Talk:United States Space Force/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Lead image

While the current lead image (Space Force seal) is heraldically pleasing, it is also important for the lead image to be the most common representation of an organization - in this case the Space Force delta. From MOS:LEADIMAGE "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" and "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."

The Space Force seal is only reserved for official uses, which is not binding on Wikipedia, but helps explain why it is not commonly used to represent the Space Force (by the space force; some results are going to be skewed because of how recently they both were unveiled, and the controversy surrounding them both). The Space Force delta, on the other hand is the only logo used by the Space Force to represent itself, and is slowly being used by more reputable sources to represent the service in stories rather than its seal. The Space Force logo is used prominently on its website (spaceforce.mil), is used in its base signage [1]. It is also incorporated into its uniforms, both as a patch [2] and as a collar insignia [3] making clear that it is not just intended as a marking insignia, but as the primary symbol of the Space Force. It is the best fit for the lead image as it is the primary emblem of the Space Force. A good way to think of the difference is the NASA meatball (commonly used and highly recognized) vs the NASA seal (only used for official purposes). Garuda28 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Instead of three separate discussions in three separate places, since the argument against changing is consistency across all six military services, then there should be one centralized discussion so that it doesn't look like forum shopping. oknazevad (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm only concerned about the Army, Air Force, and Space Force lead images, however. The sea services don't run into the same issue since their logos and service marks both include the same symbiology (EGA, crow for Navy, crossed anchors for CG) so recognizability isn't a huge issue, where as for the Army, Air Force, and Space Force their service marks and logos are very different. I also haven't seen the same efforts towards a primary logo from those services either. I think the only area where consistence is a major concern is where the logos are presented next to each other (like the Army forces page). In war memorials they do this by using the service marks or seals, which is about the only place you see them in actuality. I know I've been an advocate of total consistency in the past, but I think that there are some overriding considerations here (with recognizability and use by the service being prime). Garuda28 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28:, I'm not saying I'm for or against this change as of yet, I'm wondering if you know about the usage, or lack there of, regarding the other branches and their marks? If this change is made on this page, it could affect the other 5 service pages, perhaps also the Armed Forces page. In fact, with that in mimd, this discussion may need a wider audience. (jmho) - wolf 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Note: I had already posted the above comment to the AF tp, then saw the "Lead image" posts to Army and here. I don't think we should spread this across 3 pages. There were no replies at Army yet, and mine was the only one at AF, so I struck it, and pointed both discussions here. fyi - wolf 21:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: That's an excellent point.
For the Coast Guard: The Coast Guard's page currently shows their seal, which they never use for the same reasons that the Space Force doesn't. Their current logo is what is shown on all of their websites and is the most common image used across the internet to describe them. Their logo is also incorporated into the racing stripes on their cutters. It makes sense, since the Coast Guard was one of the first services to embrace a whole of service brand identity.
For the Navy: The Navy was, up until recently, the only service to use their service mark in any major way. They've since replaced it with their Crow logo on all of their websites. The Office of the Chief of Naval Operations actually uses a office symbol derived from their service mark, and we recently had a user try to remove it on the WP page thinking that the service mark was for the OCNO, rather than the Navy as a whole.
For the Marine Corps: They use a digitized EGA on all of their websites. Not much use of their service mark as well (but considering its just an EGA within a disk with a border, that's not a surprise).
Most of the services marks that come up during image searches redirect to places to buy stickers, coins, hats, memorabilia (e.g. things targeted at selling something to veterans and families). Most of the independent RS I've come across (news sources) use their logos to describe them instead. The services themselves never use their seals and very rarely use their service marks (when they do its usually a derivation for some sort of office), but rather entirely use their logos - which makes sense, that's what any company would do when branding. Also, each of the services incorporates their logos on to their uniforms in some capacity (usually PT uniform, but the Army, Air Force, and Space Force have expanded to using them on the service uniforms) - point I'm trying to make with that its that it is a whole-of-service branding/identification logo and not just a marketing/recruiting logo. Either way, the use of the logo is way more widespread among RS and the services themselves than the service marks are.
For the Armed Forces page I can think of three solutions since there is no : 1. Keep the service marks and seals since they fit the same pattern of a disk (the only places their used in this way is congressional offices or war memorials, but it would match that), but change on the main pages (which ever consensus we come to) to reflect actual use and common recognition; 2. Change the some of the service marks to logos to keep standardization across the pages and maximize reader recognition (flags are also an option, but that could get kind of cluttered); 3. Do away with the logos all together and put together a selection of photos (like at War on terror) to visually highlight each of the branches of the military. The big point I really want to make is that even though I personally like the older-style service marks, Wikipedia is about the only place that uses them to represent the services that isn't trying to sell you something. I'm less concerned about the Navy/Marine Corps/Coast Guard since their logos/service marks share the same core images that are easily recognizable, but the Air Force/Space Force/Army's share little (if any) commonality and that poses a recognizability problem for a lead image. Garuda28 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild:@Oknazevad: any further thoughts? Thewolfchild put a notice at the armed forces page and I made a post at MILHIST that hasn’t seemed to generate much interest, so my next step that I’m contemplating is putting a notice at RfC to get some more perspectives. Garuda28 (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I still think consistency among not just the armed services but all US government agencies (because the armed services are indeed government agencies) speaks to using the formal seals, which are used in other government agencies' articles, not informal logos. The logos still appear near the beginning in the infobox. oknazevad (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought for sure the milhist notice would get some responses [but apparently I'm not very good at posting such notices ;-) ]. I think oknaz mskes a couple of good points about consistency and that the modern logos are already in the infobox. But if you feel strongly about it and wanna do an RfC, go for it. You have nothing to lose and maybe the community will get behind your proposal. Cheers - wolf 20:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Should the lead image of the U.S. Army, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard articles be their service mark (or seal for Space Force/Coast Guard) or their logo? Navy and Marine Corps could also be considered for inclusion. Garuda28 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

For the images in question the service marks/seals are
Service marks (or seals for Space Force/Coast Guard)
  • Army service mark
    Army service mark
  • Air Force service mark
    Air Force service mark
  • Space Force service mark
    Space Force service mark
  • Coast Guard seal
    Coast Guard seal
Service symbols/logos (or service mark for Coast Guard)
  • Army logo
    Army logo
  • Air Force symbol
    Air Force symbol
  • Space Force delta
    Space Force delta
  • Coast Guard service mark
    Coast Guard service mark

