Talk:Salvatore Giunta

Ethnicity?

Hi, I was wondering if he is hispanic because the name Giunta sounds and looks like a hispanic name? Thx. 72.205.33.223 (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)proudlatino

Probably Italian. Especially with the name of "Salvatore". Everard Proudfoot (talk)

Probably is not sufficient to add this information to the article as either content or as a category. This type of info requires a reference. See WP:OR and WP:BLPCAT. 71.221.98.202 (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that this information be added to the article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't - someone else did add it as a category to the article though and I am giving the reason for why it was removed. 71.221.98.202 (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The name is clearly Italian, as is his brother's (Mario); he looks Italian too. However, it doesn't look like any news outlet explicitly mentioned his ethnicity, so there is no reference at the moment. 79.2.247.127 (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

he's american. nothing else. Friendlyrph (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)friendlyrph.

And unless and until there is a reference from a reliable source that explicitly states any ethnicity, any mention of ethnicity does not belong anywhere in the article. Personal speculation about names and appearance is prohibited original research. 71.214.57.78 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your doubts are just out of place. "Salvatore" and "Giunta" are clearly italian. The origin of the name is sicilian. Although a reference is clearly not necessary to prove the obvious, i will put the link to a italian source (the newspaper of Vicenza, town where he's based). Hawk21 (talk) 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Awards and badges

presentation of awards, badges, and citations

This is a very important historical occasion. DoD should have listed his service medals by now, they have not. I know some of them, but if an expert could decode the salad on his chest it would be helpful. 98.26.121.14 (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone is going to list all of his awards, I suggest you created a new section. Listing them all in the Infobox would look very bad. Look at the article Jason Dunham for further guidance as it does what I'm saying.Philipmj24 (talk) 00:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on the picture I know what all the medals, ribbons and awards are but Im not sure I can use the image as a source. --Kumioko (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with Philip that medal imagery should go into the body of the article instead of the infobox. In the infobox the size of the imagery can be restrained. The problem is that editors can't seem to resist using the article whitespace to add medal and badge imagery as if they are pinning it on the subject's chest. Look at Gary Gordon and you see his decorations rather neatly noted in the infobox. Then they are repeated rather gaudily in the article, and in a fashion that adds to the article length without adding any new information. Keep it in the infobox.Bdell555 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That said, and with thanks to the comment below, I don't think we need to spend too much time on all the more commonly distributed badges. I think the article will pack more punch if tightly written.Bdell555 (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Based soley on the picture provided the decorations he has been awarded are, from top to bottom: Combat Infantry Badge; Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal w/ bronze oak leaf; Army Achievement Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Afghanistan Campaign Medal w/ Bronze Service Star; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Army NCO Professional Development Ribbon; Army Service Ribbon; Army Overseas Service Ribbon; NATO Medal. On his right side in red is the Army Meritorious Unit Commendation w/ Oak Leaf and in blue is the Army & Air Force Presidential Unit Citation w/ 2 Oak Leaf clusters. I believe the wing pin is his Army Parachutist Badge, and the badge on the bottom, far right is the Army Expert Weapons Qualification Badge w/ Rifle bar. Not sure we can go on just a picture but at least they are all listed now. Spool 26 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I see there is an editor or two who wants to strip the icons out of the article, despite the fact the first commentator in this section made a specific request to link the insignia that appears on the subject's formal dress with text explanations. Not sure what their point is when it it amounts to a refusal to have the article answer a KNOWLEDGE request (ie. please "decode"). I've asked these editor(s) to come here as per the very clear and specific instructions in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR to do so, so we'll see if that happens.Bdell555 (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The icons should appear in the body of the article not the infobox Gnevin (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dude, just relax (your rantings at User talk:Gnevin haven't been helpful. Listing the awards in the prose is pretty standard for military biographies, to the point that most have a chart or table of the ribbon images as well. But we don't need to frivolously use images as icons in the infobox, especially if that is redundant to the prose. If you want to add them to the prose, then you can use User:bahamut0013/ribbon workshop. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Then why not practice as you preach and MOVE instead of DELETE? I admit to being frustrated by people who tell others to do something they are not interested in doing themselves, as if they are somehow exempt from their own guidelines. At a minimum, why not discuss the matter here FIRST before deleting? The fact is that WP:ICONDECORATION is unambiguously clear: "Do not use icons in general article prose" and, as if once isn't enough, it also says "Icons should not be used in the article body," such that I presume you'll either concede that your call to "list the awards in the prose [with icons]" is directly at odds with policy OR you'll stop deleting infobox icons with an edit summary that calls attention to WP:ICONDECORATION.

The very manual you linked gives examples of icon uses that are and are not acceptable. The section you referred to stating "Do not use icons in general article prose" lists this as an example. This does make articles muddled and harder to read, and I doubt that either User:Gnevin or User:Bahamut0013 are advocating this method. Listing all of his awards in the infobox only serves to clutter the infobox as we don't need all 12 (soon to be 13) ribbons listed with icons, but would look awkward if some awards had icons and others did not. In my opinion, listing the more notable awards in the infobox (such as the ones currently listed) is appropriate, with an accurate table in the article body to serve as a "translation" of his ribbon rack, like the one that User talk:Bahamut0013 suggested here, which is standard for military-related articles. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To leave aside hypocritical use of WP:ICONDECORATION for the moment and just apply common sense, the practical reality is that without a limiting "box" of sorts, someone is going to expand an awards section in the body of the article to include every last badge and unit citation, such that it gets undue weight relative to what's really notable (the story of this subject's life), especially when you are recommending ribbon sizes over 100px.Bdell555 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A servicemembers "every last badge and unit citation" is the story of the part of said persons life that is article worthy. He's known as a Medal of Honor awardee, and without that he's really just another soldier that wouldn't be notable enough for an article. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the greatest with the formatting commands of Wikipedia, so I made a basic table of his rack for someone else to expand on (thanks to User:bahamut0013/ribbon workshop). Keep in mind, I haven't added the Medal of Honor, and have also removed the mention of the MoH from his infobox as he has not been awarded the Medal, and would not be authorized to wear it until it is officially awarded. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

