Jump to content

Talk:United States Army Corps of Engineers

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

Flood Control Act of 1928

[edit]

Concerning Flood Control Act of 1928 reference that Sheldonville added, this is the only law that had any type of explanation of the legislation itself, and the explanation referenced just one small but important part of the legislation. The explanation IS important and notable, but it might be best to actually go under the main article Corps of Engineers civil works controversies.

Also, since the Great Flood of 1927 was linked as the reference to FCA 1928, I went into it and put in the detail and a reference that actually connects the Great Flood with FCA 1928. 199.123.72.97 (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetlands Takings

[edit]

Perhaps something about the controversial nature of calling a piece of land a "wetland". There have been at least one Supreme Court case where the Army Corps of Engineers lost its case.

That is a topic well worth persuing, but really should be under the article on wetlands. When I get some time I will start it. When I first came to Wikipedia, I contributed the Army Corps definition of a wetland to the wetland article and it was reverted very quickly with the comment that the arrticle was not about U.S. wetlands. Not a good start for a newbie, but I quickly got over it ;^) - Marshman 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

[edit]

Given that Gen. Strock has now admitted that design flaws in the Corps-designed levees were responsible for the flooding of New Orleans, shouldn't that become part of the Corps history?

Agreed. There be should SOME mention of the mistakes made by the Corps insofar as the construction of the New Orleans levees somewhere in this entry. I've heard that the levees were supposedly rated for a "three" hurricane, but the Katrina flood surge was only equivalent to a "two". Yikes. --Weirdoactor 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - but I would put it under a broader heading of mistakes, flaws or other failings (neutral wording needed). While they in general do a "good" job, there has been a number of high-visibility and massive dollar failings in some of their projects. --FienX 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Some projects are said to have created profound detrimental environmental effects and/or provided questionable economic benefit such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet in southeast Louisiana. Faulty design and substandard construction have been cited in the failure of levees in the wake of Hurricane Katrina that caused flooding of 80% of the city of New Orleans." This passage is bad because it implies that the flooding of the city is either a "questionable economic benefit" or a "profound detrimental environmental effect," when what we're really talking about is loss of life due to negligence--a conclusion based on the Corps' own research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.171.68 (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi

[edit]

maybe there should be a place in the article for something about the changes made to the mississippi by them.

Pork, boondoggles, and blunders

[edit]

I'm thinking of starting a section called "Pork, boondoggles, and blunders". If it gets too long it can be moved to a new article. Any comments? --Jagz 02:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be better/different than "Civil Works Controversies"? It seems like the same idea, only without the neutrality. -Gueneverey (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I created that section. --Jagz (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References in this Article, or Lack Thereof

[edit]

How is it that the few references in this article almost all come from one or two Army Corps of Engineers booklets. A lot of this looks and smells like propaganda. Another article, without the name US Army... would have a lack of references cited tag.

such as: [citation needed] or

Truthunmasked (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truthunmasked -- The same thing could be said for most articles. For example, the article on Julie Andrews sure sounds like someone is playing up her strong points; hell, I'd like for her to be my Grandmother! LOL
Some facts about USACE (like being the nation's number one provider of recreation) sound like propaganda but are merely a stated fact, and are facts that most people don't know ... especially from the mainstream media. Other facts (like mission) have to come from the organization itself or its "charter". USACE's "charter" or mission, in this case, is founded in law. You could take a whole lot of time to research the US Code to see if you can find the exact public laws or they could find the exact provision/act just by asking USACE. But in either of those two examples, using facts from the Corps of Engineers doesn't necessarily negate the article's neutrality. It might help, however, if some user were to take those laws and facts provided by/through USACE references, and see if they can find independent verification of them. http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm and http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html are two places where an industrious user could find information to help ensure neutrality.
The interesting thing is that much about the Corps of Engineers really IS unknown by most people. Wikipedia -- like an encyclopedia -- gives people an opportunity to learn more about a Federal Government organization which can greatly impact (positively and negatively) their lives.
That said, it is vitally important for neutrality. There are significant problems that have occurred by or on behalf of the Corps of Engineers. And those SHOULD be -- and sometimes are -- acknowledged ... but also in the context of neutrality. For example, I added a significant amount of information, much of which is not currently focused on by the media, on the "Civil Works Controversies" main page for just that reason. Prior to my edits, most of the "controversies" focused just on New Orleans and on the generalized issue of Congressional pork within the USACE budget without talking about what the real controversies are.
Interesting sidebar is that many "negative" issues are referenced through mainstream media content which, if one thinks critically about them, are more references to opinion rather than fact (a problem that will not be solved here).

