The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States Army Corps of Engineers. Article content remains in the page history if anyone feels there is anything merge-worthy. —Darkwind (talk) 03:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer Branch (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:HOAX. No evidence whatsoever of a separate organization called the Engineer Branch as opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers. Sources in article all refer solely to the Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a hoax. I think it's a badly named page; Engineer Branch (United States Army) would make more sense. The page about USACE is mostly about the civil engineering missions of the Corps. The guys who build Bailey bridges in the muck deserve some space.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that "A Corps of Engineers for the United States was authorized by the Congress on 11 Mar 1779." not for the United States Army. I believe the name of the branch is correct.
See also: Category:Branches of the United States Army for both current and historic branches.
SBaker43 (talk) 06:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is much information in this article that is not in United States Army Corps of Engineers. While both articles deal with the same entity, I believe the appropriate action is to merge rather than delete.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can an organization be notable when it doesn't exist? A reader looking at an engineer unit now gets told that it is part of this non-existent branch. Which is "often confused" with the Corps of Engineers, which is a real, legally constituted body. Are the Afghanistan Districts part of it? Was the Manhattan District? How can anyone know when it doesn't exist? Was Douglas MacArthur part of this branch? Leslie Groves? Pee Wee Herman? How can we tell when it doesn't exist? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - BAD proposal. These two articles address different entities with different structures and missions but both in the Department of the Army. There is some overlap of missions and certainly overlapped activity in areas of responsibility but one is primarily a civilian agency; the other is a military combat support branch of the Army with military units.
  The United States Army Corps of Engineers as it plainly says is a mostly civilian agency under the Department of the Army focused on national infrastructure and security missions. The Engineer Branch (United States) is a uniformed combat support branch of the U.S. Army which has military units that support and are trained to fight beside the other branches they support: Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, Signal Corps, Transportation, Medical Corps, etc.
  Engineer branch officers may be assigned to the USACE but it's still a different organization.
  See Coats of arms of U.S. Engineer Battalions for current and historic combat support Engineer battalions.
  See also: Category:Branches of the United States Army for both current and historic branches.
  I believe there is material in the USACE article that needs to be in the branch article. Obviously both articles need further clarification about how they relate to each other.
  SBaker43 (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have a reliable source that this organisation exists? It is pointless and stupid to quote the Wikipedia to support your case, especially the hoax article. Supply a reliable source that it exists, and we're done. Otherwise, this article will be deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Nominator misunderstands the difference between the combat arms branches of the United States Army and the Army run, but civilian staffed US Army Corps of Engineers. On this Army career website:[1] it mentions the USACE as a civilian job after getting out of the Army having branched as an engineer. The Army school that trains engineer officer and enlisted personnel is the "United States Army Engineer School".[2]. The insignia for the Army's Engineer Branch and Regiment found here [3] shows similarities to the USACE, but the USACE uses a white castle for their logo [4]. The USACE website in the "About" section really only talks about the civil engineering function. The Engineer Branch, a combat arm of the US Army is the one that handles the Sappers, bridging, and other military engineering functions. This document explains the various branches that ROTC cadets may commission into [5] when it talks about being an engineer officer it does not mention much about the civil engineering functions of the USACE. Engineer Branch (United States) is part of the United States Army's Combat Arms, the United States Army Corps of Engineers maintains civil engineering projects throughout the United States. The only change needed is to standardize the way we name the Army Branches. EricSerge (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - [6] explains the legal necessity dictated by the Goldwater–Nichols Act to differentiate the personnel who served the Army and those who served the USACE. This explains the common history, but current differing missions, functions, and organization. They came from the same place, but forked quite some time ago. The Fort Leonard Wood Chapter of the Society of American Military Engineers has a pdf:[7] that explains the definition of the Engineer Branch. EricSerge (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's actually a very good link, but all it is talking about is the different staff and line responsibilities of the Chief of Engineers; it demolishes rather than bolsters your case. And we do have a naming standard: we use the official names of the arms and services. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the article itself says "also known as The Corps of Engineers" - which is what the United States Army Corps of Engineers calls itself on its website. This is at best a duplicate of United States Army Corps of Engineers and it is, at worst, a hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with Bushranger, this is a self admitted duplication of the USACE. The history is a duplication of the USACE's history and section is a direct copy of this possibly being a giant copyvio. --Molestash (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a copyvio - as a .mil, it should be PD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect, there are two elements to the United State Army Corps of Engineers, as has been well referenced above. There is a civilian works element, and there is the Combat support element. Both are under the United States Army, but their work is different given their civilian and military aspects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article author completely misunderstands the role of the US Army Corps of Engineers, under which combat engineers serve. "Engineer Branch" is an equivalent term for the "Corps of Engineers", that is, the branch of the Army which handles engineering. The misunderstanding is spread throughout the article text which makes very little of it salvageable. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Erroneous and redundant. The "Engineering Branch" is the same thing as the Army Corps of Engineers. As Binksternet states, the creator of this article appears to misunderstand the role of the Army Corps. It is the branch of the Army that does engineering, both for combat purposes (particularly during wartime) and for civil works (primarily in peacetime). Moreover, the only original content in this article is the lead section -- the text that erroneously states that the Engineering Branch is different from the Army Corps of Engineers. The rest of the article is copied verbatim from US government websites about the Army Corps of Engineers. The Symbolism section is from http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/Branches/engineers.aspx and the "History" section is from http://www.wood.army.mil/usaes/library/documents/Corps_History.pdf . --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Never mind this article, moreover I have beaten my brain out repeatedly trying to figure out whether the USACE parented the combat engineer branch of the army (none of its material mentions combat engineer tasks, only dams etc) and if not, when did they split and under what circumstances. Thus I vote *STRONG KEEP* unless some well-explained, well referenced section is added to United States Army Corps of Engineers explaining its relationship to U.S. Army combat engineers, and if/when their history divided. Can anyone explain this to me simply without reference to websites that won't load? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are and have always been part of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Both the combat engineers and the dam builders and many other engineers too. There has never been any split. They are one and the same. The Corps of Engineers is both a combat arm and a service. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hawkeye7 is mostly correct. However, it turns out that there were two separate organizations between 1838 and 1863, when the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers existed as a separate entity. However, that entity was merged into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1863, and there has been just one Corps of Engineers for the last 150 years.