		File:NATO SFOR Medal BAR.png

Bronze Star	Purple Heart	Army Commendation Medal w/ Bronze Oak Leaf
Army Achievement Medal	Army Good Conduct Medal	National Defense Service Medal
Afghanistan Campaign Medal w/ Bronze Service Star	Global War on Terrorism Service Medal	Army NCO Professional Development Ribbon
Army Service Ribbon	Army Overseas Service Ribbon	NATO Meritorious Service Medal (SFOR)

Oak leaf and star added to above.Bdell555 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the icon of the NATO Medal that was awarded. Seems he's wearing the SFOR version of the award in his official photo. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, its the ISAF one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.139.59.152 (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2010

Check the hi-res version of the image on the front page. The ribbon he's wearing is blue|white|blue. The ISAF version of the NATO ribbon is blue|white|silver/grey|white|blue. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's what the image shows, though it is strange. He should be wearing the ISAF, considering his record. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

He was most likely there for OEF rather than ISAF. 2 different operations in the same place. His enlistment in 2003 would have given him enough time to catch the tail end of SFOR. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added the ribbon rack, with a few modifications. His badges and right breast awards were added as well, though I can't identify that small silver badge on the right, that's partially covered by his lapel. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and do we have any individual images of File:Armyqual.jpg? I didn't want to add the composite of all three. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The badge on the right looks to be the Distinctive Unit Insignia for the 503rd Infantry Regiment. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that's what it looks like, but I thought DUI were worn on the shoulder straps, not chest. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This is lively and timely discussion. I am impressed with everyone's clear arguments on both sides.. Sgt. Giunta's medals tell a story of historical significance. It tell the who , the what, the where and (if DoD would get off their collective backsides -- the when). I believe that Bdell555's nicely formatted table should be included in the article as a separate section. Since the discussion has been clear and thought provoking, I would like a more experienced Editor to take on the task. The fact remains, that he is a career NCO who is the first living person in nearly 40 years to receive this honor. I think we should expand the article and add more information. This IS a big deal and I believe it needs more details, the decorations and awards are a starting point. Trying to keep something brief and missing out key details is not helpful to the man scholars, military people, news media, and students who might be using this page as a starting point. 02:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.121.14 (talk)

Just for clarification there are currently several senior editors watching this article intently and I dare say that pretty much any edits made to the article at this point are reviewed and refined by multiple editors. Right now there is limited info and references available but as information is released and more sources cover more infomormation it will be added to the article. One thing to remember is that since this is a Biography of a living person and that individual is in the active military we haev to take care in what information is added regardless of how much his life enters the limelight in the media. --Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the tables and labeled left and right. I also added the Expert marksmanship badge and looked closely and noticed that he has two oak leaf clusters on his Presidential Unit Citation. I am not sure about the Italian Parachutist Badge and I hope an image is uploaded soon. God bless you and congratulations SSgt! Mikepolkfan (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about the uniform

Staff Sergeant Guinta's uniform has a blue "rope" (for lack of a better term) on the left side of the image. Does anyone know what that is exactly, and what is meant to represent? Is it some sort of award, or is it part of the uniform, or is it something else altogether? TomStar81 (Talk) 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Blue Infantry Cord explains it all I think Tom (and I'm a Brit ;) Woody (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks Woody, I appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All part of the service, should be able to put it into the article somewhere, perhaps in an awards and honors section such as those of Murphy or Monti. Trouble is, haven't found a source for all of his awards yet. Woody (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The "rope" is called a Fourragère. Its primarily a french award to certain units for actions during combat and can and has been bestowed to non french military units. There are also other reasons why it could be worn as well. Some billets also wear one but I think in his case its based on the unit. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops I stand corrected, sorta. --Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No its the Infantry Cord, worn by all US Army Infantrymen.24.139.59.152 (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

MOH citation section

I think these pages should be used as a template in all MOH pages. Mlpearc powwow 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA" in all caps and boldface and assorted preamble/postamble to the citation doesn't add any information to the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is how the original printed document has it. Mlpearc powwow 00:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Jump Wings

Does anyone know which country the foreign jump wings SSG Giunta is wearing above his unit awards? 24.92.115.231 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

They are Italian  Ahodges7   ^talk 18:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Bronze Star for same or different incident?

Was the Bronze Star awarded for the same incident that he is getting the MOH for? Or was there another incident? Isn't it true that if the BS is being upgraded to the MOH, then he will no longer have the BS, but if it was for a different incident, then he will keep it, of course. Does anyone know? Thanks in advance --rogerd (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If the Bronze Star were awarded for this incident, the ribbon/medal would have a Valor device. The Bronze Star isn't always a combat related award. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SML is right. However, if the Bronze Star is indeed replaced/upgraded, we will see it conveniently disappear from his uniform during the award ceremony, and will update appropriately here. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw footage on cnn.com that shows Sgt. Giunta making a statement after the award ceremony. He has the MoH ribbon and the Bronze Star ribbon on. I guess this means that the Bronze Star was for a different incident. --rogerd (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unit Awards

