Talk:9th Infantry Division (United States)

Untitled

This article says the 9th infantry never deployed in WWI. I beg to differ, since my grandfather was part of the Machine gun company, 9th infantry, deployed on 9/7/1918 out of Hoboken, NJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C37F:8F50:E49E:CF36:8C9F:4D32 (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding citations to the 9th Infantry Division (United States) article.

I served in the US Army's 9th Infantry Division from 12/67 to 12/68. I have various items and sources - from photos taken by me, through Official US Army photos, Official 9th Div orders informing us that we were entitled to have another star on our VRN campaign ribbon, to original copies of the 9th Inf Div magazine - and I dare say that I could add citations to the "Vietnam War" part of the article.

But....

I have always had -- and still do -- a serious question as to what constitutes "original research".

Now, I do know how to to do "original research" in the sense that it's meant in academia and the military services. However -- in academia and the military, first hand knowledge is acceptable as long as it is verifiable (i.e., something both physical and original which can be examined and verified by a Fair Wittness).

To use an example, the article contains this statement:

"In the 1994 film Forrest Gump, the eponymous main character was a member of the 9th Infantry Division in Vietnam, notably: 4th platoon, A Company, 2nd Bn/47INF.[citation needed]"

Now, IMDB says:

"In Vietnam, Forrest was assigned to 4th Platoon (LT. Dan welcomes him and Bubba), Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry Regiment (as seen in the wooden sign by the tent), 9th Infantry Division (shoulder patch)." -- Forest Gump (1994) - Trivia - IMDB, <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/trivia>. Copyright © 1990-2012 IMDb.com, Inc.

But IMDB isn't acceptable, nicht wahr?

And I could rent the DVD and take a screen shot of the appropriate scene (under the "Fair Usage" section of the Copyright Law), but that - IMO - would be "original research"! Likewise, if I should rent the DVD of "Forrest Gump", lend it to a friend to watch, and then interview him as to what he saw on the screen, would that constitute "original research" or not, eh?

Bottom line:

As I see it, I can quote someone in a citation and that is acceptable (even if the person being quoted has been accused of having a racist agenda and isn't to be trusted)... BUT, if I do a web search on this person and edit/post anything, then this would be "original research," and then inadmissible, eh?

And so -- just what is the solution?

Can I post something about what *I* did in Vietnam which was written up in a book by a military historian ("House to House:Playing the Enemy's Game in Saigon", ISBN 0760323305, by Keith Nolan)?

Ah, I'm sorry, but I just found out that Keith died of cancer a couple of years ago. And I must grieve...

Ranger Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger Jim (talk • contribs) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New link

PLease add a Linf for the 709th Maint Bn & 99th Combat Support Bn 9th Inf Div Vietnam the link is www.alwaysable.org 68.49.191.214 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes...Forrest Gump was an Old Reliable

In the scene where Gump and Bubba report to 2LT Dan in Viet Nam the sign at the base indicates the unit. Right after the ice cream scene in the hospital, during mail call, one can read the addresses on Gump's returned letters he wrote to Jenny. He does indeed wear the Octofoil. The only reference I found was the movie itself.

PFC Forrest Gump RA 40203078 4th Platoon, A Company 2nd Battalion, 47th Infantry APO (Army Postal Office), San Francisco, California 96602

From 1978 to 1981 I served in HHC, 2nd Bn. 47th INF. (Raiders) 3rd BDE. (Go Devils), 9th INF. DIV. (Old Reliables) at Fort Lewis, WA. Ex Virtute Honos Tjlynnjr (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9th Infantry Division (United States). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706124731/http://www.octofoil.org/ to http://www.octofoil.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Modern Organization Chart

The division organizational chart for when it was at Fort Lewis, and was the technology test bed, is grossly incorrect. For example: we do not have "Staff Companies" for Brigades - we have "Headquarters and Headquarters Company". Brigades are not commanded by Brigadier Generals as indicated by the one star. There are numerous doctrinal and graphic symbology errors that need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.113.113 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources which fail verification for late 1980s order of battle

I have just started examining Noclador's listing of units for this division 1988-89, at, for example this rev: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)&oldid=961993953. This revision cites McGrath, 'The Brigade', which does not contain listings of division level orders of battle for 1988-89 in this depth, and for artillery etc an issue of 'Military Intelligence', April-June 1985. Neither source contains a listing for battalions lined up by their associated brigades in 1989. Nor does the current listing, which falsifies the sources referenced, the lineage & honors listings, which give the details of battalions assigned to divisions, but do not specify which brigades they were assigned to. At Talk:50th Armored Division (United States) Noclador said he was working off another, but unspecified source. I urge him to cite that source properly. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

With a heavy heart, I am about to remove the listings which claim to list battalions in the allocated brigades in 1989. Neither the excellent Romjue study, nor McGrath, nor the Environmental Impact Study actually list which battalions were assigned to which brigades. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

