Talk:10th Cavalry Regiment (United States)

Pershing Failed?

Is this a typo, or a proper sentence? It seems poorly worded even if accurate. Ender78 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

• Renegade is a term for an outlaw, or someone who turns their faith. This is not accurate term for the Apaches that the 10th faced. In my opionion does not honor any of the combantants.
• I am disappointed that there is not more about what the the 10th accomplished in West Texas. This was a hostile place for the Buffalo Soldiers. Not only the native-americans, but the Mexicans, mexican-americans and whites did not appreciate their presence. Yet their presence help tame the wild west.--Rcollman 02:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

A bit weak on modern aspects. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The unit's involvement in the charge to take San Juan Heights is glanced over in quite amazing fashion. Someone does need to do this properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.178.168 (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Camp Lockett

I see that the unit history, as cited from globalsecurity, does not have any have any mention of the Regiment being moved to Camp Lockett, CA. I have been researching and edditing the Camp Lockett page, and have provided multiple reliable sources which confirm the Regiment having been moved there as part of the 4th Brigade of the 2nd Cavalry Division. Here are just a few reliable citable sources for which to support any edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Need I continue? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...it's possible one squadron was sent there, and another squadron elsewhere, making both accurate. I never heard about Camp Lockett though, during my stint in the 10th (Not to say it's not true). Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Major rework of article

I did a major rework of the article and it may now be ready for a B rating. Still some rough edges. I stressed the Battle of San Juan Heights in the article because I saw it as their finest hour - so to speak. Constructive input is welcome as always. Jrcrin001 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• DAB link check

It states links to 2 different disambiguation pages. But even after fixing them, it says it is still a problem. Thoughts or help?

• Web link check

Blue and green links okay to web pages but still a coded as a concern. Any thoughts or ideas? Jrcrin001 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed DAB problem. It was in a wikilink inside the title of a work in a cite. I'm upgrading this to B.--Ejosse1 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

does anyone know why they have the Castillian Coat of Arms as part of their Arms? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms represent the Indian campaigns, the Spanish-American War & the Philippine actions. I thought the link that explained this was here. But I was wrong. Now, I have to find it again. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"... and Sable a triangle on its base charged with a sun ombre de soleil ..." The triangle is armor (Tank) and being black represents that the 510th Tank Bn was originaly designated as a "Negro" unit. The face of the sun represents the Philippine Insurrection in which the 22nd Regiment and the 10th Cavalry share a common history. See related symbols here.

• 510th Tank Battalion, part of the 19th Armored Group attached to the 4th Infantry Division in support of the 22nd Regiment.
• 22nd Infantry Regiment
• 4th Infantry Division
• Seventh Army

I will try to get more later. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Links do not lead to any valid information ...

That page at http://www.carson.army.mil/units/4id/units/unitsindex.html does not have any valid information on it. What should be done about this? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I have had limited wiki contact and time over the last few months. Thus the delay in responding. The US Army like other organizations occasionally make changes and adjustments to their web pages. The general links were valid at the time of placement. Yes, sometimes you have to go a page or two into the web pages to find the info cited.

There is a fairly new (within the last 2 years or so) procedure within all the Wiki rules that deal with this. I believe it marks the links as no longer valid or needing attention. This allows notification for qualified people to update them. The process of challenging and immediately removing when an item had been properly cited is wrong. Don't believe me, look it up. Ask for help from Administrators if you need to.

For example: The Regimental Song of the Tenth Cavalry Regiment is now at: http://www.carson.army.mil/units/4id/units/2ndbde/110/110main.html If you had even Googled or looked a little bit more, you would have found the updated link.

Most responsible editors do a major update or rewrite and cite their sources properly. Then they move on. They write more articles and have limited time to defend, back track and update constantly changing links. This is one reason why Wikipedia is losing editors - because they have to spend more and more time defending or updating than writing. The graffiti clean up problem is another horrendous waste of energy and time. AND I will not say anything about the PC police on Wikipedia.

I am not trying to bite your head off. The problems are getting worse because the Wiki system has become a bureaucracy with too many rules, too many chiefs and not enough regular people who want to write. The majority of people of Wikipedia do not write, but do other things. My life requires time away from writing and helping others on Wikipedia. Sorry but that is reality.

Maybe you can help properly mark outdated links or update links that were changed instead of deleting? That would be helpful. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Did I delete? I frankly don't remember, since I do so much editing. Thanks for your comment. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI the link in question has been marked as archived. Use edit function to see how the ref was redone.

12:21, 6 February 2012‎ GeorgeLouis (talk | contribs)‎ (74,651 bytes) (→Regimental Song: Source does not give these lyrics, or any other. Challenging and removing. Reducing size of images.) (undo)

Best wishes. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking care of this matter. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Current active units - July 2015

A review online indicates the following 10th Cav unit that are active.

http://www.carson.army.mil/4id/unit-pages/1sbct.html
The 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team is comprised of seven subordinate units including: 2nd Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment; the 1st Battalion, 38th Infantry Regiment; the 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment; 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment; 2nd Battalion, 12th Field Artillery Regiment; the 299th Engineer Battalion; and 4th Brigade Support Battalion.

http://www.carson.army.mil/4id/unit-pages/2ibct.html
The Brigade Combat Team cased its colors in January 2015. In February 2015 as part of the Army’s realignment initiative 4th IBCT, 4th Infantry Division cased its colors and subsequently reactivated to become the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team.
NOTE: No element of the 10th is in the 2nd IBCT. See:
http://www.stewart.army.mil/units/home.asp?id=154

http://www.carson.army.mil/4id/unit-pages/3abct.html
The 3rd Brigade Combat Team is comprised of nearly 3,800 Soldiers including: 4th Squadron, 10th Cavalry Regiment; the 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment; the 1st Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment; the 3rd Battalion, 29th Field Artillery Regiment; the 3rd Special Troops Battalion; and 64th Brigade Support Battalion.

In addition the following link has a better list of Indian Wars engagements that need to be added to the article.
http://www.abuffalosoldier.com/engage.htm

Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 10th Cavalry Regiment (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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/spdes-123-ra_ar.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/indianwars.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.militarymuseum.org/CpLockett.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.buffalosoldiers-lawtonftsill.org/28-cav.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/topics/afam/2CD.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327135307/http://www.carson.army.mil/units/4id/units/unitsindex.html to http://www.carson.army.mil/units/4id/units/unitsindex.html

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) 22:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)