Usage

Army: The Army service mark appears to be rarely used by the Army itself; most usage I've found seems to be on veteran memorabilia and most google image searches that display the Army service mark are trying to sell a product. The Army "Star" logo is used on almost all Army websites (recruiting and main .mil sites). It is also used as the shoulder sleeve insignia (approved by the institute of heraldry [4]) for the Army staff (see [5] for image of GEN McConville wearing it in his AGSU) and is worn on the Army PT uniform [6]. The Army, as a service, does not have a seal.
Air Force: The Air Force service mark appears to be rarely used by the Air Force itself; most usage I've found seems to be on veteran memorabilia and most google image searches that display the Air Force service mark are trying to sell a product. The Air Force symbol is used on all Air Force websites (recruiting and main .mil sites). It also is used at the signs of all Air Force bases [7] and has been incorporated into the service uniforms lightweight blue jacket [8] and the PT uniform [9]. The Air Force, as a service, does not have a seal.
Space Force: The Space Force seal is never used by the service to represent itself, as government seals are reserved for internal, official use only and thus never used in a public facing way by the services. The Space Force delta is used on all Space Force websites. It also is used at the signs of Space Force bases [10], is used as the Space Staff's patch [11], as the collar insignia [12], on the lightweight blue jacket [13].
Coast Guard: The Coast Guard seal is never used by the service to represent itself, as government seals are reserved for internal, official use only and thus never used in a public facing way by the services. The Coast Guard's service mark is used on all Coast Guard websites. It also is used at the signs of Coast Guard stations [14], used in their PT uniform [15], and has been incorporated into the racing stripes on their cutters [16].
Navy and Marine Corps there are similar arguments for the Navy and Marine Corps, but their service marks are more commonly used than the aforementioned services. (Marine Corps service mark directly incorporates the EGA, while the Navy's logo is different [17])

The service logo/symbols are more recognizable to the average user than the service marks (which despite looking more formal, are not official seals, and hold the same status as service marks). In fact, the use of the seals on the Space Force/Coast Guard pages could bring up legal considerations (https://www.defense.gov/Resources/Trademarks/DOD-Trademark-Licensing-Guide/) as, according to the DoD they "may be used only by the Military Departments for official purposes and are protected by law from unauthorized use." Garuda28 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - in regards to the service marks/logos you're proposing, that section of the DoD guide you cited goes on to state: "These emblems, coats of arms, initials, symbols and other military identifiers (hereafter referred to collectively as "Military Service marks") may not be used without prior written permission." So it seems if there is any legal jeopardy here, it applies across the board ;-). But, I'm not really sure there's anything to be concerned about becuase I believe these images are public domain (at least that's what is indicated under the "Licensing" section of each image page), and the issue of WP using official federal government seals was already addressed back in 2010.

    I was also hoping we could clear up some terminology here; the seven "seals" currently used to represent the DoD and the six service branches on their respective articles are referred to as "official seals" in that DoD guide, while everything else (logos, emblems, coats of arms, symbols, etc.) are grouped under "service marks". I think this might be helpful going forward. (fyi) - wolf 21:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

    • @Thewolfchild: Thanks for bringing up the FBI casestudy - I wasn't aware if the issue had been litigated here, so it's helpful to see that its non-issue. With regard to the actual categorizations of the images: there are three specific categories:
1. you've got seals (of which we only are using the SF and CG seals here; the DA, DoN, and DAF seals aren't used to represent services in this context because of the confusion between military department and military service, although they are sometimes used interchangeably by the "senior service" in that specific military department)
2. the term service mark is used on the trademark page to refer to anything that is not a seal, but the term "service mark" is also specifically used to refer to the images that look like seals, but aren't seals (what we currently have on the Army/Navy/Marine Corps/Air Force pages are considered service marks or marks, but not seals, although the DoD trademark page has mislabeled them as such, the service trademark pages have them properly labeled as an emblem or service mark or mark - they don't seem to have standardized terminology across the services on this one, for instance the Air Force seal-like service mark is called the Air Force emblem on its trademark page. I could be totally messing up the terminology as well, but what I’m trying to refer to is the disk emblems that are not technically seals but look like them);
3. broadly, logos are the more "modern designs" that are most commonly used.
It's important to note that while the other services draw a distinction between service marks and logos, the Coast Guard and Space Force don't have separate seal-like service marks and logos (although the Coast Guard does include its racing stripes as secondary logo). Does that make sense, or did I just make it more confusing? Garuda28 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally I prefer the seal-like designs as they're consistent with other federal agencies, such as the aforementioned FBI. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Comment, with a potential solution @Oknazevad:@Thewolfchild: You actually just gave me an idea! Both NASA and the Environmental Protection Agency display their logos (the famous meatball, in NASA's case) and their seals at the top of the infobox because of how infobox government agency and infobox space agency are set up. The military organization infobox is not set up this way - but I think I have a solution. If you input ([File:Seal of the United States Space Force.png|frameless]][File:Logo of the United States Space Force.png|frameless]] for an up down image or [File:Seal of the United States Space Force.png|frameless|upright=0.5]][File:Logo of the United States Space Force.png|frameless|upright=0.5]] for a side by side image).
My thought is that would both not only display the formal seal/mark and the more recognizable logo at the top of the infobox, giving both a position of prominence (with the seal on top or to the left, in the senior position and mirroring the other agency infoboxes) and taking care of my concerns or recognizability, but it would actually mirror the format of the other government agencies exactly! I tried it out, and (especially with the 0.5 version) its not unsightly at all. What are your thoughts on this?Garuda28 (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like an idea that might just work. oknazevad (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I occasionally have those every once in a while. Shouldn't be hard to implement!Garuda28 (talk) 01:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you do go the RFC route, you could look into doing a formal listing at RFC, which involves including the RFC template on this page, and will get people from all over Wikipedia to comment. You may also want to collapse the "Usage" text under the logos, as RFC's typically have a VERY short intro question (1 paragraph or less). Finally, you will probably want to add sub-headings "survey" and "discussion", to make it very easy to tally the votes. Votes will of course go in the survey section. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wasn't quite sure what you were trying to describe above, but I see the change you made and it seems like a reasonable compromise. - wolf 04:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. [18] The images look a little big to me. Consider shrinking them and putting them side by side. That's what that "United States space program sidebar" does right below the infobox, and it looks pretty good. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
The size looks fine to me (jmho), but the layout is the same as proposed in the infoboxes on the NASA and EPA articles. Sidebars are different. The current change seems reasonable, but making the images smaller and then cramming them side-by-side may create problems. - wolf 15:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of mention that Trump signed the Space Force Act

