Talk:Henry Johnson (World War I soldier)

HISTORICAL NOTE: This page was launched with the title "Henry Lincoln Johnson," actually the name of another individual (although conflated in multiple sources). Much of the debate which follows relates to this naming question. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Name

There is some evidence that Henry Lincoln Johnson was born William Henry Johnson and changed his name upon entering military service to avoid confusion with another Henry Johnson. His wife is on record in period newspapers as calling him "Bill".--Saxophobia 18:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He never was "Henry Lincoln Johnson" that name came from a family that thought they were related to him, but were not. Every page of his 1,300 military record use either "William Henry Johnson" or "Henry Johnson". You can see everything from his draft record to his death certificate at the Wiki Commons link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

And yet he is still commonly called that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there some verifiable and reliable source for this? The recently-cited HuffPo blog entry is a kind of poor source, tossing out several "corrections" without explaining what her source is. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The death certificate found here: and the newspaper article found here: (see "Taps Sounded for Great World War Here" at bottom of page) both verify his name and date/place of death. There is also a WWI draft registration card (found on familysearch.org) which verifies his place of birth. As a side point, the person who wrote the HuffPo article, while she didn't cite her sources, has done over 1,000 cases for the U.S. Army. What I'd like to do is put my original edits back in place, citing the HuffPo article, but also citing the additional documentation mentioned above. Thoughts?Nicole.Paull (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Blogs are considered poor sources, because the barriers to writing them are so low, and fact-checking by publishers is pretty much non-existant. Primary documents or curated articles are preferred. The fact that he did in fact use the name "Henry Johnson" – as shown by the registration you cited – means that it would be better to state that he was "also known as" that, rather than suggesting that those who use that name for him are somehow misreporting the facts. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Jason A. Quest's comments, this new source can not contradict all previous sources to date. The best choice would be to add a section about this research, if it is confirmed by other sources. Until there is confirmation, then it remains a fringe theory, and is best given minimal weight. Scr★pIron^IV 23:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if he misrepresented his name on his registration form, that also calls the other information on that card into question. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and comments. I've been checking over various sources and noticed multiple things. First, the author of the article I originally cited has apparently revised her article and it now cites multiple sources supporting her claims (several are additional to the two I cited earlier). Additionally, she was the genealogist who researched both the Shemin and Johnson Medal of Honor cases for the Army. See Some of the sources that are currently cited in the Wikipedia entry for Sgt. Johnson now include mention of him as William Henry Johnson and also specify his birthplace as Winston-Salem, NC. See here and here . Accordingly, I've changed his listed name to Henry Johnson, rather than Henry Lincoln Johnson. That is the name the Army will use in awarding the honor today. I've also changed his place of birth to Winston-Salem, North Carolina since there are multiple sources to support that. Sound reasonable?Nicole.Paull (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing the name of an encyclopedia entry is no small issue. Multiple, verifiable sources are required to enact such a change. Scr★pIron^IV 17:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

See Official Army page for Henry Johnson receiving the Medal of Honor here. Note that the Army did not include "Lincoln" and shows his birthplace as Winston-Salem, NC. Based upon this and the other sources cited, can we not agree to show his name and birthplace in the article itself as Henry Johnson and Winston-Salem, NC?Nicole.Paull (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It helps to support the contention that there are conflicting sources. As editors, we do not get to pick which source is "right" and which is "wrong." Long standing content requires more than one or two sources to effect a change to the extent you are suggesting. What we as impartial editors would do is point out what the sources say, not declare one or the other as being correct. For decades, this American hero (who holds my greatest esteem) has been known as "Henry Lincoln Johnson" - including at the Arlington National Cemetery site. We should acknowledge the confusion over his name, which is not unusual. Interesting that the reference you provided lists his home town as Winston-Salem, but Albany also lays claim to that distinction in the Times Union. So, the best we can do is to list the article as he was known, acknowledge the additional information, and not decide who is right or wrong. Of course, we will do this with the honor and respect that he deserves. Scr★pIron^IV 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement that he deserves our honor and respect; there is no doubt of his heroics on the battlefield and he deserved the recognition he received today much earlier than that honor was given. Please do not take offense at my questioning what you said about Arlington National Cemetery, but it appears that his tombstone actually reads Henry Johnson. Note that the date on the tombstone agrees with the date on the death certificate. Rank, infantry, and division are also in agreement with known facts. Are you able to provide verifiable sources showing him known as "Henry Lincoln Johnson" at Arlington National Cemetery? Also, while there's no doubt he lived in Albany, are you able to show verifiable sources to show that he was born there? (I think you may have meant Alexandria, Virginia--but the same question applies.) Please--I intend no disrespect of either you or of Sgt. Johnson's legacy--but I think it's reasonable that old information needs to be defended when new information comes to light. And it seems reasonable that there ought to be documentation dating back to Sgt. Johnson's lifetime that defends the old information if, indeed, that old, albeit often accepted, information is factual ...as there is documentation dating back to his lifetime that supports the edits I made. Can you produce such documentation? Additionally, please note that in his address, (Time: 2:46-11:00) President Obama consistently referred to Sgt. Johnson as "Henry Johnson," never as "Henry Lincoln Johnson". Additionally, if you Google "Medal of Honor" and "Johnson" to see all the news coverage today, you'll find that the majority of the media is calling him Henry Johnson. (See for example this link. ) If you look closely, you'll also notice that corrections are starting to be made to some of the articles noting that the soldier did not have a son named Herman, a point I hadn't even brought up previously.Nicole.Paull (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Arlington Cemetery site is is here:[1] I understand the desire to use just his first and last name, as it is often displayed; however, references in historical texts have been referring to him as Henry Lincoln Johnson for decades. References which do not include a person's middle name are not necessarily excluding it. My own military awards and citations do not reference my middle name, as it is customary to include rank, first name and last name in awards presentations. I don't think anyone is advocating that he was not simply know as Henry Johnson to those who knew him; rather, that when uniquely identifying an individual in reference works, the middle name is often used for disambiguation purposes. Thus, over the years, this particular middle name has become inextricably associated with him. We should absolutely mention the confusion over his name, and list supporting references. I was unaware of the controversy over a son named Herman, who is listed in several references. One even mentioned him as one of the Tuskegee Airmen. I would appreciate it if you would please share a few links covering this. Scr★pIron^IV 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand that references have been referring to him as Henry Lincoln Johnson for decades; my question (which I believe is warranted) is simply whether they were doing that accurately or whether that crept in as an error sometime after his death, given the fact that there is a preponderance of documentation that dates back to the soldier's own lifetime which refers to him only as Henry Johnson or William Henry Johnson. If his middle name were Lincoln, there ought to be some documentation from his own time period to substantiate it. Is the consensus, then, that his name be addressed in a separate section with supporting material cited?

