Wikipedia

Talk:Distinguished Service Cross (United States)/Archive 1

< Talk:Distinguished Service Cross (United States)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by AnalogGround in topic non notables don't belong here
Archive 1

Untitled

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What does the Oak Leaf Cluster signify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.241.225 (talk • contribs) 08:30, January 1, 2006 UTC

A medal that features an Oak leaf generally means that person has been awarded the medal twice. (USMA2010 06:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC))
A Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster indicates a second award, a Silver Oak Leaf Cluster indicates that the medal has been awarded five times.
Nope. It means the medal has been awarded six times. Four bronze oak leafs (five total awards) converts to one silver oak leaf when the six award is made. Rklawton (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

when you clcik on the link to patrick walsh the man then mentioned is evidently not the man described in the initial text. perhaps this needs amending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.78.17 (talk • contribs) 21:22, March 24, 2006 UTC

One recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross during World War I went on to earn the Medal of Honor in World War II – Major Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. of the 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Division, son of the former President.

Douglas MacArthur aslo was awarded the Medal of Honor in the 2nd world War. It was awarded when he left the Phillipins for his defence of the islands.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.62.5.5 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 June 2006.

Awards

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section on awards, broken down by conflicts, should be limited to the most prominent recipients. The criteria I used in drafting this section were: DSC recipients who also received the Medal of Honor, multiple DSC recipients, and certain other recipients who went on to establish fame or prominence, such as generals, political figures, and even a few sports figures. The addition of Dick Winters, although misplaced (whoever added him put it in the paragraph on multiple DSC recipients in World War II), is tolerable in that the fame from "Band of Brothers" gives him a certain prominence. Similarly, the prominence of the Son Tay raiders and the DSC recipients portrayed in "We Were Soldiers..." may justify inclusion.

However, there have been over 11,000 awards of the DSC. There simply is not enough space to include every one, no matter how inspired one might be by his or her act of heroism. I would implore people not to edit that section without thinking carefully as to the criteria. Thank you.

The statement above was posted by me when I was not logged in. Airbornelawyer 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Neck ribbon

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just saw a video on CNN that showed Lt. Walter Bryan Jackson receiving his award on a neck ribbon.[1] Has there been a change in authorization? It used to be that LoM and MoH were the only two - and the LoM neck ribbon only went to foreigners. Rklawton 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No one addressed this so I guess I will for future readers. I have no idea why the admin personnel that set up that award ceremony affixed his medal to a ribbon to go around his neck, but the DSC is not worn around the neck. The neck ribbon was for the presentation only. Typically the medal will be presented to the soldier by attaching it to the pocket flap, collar, or lapel.If a soldier isn't complaining about something, there's a real problem.... (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas E. Doherty

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I could not find any reliably sourced reference that shows that a MSG Thomas Doherty has been awarded posthumously, or otherwise, a DSC; furthermore the individual is not listed here. There is an entry for a William Doherty, but 1SG Doherty was awarded a BSM for an action occurring in April 2005. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Rickenbacker--Did he get 8 or 9 or 10 Distinguished Service Crosses?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We're having some degree of perplexity over at the Eddie Rickebacker Wiki site. How many DSC's did he actually receive? The Wiki article cites 7 but my copy of his 1967 autobiography "Rickenbacker" cites 9, all earned from April 29, 1918 through Sept. 26, 1918, and listed as "United States" Distinguished Service Cross citations. Then there seems to be a 10th DSC listed as an "American Expeditionary Forces" Distinguished Service Cross, Baussant and medal, also on April 29, 1918, as per his first DSC. (What's the difference between the two?) So it seems he got 10 altogether, although his first one may have been issued twice. Can anybody who is a Rickenbacker expert or DSC expert explain this? Also, how come he got 10 DSC's when most guys got only one? Not to diminish his record (I'm a Rickenbacker fan) but were they handing them out rather liberally at first since it was a new medal? Did they tighten up requirements later? I know the Medal of Honor was given out too freely at first and I seem to recall hundreds of MoH were later rescinded (a female doctor in the Civil War was demanding more money so they gave her the Medal of Honor to keep her from nagging for more money, the MoH was later taken back from her but then in the 1970's, as I recall, President Carter re-awarded her the MoH for political reasons; Lincoln's Honor Guard at his funeral all got the MoH but the medals were later taken back; a group of soldiers in the Civil War were all given the MoH just for re-enlisting, those were later rescinded; for a while there anybody could nominate themselves for the MoH, etc. It seems farcical that the only woman to ever receive the Medal of Honor got it for nagging. How do such things happen?

