Do we need some organization on Veterans categories before setting them up?

+12 votes
388 views

It is great to see some new categories for Veterans - KIA and MIA/POW.

There is a category for Category: American military personnel killed in action  it has many sub categories - by war.

It is easy to set up new categories but the formal structure requres some thought on where each item should go.  Perhaps several suggestions on structure can be made and that can be finalized before setting up the rest of categories.   I don't want us to have to undo a lot of hard work as we have just done with Towns.

There a a large number veterans categories, but only for the US.  Canada and  British have some material while Australia and all other Countries do not.  There is a lot of work to do. - If suggestions are made I am happy to propose a structure and work through getting it organized - I am not a militrary expert so those that are need to make suggestions.

First question - what about those that died as a result of a an injury, a training accident, disease or ship wreck while members of the military?  They are not "Killed in Action"  but I think should be included, so what we would be  including are all those that died while in military service.  Thoughts?

 

in WikiTree Tech by Philip Smith G2G6 Pilot (343k points)
retagged by Keith Hathaway
I think everyone is missing the point of these categories that Trib set up the idea was to honor the personel that were MIA,KIA ,Wounded etc from all countries and all wars, in the Anzac Project we already do this but this category is world wide for every country every war there is no category on WikiTree that does this ,WikiTree is world wide but this is the only category that i have seen where every country is included in the one category great idea Trib Terry
I am not sure why Anonymous came up in my message but i posted the message above Terry

5 Answers

+5 votes
 
Best answer

I agree that this area of the category structure needs work. I've only worked on the Canadian ones, and I believe those are in a good place in terms of the units. Category:Canadian Armed Forces is split up into Category:Canadian Army, Category:Royal Canadian Air Force, and Category:Royal Canadian Navy. Those are split up into things like (within Canadian Army) Canadian Expeditionary Force, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, etc. Within those are units, eg. Category:British Columbia Dragoons. I think this is a good structure, from what little I've been able to figure out about how the military is structured.

However, we also have categories by war, eg. Category:World War I Canadian Army Veterans as a subcategory of Canadian Army. This category hierarchy hasn't had as much done to it. I'm not sure we ever really agreed on whether both these structures should exist side-by-side, ie. categorisation by unit as well as by war.

And then of course there are things like Category:War of 1812, which has people right in that category. That seems odd to me.

by Liander Lavoie G2G6 Pilot (455k points)
selected by Mariangeles Mas-Andreu

Hi Lianne,

I've already made a lengthy comment in this thread, but if it helps - think about army units (Regiments/Squadrons/Ships) as Lego bricks. You are best to sort them by shape and colour, not by what you have built with them, or what pieces were attached together. Any military organization bigger than a Regiment (divisions/corps/armys/army group/theatre) is something built with a bunch of blocks.

Separate from the actual organizational structure, Canada's army is also divided into 'personnel branches' which, to carry my analogy forward, are like bins for Lego blocks of the same shape and colour. Your example of the Royal Canadian Armour Corps, is a branch. In contrast, the Canadian Expeditionary Force is an example of a specific organization larger than a regiment.( i.e. something you have built with your blocks, taking pieces you need from each bin.)

Personnel branches are tied to specific military occupations, not units, so an administrative clerk is still part of the Logistics Branch even if they are part of an infantry unit. With that said, almost every unit could be easily categorized into one of the existing branches. (except headquarters and special operations)

While the soldier's unit (or Regimental family) is the most important category, I think it is appropriate to also seperately categorize each conflict. Conflicts can be subdivided by specific theatres, and those could be sub-categorized to specific operations or battles that ancestors took part in. For example World War II > Western Europe > Dieppe Raid. I am not sure that there is a need for further division (by units) except as a way of limiting long lists of participants in battles that involve 10's of 1000's of soldiers. Domestic response, peace support and UN Observer missions could be broken down by locations (down to sector and camp/post/base), for example Peace Support > Bosnia and Herzegovina > MND (SW) > Bihać.