Are we able to agree on Winston-Salem, North Carolina to be listed as his place of birth? (Note sources I've already referenced, including his draft registration card and the official Army webpage.) And are we able to agree on July 1, 1929 in Washington, D.C. as his date and place of death? (Note death certificate I already referenced.) There's also an obituary which lists this as his date of death in the Evening Star newspaper. Regarding family connections or lack thereof, one thing at a time; we already have a lot on our plates. Let's get a consensus regarding name, place of birth and date and place of death for now.

I do request that if there is not a consensus reached regarding place of birth and place and date of death at this point, that any with objections provide solid evidence supporting Alexandria, Virginia as the place of birth, July 5, 1929 as his date of death, and New Lenox, IL as his place of death. Fair enough?

If someone else is curious and wants to dig into the family issue, I'll leave that to them for the moment...although this might give them a head start. Nicole.Paull (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As there is no deadline to complete this article, please let us discuss rather than just revert changes. There are a few issues, which we must work collaboratively to settle:

• Name - We have conflicting sources, and all should read WP:COMMONNAME to help decide how this article should be titled.
• Hometown, Place of Death, Place of Birth - Again conflicting sources to be evaluated.
• Medal of Honor - I have one source which says it should have been awarded today, and there are others which show the anniversary of D-Day, June 6. We can not say "A ceremony was held..." on a future date.

So, please, let's talk. Scr★pIron^IV 18:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm hearing only crickets. We can't reach a consensus if there's no conversation on the subject. :) Incidentally, two of the sources I'd referenced here are now cited in the Wikipedia article, and . The first reference, currently cited in the Medal of Honor section, explains that the Medal of Honor was received by Command Sgt. Maj. Louis Wilson because Sgt. Johnson has no known family members living; that Herman A. Johnson, who thought he was the son of Sgt. Johnson was, in fact, not. This has since been covered extensively by the press. We ought to update Sgt. Johnson's page accordingly, removing Herman A. Johnson from being shown as a relation, but also acknowledging his tireless campaigning for the man he thought was his father to receive the awards he deserved. Regarding Sgt. Johnson's official Army page, which is also now cited in the Wikipedia article, if we're citing that in the Medal of Honor section, why are we not also citing it to say that Sgt. Johnson was born William Henry Johnson in Winston-Salem, NC? If it's good for one fact, I think it ought to be good for the others. Finally, I want to bring up again the HuffPo article I mentioned previously. I realize there is a prejudice against blog-type sources, however, I strongly urge close examination of this one instead of dismissing it out of hand. She is the professional genealogist (considered an authority in her field) who researched the genealogical aspect of this case for the Army and in her article, she includes a trail of documents along with links that anyone can follow to look these over for themselves. If we agree to a new section regarding confusion over Sgt. Johnson's name, as was suggested before, I believe this article deserves inclusion as a cited source. I'm also curious whether anyone has taken up the challenge of finding archival documents from the soldiers own lifetime to support the claims of Alexandria, VA as place of birth, July 5, 1929 in New Lenox, IL as the date and place of death, and "Lincoln" as a middle name.Nicole.Paull (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I had left the Medal of honor citation on the Career section, similar to at least one other MoH recipient page I read.--2001:4898:80E8:EE31:0:0:0:5 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

‘The French government awarded Johnson the Croix de Guerre with special citation and a golden palm. This was France's highest award for bravery and he was the first American to receive it.’ I would drop the second sentence since CdeG is not France's highest award for bravery and the Wikipedia article on that decoration does not make that claim. I am not sure of the evidence that he was the first American to receive the CdeG but he is chronologically the first US Army recipient of the MofH for the First World War. Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

As a former soldier and recipient of US military awards, the date of the medal in question is the actual date of the award (June 2, 2015) and not the date of the events which merited those awards. As such, he is one of the last two recipients of the Medal of Honor. That does not diminish the value of his service. As for the French Croix de Guerre, your have found a shortcoming in that article, and perhaps you should correct it. The Wikipedia article does not invalidate the claim. At the time, it was France's highest award - specifically, the golden palm. Scr★pIron^IV 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware that for US military awards, the date of the medal in question is the actual date of the award and not the date of the events which merited those awards. However, William Harvey Carney was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1900 for gallantry at Fort Wagner in 1863. He is considered to be the first African American to be granted the Medal of Honor. The Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur is the highest decoration in France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Honour Anthony Staunton (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your research and the clarification. I stand corrected on the issue of the French awards, and certainly the article should be changed to reflect that. Scr★pIron^IV 13:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Relations listed in box at top right of page

We're still showing Herman A. Johnson listed as a relative, but it's well-established at this point that the belief that there was a family connection between the two was mistaken. (Herman A. Johnson's Wikipedia page has been updated accordingly, I noticed.) Do others think we should remove the line about relations entirely or might it be better to leave it there, but say there are no known living relatives?Nicole.Paull (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed New Section

As discussed in the "Name" section, above, there is conflicting information regarding Johnson's name, place of birth, date and place of death, and relatives. I'm proposing a new section to address these and want to gather thoughts first.