Pvt. Abraham Krotoshinsky - was awarded as well. WWI.

Mary Edwards Walker earned the MoH for gallantry on the battlefield where she would treat wounded soldiers on the field and under fire. She trusted that her white blouse and large straw hat would cause the Confederates to not shoot her. She received the medal of honor when she asked for retirement benefits. So far as I know, she didn't ask for the MoH. Characterizing her activities as "nagging" isn't supported by history. She lost the MoH due to her activities advocating woman's rights, particularly the right to wear pants in public without being arrested for impersonating a man. Carter restored her MoH because the medal had been revoked for political reasons and not the other way around. Rklawton (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits for Operation Enduring Freedom Awards

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Made the following edits on February 7, 2011:

Deleted the entry for SSG Jason Adams, ODA 3312, 3d Bn, 3d SFG. This entry could not be verified. No citation, no news release, no press reports verifying this award could be found. The action cited was an ambush involving ODA 3312 for which SSG Robbie Miller was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. Other members of the team were also decorated in a separate ceremony at Ft. Bragg, for which press accounts exist. No mention of SSG Jason Adams can be found in any accounts of this action. Any information on circumstances of award, citation, press release, etc would be appreciated.

Added award of DSC to SSG James Takes, C Company, 2d Battalion, 503d Infantry. His citation and picture can be found at the Military Times.com Hall of Valor. The award was noted in the local press and is chronicled in the Paraglide, the Ft. Bragg military newspaper and on the U.S. Army homepage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvncenturion (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unit Award

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the article Presidential Unit Citation (United States), it is mentioned that the PUC is the unit equivalent of the the DSC/NC/AFC, however there is no mention of the PUC's equivalence on this article page. As there is not a section in the infobox, should this be included somewhere in the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Page 80 of Army Regulation 600–8–22 states, "The degree of heroism required is the same as that which would warrant award of a Distinguished Service Cross to an individual." I would say downward mobility to the unit award, I don't know about upward mobility to the individual decoration. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Louis Misseri

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is this individual, who does not have a wikipedia article, notable enough to warrant an article, and thus should be listed on the list of notable recipients of the DSC? The individual has only received one DSC, so the individual is not notable per WP:SOLDIER. Furthermore, the individual has very few mentions in reliable sources, including only four passing mentions in books.

If there is no objection, I will remove the listing on 20FEB2013.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection, but he was also awarded the Silver Star and was an Officer of the Legion of Honour. I had just started to find French sources on Misseri. I am traveling right now, so my downtime is limited, but I will see what I can find otherwise. I found a passing reference to Misseri being the "French Rambo" and was exploring that avenue to look for general notability. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ricardo Massa

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am sorry, but this addition appears to be a hoax. The source provided to verify the content appears to fall under WP:SPS; I have created a discussion regarding the source at RSN. I have not been able to find any additional reliable sources to verify that the individual was awarded the DSC.

Can the editor who has repeatedly added the content please provide us other editors additional information?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree to you RightCow. On that wix.com WP:SPS every other recipient can be found in other independent sources as DSC recipients, but Massa cannot. EricSerge (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Massa doesn't appear to exist in the Army at all. That and the rank given by the editor in question doesn't really line up for Delta. Intothatdarkness 20:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


you are wrong is the source of U.S. Army you are violating the right to publish freely and apqrte in contenudo and real and true Fünte so you just delete it admits non aver lost and gained his black fucking piece of shit!! ahahhahahahahha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwuein (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 March 2013

The information that Johnwuein maybe adding may be accurate, however on Wikipedia one of the pillars of the editing community is WP:VER. If there is no reliable source provided, the content cannot be verified. Furthermore, it is the burden of the adding editor to provide the reliable source(s).
If those sources can be found, please let us know.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Julius Aaronson

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would getting this award tiwce, on the same day, be noteworthy enough to include? I have a reference ( Wyllie, Col. Robert E. (1921). Orders, Decorations and Insignia: Military and Civil. New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons, the Knickerbocker Press. pp. 58–9.) saying that a private Julius Aaronson was cited twice for actions on October 7, 1918 in WWI near Apremont. Gecko G (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