On a related topic, I noticed the Military > Roll of Honour category... this would be an appropriate place to categorize specific military honours such as has been started with Medal of Honor recipients, although I think it would best to break down honours by the awarding country, then the honour itself. Examples: England > Victoria Cross; United States > Medal of Honor

As far as the War of 1812 category I think what you are seeing is the result of the death of detailed information. Unlike the vast amount of information available about units and soldiers in the revolutionary and U.S. Civil war, relatively little is available about most of the soldiers of 1812 in terms of the units they belonged to or the actions they participated in.

Returning to the corps issue (pun intended) the current personnel branches in Canada are, in no particular order:

  • Air Operations Branch
  • Royal Canadian Armoured Corps
  • Artillery Branch (aka Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery)
  • Band Branch
  • Chaplain Branch
  • Communications and Electronics Branch
  • Dental Branch
  • Infantry Branch
  • Intelligence Branch
  • Land Ordnance Engineering Branch
  • Land Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Branch
  • Legal Branch
  • Logistics Branch
  • Medical Branch
  • Military Engineering Branch
  • Naval Operations Branch
  • Personnel Selection
  • Postal Branch
  • Public Affairs
  • Security Branch
  • Training Development Branch
  • Cadet Instructor's Cadre
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with Rob's comments - or for that matter, with any of the previous answers/comments.

Many of my ancestors died to ensure we live in a free world; I don't give a damn which military unit they belonged to.

I would prefer that we direct our efforts to building a global family tree, rather then debate which sub-category should come under the recently added sub-category of the category that resulted from someone's proposal for a new category!
But Peter, that's the whole point of the Categorization Project. :) I think we can do both at the same time!

Rob, thank you for the information. I did realise that the Canadian Expeditionary Force was something different than the other subcategories. I still want it to exist, though. The military records of my family members who were in the CEF don't specify a unit or anything like that, just CEF.

Hey Lianne,

If you have military records they may have your ancestors Regimental (ID) Number on them somewhere, if they were a non-com... If you have that number and haven't already done so you could try searching the number to find the specific unit it was assigned to.

It's not guaranteed to give results, and it will only give you a clue to the first unit they belonged to, but it can be a good place to start when you have nothing else to go by. As an example the 15th Battalion (48th Highlanders), 1st Division, Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) was allocated Regimental Numbers from 27001-28500.

See this page for more info: http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/cef/001042-140-e.html#a

+3 votes

Hi Philip i agree about the Military personel that died over seas but not KIA we have a Anzac Project and the list is very long you have to scoll to the bottom of the page to see the list ,a lot of these profiles died while overseas but not KIA  and i think they should be included  they never returned home so should be remembered  today is Rememberance Day in Australia so this is a wonderful way to remember our Military PersonelTerry

http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Anzacs_-_Wikitree_profiles_and_stories

by Terry Wright G2G6 Pilot (191k points)
edited by Terry Wright
+4 votes
In some respects "veteran", in my opinion, is a redundant category.

Anyone that renders military service, whether domestic or overseas, in war or peace, is usually considered a veteran after their service ends. There is already a lot of work being done in creating categories for the various nations' military units that these people belonged to, as well as the conflicts and specific actions that they participated in. Duplicating this effort under the category of veterans does not make sense to me.

With that said the more specfic categories of KIA, MIA/POW, and general "service-related deaths" are distinct categories which demand a slightly different treatment.
by Rob Ton G2G6 Pilot (293k points)
Rob,

You are correct that an individual that served in a specific unit is a veteran and there is no need to place that person in both the unit category and the veteran category - in fact the profile should only be assigned to the lowest possible category.

What is needed is a way to organize the sub categories - so Canadian, Australian and US veterans are in their own units, but the units have to be organized.  Just as towns  are in counties and counties are in states and states in country.  The same kind of structure is required for military.  They all fall under the veteran category or military category - my concern is that while much work has been done not enough thought has gone into the structure and that is needed before we add more categories otherwise we will have to do it over just as we did for Towns.

Organizing units like we do cities would be nearly impossible; units are typically assigned to an Order of Battle; their place in the military hierarchy. These OOB are usually well documented and as a government document can usualy be found in archives. In this regard it would be easy to break down the units into categories.