Proposed name of new section: Conflicting Information Regarding Name, Place of Birth, Date and Place of Death, and Relations (If too long, how about "Conflicting Information on Johnson's Life"?)

Proposed New Content:

A number of sources list Johnson's full name as Henry Lincoln Johnson. Other sources state that he was born William Henry Johnson.

Conflicting information likewise exists regarding his place of birth, with some sources referencing Alexandria, Virginia and others stating Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

Regarding his death, some sources state July 5, 1929 and New Lenox, IL as his date and place of death. Other sources place his death on July 1, 1929 in Washington, DC.

For many years, it was thought that Herman A. Johnson was the son of Henry Johnson. In tracking Henry Johnson's genealogy prior to his being awarding the Medal of Honor, however, it was discovered that there was not a family connection between the two. Regarding this, the Army was quoted as saying, "While we appreciate the Johnson family fighting for the award and keeping the memory and valorous acts of Henry Johnson alive, we regretfully cannot recognize them as PNOK," or primary next of kin.

End of Proposed New Content

As a source for some of the material, I have included an article that was self-published for two reasons. First, it contains source material by which the information can be evaluated and/or verified by the reader. Second, the author is "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The field is genealogy and she has been quoted and/or covered on the subject by multiple respected publications, including, but not restricted to, The New York Times, The Times of London , The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, and The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Thoughts or suggestions for improvement? Nicole.Paull (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with the proposed wording; however, there is a significant problem with using Find a Grave, Huffpo, and any self published source. Please read WP:SPS and find other sources Scr★pIron^IV 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS is actually where I got the quotation I'd mentioned, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That's why I mentioned the publications where the research of the author of the HuffPo article has been quoted...all major, respected, third-party publications. Am I misunderstanding? Do you still think it ought not to be included?

No question on the Find A Grave source except that it's currently listed as an external link in the article...that's where I found it to begin with. If Find A Grave is considered questionable, ought we to remove it from the article entirely?

No problem leaving the HuffPo source out if that's the consensus--other sources I included illustrate the point--and not trying to start an argument. I'm just a little confused at this point and feeling like the bit in WP:SPS about when a self-published source is considered reliable is rather ambiguous. (If my research was cited on a front-page article in The New York Times, as was the case with the research about Michelle Obama's ancestry by the author of the HuffPo article, I'd definitely consider myself an established expert, especially when my work had also been covered by several other highly respected newspapers on a number of genealogical subjects. That's why I'm still a little confused.)

Also, where on the page would you suggest adding the new section? Thanks for your help and clarification; I do appreciate it...and I think I'll be a better editor for it.Nicole.Paull (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As I had mentioned, it really is good and valuable information, and I appreciate your dedication to the article. A very important thing to read - when there is brand new information which challenges long held understanding - is WP:NOTNEWS. Also, WP:DEADLINE is valuable. The self published source should soon be reported elsewhere, particularly as the story is still evolving. We do want to have the best available information, and that includes having more sources concur with evolving knowledge. There is no argument between us - just both of us learning more and becoming better editors for it. My understanding is growing, too. The issue with Find a Grave is that some of it's content is crowd sourced. We have the same issue with IMDB; there is not the kind of fact-checking that comes with news organizations, educational institutions, and other professional publications. So, it is acceptable to include those things as external links, because it does not speak in "Wikipedia's voice" - an interesting term I have learned recently. I would consider breaking this information up a bit, with the confusion of his name in the early life section, and the circumstances of his passing in the later life and death section. There is enough information on these issues to go ahead and use the source you have presented - there is enough written about it in various sources that I doubt it will be challenged. Scr★pIron^IV 00:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Find a Grave

I remove Find a Grave as a reference (source) per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Find a Grave was duplicated as a references and as an external link. Find a Grave as a source (or reference) fails;

• 1)-WP:SOURCES; Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and *accuracy.
• 2)- WP:NOTRELIABLE; Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.
• 3)- WP:SELFPUBLISH; Find a Grave is user edited and uses anonymous or pseudonymous editors.
• 4)- WP:SPS]; This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. Find a Grave is not currently specifically named as is IMBd but falls under "and so forth" but we can (and probably will) seek inclusion by name as it may be necessary for clarification. Otr500 (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The contributor may be unaware that MofH recipients in Find a Grave are deemed famous graves and have editorial oversight. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

You do realize that you are responding to a post that is over four years old...? Also, your summary could be deemed as patronizing to our female editors. An editor is an editor, and gender is immaterial. Competence is all that matters. Scr★pIron^IV 03:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The quote is slightly more than four years old. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth and death and place of birth

Since there is no definitive date of birth, or date of death, or place of birth, why are you arbitrarily picking one for the infobox? It gives the impression that one is correct and one is wrong. Both need to be displayed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Move (2015)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The consensus is that the present title is the most common name. Other variants created as redirects. Jenks24 (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

---

• Henry Lincoln Johnson → William Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor) – or Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor, b. 1892) and Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor, b. 1850) to disambiguate him from the other Henry Johnson Medal of Honor winner.