Should the unit citation awards (PUC & MUC) be listed in the awards section? Does the subject of teh article wear those awards when he was a member of the unit, or as permanent personal decoration as being assigned to the unit when the unit was awarded those awards? As he is no longer active duty, if not worn as permenant personal decorations, he would not be entitled to wear the unit awards. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If he was assigned to the unit when the unit was granted the award then he can wear them forever. However if the unit was given the award in Vietnam and the members of the unit are only allowed to wear it while in that unit or if that was the last unit he was with then I believe he can wear them. If, for example, he joins another unit then he would have to remove them unless as I stated in the beginning he was assigned to the unit when the unit was given the award. --Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

Do we have verification that he was a member of the unit when the unit was awarded the citations? If we do, then the awards should be kept. Otherwise per WP:VER we should remove the unit citations. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the unit citations be removed per WP:VER. If there are no objections by 6AUG11, I will be WP:BOLD and remove the unit awards. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have created a discussion regarding this issue at the MILHIST Wikipedia talk page; all interested editors are invited. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Per the discussion at MILHIST I shall wait one additional day to remove the unit citations, as there has been no objection, so far. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

March 2012

In recent edits the citations have been re-added without references that the unit citations are permanent personal decoration. We should discuss once more if consensus has changed and they should be re-included in this article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link of the discussion which occurred at MILHIST Talk last time.

I will notify MILHIST of this new discussion per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

February 2013

I have been looking at the website regarding unit awards hosted by the Center of Military History and found a couple orders which maybe applicable to the subject of this article:

• Permanent Orders 013-11 for Valorous Unit Award for the period of 25 January 2008 to 30 July 2008
• Permanent Orders 027-04 for Meritorious Unit Commendation for the period of 31 December 2009 to 18 November 2010
• Permanent Orders 299-18 for Presidential Unit Citation for the period of 5 J une 2007 to 10 November 2007

If this is correct, what is in the article is wrong. Where is the second PUC from? Where is the VUA?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been a part of this whole discussion and whatnot but isn't it usually enough verification when a service member wears the awards for official portaits and such? Even every time I had to go see any officer in service dress I had to bring in my verification for my SNCOs to double check that my awards were correct. So I would guess that before he went on national television and got the MoH his superiors would've double, triple checked that stuff. Or who knows, maybe the Army doesn't do that stuff and maybe it's just the environment I have been in. I would've guessed that someone in his chain would've caught an error like having extra clusters/service stars if they were wrong though. Can you submit a FOIA for army official documentation on his awards or no? — - dain- talk    20:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The debate above is whether the wearing of the unit citations are organizational items (like a maroon beret for jump units (but not item of personnal wear)) or whether they are permanent wear per AR 670-1. At the time of the photographs, the subject was still in the Army, but now he is not.

As for a FOIA, I will see about requesting one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh gotcha, I think as long as the member was a part of the unit at the time the unit award was given then it's theirs to display from then onwards. Like how Clinton Romesha was out of the military when he received the MoH the other day but he still wore his unit awards on his dress uniform.— - dain- talk    21:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been able to find the permanent orders for SSG Romesha's unit citations, and added those to his article accordingly, but at the time when the PUC and MUC was listed in this article, no such source was provided for verification that the unit citations are permanent wear. Thus why the discussion occured above, and on the MILHIST talk page. Now that I have found permanent orders that may apply to the subject, I have provided them here, and there are discrepencies between what is in the article space, and what the permanent orders authorize.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Update, I have received an email response from HQDA, who has referred me to Human Resources Command. I have sent them a request for information, stating how improvement of articles regarding the Army will be mutually beneficial for us (Wikipedia) and them (United States Army).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

HRC FOIA Office, has been kind enough to furnish me information for the two biography subjects that we are actively discussing. Is there a way for me to send these redacted documents to Wikipedia, in a way similar to how copyright owners send permission to wikimedia, for us to use these documents as primary reliable sources?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Would OTRS be the appropriate course, or would I have to post these documents into the open to a file server in order for the contents to be available for verification, or would using the documents but keeping them offline be sufficient?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To abide with WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification I am leaving a pls see template at WT:MILHIST to get additional opinions on the questions I have posed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming

I really think that this page should be located at Salvatore Giunta (US soldier) or something like that, not Salvatore Giunta (Medal of Honor). The man is a soldier, not an award.--121.220.210.93 (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If there are no objections, I will move within a few days. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually just Salvatore Giunta is fine, it redirects here anyway and apparently there aren't any other people with the same name here. GregorB (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

There is also Salvatore Giunta (Italian football player). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, saying Medal of Honor doesnt mean he is an award, just what he is known for. Its the same thing for sports athletes we say John Smith (baseball) not Baseball player. --Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Tali: "high value target"

The sourcing may become an issue here (specifically, someone may say "high value target" is not stated explicitly in the cited source) so I'll just explain how I wrote this. The direct statement that Tali was "high value" and was killed by Giunta is actually Elizabeth Rubin's NY Times Magazine story, not her Observer story. But I cited "Giunta saw two enemy fighters, one of whom was Mohammad Tali (considered a high value target)" to the Observer story because only the Observer story indicates that Giunta killed Tali in the vicinity of Brennan as opposed to some other time or place in the battle. The Observer says

Around midnight, guys from 1st Platoon filed in, drenched in river water and blood. Mohammad Tali, the ugliest Taliban on the bad-guy family tree, had nearly dragged off Brennan, whom I'd watched playing guitar all day long before the mission. Brennan would die that night. So did Hugo Mendoza, 1st Platoon's smiling medic.

