Talk:Pershing Rifles

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled

This article needs to be cleaned up. In 1891, ROTC, as such, did not exist. ROTC was formed in 1916 as part of the National Defense Act of 1916 [1]. There WAS military training offered in land grant colleges but it was NOT the Reserve Officer Training Corps. This page needs citations all over the place.--Vidkun 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to where exactly in the article it says ROTC existed in 1891. It states that it exists now, which it does, but I don't see where it says it existed 100+ years ago. Also, I think you'll find that other than the sections I wrote, the entire article is a cut-and-paste job from the Pershing Rifles website. So yes, it needs a lot of cleaning up/rewriting, which has been on my to-do list for a while (but obviously not at the top or it would have been done by now). Feel free to help out if you're so inclined.--ScreaminEagle 01:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pershing_Rifles&diff=41470093&oldid=41345426 --Vidkun 14:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing Rifles Tactical Regiments: The 12th Brigade Pershing Rifles is the only tactical regiment. The 12th Brigade consists of

Company B-12 Boston University

Company C-12 Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Company D-12 Massachusetts Maritime Academy

Company E-12 Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Company F-12 Stonehill College

Members of B-12 pride themselves on military proficiency, tactical excellence, professionalism, and a demanding candidate program known as P/R Pledge Term. A 6-9 week course in all manner of military skills, pledge term not only helps prepare ROTC cadets for success later in ROTC, but also gives them leadership tools that they will eventually need as junior officers.

Making the choice to become a Pershing Rifleman is not always easy, but the potential rewards are great. Extra training is only the beginning; the bonds formed with fellow members will last a lifetime. Retired members have returned from combat deployments telling of how lessons from P/Rs have helped them lead their troops successfully, when it really matters.

P/Rs lead the way!

The preceding information is an advertisement, has nothing to do with the subject of the main article page, and lists no reliable sources for the claim. I have recently heard a number of reports about P/R being tactical in Massachusetts, but I see nothing on the PR webpage authorizing this.--Vidkun 14:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Non) Notable Alumni

At least half of the "Notable Alumni" section are non-notable in so far as they have no wikipedia article of their own. Some of them with links look to me to be also incorrect or linking to the wrong people. I don't know (or care) about the Pershing Rifles enough to edit/correct, but someone who does should. CAVincent (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, most of those names had been added directly from the PR homepage's list of notable PRs. As you noted, their definition of notable obviously differs from Wikipedia's definition. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downgrade

I'm downgrading this article to a Start class, a lot more referencing is needed for B-class. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENwe need to talk.• 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that as a university honor society, editors will not be able to find many formally published works on the subject of the Pershing Rifles. What is known about the society is typically learned as a pledge and passed down by unit tradition along with a few standard documents distributed by the national headquarters. I know something of the P/R's and find the information in this article to be substantially correct. More referencing may well be an admirable goal for B-Class articles, but this is a case in which it may be an impossible goal for editors of the article to achieve. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not verifiable, then maybe this entire article should be scrapped?--Vidkun (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe he said the article is unverifiable. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any references at the bottom, right? The references, particularly that of the official PRHQ website, detail specifically the history of the Pershing Rifles--essentially what you see here in the article. What Wilson said about traditions being passed down may well be correct, but those traditions that are only passed word of mouth are not what are written about in the article. What is in the article is all perfectly verifiable and to suggest otherwise is bordering on the ludicrous. For that reason alone (namely, the references I added months ago are still intact and quite useful) I will remove the verifiability/deletion tag. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only pointed out that it is unlikely one will find published works about the Pershing Rifles. BTW Vidkun, the information you deleted about tactical activities is not substantially correct; it is absolutely correct. I will, however, not engage in an edit war with you. Rather, I commend you to read http://www.colorado.edu/StudentGroups/PershingRifles/companyb9.htm and http://web.mit.edu/c12abn/www/history_c12.shtml . The development of tactical units came as a result of perceptions that ROTC cadets entering active duty during the Vietnam War needed more tactical training than they were getting in the standard ROTC curriculum. W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in an edit war, so, go ahead and take the accusation elsewhere. Show me a reliable source, other than the groups themselves, or there self published histories, that details all of the information in the article. Suggets looking at WP:ORG as well as WP:PRIMARY. If, as you say it is unlikely one will find published works about the Pershing Rifles then we have a problem wherein most of the information here violates policy. You can commend me to read whatever you want, but, having spoke with last year's National Commander, as well as the national adviser of PR, due to hazing issues with some PR units, I have primary source information (which, like most primary source info, is unusable here) that states Nation HQ does not approve of tactically focused groups using PR as a name.--Vidkun (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vidkun: You are free to delete material as you wish, but in doing so, you are also censoring Wikipedia. I take it you understand that much material in this encyclopedia was entered a long time before Wiki opted to encourage citations and referencing? Your apparent unwillingness to consider the links I have pointed out gives the impression of your having an agenda regarding this article. Since you are concerned with reliable sources, will you also undertake to remove all articles about other university societies/groups/fraternities/sororities that do not have published works about them ? The society exists and has a presence at many universities and colleges across the USA, so why shouldn't it have an entry in Wikipedia ?
Regarding edit wars, do you honestly think that putting a suggestion in the article's talk page that perhaps it should be deleted on one day and then marking the article for deletion the next day is an act that will convey an objective attitude on your part ? Maybe you could have -waited for some discussion- as there could well be editors interested in the article who don't check it on a daily basis or who don't have it watched.
Finally, the attitude today of National HQ regarding tactical groups is irrelevant. Those tactical groups existed and mentioning their existence in the article is simply mentioning part of P/R history. If the text should be modified to note that today those groups no longer exist, then well and fine -- but taking the time to do that is far better than simply deleting the text. W. B. Wilson (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then get reliable third party sources regarding the tactical aspects of PR, not self published works. your argument regarding other university societies/groups/fraternities/sororities that do not have published works about them is basically boiled down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Vidkun (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vidkun, instead of deleting material, why don't *you* find "reliable third party sources" to back up this article? IOW, make a positive contribution to the article instead of trying to remove it. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not the one asserting they exist - it's not my job. It's the job of people who add the material, or want to see it kept, to provide sourcing for it.--Vidkun (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems odd that you have made it "your job" to see this article deleted. I guess we can go in circles forever on this, it is just that I strongly favor inclusion over exclusion, especially in cases where an article simply gives a sketch history of an organization and its activities. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Favor inclusion all you want, I didn't make the policy regarding verifiability. That's where your beef really should lie.--Vidkun (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, no one is requiring you to push so hard for deletion either, are they? This article is verifiable and you could do it if you wished to make a positive contribution in this case. As it is, your approach is thoroughly negative and will only result in destruction of Wiki content. --W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity Type