William H Campbell

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just deleted all the material regarding William H. Campbell from the main page. It turns out he was the recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross, not the DSC. He is not on the DSC list for WWII which can be checked here. The link in the deleted material was dead, but I was able to pull up another reference showing the correct medal here. Roam41 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Distinguished Service Cross (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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) 03:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Individual listings of recipients

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Individuals who have received the distinguished service cross may receive significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources, but often only for the event which lead to being awarded the DSC, and receiving the medal. Therefore the individual may fall into WP:BIO1E, and per WP:NLIST as the event may be this medal, the individual should be listed here in an appropriate section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I disagree. LISTBIO says "the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article" and I don't think that's the case here. All of the awardees listed for prior conflicts are themselves discussed in standalone articles. What you're encouraging will lead to more name-checking. I always point to WP:WTAF in instances like this. Beside that, the table is out of place compared with the paragraphs of text preceding it. The coverage for OIF/OEF is borderline WP:UNDUE. Further, your argument basically admits these awardees are not notable and should be listed here because they don't merit a standalone article. These lists do not exist to include entries as some sort of compensation prize. You do not have consensus for this and the onus on the editor adding content, not the one removing it. Please revert yourself back to status quo ante. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree with Chris on this one about the WP:WTAF. The massive tables for the recent awardees invites criticism for WP:Recentism. EricSerge (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with the above, as the individuals listed in the lists meet significant coverage, all be it for a single event. As such, if the above editors disagree with the list format. There is the possible option to reduce the size of the content by converting the information into prose, and to provide red links to where new articles can be created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Distinguished Service Cross (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 17:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Distinguished Service Cross (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 11:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Order of precedence

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

@Garuda28:, please help me understand the reason for this edit doesn't it not follow the order of precedence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Did it to align with the order we have on Awards and decorations of the United States Armed Forces. My understanding is that that order of precedence does not address Homeland Security or DOD, only individual service branches. Do we have a definitive order that contradicts the order on the main page? Garuda28 (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
According to what reliable source does HS go before DoD in order of precedence? See Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal#Order of precedence, what RS is provided? The WP:BURDEN is on Garuda28 (talk · contribs), not me.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Also see this:

"These regulations shall place the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal in an order of precedence immediately before the Coast Guard Distinguished Service Medal."

This does not place it over DoD Distinguished Service Medals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
It was just to allign with the order of precedence currently reflected on the main awards page. If it isn’t, then we’ll have to change it there as well. I’ll revert my edit while I try to find a definitive answer. Could be a little difficult since each branch is different, but I’ll present what I find on the talk page of the main awards page. Thanks for pointing this out. Garuda28 (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: Looks like your source is the only one I was able to find. It puts the medal above USCG, so I'll go ahead and make those edits now. Thanks for correcting me! 05:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Garuda28: each branch is definitely different, for instance the USCG uses a different order of precedence for medals, than say the Army (see 22-4) (which would place the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal well below where it would be found on say a Coastie's uniform), or say the Navy (see Article 5304).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this makes a lot of this quite confusing. Its easy for the services, since we do have the service order of precedence, and its commonly accepted that DOD is in front. With Homeland that just opens up another bag of worms. This does bring up a question - do we have an idea where DHS fits in the order of precedence (that is universally accepted). I'm thinking we might have to apply that to this if there is no commonality between the services. AFI 36-2903 doesn't even reflect that medal. Garuda28 (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@McChizzle: Got any knowledge that could help resolve this. I think I am thoroughly confused. Garuda28 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Air Force often keeps close to the Army when it comes to certain things, wouldn't be surprised if they are listed after AF medals, and after other DoD medals like the Army does it.

11.5.44 United States Nonmilitary Decorations. (listed below are a follow examples of awards by federal agencies). If Air Force members wear more than one, arrange in order of acceptance. If member wears two or more from the same agency, that specific agency decides the precedence