Since the "ugliest" language here also suggests "high value target", I considered it justified to cite the Observer right after "high value target". I then cited Rubin's NY Times story immediately after "killed Tali." What I would allow is the possibility that when Rubin says Tali "nearly dragged off Brennan" she meant Tali's men as opposed to Tali himself. But at the moment the most likely chronology and plainest reading of both of Rubin's publications is that when Giunta killed one of the draggers/carriers of Brennan, that person was Tali.Bdell555 (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I had read the Stars and Stripes that is/was given as a source and it does state, as I remember it, as one of them being a "high Value Target." I can't say for sure if the other sources that I read for verification if it was mentioned, but I will give the S&S a credibility on their reporting on the matter. --Hourick (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Seams strange to call a person a target. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be logical if you are someone they're VERY anxious to capture/kill. If that makes you a target, then so be it. --Hourick (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WIkileaks info re incident

I put together the following timeline from the reports. I've XXXXed out the reported times since response times might constitute sensitive information.

Type:Enemy Action Category:Direct Fire BDA: 2x US KIA 3x US WIA

OP: ROCK AVALANCHE

XXXXz: [TF ROCK 2-503 IN] reported troops in contact in the Southern Korengal [LAT 34.86853027 LONG 70.91130829] (vic. XD 746 600). ACM in the vicinity of XD 737 614 engaged Battle elements returning to the KOP and COP Vimoto with heavy, effective, and accurate small arms and RPG fire.

XXXXz: CAS prepared to engage three enemy positions at XD 73752 61418, XD 73222 60607, and XD 72630 60152 with a simultaneous bomb drop of 1 GBU-38 per target, but was called off.

XXXXz: TF Rock 9-Line MEDEVAC MM(E) 10-25G W/U JAF IVO OBJ McArthur

XXXXz: Battle sent up a 9-Line MEDEVAC Request for 5 US that had been wounded in the Battle TIC near OBJ Taylor - 2 Priority, 3 Urgent. TF Rock reported 1x WIA with 6 gunshot wounds, and another with head trauma.

XXXXz: [MEDEVAC] transitioned over ABAD towards Korengal Valley

XXXXz: Battle reported 1 confirmed ACM KIA and that Battle elements had captured 2x AK-47s.

XXXXz: CAS approved to come around and re-attack enemy along the ridge south of the above position with a string of 3 more GBU-38s - however, as the MEDEVAC aircraft arrived on-scene, the Rock JTAC again put a hold on the mission and did not authorize CAS to engage.

XXXXz: MEDEVAC arrived on station and began conducting hoist operations to collect the casualties and put medics on the ground

XXXXz: 155mm assets out of Blessing and ABAD engaged a potential enemy C2 node at vic. XD 718 595.

XXXXz: W/D ABAD

XXXXz: CAS engaged enemy located in a hardened structure at XD 740 595 - the target was destroyed and CCA moved to observe any ACM attempting to exfil the area.

XXXXz: BONE 12 dropped 3xGBU31s at: XD 77520 60510, XD 76820 60810,and XD 77188 60700

Bdell555 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle name

The article seems to be lacking what the "A." stands for, and I can't find it myself. His full name should be in the start of the article. Also, his wife is noted as "Jennifer", what is her maiden name? 194.151.221.93 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We may not have that information. As for Jennifer's name, I think he have policies limiting the exposure of familiy members names needlessly. Sephiroth storm (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement on the lede

There is currently a disagreement between myself and another editor about the what should be in the lede. I recently expanded the lede to state as follows:

Salvatore A. Giunta (born January 21, 1985) is a soldier in the United States Army who will be the first living person since the Vietnam War to receive the United States military's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor.

Giunta was born in Iowa in 1985 and after graduating from John F. Kennedy High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, he enlisted in the United States Army. After completing basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia he deployed to Afghanistan for a year in March 2005 and then again in May 2007. In October 2007 his eight-man squad was patrolling in the Korangal Valley when they were attacked by a group of Taliban fighers. After several members of the team were injured, Giunta risked his life to rescue them while under heavy fire by the Taliban. He worked his way to them, firing and throwing grenades until he was able to reach them and get them to a covered position. For his actions the White house announced in September 2010 that he would receive the Medal of Honor.

He was promoted to staff sergeant in 2009 and is currently stationed in Vicenza, Italy with the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team.

and another user feels that the following is enough to summerize the article:

Salvatore A. Giunta (born January 21, 1985) is a staff sergeant in the United States Army who will be the first living person since the Vietnam War to receive the United States military's highest decoration for valor, the Medal of Honor. He is cited for saving members of his squad in October 2007 while fighting in the war in Afghanistan.

Since there are currently 2 fairly senior editors disagreeing about what should be in the lede I am looking for some concensus as to which one is preferred. Bare in mind that as the article develops and more content is added as infomormation and references becomes available the lede will change. Also, with the current version of the lede someone wanting to find out about the individual must read the article because the lede tells them very little. In the version I propose reading the lede would give a reasonable summery of the individual AND the event. --Kumioko (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said on your talk page, the point of WP:LEAD is not that it should summarize in depth the entirety of the article, but establish a short overview of the relevance of the topic and, in the case of biographies, establish the claim to notability. The lead section that Kumioko prefers is incredibly redundant to the body of the article, and far too overly detailed to even really be considered a summary of his life, if that's what we wanted. The lead as I have written cleanly and efficiently tells the reader why Giunta is notable, and draws him or her to continue reading into the body of the article without repeating it. A lead section need not be lengthy to be effective; indeed, a shorter one is far more effective. In this case in particular, the rest of the article is so short that a longer lead will not provide a good balance. As the article grows, the lead can be amended; but my focus is on the state of the article as it appears now (I don't have a crystal ball to tell the future with).