Can we refrain from changing fraternity type from: Social/Military to anything else? The organization is poorly described as one that is "service", "honorary", or "professional". The purpose of the Pershing Rifles is literally: "to develop, to the highest degree possible, outstanding traits of leadership, military science, military bearing, and discipline within the framework of a military oriented, honorary fraternity."

Although mentioned within the purpose, the term "honorary" is incorrect to describe the fraternity as it is not an honor society but an organization one must be initiated into and complete a pledge process. Some members may be selected by merit but GPA and other academic achievement is not the sole selection tool for membership. The term "service" is arguable for any fraternal organization and as a result is redundant. Finally, the term "professional" is used incorrectly here. The Pershing Rifles are not a member of the Professional Interfraternity Conference nor is membership restricted to any particular profession or field of study. Dr Nikk (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Pershing Rifles is not a Fraternity or a Greek, it is a Fraternal Organization. Since the 1930s it's been considered an Honorary Society, academic merit alone is not the measure of an "Honor Society" an honor society is an organization that recognizes excellence among peers. Professional refers to the majority of Pershing Riflemen who go on to serve in the US Armed Forces. And lastly Service is a strong component of Pershing Rifles, although drill, social, and other aspects of Pershing Rifles are important so is the responsibility to Serve the Community and Nation, one can not be an effective leader without this service component. Ehrentitle (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? As a member of the Pershing Rifles I can assure you that it is indeed a fraternity in the college sense. Yes there is an alumni branch but the main focus of the National Society of Pershing Rifles falls on the shoulders of the undergraduate members. "Fraternity" and "fraternal organization" define the same things. I don't understand why you would attempt to differentiate them. Traditionally an honor society or honorary society is defined by academic merit. I assume since the 1930's someone has been confused. To call your fraternity honorary is derogatory. The majority of Pershing Riflemen are involved with the military yes but it is not a requirement to be a member of the organization. Finally, service is a strong component of most if not all fraternal organizations. It is redundant to say that a fraternity is a "service" organization. Dr Nikk (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from editing these sections of the article to meet your personal interpretation of what P/R is. This page is patrolled by NSPR. Ehrentitle (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Pershing Rifle. As a member of NSPR I have the right to edit this page. I am in fact, patrolling it. Are you member? Dr Nikk (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You indeed have the right to edit this page as long as your edits are based on NSPR National policy and are not simply your personal opinion. I'm a Pershing Rifleman, a former National Commander and currently the PAO/Historian for the Pershing Rifles Group, the corporate parent of Pershing Rifles. I'm a work friendly kind of guy, so e-mail me at: historian@theprgroup.org with your concerns and I will present them to the National Commander and the Chairman of the PR Group for resolution. If you are a P/R National Staff member then you should know how to contract them directly. In the mean time I'll change the characterization of the Organization in the info-box to "Fraternal/Military". I ask that you do not delete the paragraph on Drill as this comes directly out of an official NSPR publication, nor modify the web addresses of the organization which are correct. Ehrentitle (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Fraternity Association

As a note, Pershing Rifles is at this time, a member of the Professional Fraternity Association. I'm not sure when it joined, only that it wasn't a member when the PFA was formed by the merger of the PIC(Men's) and PPA(Women's) in 1968. See http://professionalfraternity.org/fraternal-members . *However* membership in the PFA is *not* the determining factor for what a group is, at least in the Fraternity infobox. That is generally determined by the section in which Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities places the group in. For example, Alpha Phi Omega is of type service as it is in the Service sub-section within the Recognition Section. I know that Pershing Rifles *is* included in Baird's I just don't remember what section (I can check when I get home, I own the most recent).Naraht (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Pershing_Rifles"