Operational Facts and Figures

[edit]

I think that the Operational Facts and Figures of the article on the United States Army Corps of Engineers should be much higher in the article because most people do not know about the extent of USACE's impact on the United States and they might not wade through the other "boring" (though relevant :) ) information to find these facts and figures out. From that standpoint, I think that it warrants being higher up in the article. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the trivial facts and information should be placed towards the bottom of the article. For organizational purposes, it does not make sense to show the statistics on an encyclopedia as the first part of the article. Wikipedia is not designed to be an informational outlet to "sell" the Corps of Engineers with facts and figures to the general public. -Signaleer (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you are saying. I sort of agree and am not necessarily looking at selling the Corps. Most people only know of USACE in one context and do not know the extent of the Corps' reach into society. I guess the question would be ... how do you quickly get this real information out? I think it is more important than organization and somewhat more important than notable projects (and possibly history). Perhaps if some of the more mundane figures (e.g., the employee population, the number of districts, etc.) were culled to make it more relevant.... What do you think? Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated previously, bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia. Not a "quick reference" in order to pull statistics about the organization. There are very few if any Wiki articles that place the trivia, facts or statistics up front in an article. On the contrary, it should be placed at the very bottom instead of the middle. -Signaleer (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was trivia, I'd agree; in fact, I'm trying to find a way to reduce the trivia section. And I certainly agree that it shouldn't go at the top. But as I look over the article, I see that some of my concerns are covered in the text above this section. At the same time, some of this should NOT be in the text above because it would dilute the focus of those particular sections. I guess I can live with it where it is, more or less. I've tweaked some of it already anyway; maybe moving/tweaking some more will work. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I am confused as to Kozuch added the {{refimprove}} tag to this article. The references include the following:

  • USACE's public website
  • USACE's intranet
  • An independent written publication
  • Army Engineer Association magazine
  • US Civil War center professional bulletin
  • An organization opposed to USACE
  • An educational institution
  • A senator's website
  • Local news media
  • An independent FOIA request
  • State of New York report

That is a pretty wide range of references. Granted, some of the references are from the organization itself; however, when describing an organization, its missions, its history, and its goals, that would not be unreasonable.

I have removed the tag for now. Others may want to join in the discussion if desired. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added several more in-line references and removed the footnote tag. If I looked correctly, each major section now has at least one footnote in it. More will not necessarily improve the "verifiability" of the information provided. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revert

[edit]