Shorter version: my intro performs all of the necessary elements efficiently and without redundancy: defines the topic, overviews it, establishes the context, and introduces the main point, which is his claim to notability.

This is kind of surreal, though... in about two or three years, this is the first time you and I have ever had a significant disagreement! bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Your right on the disagreement thing, in fact as I recall we usually agree on most things and im really not trying to be argumentative, I just dont agree that a sentance is enough. --Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Good call on trying to get a consensus, but I think that the second option would be better. --Hourick (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A sentence or two would be enough in this case.Bdell555 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it seems consensus for the moment is to keep the lede short so I will comply. I plan on building this article up in a couple months when more sources and the citation are available to GA and once it goes through the GA process a longer, more descriptive lede that fully summerizes the article will be required. --Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, just don't jump the gun! Cheers, bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What was the second weapon he was carrying?

It says the weapons on his back got destroyed, by enemy fire. What was it? I'm guessing a rocket launcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Article updated to identify SMAW-D.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it was a SMAW. Thats a Marine weapon. Armys been known to use them, but not as much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

True that. Even if it was, a SMAW is not "disposible" by any means. Probably meant an AT4? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

On Commons there are 7 slides made by the Army and 2 of those slides are displayed in the article. The caption to Slide 5 includes the sentence "The Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon-Disposable (SMAW-D) he had slung on his back also stopped a bullet from striking his left shoulder." I didn't think providing a cite would do anything because it wouldn't be readily verifiable anyway: the URL doesn't get any more specific when the caption is displayed than http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/giunta/battlescape.html Brian Dell (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In a video interview on FoxNews, his unit's Captain Kearney referred to the weapon on Giunta's shoulder as the AT4. I'd say that's a pretty authoritative source. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The original reference is more credible as it came from somewhat contemporaneous official after action reports. Captain Kearney's remembrance is much more likely to be faulty. 97.121.173.105 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

A caption to a diagram is not necessarily an "official account", especially when it doesn't make any sense.

How about we just put "rocket launcher" without identifying which type? It's less speculative when we have conflicting refs. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In a video interview on army.mil, Giunta referred to a having difficulty throwing grenades because he still has his rucksack and the "SMAW-D" on his back. (The captions render his words as "small D", but if you listen (time 09:44), he clearly says "SMAW-D.") I didn't register its meaning until re-visiting this discussion. Also, an interview with Giunta from September 15 quotes him referring to SMAW-D -- here's the official transcript. I've updated the article. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's very specific in that transcript. OK, that works for me. Strange, I've never heard of a disposable version before. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

adding a medal image to the subject's infobox image

I reverted another editor citing Wikipedia policy on infobox images although I later saw that military person infoboxes permit it "especially as a placeholder" and so I added it back albeit in such a way as to not reduce the size of the subject's photo. I don't think any full size medals (ie non-ribbon) are necessary in the infobox since the medal image can be (and at present, has been) added elsewhere to the article (I've seen it presented in conjunction with the citation). Trying to stuff two images into this one infobox slot means a significantly smaller image of the subject can be displayed to readers. It strikes me as an editor's attempt to pin medals on the subject without an encyclopedic purpose. For what it is worth, as the discussion at the top of this talk page would reveal, I am not one of those anti-icon types who routinely purge infoboxes of "decoration".--Brian Dell (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with this change but, here some other pages that will need to be changed.

• 1stLt Frank S. Reasoner
• 2ndLt Terrence C. Graves
• PFC Robert H. Jenkins, Jr.
• LCpl Richard A. Anderson

These are just some of the ones I know of. Mlpearc powwow 23:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well I would note that all of those articles also have icons in the infobox that have been deleted from this article whenever they have been introduced (not by me). In other words, practice on other Wikipedia articles hasn't necessarily been adopted here.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"In other words, practice on other Wikipedia articles hasn't necessarily been adopted here"

I'm sorry I thought I was editing Wikipedia. What Encyclopedia is this page from ? Mlpearc powwow 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Giunta is going to have an official photo that will be public domain and will likely be of him wearing the medal. Therefore the medal image will be in the infobox assuming we use that official photo. 97.121.173.105 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am rather on the fence about the use of the image in the infobox. I am starting to lean towards the dont use it if we have another picture though. If we have a pic of hte individual use it, but if that is not available I would like the MOH image to remain in the infobox. I do agree that the icons shouldnt be in the infobox though. --Kumioko (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Military Career

Article erroneously states CASERMA EDERLE NEAR VICENZA, ITALY CASERMA EDERLE IS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF VICENZA!!!!!!!!!! I have resided in Vicenza since 1982 and retired from the US Army there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.101.87 (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive details

Today Btphelps (talk · contribs) added considerable details about the action Guinta earned his MOH in. For the most part, it's well-written content. However, there was one reason that I was strongly tempted to revert some of it: this article is a biography about Guinta, not an account of the battle. Some of the detail is excessive and irrelevant to what the man did. It also lends an undue weight on his action in that battle compared to the rest of his life. I was wondering what the rest of you thought before I mercilessly slashed away some hard work? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are some unnecessary details but I am glad to see that hte article is filling out. I am a bit more worried that the article is starting to take an NPOV tone than of the extra information myself. --Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If the battle details don't belong here, and the article is long enough to merit a split, feel free to move the battle details to new article. np. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think the reason that the battle details are overpowering the soldiers personal life is because the personal details are so sparse. If we can add some personal details (which might be a while since he is still alive and some would likely fall under BLP) then the article wont be as centered on the battle. I do believe there is some trimming we can do though. --Kumioko (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there is more reader demand for the battle details than his personal life. It's his actions in the battle that made him notable for encyclopedic purposes and I accordingly don't have a problem with the amount of information. Having added to the narrative here and there since September, I've been struck by how some sources were simply wrong (e.g. more than 20 enemy, ambush was 3-sided, etc) such that having a fuller, more accurate narrative is a helpful corrective against inflated stories. There could be some selective shortening and condensing though (there are now three Giunta quotes and taken together they are getting close to un-encyclopedic/POV). I've removed the remark by Brennan's father on grounds that source is problematic (here the same speaker (Michael Brennan) is quoted by the same website (madison.com) saying that they were "attacked by about 22 to 25 Taliban forces". The US Army now estimates it at 10 to 15, and there is no reason to believe the US Army would be low balling).