@BilCat: I'm honestly not sure the relevance of adding this, since bills are just signed by whomever the sitting President is. While he talked about it a great deal, it was almost exclusively from a political perspective rather than actually developing and championing the service. I would propose that instead of mentioning who signed the bill (which tells very little, since it’s just whomever the sitting President is), that we instead make note that it was developed by Representatives Mike Rogers and Jim Cooper, who were the ones to develop the first space corps proposal and push it though congress. (Which was solidified as a proposal by the time trump first spoke about it in 2018). Garuda28 (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

IIRC, the original Space Corp proposal was all but DOA when first proposed. It was Trump who actually championed the idea, which resulted in the original proposal getting a second chance. I could be wrong, and of course we rely on reliable published sources, but that's what I remember at the time. Perhaps later sources have downplayed Trumps role, but he played a big part, like him or not. And everything in Washington is ultimately political, especially legislation. BilCat (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Here are three early versions of the article, two from July 2017, Oct 2017, and June 2018 (right before the move to the USSF title). BilCat (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Trump got it through the Republican senate, but the actual content of the bill was all those two representatives. It’s not a matter of liking him or not – most sources I've read since 2018 state that he didn't play a huge role in the process outside of using it as a campaign prop. Reps Cooper and Rogers were the ones who did all of the concept, championing, and shepherding of the concept from 2017 to 2019 (in fact the final legislation was literally the exact same word for word, save the title). Considering we mention trump in the reception, I'm still unclear on what value it brings on who signed the bill (especially +10 years from now), since it just is a result of who is in office in the time. Garuda28 (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The bill was dead until Trump revived interest in getting it through. I really don't see how you don't get that. Btw, I consider it poor form to revert back and even add in new content in the middle of a discussion, especially since it's obvious I haven't agreed to it yet. Given that the previous version was there for a long time, there's no consensus to make your changes. BilCat (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops. I misremembered, but subsequently recalled that Trump was added just before your revert. Sorry. BilCat (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
My, apologies. My intent was to perform a BOLD edit if there wasn't a response in the next day and see where it went from there. While Trump certainly gave a boost to the proposal in the senate, I think it’s important to note that Rogers and Cooper were the ones who really pushed it forward (the Hamiltons of the Space Force, so to speak) and made it their intent to repropose it in 2019 regardless. In the overall scheme, Trump didn’t play a central role in developing the service proposal, and mostly cheerleaded it from mid-2018 on. It seems really unnecessary to me to list who signed the bill though, since it doesn't really provide any context other than who was president at the time of its signing. More details of Trump contributions can be found in the history section, which provides the full context. Garuda28 (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
How does this verbiage look? Garuda28 (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Sino-Russian Lunar Base, MOU

As there is now a Memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed between the Chinese and Russian space agencies (CNSA and Roscosmos), in what article might cislunar activities be documented.[1] There is a projected timeline stretching from the 2030s to 2045.[2] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, maybe Space station#Planned projects, Lunar Orbital Station, or Moonbase. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jessie Yeung (10 Mar 2021) China and Russia agree to build joint lunar space station
  2. ^ Eric Berger (9 Mar 2021) Russia turns away from NASA, says it will work with China on a Moon base

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

The second sentence of the page reads in part "the Space Force part of the Department of the Air Force..." It seems like the word "is" should come after "Space Force." Pvlockhart (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done BilCat (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Given that the Russian Space Forces are said in that article to have been independent before mergers in 1997 and again 2011 isn't calling the USSF the "world's first" overstating things? "Only currently independent" is enough to state uniqueness. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC) 96.250.80.27 (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is complicated, so it needs to be discussed beforehand. BilCat (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

World's first??

As noted in my semi-protected edit request I think the Russian Space Forces as described in that article make the lead-sentence declaration that the USSF is the "world's first" an overstatement. It's the only one currently independent but not the only one that has ever existed. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources do say it’s (USSF) the worlds first, however. RuSF also was organized as a independent troops (rod), but not a military service (vid). Garuda28 (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing the SEAC rank insignia image

