Talk:Americal Division

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It was proposed in this section that 23rd Infantry Division (United States) be renamed and moved to Americal Division. result: Moved per consensus garnered below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 16:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] disclaimer: this closure is neutral; whether or not there is consensus, only the arguments in the request below are reflected, nothing else. Move logs: source title · target title This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Result:
Moved per consensus garnered below. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 16:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer: this closure is neutral; whether or not there is consensus, only the arguments in the request below are reflected, nothing else.

---

23rd Infantry Division (United States) → Americal Division – WP:COMMONNAME. Page was at Americal Division until it was moved without discussion in 2008. The official World War II history of the division, US Army sources, and even the official division reports overwhlemingly use the name Americal Division rather than its numerical designation. The division veterans organization is named Americal Division veterans. Wikipedia policy discourages use of the official name of a subject in cases where the official name is not the most common name of the subject, see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. However, given the use in official sources published by the division of Americal Division as its name, it is questionable whether 23rd Infantry Division even has dominance as the official name. For example, a newspapers.com search of American newspapers from 1968 to 1971 gives 44k hits for Americal Division and only 3k matches for 23rd Infantry Division. Press coverage of My Lai, which the division received the most coverage for, mostly does not even mention the numerical division of the unit and refers to it solely as Americal. This would seem to be overwhelming evidence that Americal Division was the common name during Vietnam despite the official numbering. Our article should be at the most common name for the unit regardless of an insistence on strictly adhering to official nomenclature even when the latter is relatively rarely used. Kges1901 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content immediately below copied from WP:RM/TR:

• • Kges1901 Given it's been moved a few times before, and has been relatively stable at it's current name since 2008 (except for a brief move and back again in January 2010 it looks like), i.e. longer than it was at Americal Division or Americal Division (United States), I don't think this is uncontroversial. I am not objecting to the request though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The division was only officially known as Americal during World War 2. When it was reactivated for a time in the mid-1950s it was the 23rd Infantry Division, and officially in Vietnam it was also the 23rd Infantry Division (Americal). I would support a redirect from Americal to 23rd Infantry Division, but not moving the article to Americal. Shelby Stanton's "Vietnam Order of Battle" says the decision to use Americal in some Army documents was a MACV decision and wasn't official as far as the Army proper was concerned. What the veterans' organization calls itself doesn't really matter. It's not an official designation. and it's not uncommon for veterans' groups to use unit nicknames for their names. On the whole, the division was officially Americal for about two or three years in World War 2, and over five years as the 23rd Infantry Division (with or without Americal attached). Intothatdarkness 15:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Americal Division designation was the common name during Vietnam, however, and WP:COMMONNAME overrides what faraway Army officials at the Pentagon called it on paper when the relevant theatre command, MACV and its own documents often called it the Americal Division. For example, a newspapers.com search of American newspapers from 1968 to 1971 gives 44k hits for Americal Division and only 3k matches for 23rd Infantry Division. Press coverage of My Lai, which the division received the most coverage for, mostly does not even mention the numerical division of the unit and refers to it solely as Americal. This would seem to be overwhelming evidence that Americal Division was the common name during Vietnam despite the official numbering. Our article should be at the most common name for the unit regardless of an insistence on strictly adhering to official nomenclature even when the latter is relatively rarely used. Kges1901 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be careful about using reports as documentation for a unit's name. It's not at all uncommon to see units referenced by their semi-official nickname in those documents. It's also worth referencing the stuff on the 1st Cavalry Division here. The official designation during Vietnam was 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), even though the term 1st Air Cavalry Division was used in both reports and press coverage. But I'm sure, as usual, Wikipedia will go its own way. Maybe we can even use the obituary defense, as the division isn't currently active. Intothatdarkness 15:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Intothatdarkness is completely correct here in regard to widespread formation and unit use of incorrect nicknames in official documents. See User talk:VilePig for more contemporary examples. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the official designation should be used. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on policy and guidelines: Here Kges1901 is arguing for WP:COMMONNAME at last name used, Vietnam. Mztourist and others arguing for the official name are arguing in line with the official designation, which is the first and highest-priority recommendation in WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME. I've just spent a couple of minutes checking which, COMMONNAME or the MILMOS, if either, has the highest status in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. It turns out that COMMONNAME is *policy* while the MILMOS is a *guideline.* That is, if we were arguing purely over which had the highest claim in line with WP instructions, we would go with COMMONNAME, but that would have to be considered across the division's whole history, though, Kges1901 is correct, Vietnam as the most recent and highest-profile action for the division does have a strong input. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I should note I am no scholar of the Southwest Pacific or particularly of the American War in Vietnam, and I am Neutral. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My argument is that MILMOS does not disallow exceptions for common names that differ from original designations as the guideline stats that The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs; or, in cases where no relevant formal name exists or where a formal name is not commonly employed by historians, the most common name used in historical literature. There are numerous examples of historians who use Americal Division solely to return to the unit, and even Shelby Stanton refers to the unit in Rise and Fall of an American Army' as the Americal Division after his initial mention that includes its numerical designation. Some examples of authors who use Americal Division solely or almost solely regarding Vietnam are John Prados in Vietnam, Darryl James in Americal Division Artillery Air Section Helicopters in Vietnam, Keith William Nolan in Into Laos, McLeroy and Sanders in Bait: The Battle of Kham Duc, Adrien Traas in the US Army Center of Military History's own Turning Point 1967-1968. Traas admits in the publication that the division is better known as the Americal Division, and uses the Americal designation to mark the unit on the book's maps and follows this for his subsequent works in the US Army-published pamphlet series on Vietnam. Even in Erik Villard's Staying the Course, the most recent book-length US Army official history volume on Vietnam (CMH, 2017), he only mentions the 23rd Infantry Division two or three times and the other 38 mentions including the maps refer to the 'Americal Division' without mentioning the number. This shows that even the US Army Center of Military History acknowledges that Americal Division is the common name for this unit. In these books, the 23rd Infantry Division designation, if mentioned at all, is mentioned only to introduce the unit and it is referred to afterwards solely as the Americal Division. Of course, all WWII mentions of the division are about the Americal Division only since it saw substantial combat in the South Pacific during the war as the 23rd Infantry Division designation was a postwar, solely on paper invention by the Army Staff. Ultimately, WP should not blindly follow official names when they are not the common name. Kges1901 (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So how do you plan to deal with the version that was activated in the mid-1950s? It was never called Americal. I see nothing wrong with a redirect from Americal to the official, post-World War 2 designation for the unit. Use of nicknames is not uncommon in works both official and unofficial (Big Red One for the First Infantry Division, or The Cav for the First Cavalry Division, for example), so I don't consider that definitive. Intothatdarkness 16:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, the 1954-1956 iteration was called Americal as well, see this newspaper clipping for one example. The usage of Americal is different from the examples you mention because the level of usage is much different given that Americal Division designation (not just a nickname) is primarily and often almost exclusively used to refer to the unit. Conversely, I doubt you could find a US Army official history that exclusively refers to the 1st Cavalry Division as The Cav. Kges1901 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I still think preference should be given to the official designation. Even the Army's own official unit awards and campaign recognition registry lists it as the 23rd Infantry Division. But given Wikipedia's preference for recreating things in its own image I'm pretty sure your view will prevail. Intothatdarkness 22:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I am a scholar of the South West Pacific Area, and this was the official name during World War II. It wasn't a nickname like the Big Red One. During the Vietnam period it ran afoul of an Army regulation that divisions are numbered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This doesn't address the division's activation in the 1950s or its official designation during Vietnam. No one has contended the designation of Americal for World War 2 is incorrect...it's the later period that raises issues. Intothatdarkness 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME, the official name of the units Does. Not. Matter. if it was commonly known as something else for all or part of its history. What matters is what it is commonly known as in reliable sources now. Reliable coverage of, for example, the My Lai Massacre referring the division "Americal" are trivial to show, and this was during the period when it was officially something other than "Americal". FOARP (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The official name DOES matter. If Wikipedia choses to ignore that, whatever. Obviously the move is going to happen, but saying the official name does not matter is simply ridiculous. No lineage or campaign honors are tracked using the supposed common name, for example. Intothatdarkness 17:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We already decoded to do that on Wikipedia. The official name is 23d Infantry Division but a decision was taken to not use American ordinals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]