This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Civil War / Military history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

HHC, ACO, BCO:

• HHC: CPT. Christopher Daniels, 1SG. Orell Golding
• ACO: CPT. Michael Drew, 1SG. Richard Acevedo (Brother of American Actor Kirk Acevedo of Band of Brothers fame)
• BCO: CPT. Sean Flynn, 1SG. Frank Tooker

--AW (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHC= Headquarters and Headquarters Compnay CPT= Captain 1SG= First Sergeant ACO= Alpha Company (usually first company of the regiment or battalion) BCO- Bravo Company (Usually second company of the regimant or battalion)

Paragoalie (talk) 12:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Irish wolfhound in the trivia sections lead to a sports team called the Ireland Wolfhounds. I fixed it to lead to the Irish Wolfhound, the dog breed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.40.175 (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the FEDERAL unit is not the NATIONAL GUARD unit. Brian in denver (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You really mean the federal unit that no one has ever heard of and never served in combat, right? GCW50 (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• so your saying dying of influenza at camp funston, isent a good enough sacrifice for your country? so those guys should be forgotten. and wiped from the record? Brian in denver (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick spelling-correction visit and before going on to the apparently identical (same word count; same misspelling) 69th Infantry Regiment (United States):

Shouldn't one of the two articles be converted into a Redirect page going to the other of the two?

The procedure would be to replace the content of the one with "#REDIRECT [[target]]" with the "target" being the other.

I may implement this proposal if someone closer to the article(s) doesn't address it one way or another here. Thanks and cheers. With a solemn salute to Antietam and a passing new one to EoGuy. Swliv (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• OK lets try it another way- "I'm sure the guys who died of influenza at camp funston would be really surprised to learn that thay were in the New York National Guard, instead of the regular army" Brian in denver (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "citation needed" for the statement that it's a high number for a NG Unit.

It is a high number but there is no official list of MOH citations by units. However a search of the MOH citations list shows that the only NG unit that apparently has more MOH's is the 180th Infantry with 8 MOH's. No other NG unit appears to comes close to the 180th or the 69th.

Anyone wishing to dispute the statement with a "citation needed" is quite welcome to do their own research and list any other NG units with more MOH's than the 69th or 180th here before posting it. Thanks GCW50 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a trivial side note, where could I find the official US Army or NY ARNG orders authorizing the staff length for the 69th's regimental colors to be increased by one foot? I don't have access to the book referenced on that particular comment. What is somewhat strange about this statement is that having a large number of campaign streamers would not have any bearing on the length of the staff, as all streamers are attached to the top of the staff and all streamers are the same length, so there would be no need to increase the length of the staff. It would make sense to add a metal ring much like that used on the Army Ceremonial Flag to the top of the staff to attach the streamers for units with a large number of streamers, as this makes for ease of attachment and display, but lengthening the staff will do nothing but make it more unwieldy for the Soldier that has to carry it.

If, however, this comment was intended to refer to the company guidons within subordinate battalions, it might make more sense based on previous guidance about the display of campaign credit on relevant company guidons. Previously, campaign credit was displayed on company guidons by the use of small silver-colored metal bands affixed to the staff of the guidon. If a company had a large number of separately received campaign credits the staff would quickly start to look more like a metal pole with all the bands. This guidance was changed a few years ago (circa 2004) so that campaign credit is displayed in the form of streamers on company guidons as well, but prior to this change it would make sense to lengthen the staff to accomodate a large number of campaign silver bands. Of course, the bands were only about 3/4 in. tall, so you would need quite a few of these bands...50 would probably be a close number. ----Pushkins Barber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.101.252.103 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote in Flynn's book is on page 11- 12: "The US Army relied on the Fighting 69th so heavily in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the regiment had earned more battle credits than any other in the world except for the Black Watch out of Scotland. To make room for all the campaign rings on its flag staff,the U.S, Congress passed a measure to extend the shaft by twelve inches. No other American unit before or since has been given such an honor." GCW50 (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've spelled out the reasons for not merging in a section of the same name as this one at Talk:69th Infantry Regiment (United States).