Skjoldbro, SuperWIKI, Garuda28, thewolfchild, Claudevsq, BilCat, Cuprum17, and Maliepa: While I have very little doubt that the Space Force would "currently" adopted the Air Force's version of the SEAC insignia, we cannot say that it is completely accurate. We know fore here that rank insignias all the way to CMSSF has an insignia, but that announcement did not include the SEAC. We also know that a Space Force guardian has yet to be SEAC. And lastly, we know that the Space Force is creating their own rank insignias here, which may look difference from their Air Force counterparts. I believe these new rank insignias may be adapted before a guardian would be appointed SEAC. Since you eight are the most prominent users that edit the U.S. Armed Forces pages that I know of, I would like to gauge your opinions on this. Neovu79 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Neovu79: The Space Force announced that it was using all Air Force rank insignia (save the temp CMSSF rank) until it unveils its permanent rank insignia. My understanding is that includes the SEAC insignia, whose rank is currently on the books for all services. Garuda28 (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Would you be able to link a source for that announcement? I have not been able to locate that. All the sources I've located state that they will adopt Air Force rank insignias, but they don't states that they will adopt all of them. Neovu79 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Neovu79: Sure thing! (https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/2487814/space-force-releases-service-specific-rank-names/). The specific section is "Guardians will wear Air Force rank insignia until the Space Force finalizes its own rank insignia designs, which is expected sometime in the coming months." It seems to state that all USAF ranks are on the books until the transition happens. Garuda28 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The link you provided also states that "the Space Force will use the following rank names across all Space Force systems and in all manners of address," and does not mention the SEAC nor is the SEAC listed. Neovu79 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find any AF rank tables that include the SEAC (or chief of NGB for that matter) either. It appears to be a simplified list, neglecting to include first sergeants or command chiefs, which are both confirmed in use by the Space Force as well (https://www.spoc.spaceforce.mil/Biographies/Display/Article/2380678/john-f-bentivegna and https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2020/09/15/from-uniforms-to-first-sergeants-space-force-gets-down-to-basics/), so I wouldn't read into that omission too much. There doesn't seem to be much consistency among the armed forces on which special enlisted ranks are included or excluded from rank tables. What we do know so far is that, with one exception, USSF ranks are identical to USAF ranks, and that the SEAC can come from any armed service. Garuda28 (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
While I do see your point about first sergeants not appearing in the above mentioned, the difference in my opinion, is that we have verifiable sources stating that the Space Force is using the rank and we do have a source with a SF guardian in rank. Since only one person can be SEAC, I don't think we should make that assumption. Neovu79 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Neovu79: I believe that is fair, at least until USSF rank insignia are released. I do believe SEAC (the rank, not the insignia) should remain on the table however, as the SEAC has been stated to be able to come from any of the services (https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-military/2019/12/10/theres-a-new-rank-insignia-for-the-militarys-top-enlisted-adviser/). Garuda28 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. I too believe the rank itself should stay, as any non-commissioned officer in the armed forces can be appointed as SEAC, which includes the Space Force. I just don't think the image should be there, yet. Neovu79 (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Neovu79: First of all, I must confess to being flattered at being called a fellow regular. Thank you! As for the SEAC insignia, I am certain that the SEAC insignia that service branches have yet to fill (i.e. the Marine Corps, Navy and Space Force) will be very similar to what we already have for the Army and Air Force. That having been said, we simply do not have a definitive answer to justify that a Space Force SEAC will use identical AF insignia for the position, at least not yet. Would prefer not to make (even if reasonable) assumptions or "gap-filling" until said definitive answer comes. I also request some deeper clarity on a connected "Marine SEAC TIOH" insignia matter. SuperWIKI (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm certainly out of my depth on this one, but I lean towards Garuda's take on this. BilCat (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, without a definitive source showing the insignia, this crosses into WP:SYNTH territory. Same with he other services that have not yet had someone in the position. Their inclusion rests on the assumption that, since the Army and Air Force have used insignia that consists of their E-9 insignia with 4 stars and an eagle perched on arrows in the middle for their members that have been appointed SEAC so far, that any subsequent appointees from the other branches would do the same. That assumption is unproven and probably faulty (the Navy's insignia would then have two birds). There has been no Space Force holder of the appointment as yet, so putting any insignia is SYNTH, and should be removed. oknazevad (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Should there be list articles for generals?

Other services have had articles listing holders of four-star and three-star rank. By my count the USSF has had Raymond and D. Thompson as four-star generals and

(I believe that is the correct order by date of rank?) as three-stars...? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean like this list? - wolf 17:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
And these? SuperWIKI (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
If they have existed they need to be linked better (and the rank order for Saltzman and Armagno does not match the dates in their bio articles). 96.250.80.27 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Problem with an article? Feel free to WP:FIXIT. Problem with your search box? Feel free to REPORTIT.
You're welcome. - wolf 22:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

New Top Secret Space Weapon

User:Garuda28, have you seen this recent article here on an alleged "Top Secret Space Weapon"?Davidbena (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021

Olson has replaced Kimberly Crider as Acting CTIO (as reflected elsewhere) so she needs to be removed from the chart of HQ officers. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done - wolf 01:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

New enlisted insignia have been announced

I added links to the article on rank insignia so someone can import those here? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Given UFO Intelligence Role From DNI?

The Space Force has reluctantly accepted the role of investigating UFOs from the DNI.[19] Chantern15 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15

Actually, there is a UAP (UFO) task force currently headed up by the Navy, and the Pentagon is looking to have SF take over. SF leadership isn't happy about it because of all the space-jokes that have gone on since SF was created. There is mention of a report to Congress on recent UAP sightings mentioned in the article though. - wolf 21:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm...I did not know that, so should the article be changed to reflect this new info?Chantern15 (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
The Politico story says "The Pentagon is considering giving the Space Force a greater role in a stepped-up effort to track and investigate reports of UFOs". It doesn't say they have been given the role, so your Talk header is wrong and misleading. In any case, WP:NOTNEWS. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Added question mark to reflect that. I didn't know that. Well, let the editors decided what info they choose to include. I have no problem.Chantern15 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
Just out of curiosity, you read the Politico article, right? - wolf 21:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I did, I just assumed that they would've done it by now.Chantern15 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)chantern15

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

Under the Reception section, add "citation needed" to the sentence 'The Space Force was accused of being a "vanity project" for President Trump, despite the concept being debated since the 1990s as a means to counter Chinese and Russian military threats in space.' 208.88.203.0 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done the ref at the end of the very next sentence supports this content. - wolf 04:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"First Space War" title not supported by source referenced.

This article claims that the Gulf War (as part of Operation Desert Storm) was referred to as the first space war. While a source referenced does show that it was called this, the source used to make this claim contextualizes this title as being "misleading [and] inaccurate." I suggest that this claim be either removed from the article or edited to provide context.

The article summary at the top, without a source, claims that:

"The first major employment of space forces culminated in the Gulf War, where they proved so critical to the U.S.-led coalition, that it is sometimes referred to as the first space war."

and later in the History section under Air Force military space program (1945-2019) that:

"The tactical employment of space forces culminated in the Gulf War, where space forces proved so critical to the U.S.-led coalition, that it is sometimes referred to as the first space war."

The claim in the history section references Spires 1998, which I presume is also the source for claim at the summary at the top. However, in a note on this First Space War title, Spires notes that:

"6. Shortly after the conflict, commentators referred to Desert Storm as the first space war. Although also used by Air Force leaders such as Chief of Staff General Merrill McPeak, the phrase was largely a journalistic label used to highlight the visible use of space systems in support of warfighting during the Gulf War. The term came to be viewed as misleading, incorrect, and somewhat threatening from the military perspective." [page 335-336, or page 375 on the referenced PDF]

The article does not contextualize the "first space war" claim as a journalistic label, or as being viewed as misleading or incorrect. I believe the article should be edited to remove the claim, or edited to echo the context that the source provides.

https://media.defense.gov/2011/Jan/25/2001330110/-1/-1/0/AFD-110125-038.pdf

Malle Yeno (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

This is interesting in that the source confirms the term was used by primary and secondary sources, so I don't see how it just be outright removed. As for context, while the this source states it was "misleading", it itself doesn't provide any details or context as to why they believe this to be case. Let's see what others might have to say. - wolf 23:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The extensive use of GPS and surveillance satellites in orbit (space) is the missing context. Searching “gulf war space war” turns up many good sources like this. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I added a couple of citations to more current references. It's clear there isn't any real controversy regarding the use of the term. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Obsolete size figure

The opening section continues to say that the USSF numbers 4,840 personnel but the second-anniversary video https://www.aftc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2879471/space-force-celebrates-2nd-birthday/ features the CSO saying there are "over 6,650 active duty guardians". 12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed fyi- the infobox had the updated numbers with an af source attached. - wolf 10:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Not the first space force?