The official name at the Medal of Honor page is "Henry Johnson" and his full name is listed as "William Henry Johnson" at the MoH page. We already have another Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor) so we need to use the full name. Before awarding the medal the Army did genealogical research and discredited the "Lincoln" name. The genealogist says: "But those accounts didn’t match up with official documents. His name was believed to be Henry Lincoln Johnson, but records showed he was William Henry Johnson. He preferred to use his middle name." The only reference using the now discredited "Lincoln" is the Arlington Cemetery website which is not affiliated with the National Cemetery. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the target page is much too large to merge into a hatnote onto this article -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE The nominator changed the nomination after my opinion was lodge without informing me or making a note here. The original requested target was William Henry Johnson which is a disambiguation page. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
    • PROCEDURAL CLOSE large change to nomination without informing participants. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - This notable individual has been in references and textbooks as "Henry Lincoln Johnson" for 80+ years. We address the naming controversy appropriately within the article. Scr★pIron^IV 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per ScrapIron's reasoning -- Habap (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per ScrapIron's reasoning -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - If WP:COMMONNAME is not enough, how about natural disambiguation? The current name is neither obscure nor made-up, even if it is less common than "the preferred-but-ambiguous title". The proposed name is obscure, however. Also, WP:middle names allows middle names that are often used by sources. --George Ho (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Commonname

• "Henry Johnson" medal of honor = 33,700 GHits captures both winners
• "William Henry Johnson" medal of honor = 4,900 Ghits
• "Henry Lincoln Johnson" - wikipedia = 3,740 Ghits
• "Henry Lincoln Johnson" medal of honor - wikipedia = 1,420 Ghits to distinguish him from the lawyer of the same name
• "Henry Johnson" medal of honor 2015 = 19,300 Ghits
• "Henry Johnson" medal of honor 1879 = 8,200 Ghits
• "William Henry Johnson" medal of honor -wikipedia = 4,100 Ghits

The previous unsigned content was provided by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).

• Comment Might I ask why results for the name for the proposed move was not included at all? Additionally, Google Hits are an inadequate source to determine the common name for a subject. It can be suggestive, but not a final factor. Scr★pIron^IV 16:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for giggles, I ran the google search for the proposed - "William Henry Johnson" medal of honor - and ended up with the fewest hits of any, under 5,000 hits. Clearly not the best choice. Scr★pIron^IV 16:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Once more, incorrect math. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Once more, invalid inference. The subject was only given the Medal of Honor this year, so any references to him written before that event wouldn't include that phrase, thus they do not distinguish him from the lawyer. Prior to this year, he was most commonly known for receiving the Croix de Guerre; "Henry Lincoln Johnson" croix de guerre gets 3,670 Ghits. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• 3,670 is still less than ("William Henry Johnson" medal of honor) = 4,900 Ghits and ("Henry Johnson" medal of honor 2015) = 19,300 Ghits. Again, its just addition and subtraction here, no magic. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you suggest we determine WP:COMMONNAME? You were the one who said that "Henry Lincoln Johnson" was the most common name but I think you just pulled that statistic out of thin air. As pointed out above Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor) is already taken so we need to disambiguate him. The alternative is Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor, b. 1892) and Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor, b. 1850) to parallel John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826) and John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826) and John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831) and John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1854). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that a newly determined name (within the past year or so) is the common name of an individual who was world famous nearly 100 years ago? "William" was not part of his "name" until this year. There is no need to move the article just for the sake of moving it. It was common enough to have been created this way, because ten years ago it was what was taught in history for the previous 70-80 years. Common is just that; common - what people know someone by. I haven't pulled anything out of thin air; I also know I haven't copied it from somewhere. Scr★pIron^IV 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I am, thank you for noticing. "because ten years ago it was what was taught in history for the previous 70-80 years" I think your math is off a bit again. WP:COMMONNAME is objective, not subjective. If the old name is in textbooks, we picked them up in the Ghits in Gbooks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not my math; the article was disambiguated under that name in 2006, and the name was included in the article on 2005. That is ~10 years. He was a publicized hero 80+ years prior to that. Now, don't you have something useful to do, like maybe clean up some old copyvio's or something? Scr★pIron^IV 20:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Asking for "objective" determination of WP:COMMONNAME is unrealistic. Instead we have to evaluate the evidence we have:

1. The article was created and has existed under this name for most of the life of Wikipedia.
2. The name "Henry Lincoln Johnson" gets twice as many Google hits as "William Henry Johnson".
3. And intuitively, the name that's been used for decades is more likely to be used by someone searching for the article.

The objection to this name seems to stem entirely from the fact that it was not his legal name. But that's explicitly not a factor in determining the name of the article. That's a matter for the content of the article to address, and one can present all sorts of arguments and viewpoints about how to do that. But the precedent of the existing article name does in fact carry weight, and I haven't seen any arguments presented that actually assert that another name for the article – particularly one that omits his popularly-known self-applied middle name – will make the article any easier to find. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• It is not a "self-applied" name, no one knows how the erroneous name became attached to him, he never used it. There is no rule concerning "precedent of the existing article name", we move articles all the time when they contain errors, or need to be disambiguated. And of course you are using the straw-man argument by comparing "William Henry Johnson" to "Henry Lincoln Johnson" when the suggest move is Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor, b. 1892) or William Henry Johnson. And lastly have a redirect for the erroneous name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You must prove that the current name is explicitly "inaccurate", according to sources. Otherwise, let's not call it erroneous or inaccurate at this time. George Ho (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Even that wouldn't mean it needs to be changed. Michael Andrew Fox's name isn't really "Michael J. Fox", but that's the name people most commonly use for him, so that's the name we use for the article about him. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• You are confusing a self-applied pseudonym, or pen name, or stage name, with an historical inaccuracy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article be under the discredited name Henry Lincoln Johnson?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close. Let's not duplicate requests. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The phrasing of the question implies a false premise; the fact that it may not have been his legal name has no bearing in determining the best name for the article. If you wish to "discredit" the name for this question, you have to show that he is not commonly known by it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The stats are from above, I have reposted them here, you could have run the same search instead of guessing:

• ("Henry Johnson" medal of honor) 33,700 Ghits captures both winners
• ("Henry Lincoln Johnson") 9,870 Ghits
• ("Henry Johnson" medal of honor 2015) 19,300 Ghits
• ("Henry Johnson" medal of honor 1879) 8,200 Ghits

"Henry Lincoln Johnson" is not the most common name, the erroneous name may have been popular before the research was done by the Medal of Honor committee that discredited that name. The MoH reviewed 1,300 pages of documents, none of which used the Lincoln name. The number of media outlets using the proper MoH name is twice what the erroneous old name has. There are many more media outlets available today. Yes, 50 year old textbooks may use "Henry Lincoln Johnson" and it will stay as a redirect and is explained in the text as erroneous. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Please go back and read what I actually wrote, because your response does not address it. The question was whether the name is commonly used; your own stats demonstrate that it is. Thus it is not "discredited" or "erroneous" for article-naming purposes. You can try to argue that another name is more common (hint: your subjective interpretation of these stats are not objective proof of that) but you cannot reasonably assert that the existing title is not a commonly used name for him, as your RfC implies. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? So you want to keep the less common name, because of what again? Is this one of those definition of "is" is things. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Request Procedural Close This RFC is a subset of the prexisting RfM. The first should be resolved before a new RfC is opened on the same topic. Scr★pIron^IV 17:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RfM was closed

Decision was not to move; latest move was against consensus. Scr★pIron^IV 18:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The decision is not important, this is wrong. IAR. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This person is not Henry Lincoln Johnson

Correct COMMONNAME for this article is Henry Johnson (2015 Medal of Honor). He was not known as "William Henry Johnson," he achieved national fame as Henry Johnson. He was not the 1890 Congressional Medal of Honor winner Henry Johnson, that was a different person. He was not African-American soldier Henry Lincoln Johnson (d. 1924), that was a different person. Instead of specious "somebody wrote something on the internet," I refer you to one of the top academic histories on this topic, Chad L. Williams, Torchbearers of Democracy: African American Soldiers in the World War I Era. (University of North Carolina Press, 2010). Index page 444 lists two separate individuals, "Henry Johnson" (the subject of this article), pp. 124-127, 216-217, 289; and "Henry Lincoln Johnson," another person, pp. 220 and 387-footnote 122. Common name of this individual was "Henry Johnson." He was nationally famous.

This page may well have been wrong since the beginning of time. I'm not assigning blame or saying anything about that other than we absolutely can not be listing Medal of Honor winners by the wrong name, no matter how many people on the internet have messed up on the matter. Please reverse your revert, ScrapIronIV. Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Here is the pg. 387, fn. 122 reference to the real Henry Lincoln Johnson in its entirety:

122. "Decatur County Welcomes Soldiers," Savannah Tribune, April 26, 1919. Henry Lincoln Johnson was born in Atlanta, where he became a prominent attorney and active member of the Republican Party. He met his future wife, Georgia Douglass Johnson, at Atlanta University, and they married in 1903. The couple relocated to Washington, DC, when Johnson received an appointment as recorder of deeds from President William Howard Taft. He died unexpectedly in 1924. "Georgia Douglass Johnson," in Shockley, Afro-American Woman Writers, 347-48."

— Different person. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)

The RfM was closed today, with the input of multiple experienced editors. Thank you for your input, and for the additional source. There is no WP:DEADLINE, so I would suggest you open up a new RfM based on the new information. As you well know, we do not make controversial and unilateral moves in situations where discussion has been held. Maintaining the current name per WP:BRD, until a new consensus is achieved. Scr★pIron^IV 19:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm also following BRD on this. It shouldn't be a controversial thing to overturn a RfM under the policy of Ignore All Rules, but since you reverted me you are going to have to be the one that makes that call. Be BOLD. I'm a strong believer in COMMONNAME, this should be listed as Henry Johnson, not William Henry Johnson and especially not as Henry Lincoln Johnson. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe we all want this article to be named correctly. You have found sources which were not considered in the prior discussion, and they are greatly appreciated; however, more input is required to determine the appropriate weight to be given to them. A new RfM is appropriate, and I would not object to you opening one so quickly after the close of this one. Scr★pIron^IV 19:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move 2015-A