The problem is that an OOB is much more fluid than national and administrative boundaries, with units transferred, re-roled and renamed, zero-strengthed, deactivated and reactivated, reconstituted, and amalgamated as the needs and size of the military they are part of change. In periods of mobilization existing units may provide 'formed bodies' or sub-units which then become part of other units, even though they usually maintain their regimental 'lineage' to the unit from which they were formed, and rejoin those units when they are disbanded. The lineage of a military unit is much more like a family tree than a category.

To illustrate how complicated it might be to categorize units I will give a brief (but inconcise) history of the 48th Highlanders of Canada:

The Regiment was formed in Toronto in 1891. At the time they were assigned to Military Distict No. 2, Canadian Militia (non-permanent).

In World War 1 the 48th Highlanders raised 3 battalions for overseas service: the 15th Battalion (48th Highlanders), Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) which was assigned to the 3rd Infantry Brigade, 1st Canadian Division; the 92nd Battalion (48th Highlanders), CEF and 134th Battalion (48th Highlanders), CEF which were essentially taken apart for reinforcements when they arrived at the front. Once a 2nd Canadian Division had been raised, the 1st division became part of a higher organization, the Canadian Corps. The 92nd and 134th Battalions were eventually disbanded and their remaining personnel that had not been used as replacements were absorbed into other Battalions. At the end of the war the 15th Battalion was disbanded and its surviving personnell were largely absorbed back into the 48th Highlanders.

The 48th Highlanders as a complete organization were never mobilized in World War 1, and remained part of Military District No. 2, conducting recruiting and training throughout the war. The current Regimental Colours of the 48th carry battle honours for Ypres, Somme, Vimy, Passchendaele, Amiens, and numerous other famous battles of World War I, because they perpetuate the traditions of the (disbanded) Battalions they raised.

Just at the start of World War 2 (Sept 1939) the Canadian Militia was reorganized and renamed the Canadian Army (Reserve) and the 48th Highlanders thus became part of the 6th (Toronto) Brigade, Military District No.2, Canadian Army (Reserve)

For World War 2, the 48th Highlanders mobilized the 48th Highlander of Canada, Canadian Active Service Force, which was redesignated 1st Battalion, 48th Highlanders of Canada, 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade, 1st Canadian Division, 7th (British) Corps, 2nd British Expeditionary Force. By 1941 the 7th Corps was disbanded primarily as a result of the formation of Canadian Corps. The 1st Canadian Division was then detached to the famous British 8th Army participating in the invasion of Sicily known as Operation Husky. During this time 1st Canadian Infantry division was placed under command of the British XXX Corps. although it was still part of the Canadian Corps. Eventually, 1 Canadian Division was reunited with the rest of what had become I Canadian Corps (after II Canadian Corps became operational), and with the deployment of First Canadian Army Headquarters in 1944, the 48th completed the remainder of World War 2 as 1st Battalion 48th Highlanders of Canada, 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade, 1st Canadian Division, I Canadian Corps, First Canadian Army.

Meanwhile back in Canada the 48th Highlanders that remained in 6th Brigade, No. 2. Militia District, continued recruting and training and mobilized the 3rd Canadian Infantry Battalion (48th Highlanders of Canada), Canadian Active Service Force in June of 1945. This unit was destined for the Pacific theatre, but obviously did not see action as the end of hostilities came in August/September of that year.

The wartime battalions were disbanded or absorbed back into the 'parent' unit when they returned to Canada.

The 48th Highlanders remained part of the Military District No. 2., which became the Toronto Militia District, Central Militia Area, Canadian Army (Militia). After another reorganization the 48th Highlanders became part of 32nd Canadian Brigade Group, Land Force Central Area (LFCA), Canadian Army, Canadian Forces. This past year LFCA was renamed 4th Canadian Division.

The 48th Highlanders have a relatively short and uncomplicated history compared to many units that exist or have existed. As you can hopefully see, creating all the relevant hierarchial categories accurately in the same manner as cities and towns, would be quite a complicated and exhaustive undertaking.

As I see it, the only way to further categorize units, although it is somwhat imprecise, is by military role such as: [[category:Canadian Military Units, Infantry, 48th Highlanders of Canada]]. In some cases this should be further categorized by years if a unit is disbanded or re-roled and the name or designation 'recycled', for example [[category: Canadian Military Units, Headquarters, 4th Canadian Division]] should have separate entries for 1916-1919, 1940-1946, and present.