So after Military awards, but before conduct and service medals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
On the question of the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal's precedence, I am happy to eco the previous statements for it's hard to find regulations and manuals that address cross-department awards and their precedence, given most departments only focus on themselves. That brings me to the salient point I feel we must consider, department level awards. Each service defines the precedence of military awards—yes, the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal is a military award—a little differently. So, we need to keep in mind that the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal is a department level award for distinguished service, not a service level award like the Coast Guard's Distinguished Service Medal, which is equivalent to the Army/Navy/Air Force Distinguished Service Medals. It is very appropriate that the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal be viewed as equivalent to the Defense Distinguished Service Medal in general, given each service will always ask that their service or department award be worn on the uniform in advance of any other. --McChizzle (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
McChizzle is correct. The Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal is equivalent to the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. Order of precedence depends on which cabinet level department a military service falls under. For example, if the uniformed service member is in the Coast Guard and were to receive both awards (which has been done before), then that coast guardsman would ware the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal before the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. In the case of a service member of any of the other four armed services, the Defense Distinguished Service Medal would be worn before the Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal. Neovu79 (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Archive 1

non notables don't belong here

Latest comment: 5 years ago36 comments8 people in discussion

To editor Lvncenturion: You do not have consensus for re-adding non-notable people to this list per WP:NLIST. Also, please read our guidance on writing the article about a person before listing them here. If you continue re-adding this content, there will be issues. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps RightCowLeftCoast should be aware of this discussion as well, since they edited the content that has now been removed. FYI - wolf 12:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:, it has been an ongoing occurrence on this article to list all post-Vietnam War recipients of the medal, including those who have not received it twice (thus meeting WP:SOLDIER). There has been past consensus for this if memory serves me, and to remove the content goes against that consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: Your ping didn't work. Please change your preferences so the system warns you of broken pings. "it has been an ongoing occurrence on this article..." That mistake should have been corrected earlier. "There has been past consensus for this..." I don't think there was; if there was, I posit consensus has changed. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The deletion of content has no consensus. And the text used in the deletion shows a failure of good faith. This is no different from the December 2016 deletion. Presently there are at least two editors (Lvncenturion (talk · contribs) and myself) who have supported the list of verified recipients (my opinion is based on WP:BLP1E, where the recipient of the subject (the DSC) has received WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:ANYBIO, but usually receives that significant coverage for the event which led to the awarding of the subject) from the post-Vietnam era. As was before only one editor wants to delete content verified to multiple reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I have invited Lvncenturion (talk · contribs) to this discussion. Discussions about disputes about the content of this article are best to be done on this talk page, not the talk page of Lvncenturion.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: The deletion, and re-deletion, appears to have unintentionally violated WP:BRD. Lvncenturion, appears to have reverted your 28 February deletion on that same day; the appropriate action rather than re-deleting, would be to start a discussion and building a consensus for the deletion. Instead, after two editors worked to source the content newly added on 28 February, a single editor as taken it upon themselves to blank the content. The content was not unsourced, inaccurate, moved to another article, irrelevant, or inappropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Take me to ANI or ANEW if you think you can make something stick. I initiated discussion both here (above) and at User talk:Lvncenturion pointing to WP:NLIST, which is a guideline. All I've gotten in return are sad excuses as well as your accusations. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Quite a discussion. My intent was to add four new recipents to a pair of tables that have existed on this page since about 2007. I have been adding names to those tables since at least 2010 and probably before. My visits have been infrequent because such new awards are quite rare. I didn't mean to intrude, just trying to improve the accuracy of this page. Since the inclusion of someone on the "notable list" has to be very subjective, but it contains some errors and are missing a number of men that I would call notables. At least with the post 72 awards, all of them are (or were) listed, something that does not exist anywhere, including at the Awards Branch of the Office of the Adjutant General. Since I have apparently violated something and/or offended someone for some reason that escapes me, I will stay off and watch while this page becomes irrelevant. Thanks Lvncenturion (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"I will stay off and watch while this page becomes irrelevant." - Did he really just write that? - wolf 22:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:ANYBIO is also a guideline which states that all these individuals, having received a notable award, passes notability requirements, and thus can be included per WP:REDLINK.
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU
These are not allegations, but facts, with diffs. But there is an assumption of good faith, that while I may disagree with the edits, that another editor meant well by them. There does not appear to be an assumption of good faith of Lvncenturion.
@Lvcenturion: the addition of the medal recipients was done with good intention, it meets WP:VER and does not give it undue weight.
Per the reasoning of WP:BLP1E, it makes sense to include the list, and meets WP:LISTCRITERIA (also a guideline).
Therefore, to point only at NLIST is insufficient logic to support deletion of the list. Per WP:BRD, I am reverting the deletion made here, and re-adding it.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Any of these award recipients would fail WP:MILPEOPLE, so I don't think a case could be made that they pass WP:ANYBIO. ANYBIO makes an assumption that there will be sources written about the subject, as there would be for a Nobel Prize recipient or a Medal of Honor recipient, but I don't think that's so. Regardless, they shouldn't be listed here per WP:WTAF. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Going to chime in here. I can see both views present, but would have to agree with Chris troutman: since the DSC does not at the moment convey inherent notability (as far as I am aware, see WP:NSOLDIER), it is unnecessary to list all names, and I feel they should be removed. This would also be a case of WP:RECENTISM, if consensus does emerge to include all post-Vietnam, all DSCs ever awarded should be listed. That is around 13,400, absurdly long (compared to just 3,522 Medals of Honor ever). I would support, in place of this, a list of people who have received the cross multiple times (as that does convey notability afaik (per WP:NSOLDIER)). However this discussion turns out, I thank all editors involved for their contributions, and encourage everyone to continue keeping it civil. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Most medal articles describe the history of the medal and related stuff and include a list of notable awards (normally restricted to multiple awards and the like). It is not the place to dump in tables of non-notable receipents they just dont belong in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
There are notable individuals who have received the DSC post Vietnam, which were deleted, and the wholesale deletion of content including Wikilinks to those notable people IMHO was wrong. Of the post Vietnam recipients many (if not all of them) have received significant coverage (often in multiple reliable sources) for their heroism, thus passing WP:GNG which supersedes NSOLDIER (which I helped write); while they often only receive SIGCOV for only the awarding of the subject of this article, that would place them squarely in BLP1E. So as a compromise, we can rather than having an extensive listing with date of event, rank, etc, surely we can include anything cause WP:NOTPAPER & LISTCRETERIA which states:

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.

As the criteria is all post-Vietnam recipients, and they all can be verified, it meets that guideline. Thus just a in paragraph listing of names could be included, such as

During Operation Enduring Freedom the following individuals have been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross: Mark Mitchell, Brendan O'Conner, Thomas Bostick, Charles Wyckoff, Erich Phillips, James Takes, Joseph Lollino, Jack White, Justin Gallegos, Corey Calkins, Jason Myers, Eric Shaw, Craig Warfle, Fipe Pereira, William Eberle, Jeffrey Dawson, and Bryan Anderson.

This would preserve content (which has all been verified) while not creating a list which visually appears to give it more weight in the article than other conflicts. And other sentences could be made for Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2012 Benghazi attack, and 2015 Bamako hotel attack.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This article is not the right place for such a list we have a category system that allows you to see receipents, its just list cruft in what should be a balanced article about the medal. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
It would not be listed by category, if the content was deleted, and per WP:BLP1E the individuals who have received significant coverage are reduced down to redirects. Then again per WP:CSC it can be argued that the lists can be WP:SPINOUT into a stand-alone listC.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I dont really understand what you are saying and I try not to due alphabet soup, all notable receipents are in the category system as they have an article, they dont need to be listed here. Listing everybody who gained the award should not be part of this medal description. A seperate list of all 13,000 holders would not last long before going for deletion as list cruft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris Troutman has been consistent about his opinion to delete the post 1975 list since 10 Jan 2017. I'm not sure how that became a consensus, until today Chris is the only on that mentioned it. Chris cites Wikipedia process crimes to support his argument. Certainly spam and other bad behaviors apparently exist on lists writ large. I started checking these lists on this article when I noticed some spamming of it in 2010. I have not encountered any of this for years. That issue is a non problem in my opinion. Both the post 1975 lists and the notable section have co-existed for over 10 years in this article. I think that it ought to stay that way.Lvncenturion (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Wolf, Lvncenturion, is relatively new, though he has been contributing since 2010, but has under 50 edits, there please see WP:DONTBITE.
Also, my edits were done outside of the lists which is the subject of the discussion. Thanks for the concern but I don't agree with the point raised is of concern of the discussion above. Moreover, regardless of the outcome of the above discussion, my edits expand upon the article are within the article's scope, are verified to reliable sources, and written neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
"Wp:dontbite"...? How about; wp:don't make dick comments like that...? And as for adding content during a content dispute... it seems you're one of those "committee of one" types and you will do as you will. Siiiigh... ok. - wolf 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
As to the opinion raised above that having an article for each DSC recipient is impractical, I would like to rebut that opinion. Per WP:NBASE, each individual who has ever played in a single MLB game is notable, and is eligible for an article. As of 2000, there have been over 15 thousand who meet that criteria, with one source saying in 2018 the number is at 19,231. This has led to stand-alone list articles such as this, which has hundreds, and hundreds of wikilinks to articles that fall within its scope. Therefore, since we aren't a paper encyclopedia and we're constantly improving, there is no need IMHO to not include DSC recipients as being notable per WP:ANYBIO. Whether that is best served as an embedded list, stand-alone lists, or stand-alone articles, are a matter of discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Just because baseballenthusiasts somehow managed to install an exception, that doesnt create a rule. And just because you assume that the a DSC winner meets WP:ANYBIO criteria, WP:ANYBIO gives just a hint for a possible noteability (as it says there: "(...) meeting one or more (of these criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included."). It is somewhat overruled by Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. If there is only the DSC-related event sourceable, or worse, just the DSC win, that can not generate automatic noteability. Alexpl (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to this discussion. I have provided my opinion and point of view. With respect, I won't be reading any policies or guidelines, I am going silent and will no longer participate.Lvncenturion (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(break #1)