The beginning of the article states that the US Space Force is the world's first space force. The citation for this is a small media company and a tweet from twitter?

The Russian Space Forces have existed in its current iteration since 2015. And other iterations of it have existed before that. So that would contradict the statement that the US Space Force is the world's first? This needs more citation or it should be removed as it seems to be inaccurate. 89.19.67.142 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Russian Space Forces are not an independent branch. Two citations seem good enough for now, unless you have a source that indicates otherwise (directly). Garuda28 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Citation: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2001-07/russia-re-establishes-independent-space-forces — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.151.105 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The Tweet and the Futurism headline would appear to be exaggerations possibly arising from Trump hyperbole. However it is accurate that the US space force is currently the only independent space force, since Russia moved its formerly independent force under the umbrella of their air forces [20]. So I would modify the sentence "and the world's first and currently only independent space force..." to read "and currently the only independent space force...". <--- Hm. This may also need to be excised, since [21], [22] etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jadolphe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Add AFRL to units under Space Systems Command

Parts of the Air Force Research Laboratory are own by the Space Force and Space Systems Command has administrative control of the Space Force personnel and programs in the designated units below.[1]

Name Function Headquarters
Limited Administrative Control Units
Space Labs of AFRL Space Vehicles Directorate, Space Electro-Optics Division, Rocket Propulsion Division, and various smaller AFRL units Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.45.22 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.airforcemag.com/air-force-research-laboratory-will-realign-not-split/

This sounds really petty, just saying as a third party observer.

"On 20 December 2019, the United States Space Force Act, developed by Democratic representative Jim Cooper and Republican representative Mike Rogers, was signed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act by President Donald Trump,"

Just change it to this:

"On 20 December 2019, the United States Space Force Act, developed by Jim Cooper and Mike Rogers, was signed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act by President Donald Trump," If they want to find out who Jim Cooper and Mike Rogers are, well, we hyperlinked to them. This seems like the result from a petty feud and if I dug through the history I wouldn't be surprised if two separate people added each name one at a time. 76.179.51.51 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is to emphasize that it was a bipartisan, rather than partisan creation. It had encyclopedic value because so many in the general public have the incorrect assumption that it was a single party partisan creation. Also it’s importation to mention that they are Representatives, otherwise they’re just two random people. Garuda28 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I still stand by my interpretation. I can see why you would say it has encyclopedic value, but at the same time I think the hyperlink is well enough. Well, no big deal anyway. 76.179.51.51 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2022

America is NOT the only country with a 'Space force' the UK also has one. Please correct it. --91.110.203.45 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing to correct--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BilCat (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Here you go: https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/uk-space-command/ 185.13.50.186 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
It's a command, not a space force. BilCat (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The sentence in the lead is more than a bit hyperbolic, sourced to an article headline with no other context, and a Twitter post (?). Seems a bit WP:UNDUE to me. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
It is an accurate statement, however, and the Twitter post is from the Space Force's official social media, so that is no issue. I don't consider it WP:UNDUE to note it is currently the world's only independent space force. Garuda28 (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

CTIO Change of Leadership - from BGen Olson to Dr. Lisa A Costa

Request change for CTIO leadership to Dr. Costa. Reference: https://www.spaceforce.mil/SFB/Display/Article/2794420/dr-lisa-a-costa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmorea1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Gilmorea1:  Done. KingEdinburgh (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2022

Change Los Angeles Garrison to Space Base Delta 3 Reboudreau (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Do you have a source to support this change? - wolf 15:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Per the United States Space Force, the Los Angeles Garrison has been deactivated and redesignated Space Base Delta 3. https://www.losangeles.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/3094905/los-angeles-welcomes-new-base-commander-to-lead-space-base-delta-3/ Reboudreau (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Leah Lauderback is a Lieutenant General

The article incorrectly states that she is a Major General. 0gravitytampabay (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed - FlightTime (open channel) 02:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Song

The Space Force just announced its new song titled "Semper Supra." Can someone more skilled than I update the song in the info box. Master Editor 10 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Master Editor 10. Can someone put the song in please? Faithful15 (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
It's already been fixed Master Editor 10 (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes the lyrics is there, but there is no recording of the song, @Master Editor 10. Faithful15 (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Master Editor 10 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. So, again, can someone please put in the recording of the song? Faithful15 (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Commander of SpOC West has changed

Current Commander of SpOC West and Combined Force Space Component Command is Maj. Gen. Douglas A. Schiess 132.1.47.22 (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