The article was moved ahead of the formal close of this request and things have consequently become somewhat confusing. Administrator, be advised that current form Henry Johnson (World War I soldier) is consensus choice and please formally close section as moot... —Carrite
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Henry Lincoln Johnson → Henry Johnson (2015 Medal of Honor) – There has been a mistake, see above, Henry Lincoln Johnson (d. 1924 in Atlanta) is not the same person as Medal of Honor winner Henry Johnson (2015 Medal of Honor) (d. July 1, 1929 in Washington, DC). Pinging in all of those who opposed RAN's name change who participated in the previous move request. Asking for a change to Henry Johnson (2015 Medal of Honor), which will concisely disambiguate this subject from all others while adhering to COMMONNAME as closely as practicable. Note that there is an 1890 Medal of Honor winner by the same name, thus the date. 70.51.44.60, ScrapIronIV, Habap, JasonAQuest, George Ho, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )... --Carrite (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Is it too late to change it to "Henry Johnson (Medal of Honor, 2015)". I was just peeking at the category and it looks like this is the most common disambiguation. There are 8 that are configured this way. Your way looks like an Academy Award type of an award where one is given out each year. We can also harmonize a few other outliers like John Miller (1865 Medal of Honor recipient) Is there a better way to disambiguate John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826) and John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831) both were awarded in 1864. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC) I've got no objection to that, but be sure to get the other Henry Johnson (1890 Medal of Honor) and the Henry Johnson disambiguation page as well if that's the way you all go. Signing off. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Support as proposer. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC) The topic of this name and need for change was brought up at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Henry Lincoln Johnson. --doncram 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Support move to "Henry Johnson (2015 Medal of Honor)" or other variation that reflects the man's real name in full or his apparently preferred middle-name then last-name usage. "2015 Medal of Honor" is okay as parenthetical term. I am surprised at previous RM arguments for continuing an incorrect name. --doncram 19:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Support --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Oppose - We've gone through this before. You have no proof or source saying that that the current name is inaccurate. Also, the parenthetical disambiguation doesn't make the current name a made-up name. By the way, I added a banner for you, so I'll make sure someone else can speedily close this. Otherwise, try to thank me for modifying your request to increase awareness of this discussion. George Ho (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC) No, you are absolutely incorrect. I've got a published university press book written by a historian that indicates these are two different people. Chad L. Williams, Torchbearers of Democracy: African American Soldiers in the World War I Era. (University of North Carolina Press, 2010). Index page 444 lists two separate individuals, "Henry Johnson" (the subject of this article), material on pp. 124-127, 216-217, 289; and "Henry Lincoln Johnson," another person, material pp. 220 and 387-footnote 122. I quote the short bio of the real Henry Lincoln Johnson above on this page. Williams is an Associate Professor of History at Hamilton College, according to the back flap of the dust jacket... Best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Here's a Google Books link to the index: [2] Carrite (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Some of the pages are omitted. What does page 220 say? George Ho (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Pg. 220 talks about the return of black veterans to Decatur County, GA and an April 14, 1919, event at which Henry Lincoln Johnson (the other guy) spoke and "emphasized the patriotism and loyalty of African Americans in the face of segregation and lynching." That line ends with footnote 122, cited above. It's an interesting point (and something that I might want to do shortly) that H.L. Johnson (the other guy) also seems to be notable in WP terms. Henry Johnson (the medal of honor winner) was a pretty huge war hero in the black community, nationally known, and is obviously a much bigger historical figure. Carrite (talk) 04:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) You have presented no evidence that "Henry Lincoln Johnson" is the most common name even if we are to accept the erroneous name as a viable option. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC) I tried to find the current name: [3][4][5]. I saw books about some lawyer and politician who died on 1925 or someone else. George Ho (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Yeah, I see that the second link there, that book has the two individuals' names crossed. It's actually pretty confusing and takes a little bit of sussing out to get things straightened out. Start with the simple idea that birth names usually aren't changed and that there are two birth names floating around, then add to it the two death dates and places. There are a lot of people who have gotten this wrong, pretty clearly, but no reason that we have to... Carrite (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC) @RAN. "Henry Lincoln Johnson" is the COMMONNAME of an altogether different person. I really do want to get his bio up also, which should help end the confusion once and for all. Carrite (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC) There is absolutely zero doubt that H.L. Johnson (the other guy) is also notable. See THIS for example. That's a pretty simple political biography to be written, right in my wheelhouse... Carrite (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Ah, here we go... — Digging through Newspapers.com, I found a really nice picture of Atlanta Attorney Henry Lincoln Johnson (the other guy). Hopefully you all can see it with this link: [6] Compare to the photos of the war hero. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Wow, American National Biography have the two names conflated also. That's wacky. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC) So, you do see why this has been such a contentious issue? So many sources have been wrong, and have been wrong for so long that American history has been taught incorrectly. Unfortunately, some things can be "wrong" for so long that they become "right" - and the common name for an individual becomes incorrect. If we can get a page up for the this Henry Lincoln Johnson with a disambiguation note, I will have no objection at all. I appreciate the hard work and research you are doing, Tim. Scr★pIronIV 13:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, I just mentioned this on Jimbotalk — that some really big sources have managed to conflate the two names and that an academic could probably write a journal article on how a big-time war hero like Henry Johnson (MoH) could be misnamed by so many people. It's a real lesson that there's are no such thing as "reliable sources" — there is only right and wrong information with some sources being better than others. It sounds like the military records all have it as William Henry Johnson, yes? If so, this seems a pretty simple fix. My own interest tends towards the second guy HLJ, the lawyer, and I'll "write him up" for WP as soon as the article title clears up. Once his bio is up, it should be easy to backcheck this piece to make sure that the two biographies haven't been mashed up with the names. I was trying to find Henry Johnson, the war hero, in the black press last night but the Pittsburgh Courier seems to have been lost for 1919, when Henry Johnson, the war hero, was his most famous. I'm sure Newspapers.com has black newspapers of the correct vintage but it's a bit of a trick to find them. By the way, if anyone does a lot of biography work, visit The Wikipedia Library project and get in line for a Newspapers.com account. Their search-engine is badass and clipping ability is first rate. Very, very, very highly recommended. best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Unfortunately, the