I have reverted the edits from the user CORNELIUSSEON contributed on November 16, 2008, the edit between a military organization and garrison is wrong. The USACE is not a garrison but an active U.S. Army organization. Furthermore, the placement of the insignia and plaque is unnecessary in an encyclopedia content. -Signaleer (talk) 12:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but USACE is NOT specifically a Civilian agency, but IS a Military Agency. it is the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and it is - by law - both a Combat Arm, AND a Combat Service. Indeed, it is the only such part of the US Army that IS both an Arm and a Service. The numbered units I prepared spend most of their time as Arms, rather than Services, which means that they carry weapons, and do most of their work in Camouflage. The Data I posted is mostly from the US Army Center of Military History, especially the Lineage and Honors. The rest is either from the unit's own web site, or from one of Shelby L. Stanton's "Order Of Battle" books, which are condensed from Center of Military History records. as to the Garrison issue, ALL US Army units have a Garrison Location. The term Garrison has to do with the location that is their designated Home Post. I suggest that you look at the Wiki article for further clarification: Garrison. As to the graphics, those were assigned to the units in question by the US Army Institute of Military History, and are OFFICIAL. If you are stating that I placed them on Wikipedia, you are wrong. They reside over on Commons, and are linked to the article.-SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of your arguement making references to civilian versus military organization has nothing to do with the template which you used to conver the article's main information box. You used a garrison template [1]. Furthermore, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is not what you think it is. The USACE only has 650 uniformed Army personnel and over 34,600 civilians, see the Who We Are website. Apparently you have a misconception what USACE is and stands for versus the "Corps of Engineers" which refers to the combat/construction side or military side of the house. Please see Engineer types I hope this clarifies two separate articles. -Signaleer (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to side in part with Cornelius. USACE is both a Combat Arm and a Combat service and is, despite the overwhelming civilian populace, a military agency. And "Corps of Engineers" correctly refers both to USACE and to Engineer-branched soldiers. Cornelius, could you provide a reference to the law issue? The USACE commander is both the commander of the USACE agency as well as the Engineer units under his control. The 249th Engineer Battalion (Prime Power), 412th and 416th ENCOMs (or is it "Theater Engineer Commands (TEC)" now?? LOL), and 911th Engineer Company all report to USACE.
However, Signaleer is also right in that the garrison template used may not be appropriate. USACE may have a garrison in the British sense of the word, but generally not in the American sense of the word as only the HQ is in Washington DC (atually, more properly in Alexandria, VA, I believe). Also, I think Singaleer is right that the Corps' logo is more appropriate for this article than the Corps' plaque.
That said, I don't think it hurts the article at all to have the insignia shown in the article (perhaps at United States Army Corps of Engineers#Insignia since USACE does have its own insignia (distinctive unit insignia, shoulder sleeve insignia, etc.) -- which are NOT necessarily the same things as the branch and regimental insignias. It may be problematic, however, since the insignia section is part of the infobox for military units. Cornelius, perhaps we can create am Engineer branch website similar to the others cited on Branch insignia of the United States Army which -- IMNSHO -- incorrectly links to USACE for Engineers.
Oh yeah, one other thing: I think the article, Corps Castle (wikilinked in the United States Army Corps of Engineers#Insignia section), has the wrong pix as well and could use more detail and pictures. LOL
Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) (LTC, EN, USAR (ret.) with 13 years on active duty ... and a USACE civilian to boot!)[reply]
[edit]

I came to this article trying to find out information and/or links to Wiki articles about the military side of the USACoE, "combat engineers" including civil engineering in combat zones, training, training schools, etc. Frankly, I found the article rather weak in references and links to articles which would bear on those subjects. I realize that there may be many articles on Wiki which cover the subjects I mentioned, but it seems that I would have to do my own searchs to find them. The US domestic civil engineering side of the CoE is well covered in this article as it should be, but I think that it would be better served with more links to the military side of the CoE.--TGC55 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is room to add information on combat engineers. USACE is a unique military organization in that it has two distinct missions. Good, bad, or otherwise, most of its work is dedicated, though, to the non-military activities; and this is also evidenced on their own website (www.usace.army.mil). Note, for example, its composition and organization; most of the subordinate elements are focused on the non-military. However, there are subordinate military units listed herein with some of them having their own wiki articles. You can also look at Sapper, Combat engineering, and Military engineer; perhaps we can find a way to link those herein. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Picture inappropriate?

[edit]

Is it appropriate that of the tens of 1000's of pictures available, a West Point-graduate daughter of a retired army general is selected as an illustration of engineering "warfighting"? I don't see a connection between the subject matter and the illustration. Just saying. Perhaps a picture of Engineers in- I dont know... combat? signed: WPPA

  • Please sign your username next time by typing in ~~~~. Second, did you bother reading the article and seeing the image, it directly coincides with the article. Please discuss information on the talk page to improve the article. -Signaleer (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an image of an engineer in a warfighting scene would better illustrate the concept of combat engineering. signed: WPPA 98.167.202.148 (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How should USACE Branding efforts affect Article's name, if any?

[edit]

USACE has spent a lot of time, effort, and taxpayer dollars working on its "branding" and trademarking. The preferred way to reference USACE from a branding standpoint is "US Army Corps of Engineers" ("U.S. Army Corps of Engineeers" is also seen frequently enough to be a dual personality). They almost never refer to themselves as "United States Army Corps of Engineers", even in formal press releases.

I'm wondering if it would be better to make the title to this article the "US Army Corps of Engineers" and make "United States Army Corps of Engineers" as the redirect rather than vice versa as currently is.

Thoughts?