USSF is not unique as an independent branch

China's People's Liberation Army Strategic Support Force(PLASSF), India's Defence Space Agency(DSA)(a multi-service agency), NASA, NOAA, The Brazilian Space Agency(AEB), SpaceX and Rocket Lab all field space fleets as independent branches, agencies or organizations. This list is not comprehensive. The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces(VVKO) was an independent branch as well, so the US is definitely not breaking new ground nor can it be called "the world's only independent space force" by any means. This error is gratuitous, prominent and possibly chauvinistic and/or violates WP:NPOV, and should be corrected. 108.49.179.27 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A military "space force" is not the same as a non-military government, civilian, or private "space fleet" by any means. The other existing military groups aren't independent, while the VVKO wasn't a top-level branch. BilCat (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
This is incorrect. PLASSF and DSA are independent governmental organizations under their own control. PLASSF is a branch of the PLA just like the USSF and DSA operates independently while drawing on resources from across the Indian armed forces. The VVKO was originally a separate branch, the Russian Space Forces, and was later merged with the Air Force to create the Russian Aerospace Forces branch which by definition includes Russian space forces.
If the term space force is delimited to only military organizations that only operate vehicles and equipment designed for the exosphere and beyond then that should be made explicit, because there is broad and deep overlap between military space and air organizations generally and commercial space services and non-military governmental agencies specifically. The original gross error remains regardless. 108.49.179.27 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have sources to support these ascertions? - wolf 03:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I drew them from the Wikipedia articles about the organizations in question. My first comment has inline internal links to each Wikipedia page. 108.49.179.27 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Those aren't sources. Civil agencies or joint commands are not the same as a full independent space force. Garuda28 (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
I provided references, which are sourced by and for Wikipedia. If these are incorrectly sourced, please rectify these additional errors. Your second comment about "Civil agencies or joint commands" is not coherent. The USSF is part of a joint command when required, for example, and the DSA, which operates independently, is neither a civil agency nor part of a joint command but fields a military space force irregardless. 108.49.179.27 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Considering how many of these articles that I've written substantial portions of here, I think I know what I'm talking about on this topic. The U.S. Space Force is currently the world's only independent space force. Russia used to have an independent space force, but it is now part of the Russian Aerospace Forces. China's PLA Strategic Support Force is the only other organization that comes close, possessing elements of both a space force and a cyber force.Garuda28 (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
An unsupported blanket assertion, appeal to authority and strawmanning do not remedy this gross factual error, and reinforce the suspicion that this error might be deliberate and originates in non-NPOV pro-American chauvinism. It should be corrected/amended and/or removed, a far simpler and more expedient remedy than continuing to argue in favor of a blatant falsehood. 108.49.179.27 (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Blatant personal attacks, wikilawyering, bludgeoning, and IDLI/IDHT battleground responses are no way to collegially work towards a consensus, for a neutrally worded and reliably supported solution. Maybe take a break, come back in a few days with a new attitude and maybe a resolutiom will present itself. (jmho) - wolf 05:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No thank you. You are not arguing in good faith despite my efforts to adhere to WP:AGF and have now attempted to derail any substantive discussion with hand-waving, baseless accusations and insincere, patronizing comments about my "attitude". I am content to point out the inaccuracy, and inconsistency with other related Wikipedia pages, and let the record stand that you both claim some responsibility for this page and refuse to correct the error or discuss it constructively. 108.49.179.27 (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

You need to specify who the "you" is in your last comment, (becuase I don't see how it could be me). - wolf 20:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

History Surrounding How The USSF Started

Neil deGrasse Tyson was on a commission appointed by George W Bush to explore the future of the United States space aerospace industry. There have been attempts beforehand about putting forward a Space force, by other presidents. These are the things readers need when understanding this branch of the military and why its important. 2A04:CEC0:F01B:3BB0:45BD:6D00:A7D8:301B (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but if you requesting and an edit, it should be posted in a "please change 'x' to 'y'" format, and you would need to include sourcing to support said requested change(s). Thank you - wolf 06:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Space Force is a rename and readjusted version of the US Space Command

Why not make it clear that the Space Force is really just the same as the preceding United States Space Command that existed from all the back in the 1980's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.128.77 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's more than just a rename. BilCat (talk) 03:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

USSF Structure (notes taken directly from USSF-67 Mission)

Space Systems Command:

- Staff: 1500

- HQ: in El Segundo, California

- Launches from: SLD45 & SLD30 (Space Launch Delta 45, Patrick Space Force Base & Space Launch Delta 30, Vandenberg Space Force Base)

Programme Executive Offices:

- ASSURED ACCESS TO SPACE - Procures launch services

- BATTLE MANAGEMENT COMMAND CONTROL AN DCOMMUNICATION - Warfighting Operations

- SPACE DOMAIN AWARENESS AND COMBAT POWER - Threat detections

- MILTARY COMMUNICATIONS, POSITION, NAVIGATION AND TIMING - Asset management

- SPACE SENSING - Space threat monitoring 1.123.98.159 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Order of field commands

The section of this article on STARCOM makes a big deal of that field command’s place among the three (“third and final”). Is this just bad writing, or is there a hierarchy of the field commands not explained here (and/or a guarantee that there will be no further field commands)? Structure of the United States Space Force makes no reference to such an ordering and seems to imply the three field commands are of equal status in the org chart, and Structure of the United States Space Force is ambiguous on the point. —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 21:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semper Supra redirect

Now that we have Semper Supra (march), I think that Semper Supra should redirect to that page and not to the U.S. Space Force. @162 etc.:, since you revered that change I'd like to hear your thoughts! Garuda28 (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

FA nom

This article has a large amount of redundant info (such as US Armed Forces medals that are not specific to Space Force), and uncited material in tables. All material in the article should be directly relevant to Space Force, and needs to be cited to a reliable source. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Just saw that my edit adding trump as signer of bill was removed. Is there a reason why Trump should not be named the way the other presidents were? Seems kind of incomplete and conspicuous to mention a bill being signed without mentioning who when two other presidents were mentioned in the same paragraph for almost doing a similar action. 47.232.91.253 (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. Seems others here mentioned same thing. Please disregard 47.232.91.253 (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Factual edit to the page is being disputed by user Sundayclose

I added an edit to credit President Donald J Trump as the President that signed the bill that established the US Space Force. That fact is indisputable, yet Sundayclose wants to quash it. What is the motivation behind this? Why deny credit where credit is due, despite the fact that you don't personally like the person that deserves credit? Windtech (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