edits to this subject's page have erased all trace of the confusion over his name. While I am now hopeful that we have enough sources to disambiguate the two individuals, I believe it is quite important to mention the naming issue. I believe that we can safely rename the article - and now support it, based on the evidence you have provided - but expunging reference to the fact that many sources have called him by another name would be wrong. We, as Wikipedia editors, do not choose which is right and which is wrong - although in this case we would name per the weight of the sources which choose one or another. As it stands now, if the article were moved as suggested, then anyone looking for "Henry Lincoln Johnson" expecting to see the MoH winning WWI veteran would be quite confused. Scr★pIronIV 14:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment: Minor change in article name, such as switching "(2015 Medal of Honor)" vs. "(Medal of Honor, 2015)", after this closes would be no big deal, should not required another Requested Move. However it seems to me that mentioning 2015 is itself misleading, for a person famous for his heroism in 1918 and/or for the unusual coverage in 1918 and subsequent widespread recognition. He is not famous for becoming a medal of honor winner 97 years later; there probably have been others who have been recognized more than a century later. I suggest the articles for the two medal of honor winners would better named Henry Johnson (World War I soldier) and Henry Johnson (Buffalo Soldier) or similarly, instead. Note that the Wikipedia article on Sergeant York, probably the most famous rank-and-file U.S. solder of WWI, is simply Alvin C. York. Let the title here be simple too, and err on the side of understatement. By the way, the Wikipedia article on York reports that his heroic action was also in 1918, that he received medal of honor a few months later (so in 1918 or early 1919), but he was not generally famous stateside or even in his state of Tennessee until he was covered in Saturday Evening Post in 1919. It was probably the Saturday Evening Post's coverage of Johnson in 1918 that made him famous, though not the first report, and though he was not to get the medal of honor until 97 years later. They both were highly decorated in their day, however. (Johnson got the French award then, at least, though I am not sure when he got U.S. awards [not until 1996 and 2003], this wikipedia article does not yet say.) Drawing some comparison in this article would be relevant and appropriate, I think, even if only in a "See also" kind of way. Is there any published comparison between the two, i wonder. --doncram 21:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Did you find the Saturday Evening Post article, it would go well with the other documents I have collected at Wikimedia Commons. I will agree that it is not intuitive that a recipient is known from the time of the award, rather than the time of their heroic deeds. The only good thing about the recent award is that it brings a relatively obscure hero into the limelight for a time. Many heroes were ignored upon their return from that war, most for reasons that no longer exist today. I think once the reader arrives at the article (which we should ease as best we can) then everything will be cleared up for them. In the modern era, he is most known for his recent receipt of the Medal of Honor, and would encourage a continuation of that tradition. Scr★pIronIV 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) (ec with Calliopenjen1 below): I understand that the news is that he got awarded the Medal of Honor just now. But I would expect any hook to this article from within Wikipedia or from elsewhere, would be that he is the black World War I soldier who got awarded the Medal of Honor by Barack Obama (in 2015). That is so totally different than it being a War in Afghanistan soldier, say. It would not be extraordinary news to hear that black President Obama gave an award to a black soldier for heroism in 2014 or 2015. What is extraordinary is that this is an under-recognized hero from World War I, the first black man who fought in the trenches that I and most other readers have heard of. The Tuskegee airmen we have heard about; their story has been bandied about for years; it has in fact made lots of Americans familiar with the idea of under-recognition of blacks in World War II. Who knew of blacks in combat in WWI on the ground, at all, even among the many of us that have read a whole lot of war history, though? There is Medal_of_Honor#Belated_recognition about other belated recognitions back to U.S. Civil War performances. There is Medal of Honor#Past discrimination mentioning no awards having been given to black soldiers who were heroes in World War II, as of 1993, since remedied. Okay, List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients shows there was one other black WWI recipient, Freddie Stowers, whose award was given in 1991, while there were 18 Buffalo Soldiers / Indian Wars recipients and 20 from the Vietnam War. As its article notes, "If Stowers is forgotten today...". And Stowers, killed in action, had no recognition in person, which is part of the story for Johnson. I just think that "World War I soldier" captures best what is news, more than "recent Medal of Honor winner", and it is the better permanent article name. For the other guy, "Buffalo Soldier" or "Indian Wars soldier" (its original name), conveying the correct era for his 1879 heroism is better than misleading "1890 Medal of Honor" (which makes me worry about what happened before the Spanish-American War), IMHO. "1890" and "2015" are both wrong for causing surprise to readers if they click on the title and go to the article. I don't mind terribly if it is left at 2015 Medal of Honor winner, as the main thing is fixing the name, dropping the erroneous "Lincoln". I suppose we could just plan to return in 2016 to move it to the better permanent name, when the 2015 aspect of news is less compelling for anyone. :) Perhaps someone else can comment? If it is just ScrapIronIV and me commenting, then the closer should leave it at 2015. Again it is no biggie. --doncram 23:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Support move to apparently correct name (but prefer disambiguating as "World War I solder" and "Buffalo Soldier" -- easier for readers to understand quickly). Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment - The "World War I solder" and "Buffalo Soldier" suffixes sound good to me. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC) As an aside, it seems that Henry Lincoln Johnson (the attorney) was married to a famous writer, Georgia Douglas Johnson, who has a nice WP biography already up. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC) For what it's worth, here's a little bit of historical flavor of the racist Jim Crow South from the early 20th Century, a "news story" from the (conservative, Democratic) Atlanta Constitution, 1920. [7] Compare to the photo of Henry Lincoln Jackson, the lawyer from 1911 to see what he actually looked like: [8]. Adding to the confusion, the lawyer had a son also named Henry Lincoln Jackson (Jr.) but he was born 1906 and isn't likely to have be the one muddled up with the war hero's bio. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Comment – I much prefer World War I soldier as a disambiguator, compared to citing his Medal of Honor (and especially the year of it). He isn't notable because he recently received an overdue medal; he received a medal because he's notable for his accomplishments in military service a century before. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Support move to new title which eliminates the incorrect "Lincoln". Any reasonable disambiguation is OK with me. Kudos to Carrite for his usual outstanding research. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Comment - I've boldly moved the page of the 1890 MoH winner to Henry Johnson (Buffalo Soldier) per the above discussion. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Comment - I see that this page has (unfortunately) been moved ahead of a formal close here. I'm starting work on the attorney and will manually take care of the live links to the MoH winner as soon as it is up and running. Carrite (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Comment - I've got all the mainspace links switched over to the new title. Carrite (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt, the president, or the president's son, named him 1 of 5?