There are currently the following redirect pages; the bolded ones are the USACE preferred methods of self-reference: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corp of Engineers US Army Corps of Engineers US Army Corp of Engineers US Corps of Engineers US Corp of Engineers U.S. Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Corp of Engineers Corps of Engineers Corp of Engineers Army Corps of Engineers Army Corp of Engineers USACE USACOE ACOE COE

Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page titles and redirects exist to aid readers in navigating the encyclopedia. We should avoid the use of abbreviations in page titles regardless of the Corps PR department. Every conceivable plausible alternate term already redirects here so that's not a problem either. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Names of incumbents in the staff hierarchy

[edit]

I suggest that the names of incumbents in executive positions is not sufficiently notable to mention them here, unless the individuals themselves are notable. It requires unnecessary maintenance. This article is not a proxy for the USACE PAO website function. Just keep the current Chief of Engineers in the infobox--that should be sufficient. Those wanting to know names of incumbents can follow links in references that support the description of the command structure. User:HopsonRoad 18:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public Laws affecting the Corps of Engineers

[edit]

This long list of bullets contains items that should be references supporting descriptive text in this section. One has no idea of what are contained within the cited laws without clicking on each link to search through what one finds there. This is contrary to the intent of Wikipedia and the Manual of Style. User:HopsonRoad 03:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Response: The Wikipedia article on the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and the National Response Framework do not mention a role for the Corps. Citing public laws without proper references smacks of original research, not using tertiary sources. Therefore, I'm commenting out this section, for now. User:HopsonRoad 14:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I commented out the entire section until it can be written in clear, concise, descriptive language that summarizes, rather than lists the effect of the public laws in question. For now, it consumes too much space while providing too little information to a typical reader of an encyclopedia. User:HopsonRoad 14:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend looking at the Manual of Style's guidance on when and how to use embedded lists before restoring content in this section. User:HopsonRoad 15:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the Martis Creek picture have to do with the article? there is no reference to it, it's just randomly inserted and makes no sense. -Sincerely, concerned wikireader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.242.218.91 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be distinguished from the US Army Engineer Branch/Regiment "The US Army Corps of Engineers" and the organization US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This article is used as universally used as a link to the Engineer Branch when the article is in fact about the general engineering organization USACE, overseen by the US Army Engineer Branch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI1Q2W3E4R (talk • contribs) 10:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times article on USACE responsibility for Hurricane Katrina flooding

[edit]

This New York Times article might be useful as a reference for this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/decade-after-katrina-pointing-finger-more-firmly-at-army-corps.html "http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/us/decade-after-katrina-pointing-finger-more-firmly-at-army-corps.html" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on United States Army Corps of Engineers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

clarification request

[edit]

what percentage of US military personnel with a combat engineering rank/role is actually a part of this corps? 37000 ppl with only 2% military seems to indicate that most aren't — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.227.26.211 (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States Army Corps of Engineers. 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: 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) 07:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Europe Division

[edit]

Hi Folks, does anybody know where the Europe Division of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (a proper corps). This article Ernest James Harrell seemed to be in command of then. I cant see an article about that Division. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 21:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

USACE benchmarks

[edit]

In the past, the USACE installed benchmarks at various points to aid in surveying land and structures, as in this photo. Does USACE still install these markers? Or is this only something that was done in the past? Either way, I think it should be mentioned in the article. Pete unseth (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
Moved links in "General information" subsection here for any possible discussion and consensus":
Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. Sometimes there can be unchecked errors. :The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, should not generally have multiple sections. It seems that, when there is an "External links" section, three is a community wide acceptable number of links and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth. In the interest of the project consensus might alter this with a discussion.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
With the 23 links in the "Further reading" section (optional) the total equaled 28 links.
Further reading should be a reasonable number of works that a reader may consult for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject and limited.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
    • Please note:

Further reading cleanup

[edit]

See: Template:Further reading cleanup, the parenthetical comments, (Most editors object to more than about half a dozen publications, but the best number for a given article depends on the specific circumstances, and may range from zero to more than a dozen.) When the 28 links in the two mentioned sections are added to the five in the "See also" section (certainly an acceptable number) the new total equals 33 links. The Manual of Style states "a reasonable number". Please note the last sentence: Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links.

It seems the section could use a lot of trimming, certainly an assessment to determine the number of excessive links. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Units section

[edit]
Has there been any consideration, providing there are sources, to split the "Units" section into a separate list? -- Otr500 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Army_Corps_of_Engineers&oldid=1248259709"