In short, this is the page for a New York State National Guard unit. The other is a page for two US Regular Army units both since demobilized. There was a time when the content of the two articles was identical; leading to my confusion #Apparent duplication of article above and some angst from those who knew better. I hadn't revisited these pages or the issue for three years until today and had done nothing to act on my proposal above but I was summoned back in effect and am trying now to make sure the confusion is cleared away and all angst, if possible, dissipated.

Please express agreement here User:GCW50 (User talk:GCW50) and Brian in denver and on the other talk page for no merger. Then the Wiki gears will grind or not grind and templates about deletion and merger can be removed from the articles and life can go on. I have done some editing to both articles today to emphasize the distinction and independent standing of the two articles.

I may set up a Redirect from the "165th Infantry" to this article; to cover that potential source of continuing confusion: When the Regular Army units existed more or less, the National Guard unit had the 165th Infantry designation, as I understand it. Please name here a preferred title for the redirect if one has one: 165th Infantry Regiment (New York National Guard), 165th Infantry Regiment (New York), 165th Infantry Regiment (National Guard) or another.

Thanks and cheers. Swliv (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After consultation with the editor who ruled on the merge decision here, it's become clear that the merge decision was made when the content was still identical between the 'New York' and the 'United States' articles as it was when I was here three years ago. Now, assuming consensus on this page and with that editor, I'm now removing the merge templates from all four pages: from this and the other Talk page and from the two article pages. I'll post this identical message, also, on the other talk page. If there's any further discussion to be had I'd recommend at least cross-linking between the two Talk pages.

Thanks all. Sorry it took so long. Glad we're here. Hope this is right but am ready to go back to work if it's not; please bring me back in if I have missed something. Swliv ([[User

talk:Swliv|talk]]) 17:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

"Storing" merge template here; NOT OPERATIONAL Swliv (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC):[reply]

Thanks for keeping them separate. I was in the 69th New York in 1970-71 when it was also known as the 165th Infantry ARNGUS (NY) . Those other fed units had nothing to do with it. GCW50 (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 69th Infantry Regiment (New York). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.finegael.ie/fine-gael-news.cfm/year/2006/month/8/action/detail/newsid/28990/level/page/aid/10/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a widely-used phrase, but is it NPOV? "Global" is propaganda meant to convey unity, and being branded "Terror" by the country who de facto founded al-Qaeda and ISIS is ironic, to say the least. Is there not a more NPOV, or less America-centric, way to describe that period of this regiment's history? And yes, I know, it's an American regiment. Wikipedia is not, though. 64.231.8.210 (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 69th Infantry Regiment (New York). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/spdes-123-arng.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061120221349/http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/69thlap1.html to http://www.thewildgeese.com/pages/69thlap1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that http://69thnycoc.org/contact-us/ fails totally, and no other page allows communications, and I congratulate officers and yuppies for yet again getting everything totally wrong in a way that allows no redress.

Pray tell, is this wrong in 7 or 21 ways? 42?

no honour with engineers and sociologists ... or officers ...

#PlausibleDeniability rulez now more than ever. May God forgive the few who are innocent.

p.s. it takes a special sort of cynic to be commentator without caring about reality.

--BenTrem (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The new Irish Catholic regiments caused uneasiness among American "Nativists" of the Know Nothing Party whose membership was limited to Protestant males of British American lineage."

Please provide an appropriate source which says that the KN membership was limited to males of "British American lineage". Protestant males, certainly, but I have never heard of any ancestry requirements for joining the movement, other than one had to have been native-born and of Protestant parentage. In Maryland and Louisiana, Know Nothings even recruited native-born Catholics.Jonathan f1 (talk) 04:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the 69th/165th? Why is the quote so long? It's as long or longer than any other action description, including the one at Makin. Who cares what that fraud has to say about anything anyway? 96.240.128.124 (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My great-great-grandfather's brother-in-law and his son fought with the 69th in the Spanish-American War (1889) - so that should be added (maybe by someone who knows a bit more about it than me!). Donnacha (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]