If you split it out into another article you would end up with the situation whereby neither article would be especially notable: you'd have an article about a soldier with information of the same sort as for most other soldiers who are not considered notable, and you'd have an article about a squad-level battle that isn't really notable apart from the fact one particular member of that squad is notable. If we were to be really encyclopedic, I dare say that we would remove the citation (or more precisely just provide an external link to the citation). It is from a partisan source (the US government has an interest in making the subject look heroic), it is of questionable accuracy (the citation says Giunta was hit while administering first aid to Gallardo but Gallardo never needed "medical aid" or "first aid", he was just helped to cover and needed some time to recover and reorientate), and it is repetitive.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support that the article is indeed leaning towards a non-NPOV, and would like to do some clean up on that measure as well. But I think my original point stands. I mena, is it really worth, encyclopedically, to spell out what order the squad was in, or defining what an AT4 is (isn't that the point of providing a wikilink?), or the gritty explanation of Brennan's wounds? It doesn't detract from the account of how he earned his MOH, and I think that considering reader interest falls under WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used to correct common misconceptions, especially since the details getting confused don't really detract from the overall understanding of the event, and the article isn't a news story (reader demand will taper off soon anyway). Like you said, splitting off an article about the action is probably not feasible and would wind up being deleted for a lack of notability, since virtually all information about the battle stems from Guinta's MOH, and not notability of the battle itself. I'm also not inclined to worry about a USGov source, considering that the military and its soldiers are the only accounts of the battle, and every other secondary/tertiary source inevitably gets its info from the military or its members. But being public domain is a bonus, and I'm not inclined to dump a ref unless there is something specific about its acocunt that seems flawed. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the consensus is generally supportive of your original point. In light of the discussion I've come around to the view of agreeing with Kumioko.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done my best to present what I think is a cogent narrative of what happened to merit the distinction of a Medal of Honor. I've read other MOH citations and action reports and they are always so general. You just have to take it for granted. Feel free to reduce or summarize what you think is extraneous. Maybe there are better ways to capture the flavor of these 180 seconds of action. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to summarize and condense a bit today. I think I might use more notes as well. bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten to it yet. I had some computer issues this weekend, and will not be able to try until tommorrow. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree - it seems way too dense - I have no idea what Giunta did as there is so much detail. Less is always more - the guy's a hero and deserves a simple explanation of why he was awarded the MOH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblejohn (talk • contribs) 11:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"enemy"

Actually, I have some reservation about Btphelps' adds re POV. The editor added the word "enemy" seven times, when previously the only occurrence was in an image caption where space was a constraint (and in the citation, which is chock full of "enemy"). From the Taliban's POV the US Army is the enemy. That isn't to say that an article about a Taliban soldier couldn't or wouldn't refer to the "enemy", but that just who the enemy was would be identified more often. "Enemy" is going to appear a lot in US government sources like the White House and the Army and I think we should avoid repeating the government line verbatim.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Taliban" should be used in place of "enemy" more often in this article. I don't think there's a POV issue though. The article identifies the Taliban as the "enemy" and simply uses the word "enemy" as a synonym for Taliban. I don't think it should; as it can confuse the reader. But I don't think it means the article is biased.(And in some sense, bias is hard to avoid for an incident like this. About 90% of what we know about the engagement comes from the testimony and statements of US government personnel.) I checked some other articles on recipients of the MoH, and they too had the same issue of using "enemy" a lot. But not as frequently as it's used here. Lord of the Ping (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I modified use of "enemy" to "Taliban" and a couple of other word choices. Hope this helps. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Insurgent is also an acceptable replacement for enemy if applicable. --Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may put in a thought. I don't think it's out of turn to try to use "enemy" less. In the future, as long as one knows who exactly the enemy was would be a rather important distinction.

What was his unit?

The infobox describes his unit as "2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team". The MOH citation describes his unit as "Company B, 2d Battalion (Airborne), 503d Infantry Regiment". My understanding is that the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team is an operational brigade made up of battalions from various regiments and the associations are not fixed in time. Anyway, since Company B is mentioned in the citations, shouldn't it also be in the infobox with the infobox matching the citation or is the infobox meant to reflect and be continually updated to reflect current assignment? 97.121.173.105 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether 2/503 was organic to the 173rd or not is irrelevant, and the distinction would be lost on most readers. I think that noting the company would also be overly detailed and redundant for the infobox. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As a member of Battle company me and my friends don't think it would be overly detailed or redundant, unit pride is big in the army. And as for the regimental affiliation and how it applies to his brigade, the 2/503rd falls directly under the 173rd, and most of the readers of this article are most likely military, it won't be lost on us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.132.91 (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal life section

Perhaps someone should change the city his wife is from just Dubuque, to Dubuque, Iowa. Not all of us are familar with cities in Iowa. 71.116.104.44 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a piped link. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Current assignment/Deployment