So, we have one guy who only posts once every 10 years and refuses to learn any policies or guidelines (thanks for stopping by) and another who apparently wants to create tens of thousands of bio-stubs for every person who has ever been awarded a medal in US military history (good luck with that). Interesting discussion so far... - wolf 02:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • RightCowLeftCoast: If you want to create an article for every single recipient of the DSC, propose to change WP:MILPERSON from what it currently says Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; to Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross);, and then bring the discussion here again, because right now they do not meet notability. Yes there are lots of other things that inherently make larger amounts of people notable, but other stuff does exist, and right now policy is against you. That will have to be changed before your argument has any substance. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a policy, but an essay. We couldn't elevate the essay to a guideline. It's hard to get a SNG elevated in the current Wikipedia community. As for above, please see BLP1E, since many recipients have received significant coverage (in multiple reliable sources)(which is the case for most (if not all) post-Vietnam conflicts)(thus they meet GNG, which supersedes MILPERSON) for the event which is why the subject was awarded the DSC, BLP1E says to redirect that biography to the event (or in this case the medal). Therefore, since GNG and ANYBIO as guidelines supersede MILPERSON essay, to say that MILPERSON essay is why we shouldn't have articles about DSC recipient articles, is an opinion which can be held, it is one which I disagree with.
If consensus is to remove the list, so be it. But to also ask that the prose which I recently added (which is not a list), is also removed, is IMHO counterproductive.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Most of the people listed fail GNG and ANYBIO; I don't think you could develop consensus to keep them. Further, while the table is ugly, long lists of names in prose aren't helpful, either. If the list was less than a dozen people I could tolerate it but we're talking about potentially thousands of names. Please accept that not everything that is true should be found on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
And don't be so dismissive of MILPERSON, even as an essay, it represents a significant and longstanding consensus of the community. - wolf 01:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(break #2)

My grandfather, Dwight T. Colley in the Yankee Division, is the only person (far as I know) to receive the DSC in both WW I and WW II. Would he be suitable for the Notables list? AnalogGround (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@AnalogGround: Probably not. Please see WP:MILPEOPLE. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@AnalogGround: Do you have any sources that support your comment about your grandfather? I'm not doubting you, but without any sourcing, you wouldn't be able to add him. But with sources, and the more the better, then it's possible you could add him. Being the only person (in the army? the entire military?) to receive the DSC in both world wars might be notable. - wolf 20:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

AnalogGround (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)I see this in the military notables guidelines: "WP:MILPEOPLE In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour,[1] or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times;" The key is "multiple times". His name can be found in any of the lists of DSC recipients for WWI and WWII. For example, see the Defense Department web site at https://valor.defense.gov/recipients/army-distinguished-service-cross-recipients/ I have not correlated the two lists and cannot say if he is the ONLY person. I think I have a copy of a newspaper article (somewhere) which mentions it. Anyway, I will plug along and find what I can about it. Thank you for the consideration.

AnalogGround (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC) After a little research I find about 10 who received the DSC in WWI and WWII. Three of them are currently in the notables list of the article. For example, Lewis Brereton or, notably, George Patton. Thanks! It's been fun!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Distinguished_Service_Cross_(United_States)/Archive_1&oldid=1257704191"