McGrath's chart on page 84 does list battalions by brigade, so that information is reliably supported. Kges1901 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies in this case Noclador, and my great thanks Kges1901. I have just rechecked my version of McGrath, and it appears for some reason I downloaded the volume in only three of the four bits, many years ago, so I never saw the chart. My apologies again. I would note, however, that the date is *not* 1989; it is *1988*. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I am just about to restore the version I rolled back. Noclador's referencing can be confusing, sometimes, so it's not clear which piece of information is sourced to which document, but, here, in this case, the information is verifiable for 1988. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

This is complex. Noclador added a 1972-83 listing, which was falsified thru lineage references and thus WP:UNSOURCED; a 1983 listing which was mostly the same WP:UNSOURCED thing, listing 'reflaggings' as sourced in lineage documents, which is anathema, as lineage documents never use the informal term, and not including any sources for the critical fact that the battalions changed their designations from one regiment to another; and a 1989 listing which was properly sourced - McGrath p84 - but actually referred to 1988. In any case, two of the three listings were falsifications, so I have changed my mind and I will not post a retraction note on WT:MILHIST. Kges1901 is warmly invited to check all my verification at 2nd ID, 50th AD, and for the other divisions which I have not got to yet. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I went over the 9th ID 1989 structure back when I had some corrections for noclador to make to his chart, and made sure that the units were assigned to the division. As for using the term reflagging, CMH has itself used it in some publications and it is the term used throughout the army. It is true that lineages do not make the link explicit on reflaggings but contemporary issues of army journals should be able to source these. Kges1901 (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1972-1983 listing is from Globalsecurity, which I don't like to cite, because they spam you with advertisement and a bunch of "Join up" spam. That Globalsecurity listing was cross-referenced with the Lineage data to make sure it is correct. The 1983 to 1988 changes are based on the charts and narrative in "The Army of Excellence" by John L. Romjue, the charts and narrative in the Army's official analysis of the "Motorized Experience of the 9th Infantry Division. Fort Lewis, Washington. 1980-1989", which is 354 pages of officers of the 9th Div talking about their work in the division in 1980ies; then I added other sources like i.e. Soldier magazine, United States Army Aviation Digest, etc. The official analysis looks at every battalion and company in the division - i.e. 8 pages for the 1-44th ADA alone. I read almost all of it to get details out of it for the article. So the listings are correct. noclador (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations of the 1972-1983 listing. Once the listing cites the globalsecurity page, I will stop removing it. The 1983-88 changes are indeed well sourced, in-line, and I did not remove them. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

The 1983 structure is currently sourced to Romjue 'Army of Excellence,' and the environmental impact statement, *not* 'Motorized Experience of the 9th Infantry Division', which is not mentioned!!. Stop citing in free text in the talk pages - that's not sufficient. Fix the in-line citations, please!!

Once you have cited individual page numbers for pages which support attribution of particular battalions to particular brigades, for 1983, I will stop removing the 1983 listing as well. As with 2nd Inf Div, I will copy this note to the main talk page discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent removal

A recent edit to this page says it was meant to "remove uncited data which falsifies the cited references". Thing is, the majority of the prose removed from the article was actually cited. Looks like they had recently been added recently by Noclador. This edit also caused about a dozen undefined reference errors. I've fixed those ... but Buckshot06, are you able to please explain why you wanted to remove the referenced material? If the references removed were unacceptable, why were they left in use in other places in the article? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for reinserting the lineages. The assignment of battalions to specific brigades is *not* cited at the lineages - see my responses above. The listing remains not fully sourced. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello again buckshot06. At this point, you've undone my edit, which re-introduces hard referencing errors to the article. There are about 12 different spots where you've removed a <ref name="something">...</ref> definition, but there are still <ref name="something" /> uses of that reference remaining in the article. This situation causes red error messages throughout the "references" section, like this: "Cite error: The named reference 3-60 Infantry was invoked but never defined (see the help page).", for example.

Why do you want those errors to be in the article? Should the references be removed altogether, and the remaning invocation of the undefined named reerences be replaced with {{fact}} tags? Or should the references remain (because, as you seem to say, they're valid for the lineages)? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops sorry my mistake. I indeed broke the lineage reference links, while thinking of the issue I was focusing on. Let me go and clear that up. Sorry. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. This was all I was trying to fix, in both my edits. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear Whomever, I have a photo book of the 9th Infantry Divison. If anyone is interested I received this from my Dads belongs and do not have any use for it.

Thanks, Christy B 2602:306:C436:8300:75A0:29DF:7304:84FC (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Included WW2 Picture Shows 36th Armored Infantry Regiment of 3rd Armored Division

The caption in the picture describes it as showing troops of the "36th Armored Infantry Regiment" of the "9th Infantry Division".

The 36th was a regiment of the 3rd Armored Division. American infantry divisions did not have "armored" infantry regiments. This was a unique aspect of the 2nd and 3rd "Heavy" Armored Divisions. 2601:5C9:4201:5B80:9493:BC7:4ABD:8C1D (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)