Does anyone know if he has been reassigned to a position stateside, or if he is still with his squad? There has been no info on whether they are still deployed to the Afghanistan or not. Anyone? --Hourick (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says "Giunta is currently stationed at Caserma Ederle, the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team's base near Vicenza, Italy." This was current as of 2 months ago. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He is still serving with Battle company, however in a Rear-D/Ops slot. During our last deployment to Afghanistan he served in a support capacity back in Vicenza. As of the 30th of Jan 2011 he is still here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.132.91 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

On wearing the ACM & GWOTEM

Recently, a user has edited the article twice to state that SSG Giunta does not rate the GWOTEM, citing Army Regulation 600-8-22. However, AR 600-8-22 states that the GWOTEM Area of Eligibility "encompasses all foreign land, water, and air outside the 50 states of the US.". The regulation goes on to state that the reciepient "must be assigned, attached, or mobilized to a unit participating in designated operations...". Since SSG Giunta is currently stationed in a foreign land (Italy), and is assigned to a unit that is currently participating in designated operations, he is eligible for and indeed does rate the award.

AR 600-8-22 can be found here (with the GWOTEM entry on page 50): http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/R600_8_22.pdf SkonesMickLoud (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly the reg you quoted says "in designated operations". Exactly what designated operations are you a part of when you are stationed in Italy? You are not involved in any operation, you're stationed there! You definitely took that out of context. If what you are implying were true, every soldier stationed in Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Guam etc would rate a GWOTEM. The bottom line is that you have to be stationed overseas IN SUPPORT OF operations involving the Global War on Terror i.e. Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom.

And if you would be so bothered to scroll down and finish reading the paragraph about the GWOTEM you would see that they even included a handy-dandy list of countries eligible for award of the GWOTEM. Here, just so you don't have to research it yourself (because God knows how that turned out) I will post it for you. Let me spoil the ending, it doesn't include Italy.

AR 600-8-22, Paragraph 2-18 g.

g. Initial award of the GWOTEM. Limited to service members deployed abroad in Operations ENDURING FREEDOM

and IRAQI FREEDOM in the following designated specific geographic areas of eligibility (AOE): Afghanistan,

Algeria, Bahrain, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria (Bourgas), Chad, Crete, Cyprus, Diego Garcia, Djibouti, Egypt,

Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kosovo (only specific GWOT

operations not associated with operations qualifying for the Kosovo Campaign Medal), Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon,

Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Romania (Constanta), Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Syria,

Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yeman, that portion of the Arabian Sea

north of 10 degrees north latitude and west of 68 degrees longitude, Bab El Mandeb, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Aqaba,

Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Suez, that portion of the Mediterranean Sea east of 28 degrees east longitude and boarding and

searching vessel operations, Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Strait of Hormuz, and Suez Canal.

Then if you further read the regulation for award of the ACM you would see the qualifying dates for award of the GWOTEM for Afghanistan. Here I'll spoil it for you again, SSG Giunta does not rate a GWOTEM for either Italy (Laugh) or Afghanistan.75.184.9.132 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you not understand the difference between the meaning of the words "general" and "specific"? The order linked states: "The general area of eligibility encompasses all foreign land, water, and air outside the fifty states of the United States." Paragraph g cites specific areas. Furthermore, how is the support of his unit while they are deployed to Afghanistan not taking part in designated actions? SkonesMickLoud (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Afghanistan yes, Italy no. I will summarize quickly why he does not have one for Afghanistan, he was simply deployed after the Afghanistan Campaign Medal was authorized. Once the ACM and ICM came out, there were no more awards of the GWOTEM for service in areas which would authorize award of the ACM and ICM. This is explained fully in the next paragraph.

Well make up your mind. Do you think he is authorized it for Afghanistan or Italy? I already invalidated any claim that he could be authorized it for Afghanistan. See the paragraph concerning the GWOTEM immediately below this one. However here is how it is impossible for him to be authorized award of the GWOTEM for Italy. Again from paragraph 2-18 a.

a. The Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (GWOTEM) was established by Executive Order 13289, 12 March 2003. It is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who deployed abroad for service in the Global War on Terrorism Operations on or after 11 September, 2001 to a date to be determined. Operations approved the GWOTEM are provided in g below.

In "g" which I already posted. The key words above are bolded for your convenience. Yes you are awarded the GWOTEM for being overseas, however you have to meet the more specific criteria of being "deployed" and in support of the GWOT. The you also have to meet the criteria stated in paragraph g. There is absolutely no way you can refute that. You are not "deployed" while you are in Italy, you are there on Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders. Deployments are exclusively Temporary Change of Station (TCS) or Temporary Duty (TDY). If what you are stating is true, like I mentioned before, every swinging Richard in the military who has been to Italy, Germany, Korea, Japan, Guam etc would be authorized a GWOTEM. You are not in support of any operation in the GWOT while you are at home station.Erikwithak86 (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

SSG Giunta does not rate a GWOTEM, period. According to his deployment dates listed on his offical bio page @ http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/giunta/profile.html he was deployed to Afghanistan from March 2005 to March 2006 and again May 2007 until July 2008. Unfortunately for him, he missed the cut-off date for the GWOTEM by a month.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 Military Awards paragraph 2-16 c. states the following

"Service members qualified for the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal by reasons of service between 24 October 2001 and 28 February 2005, in an area for which the Afghanistan Campaign Medal was subsequently authorized, will remain qualified for that medal. Upon application, any such service member may be awarded the Afghanistan Campaign Medal in lieu of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal for such service. No service member will be entitled to both medals for the same act, achievement or period of service."