I don't like the idea that it should be necessary to write a "well-explained, well referenced section" for inclusion in United States Army Corps of Engineers before we can can delete an article that consists of nothing but copy-paste content from two webpages, and I don't know what evidence will convince doubters that these entities are one and the same, but I'll try to present some evidence here. For starters, note that both Wikipedia articles indicate that the entity they describe was organized by the Continental Congress on 16 June 1775, directing that the army should have one chief engineer and two assistants. Now look at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brief History and its 321-page history book. Observe that the specific events mentioned in the short webpage from which the "Engineering Branch" article's "History" section are all findable in these longer histories. For example, paragraph 1 of the page used in this article discusses the Corps' role in the Battle of Yorktown; that same event is described in much greater detail (using many of the same words) on page 4 of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers History book. The permanent establishment of the Corps in 1802 is described in paragraph 2 of the webpage that was copied to produce this article and in paragraph 2 of this page from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "Brief History". Fast-forward to World War II, which is mentioned briefly in paragraph 9 of the page that was copied to create this article; you'll find a lot more information on the very same subject in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers history book sections entitled "Combat Engineers in World War II" (pages 130-145) and "The Manhattan Project" (pages 146-153 in the same PDF). These are one and the same organization, and its name is United States Army Corps of Engineers. --Orlady (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Also, see the "Heraldry" chapter of this Army Corps of Engineers Graphic Standards Manual for verification that the symbols displayed in the "Engineering Branch" article are in fact symbols of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. --Orlady (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The issue is one of a loose use of the language. There is no difference between the various branches of the Army, whether they are referred to as "X Branch" or "X Corps." The Signal, and Adjutant General are two that are regularly referred to either way and refer to the same organization. Further confusing the issue with the Engineers, however, is the existence of a separate group, the United States Army Corps of Engineers. This refers to the federal agency that is charged with the management of all federal public engineering in the US and it while it shares personnel and connections with the Engineer branch of the Army (which is why they share heraldic symbols), the USACE is not associated directly with the operational engineers of the Army, its schools, or functions. Check the About pages of the USACE website and compare with the Engineer School information on the Ft. Leonard Wood site.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the Army Corps history book, I find that some functions that formerly belonged to the Corps of Engineers have been transferred to other Army branches at various times. Notably, in a major Defense Department reorganization that occurred in 1962 (discussed on pages 221-222 of that book), an engineer training function was transferred to the Army Combat Developments Command. This may be what is now done at the Engineer Training School at Fort Leonard Wood. See page 217 of the book for information about the Corps' earlier history in relation to the Army Engineering School, including training at Fort Leonard Wood. Some other functions were moved around in later reorganizations. Thus, there may be an Engineer Branch in the regular Army (although the sources cited in the article don't establish that to my satisfaction), but this "Engineer Branch" can't legitimately claim the entire history of the Army Corps of Engineers as its own history, which is what the current article does. --Orlady (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one has established to my satisfaction by providing reliable sources that (a) there is anything officially called the "Engineer Branch" or (b) that there are two organizations with the exact same name, history and insignia. These are one and the same organization, and its name is United States Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then, would you consider a rename and rewrite of the Engineer Branch article to Combat Engineers (United States) to reflect the wholly different character and mission of the operational work of those in the 12 MOS series? RTO Trainer (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the one article can be can be restructured with one major section about the military side of the Corps activity, and the other side about the civilian activities of the Corps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with this page can't be resolved by inventing new titles, nor by inventing an organization chart that says this is one side of the Army Corps. I've not yet seen sources that verify the existence of this supposed organization under any name. As it is now, the article starts off with an unsourced assertion about the existence of this organization, then proceeds to present information (copied verbatim from a couple of websites) that can be demonstrated to be about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. --Orlady (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that splitting the article is not the optimum direction. A full and complete account of the Corps can be housed at the Corps article, and should be. This particular attempt is not worth saving; we've spent more time analyzing it than it deserves. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I am saying, there is a civilian activity of the Corps, and a military activity of the Corps. Both are one in the same, but their activities are substantially different. I am not saying that they are separate, I am saying that there should be sufficient reliable sources to document the combat activities of the Corps, and sufficient reliable sources to document the civilian activities of the Corps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.