This was already discussed at Talk:United_States_Space_Force/Archive_2#Inclusion_of_mention_that_Trump_signed_the_Space_Force_Act. Additionally, aside from talking about it since 2018, Trump had very little to do with the development of the Space Force. Ample discussion on his role, or perceived role, can be found in the reception section of the article. Garuda28 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
There's not an actual consensus in that discussion. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's major points, and Trump is mentioned nine times in the Reception section. That's pretty major to me, and warrants a mention of some sort in the lead. BilCat (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: I'd like to hear your thoughts on this since you initiated the reversions. On a separate note, I'm not a fan of how big the reception section is (combination of WP:NOTNEWS and a little to close to WP:Criticism) and have been looking for specific areas to put sections in (like the discussion on Guardians and the Delta). Garuda28 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Windtech: A reliably sourced fact is necessary to make an edit, but it is not necessarily sufficient. We don't add everything that is a fact simply because it is a fact. In this case, Trump's involvement in creation of the Space Force isn't any more notable than the efforts of many others who had much more to do with it than Trump did. The fact that it ended up on his desk for a signature is incidental. If he had refused to sign it, that would have been notable, but his signature isn't. The edit adds nothing of substance to the article. You'll need a clear consensus to make the edit. Sundayclose (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, the fact that Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 that made the Air Force a separate service is included in the Department of the Air Force article, so the fact that Trump signed the act that split off the Space Force doesn't seem to be insignificant. The fact that it is continuously questioned (see below) tells me that the consensus to omit it is a weak one and should be reconsidered, possibly with an RFC. oknazevad (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The bill that Truman signed was a lot more than creation of the Air Force. It was a major overhaul of the U.S. military (not just Air Force), established the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and created the United States National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency. The United States Army Air Corps and United States Army Air Forces had existed since 1926. So spinning off the Air Force was a relatively minor part of the bill. The Truman administration was the first to propose the NSA of 1947 and was instrumental in getting it through Congress. There's no comparison between that bill and the bill Trump signed. Sundayclose (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a valid comparison in that it established a distinct military branch. That's the only relevant point here. oknazevad (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Only relevant point?? If you think creation of the CIA, NSA, and Joint Chiefs is equivalent in importance to creating the Space Force, I'm very pleased that you have no part of ensuring national security. Consensus is not determined by how many people have an opinion here. The quality of opinions is more important. So let's see what others think. Sundayclose (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
It is also important to note that the National Security Act of 1947 was a unique piece of legislation that was purpose built to create the National Military Establishment - the Space Force just was an add on to the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a yearly legislation passed every year by Congress. I would also remove Truman from the Air Force page because the president who signs legislation is irrelevant. More important to the Space Force is Mike Rogers and Jim Cooper, who created the idea and sponsored the legislative proposal to begin with.Garuda28 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the long term stability of the article and now a string of new/IP users attempting to add this, it looks like sock puppetry. Garuda28 (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I can assure you I am not engaged in sock puppetry. Never have in my two decades at Wikipedia. In fact, I'm insulted at the accusation. The IPs aren't me. (I'm in northern New Jersey, and they geolocate to the Chicago area.)
If one actually assumes good faith, the reason it's brought up or added as often as it is by so many IPs is that people are expecting to see it. Ask yourselves how does it really serve the reader to omit the simple fact? oknazevad (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Did I say it was equivalent? I said it was comparable. Those doesn't mean the same thing, you know. And the insult is not needed. oknazevad (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you @Oknazevad:. I don't think you even added this to the article? Regardless of if people expect it, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Garuda28 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
No I've never added it to the article, but I can see why it should be included. And I don't think WP:NOTNEWS apples to a bill signed almost four years ago.
Also, we name drop Eisenhower and Reagan, yet not the president who actually signed the act. That strikes me as strange. oknazevad (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Some of it is to provide context as to what the historical time period was and other aspects are that they actually played a significant role. The case of Trump is exactly why WP:NOTNEWS exists. General media gave him credit (or more accurately ridicule), while focused media and academia more or less characterized his role as secondary or insignificant while giving actual credit to Mike Rogers and Jim Cooper who wrote the legislation and pushed it both times, including before Trump (who should probably be in the introduction for that reason). Garuda28 (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
All of them should be added. oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I concur with Oknazevad on this. "Focused media and academia" are not always unbiased, especially where Trump is concerned. It's best to present all views, and let the readers decide for themselves. But if we're going to exclude Trump's role as "secondary and insignificant", then we should remove Eisenhower and Reagan also. I have no problem mentioning Rogers and Cooper in the lead either, but honestly, no one besides us news aficionados have ever heard of them. We've all heard of Trump, and I believe we can't leave him out of it, as he did play a role, even if just as a bad cheerleader. Clarify that in the text with high quality, even-handed sources, but he should still be mentioned in the lead, as his role was well-known, even if one thinks it was insignificant. BilCat (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Trump's signature on legislation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result is that Trump's signature on legislation should be included both in the lede and the body. There is a clear consensus to use the proposed language below in the lede. There is no proposed wording for the body, but given the above consensus, Donald Trump should be mentioned in subsection Space Force independence as having signed the bill.
Supporters raised that Trump (and his administration) is already mentioned in the body of the article, such as in the Public image and reception section, indicating his involvement; and also raised that for WP:NPOV reasons, given the mention of involved Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan, we should mention Trump also.
Opposers raised that Trump had little to do with establishing the Space Force or sustained coverage emphasizing his role, but the proposed wording does not assert that he had much to do, only asserting that he signed the bill, and a simple Google search does turn up recent sustained coverage of Trump simply signing the bill / creating the Space Force ([23] / [24] / [25]). I find that the opposers' arguments are not enough to overcome the wide support, and the fact that two original opposers switched to supporting the lede wording further adds to consensus. starship.paint (exalt) 02:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the article include a statement that Donald Trump signed the bill creating the United States Space Force? Sundayclose (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

For background, see section above: Talk:United States Space Force#Factual edit to the page is being disputed by user Sundayclose.

  • No - It's incidental that the legislation ended up on Trump's desk rather than another president. Trump had very little to do with establishing the Space Force compared to many others who are identified in the article. See my comments in the previous section above. Sundayclose (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not going to participate in this until you stop removing the information. You and Garuda have both been tag-teaming to revert war for months to remove this information. It needs to stop before we can have a good-faith discussion on this. BilCat (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • No – While Trump talked about the Space Force beginning in 2018, he had little to do with establishing it and his signature on the NDAA was routine. Appropriate discussion on Trump's role and attempt to take credit, and its use by his 2020 Presidential campaign, are discussed in the Public image and reception section. Garuda28 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    You need to stop reverting too. This is ridiculous. BilCat (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    3RR was just crossed. I'm asking you to please restore the article to its last stable state while we wait for this RfC to conclude. This is just a disagreement over the notability of including Trump, not anything personal. Garuda28 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    I reverted to the version before the RfC was filed. I also unexplained in a section above why it should remain in the lead, and my specific point was never responded to, just ignored. BilCat (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    I reverted before I realized the RfC was created after your last reversion to what I understood the status quo was. I apologize for that. Garuda28 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks. Again, I was wrong. BilCat (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes to the status quo, as I look right now, the 4th of 4 paragraphs in the lead reads

    The first discussion of a U.S. Space Force occurred under President Dwight Eisenhower's administration in 1958 and it was nearly established in 1982 by President Ronald Reagan as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative. The 2001 Space Commission argued for the creation of a Space Corps around 2007–2011, but due to the September 11 attacks and war on terror any plans were put on hold. On 20 December 2019, the United States Space Force Act was signed into law by President Donald J Trump establishing the U.S. Space Force as the first new independent military service since the Army Air Forces were reorganized as the U.S. Air Force in 1947.