Based on the SmithsonianMag source, the article currently states that Johnson was named "one of five bravest Americans" by former president Teddy Roosevelt (who died in early 1919, so was alive when Johnson became famous). However the anb.org source states that it was Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., a son of the president, writing in a book in 1928: "Theodore Roosevelt Jr, who also earned a Croix de Guerre in World War I, considered Johnson one of America's five most distinguished heroes of the conflict in Rank and File: True Stories of the Great War (1928)." Did they both name him 1 of 5? Perhaps they both did--perhaps Jr. was writing out what his pop had said--or is this another error in past coverage? I must confess I mis-interpreted the anb.org source as referring to the former president as the book-writer, myself. --doncram 22:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You can write SmithsonianMag and maybe get a response from the original researcher. Another good question. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a good question. I would lay my money on TR Jr. — he was a top leader of the American Legion in the years after the war and war heroes were sort of his business. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It was Jr., Sr. was supposed to speak at the parade and ceremony in Manhattan but could not make it, so he sent a short letter to Henry. Megan Smolenyak, the MoH researcher is sending me the information on the reference. She is pleased about the name correction. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Request of the Military History people

It seems that Henry Lincoln Johnson, the lawyer, was actually a Colonel during WWI. Is there any way that someone wise in the ways of the sourcing can dig up anything on his military record, particularly his unit? Ping me or stop by my talk page if you find anything, thanks! —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

There is also a Southern tradition of sorts for important people to adopt the honorific title "Colonel," so this might also be possible here. Carrite (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sent to American National Biography

Hello--

"Carrite" from Wikipedia here.

It seems that you have two names conflated in one biography: LINK

The war hero is William Henry Johnson, known as Henry Johnson (1892-1929): LINK

Henry Lincoln Johnson, known as Linc Johnson or Link Johnson (1870-1925) was a prominent attorney and Georgia Republican Party leader: LINK

Please note that the war hero posthumously received the Congressional Medal of Honor from President Obama in 2015 and the biography needs to be updated to reflect this fact.

Please do make this change as the names are becoming hopelessly conflated on the internet.

Thanks,

Tim Davenport "Carrite" on Wikipedia

Corvallis, OR

Sent a few minutes ago by email to their web contact address. Carrite (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Awards, with discrepancies

Henry's portrait shows him wearing three service ribbons on his uniform, plus the Croix de Guerre. This WP article says he received (ultimately) four awards: Croix de Guerre, World War I Victory Medal (United States)World War I Victory Medal, Purple Heart, and Medal of Honor. The Purple Heart (medal or ribbon) could not have been worn by him since it was not authorized until 1932 - three years after his death. The Medal of Honor was also awarded posthumously. None of the ribbons resemble the ribbon for the Croix de Guerre. So exactly what is he wearing on that uniform? Is this even an accurate portrait of the right man (as others on WP talk have considered?). I don't dispute that he served honorably and with distinction or that he was wounded, but I just want to know what other awards he may have received that may be unaccounted for. Other than the Croix de Guerre, could any of these ribbons be French (rather than U.S.) decorations? A great fire in 1973 destroyed a great many military records stored at the National Archives in St. Louis MO, so it may not be possible to completely answer my inquiries.

As far as I can tell, none of the ribbons resemble the Army of Occupation of Germany Medal nor does the article suggest that he served in occupied territory after the Armistice. Nor does any ribbon resemble that of the World War I Victory Medal (United States) (which he should have received after the Armistice).

In addition, those wounded in WW1 and honorably discharged usually receive a Silver Victory Button (not displayed in his portrait). And while they are not considered awards, his uniform is also missing the collar discs that he was wearing in another, earlier portrait.2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Croix de Guerre

The Croix de Guerre is a campaign medal for service in a European war; Johnson received the Croix de Guerre (1914-1918) for service with French Forces in World War One. Service in a Colonial or overseas campaign or war would be indicated by the Colonial Medal. The augmentations (Stars or Palms) were Mentions in Dispatches at various levels of command and the bearer could receive any number of them for valoirous or gallant actions during their service (the US has a separate series of medals that perform this function). The Croix de Guerre awards the bronze Palme augmentation for Mention in Dispatches at the Army level (the equivalent to the US Silver Star). Silver Palmes are awarded for every five awards, similar to the US Oak Leaf Cluster augmentation. (See the photo of decorated ace Raul Lufbery wearing all of his Palmes on additional medal ribbons). There is no gold Palme award; there was a silver-gilt Palme, but it was for mentions at the Free French Forces level and was only awarded during World War Two. Thus Johnson's award is for the Croix de Guerre with Bronze Palm (and apparently a Bronze(?) Star augmentation as well). Hotspur23 (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Black American Music

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 18 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ysaka2503 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Isha0323 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)