Notes and links could be added to the category pages to show a unit's lineage. For example "Infantry, 42nd Brockville Battalion" evolves over the years as 1. "infantry, 42nd Lanark and Renfrew Battalion of Infantry"; 2. "infantry, 42nd Lanark and Renfrew Regiment"; 3. "infantry, The Lanark and Renfrew Regiment"; 4. "infantry, The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, 1927-1946"; 5. "anti-aircraft, 59th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment (Lanark and Renfrew Scottish)" 6. "infantry, The Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment, 1959-1992"; 7. "anti-aircraft; 1st Air Defence Regiment (Lanark and Renfrew Scottish)"; 8."artillery, 42nd Field Regiment (Lanark and Renfrew Scottish)"

 

+2 votes
To throw a cat among the pigeons - would someone first of all define "veteran"

A veteran is someone who has provided long service or gained experience through long service or, ultimately, grown old in service.

Surely, KIA and MIA, whilst deserving of recognition, should not be included under a heading of "Veteran".

I know that, in Australia, people who served in, say, Vietnam, are commonly known as "Vietnam Vets". Those who were KIA and never came home are not.
by Peter Knowles G2G6 Mach 7 (70.3k points)
This not correct. Here is the correct definition

To be a "veteran"  a person is required to have either: 180 days of regular active duty service and a last discharge or release under honorable conditions Such member does not need to have any wartime service. - OR - 90 days of active duty service, one (1) day of which is during "wartime", and a last discharge or release under honorable conditions. The one-day need not have actually been served in a war zone. For Guard Members to qualify they must have 180 days and have been activated under Title 10 of the U.S. Code - OR - Members who were activated under Title 10 or Title 32 of the U.S. Code or Massachusetts General Laws chapter 33, sections 38, 40 and 41 must have 90 days, at least one of which was during wartime. The Members' last discharge or release must be under honorable conditions. Full time National Guard duty is only considered such when National Guard members are activated to regular service and does not include weekend drills or active duty for training Minimum Service Exception (for Death or Disability) It is not necessary that an applicant have completed the minimum service for wartime or peacetime campaign if he/she served some time in the campaign and was awarded the Purple Heart, or suffered a service-connected disability or died in the service under honorable conditions. Training Duty Exception - Active service in the armed forces as used in this clause shall not include active duty for training in the Army or Air National Guard or active duty for training as a Reservist in the Armed Forces of the United States.
Michelle,

My comment related to the meaning of the English language word "veteran", not to the rules under which a member of the US armed forces can claim the right to be referred to as a Veteran

Wkitree is Global.

In your previous post this was your veteran desciption. "A veteran is someone who has provided long service or gained experience through long service or, ultimately, grown old in service." You asked for someone to define a veteran. In order to be defined a veteran you must meet certain reqirements. I didn't realize you were wanting the definition for other countries as well.

I am a veteran and many people are misinformed about what a veteran really is.

In order to have veteran categories seperate veteran categories would be needed and not combined into a single Veteran category for countries that have different requirements to be defined a veteran.smiley

+2 votes
I, for one, believe that if a person is deserving of the honer to be placed in the POW/MIA category - They should have that honor of sitting in the country within that category of POW/MIA. They have earned the right to be sitting in their country where they served.  I don't believe we need to duplicate all the battles, wars etc. and place those in the category of POW/MIA - we should just place our POW/MIA category in the existing categories already existing in the Military section.  

I've editied that category. This is one of the categories that, I believe, should be monitored and validated.  If the profile doesn't have the sourcing to be listed in this category - out they go. Having this category on a profile is an Honor and must be proven.
by Terri Rick G2G6 Mach 4 (43.6k points)
edited by Terri Rick
Yes, it should be monitored. If there is no source they shouldn't be in this category.

Related questions

+4 votes
1 answer
+13 votes
6 answers
+5 votes
3 answers
+12 votes
1 answer
147 views asked May 22, 2015 in Policy and Style by Susan Tye G2G6 Mach 2 (23.9k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...