    and that feels like an appropriate level of mention for any of the 3 presidents involved. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk), summoned by robot. 20:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Came here as a talk page stalker of BilCat's. Are we discussing whether this should be in the lede? Or you don't want it mentioned at all? If the latter, that seems like an odd choice. Schierbecker (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    If it should be in the lead. Garuda28 (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    Then the rfc needs to be re-worded. Schierbecker (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes if this is just about Trump's inclusion. As pointed out by OwenBlacker, the paragraph in question mentions two other presidents' administrations which had a hand in creating the USSF, so removing Trump but not Eisenhower or Reagan doesn't make a lot of sense. - ZLEA T\C 22:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. There doesn't seem to be a logical reason to object to including Trump in the lead. I would also caution editors to maintain the status quo now that the RfC is created. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    I've reverted myself. I did the reverts on purpose to get "the right version" in, and that isn't right. BilCat (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes per my above comments. oknazevad (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes this should definitely be included in the article. As for the lede.. if the other presidents are mentioned there, why wouldn’t Trump be? Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
    I want to add that my reasoning is based on WP:NPOV concerns. Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't seem particularly leadworthy, since there's no real WP:SUSTAINED coverage emphasizing his role in it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Do you support it in the body paragraphs though? Prcc27 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. It's kinda important for context which administration presided over the creation. The executive branch oversees it, so there's another connection. SWinxy (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed language

I think it's pretty clear which way this RfC is going. I have proposed language.

On 20 December 2019, the United States Space Force Act, sponsored by Congressmen Jim Cooper and Mike Rogers and signed by President Donald Trump, established the U.S. Space Force as the first new independent military service since the Army Air Forces were reorganized as the U.S. Air Force in 1947.

I think this may satisfy all parties. I am willing to support this. Garuda28 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Agree with this wording. Sundayclose (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with this wording. BilCat (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with this wording. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree - ZLEA T\C 02:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with this wording. Parham wiki (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with this wording. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with this wording. SWinxy (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
why mention any of these people? The important thing is that it was created. Trump's involvement was proforma. There is no need to support his subsequent lies about inventing Space Force Bluenose Gunner (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
just to be clear. My last post meant to indicate disagreement Bluenose Gunner (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024: Disestablishment of the Space Force

@KingEdinburgh, EPMen, SuperWIKI, Garuda28, and BilCat: The version of the 2024 NDAA (H.R. 2670) that was passed by the House contains several provisions within it to disestablish the Space Force. I doubt the final House/Senate reconciled version of the bill will contain these provisions but who knows. The services' creation has always been seen as questionable and controversial for both Republicans and Democrats in Congress so it may get bipartisan support. President Biden also wasn't a fan of its establishment either prior to becoming president. Over four years have passed so that opinion may have evolved, but the fact that it was passed by the House is significant. Neovu79 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I imagine it would cost more money to disestablish the Space Force than it would to keep it around. SuperWIKI (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Not entirely. Yes it would cost money at the beginning but logistically, if they plan on keeping all of the Space Force's field commands, they could be integrated into current Air Force commands. The support staff can be eliminated and integrated under the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. In the long run, it would actually save money since it would reduce personnel. Neovu79 (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh interesting... The Senate's version of the 2024 NDAA (S. 2226) also includes provisions to disestablish the Space Force. It's still making its way through the Senate. Neovu79 (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the disestablishment of the regular Space Force is just part of the plan to create a single component, so that the service doesn't have to create a reserve. KingEdinburgh (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m not sure I follow. Why go through the trouble of disestablishing the regular force as to not create a reserve component? Seems counter intuitive to transfer them back and forth into one of the Air Force reserves. My understanding of the act, and I could be entirely wrong in this, they are striking the lines pertaining to the "Regular Space Force" and inserting "Space Force" or "member of the Space Force" to prepare them for integration as a service component of the Air Force. Neovu79 (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh now I get what you are talking about. It is getting rid of the Regular Space Force and just creating a single-component Space Force, without regular or reserve components. This is actually something the Space Force has been looking for (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/space-operations/2023/06/house-armed-services-committee-endorses-new-management-structure-for-space-force/)
Garuda28 (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I've added corrections and additional information in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 article. Hopefully this makes this "disestablishment" clearer. Neovu79 (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes much more sense now. The Space National Guard article needs to be updated too, but I'm hesitant to do it myself. BilCat (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

SEAC USSF Insignia

Hi all, recently the folks at HQSF reached out to see if I could make sure the SEAC insignia for USSF made it on to the Enlisted Rank Insignia chart on this page. I created the insignia with the others back in 2021 when we finalized everything, but we held off revealing the SEAC insignia at that time. We'll be including it on future insignia charts (which I still need to put together), so they were hoping it could be on Wiki as well.

I uploaded the svg of the insignia to wikicommons like I did with the others. Not sure how to go about getting it on the chart... I'm a graphic artist, not a wiki editor =/. Thanks for any help!

Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SEAC_USSF.svg

Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman, United States Space Force Rank Insignia

Areoseph Areoseph (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

75 ISRS

This edit should be removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Space_Force&diff=1171124371&oldid=1171112626

There is no such unit as the "Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconassisnce Squadron". It is referring to the 75th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Squadron, whose creation is not notable enough for this page (there are 5 other squadrons like this that already exist). 45.31.7.86 (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not? It's notable enough for it's own article, and while it may be mislabelled, why can't it be mentioned here? The edit is supported by a source. (pinging ZLEA) - wolf 17:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've updated the paragraph in question to link to the 75th ISRS and switched the source link to the original news article. What rationale do you have for it being not notable enough for inclusion in this article? It seems reliable secondary sources thought it was notable enough for them to cover. - ZLEA T\C 17:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Defensive Writing

Why is the "Public Perception and Reception" topic written in such a defensive way? It seems like its trying to defend the space forces existence as an independent branch as opposed to informing about the perception and reception.

Specifically the inclusion of references to stat trek and star treks actors justifying the look of the uniforms and insignia. That is particularly off topic in that part of the article. Perhaps the article needs a "Justification for Space Force's Independent Existence" category? 69.113.101.114 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Given how Trump sullied the whole USSF concept with his lies and the negative reaction that it gained as a seemingly comic opera Trump vanity project that ripped off various science fiction shows it is worth discussing. For better or worse, USSF will have to live with this negativity for a period of time. Discussing the problem deals with it head on. Bluenose Gunner (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Space_Force/Archive_2&oldid=1215207206"