Army National Guard; the US Army, US Marine Corps or British Army articles might give some ideas about how equipment, training and personnel issues might be communicated. I hope to see the article back at GAN soon! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;

  • Some issues. The "Activation" section has a large number of one-sentence paragraphs; it needs to be formed up into regular prose. There's a similar pattern in much of the history section. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

  • The lead section is currently very short, and doesn't summarise the article as a whole.
  • The Prominent members list doesn't seem to fit our guidance on embedded lists; on my screen, this gives several pages of single bullet listed names without any commentary. It might work as a stand-alone list article.

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;

  • Yes. I'd have preferred to see the publisher details included as well, but that isn't a formal GA requirement. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

  • Some assertions are unsourced - e.g. "One result of the uneven performance of the militia...", "This fundamental restriction on the use of the militia..." Definitely worth checking all paragraphs that lack at least one source. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

  • I'd have expected to see coverage of the National Guard's Personnel, Training, Equipment etc. - but this seems to be largely missing.
  • I'm not a specialist, but I know there have been recent scandals involving the National Guard (CBS news terms it the "largest criminal investigation in the history of the United States Army", for example), which don't seem to be covered. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

  • I couldn't see where the Presidents who served in Army National Guard list was going. This isn't an issue which is pulled out significantly in the articles/books I've been able to find on the National Guard, so I found it strange for it receive so much prominence here. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

  • Neutral, although I note the lack of inclusion of information on recent scandals. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

  • File:Major-General Braddocks death at the Battle of Monongahela.JPG needs a publication date to justify its tag
  • File:Senator Charles Dick of Ohio, 1858-1945 (cropped).jpg needs a publication date to justify its tag
  • File:Company A, 1st Arkansas, Mexican Expedition.jpg needs evidence for why we believe it was taken by a Federal employee (it originates from the Museum of American History, Cabot Public Schools btw, and is stamped by Hester Photographs)
  • File:GEN Creighton W Abrams.JPG gives a date of creation (1975) but no date of publication or details of the copyright search to justify the tag.
  • File:Michael C. Thompson Commissioner.jpg - copyrighted to the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, which is not part of the Federal Government.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • Relevant. Captions need checking for periods (full-stops). "18th century depiction of militia at the 1637 battle known as the Great Swamp Fight.", for example, isn't a complete sentence, so shouldn't end with one. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guard Units[edit]

I added all the higher command and units of the National Guard. However there are a few problems that I could not yet resolve:

  1. the National Guard activated a new Military Police Brigade this year, but I could not find it's number and location. Does anyone have that information?
  2. there should be 16 Maneuver Enhancement Brigades, but I found 17 that still seem to be active... so which one has been disbanded?
  3. there should 7 Engineer Brigades, but I found 8, which means one has been/will be disbanded; but which?

These are the only problems. All other units (Commands, Divisions, Brigades, Groups) of the National Guard are now listed. If anyone has information about the above mentioned problems, please fix them in the article. Thanks, noclador (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Army National Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Army National Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Guard of the United States[edit]

  • @Neovu79: The National Guard of the United States is a thing. It's a legal entity. When members of the Air or Army National Guard enlist or receive commissions, they have dual state and federal obligations. When National Guard units get federalized, it's as part of the National Guard of the United States, which means they're no longer subject to state control.
  • This isn't a naming convention question or an issue where consensus is required. The National Guard of the United States is the official name of an organization, in accordance with federal law.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Army_National_Guard&oldid=1199007350"