As SSG Giunta did not serve in Afghanistan until after this period of time he is only qualified for the Afghanistan Campaign Medal. He was probably "awarded" this medal in error because of a common misunderstanding of the award criteria. Units and individual soldiers to this day still do not understand that you are not "awarded" campaign medals, you simply qualify for them when you meet certain criteria. You either qualify for it, or you don't. In this case, he does NOT qualify for the GWOTEM. The regulation is clear and concise. It's probably not his fault and I don't blame him, but whether he is wearing it on his uniform or not, does not mean that he is correct. Just the same way that he wears the wrong NATO medal. I'm not gonna tell him though.--Erikwithak86 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, the external link already cited does not list this medal as one of his awards. Is there a more recent reliable source that would let us add this medal back into the article without performing original research? VQuakr (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if he got the medal in error - he has the medal as shown on the image in the infobox. Stating he doesn't deserve it is prohibited original research. The image showing him with the medal is a primary reliable source and that is sufficient for the purposes of the article. MOH recipients are held to a pretty high standard and I would be extremely surprised if a basic mistake such as is being asserted would be made. Before removing this medal from the list we need a reliable source that specifically concludes he is wearing the ribbon in error - research done by wiki editors making that same conclusion is not sufficient and is not permitted. See WP:OR for why - it is not a wiki suggestion, it is wiki policy. 97.112.144.22 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Great point on using the image as a primary source. I agree it is enough in this case. VQuakr (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how looking at an image can be used as a source over a written list of his awards and qualifications as provided by the Army, on the page you linked previously. The image requires a certain degree of interpretation, the list does not. Canada Hky (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading a coded sequence of colors is no different than reading words and comparing images is trivial, hardly an interpretation of anything. I got interested in this when I noticed he wears 14 ribbons but his list of awards only showed 13, this does not make any sense and I expected some internal consistency in the article. If another reliable source shows he is only entitled to the 13 awards then the proper way to handle this in the article is to put a note at the bottom of the awards list that references the other source and point out that what he is wearing does not correspond to the official list and possibly note what award was not on the official list. We don't know who is in error on a conflict of two reliable sources but we can say for certain that what he is wearing is backed up by a primary source - the image of what he is wearing. I noticed that he is wearing the same ribbons on images at late as February 6, 2011. Obviously nobody in a position of authority in the army either noticed or cares and he obviously has at least implied and possibly explicit permission. I understand that the award in question was subsumed by a higher level award but the award in question was still actually awarded, he is just not supposed to wear it, but he is wearing it. 97.112.144.22 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would you cite the regulation for the wearing of the Afghanistan Campaign Medal, a different medal, as "proof" that he does not rate the GWOTE? If you were to read 2 sections down (2-18a) of the same regulation, you'd see that "The GWOTEM was established by Eexecutive Order 13289, 12 March 2003. It is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who deployed abroad for service in the Global War on Terrorism Operation on or after 11 September, 2003, to a date to be determined."

You could deploy today and elect to receive the GWOTEM. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you in the military Skones? I don't think so. You most absolutely can NOT elect to receive the GWOTEM in lieu of the ACM or ICM. Being a servicemember you do not get to pick and choose what awards you wear or recieve. You can receive for GWOTEM for deploying yes, but not to the same area of eligibility that warrants award of the ICM or ACM. MILPER message 136-05 paragraph 2 states Effective 30 April 2005, The Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal (GWOTEM) is no longer authorized for to be awarded for service in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. So there is your "date to be determined" at least for service in Afghanistan. It is still awarded for service in support of OEF, outside of Afghanistan, such as OEF operations in the Philippines.

Using a photo of what he is wearing can not be used as a reliable source. In fact it's downright ridiculous that you would even consider. The fact is people make mistakes, especially uniform mistakes ALL THE time. Considering your average joe wears the dress uniform maybe 2 times a year, people make mistakes, especially with what awards they are authorized ALL THE TIME. There is no such thing as implied permission in the Army. You are either authorized by regulation or not. No commander would tell a soldier he is allowed to do something when he knows for fact by regulation he can not. I linked his official Biography from the Army which includes his list of awards. The list does NOT include the GWOTEM for a reason. The very same list points out he is authorized the NATO medal for ISAF which he also wears the wrong ribbon for. There is obviously a reason they did not include his ribbons showing in his photo because he is obviously wrong. However, the guy has a Medal of Honor and no one probably has the fortitude or integrity to correct him. Erikwithak86 (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am, but my military service isn't at question, and isn't the slightest bit relevant. I don't see once where I've said that you could receive the GWOTEM for deploying to an area covered by the ICM or ACM. In fact, I've said, and cited to the contrary. I also find it odd that you would cite a reference (MILPER "136-05", which should actually read 05-136, and which concerns reenlistment bonuses, not awards, and is thus not at all relevant) that was published before the Army Regulation cited before (which was published in December of 2006). Why would they say "This won't be awarded anymore" in 2005, but say "to a date to be determined." in 2006? SkonesMickLoud (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Using a photo of what he is wearing can not be used as a reliable source. In fact it's downright ridiculous that you would even consider." By the definition of what a primary reliable source is, an image of what he is wearing is by that definition a reliable source as to what he is wearing - a tautology. It is ridiculous to think otherwise. As to whether or not he made a mistake and is getting a pass because of his MOH, I think otherwise, he is under a much higher level of scrutiny than any other soldier and is expected to be an exemplar. He gets a pass on nothing. Also he wears his dress uniform significantly more often recently than the 2 time a year of the average Joe. The list of awards should match what he is actually wearing and if some other reliable source conflicts, list it as well and let the reader make their own conclusions. This analysis of regulations and which reliable source is correct is impermissible original research. The inconsistency of the image showing his awards in the award sections and the image of him wearing his awards in the infobox section is jarring and reflects poorly on the quality of the article. 71.34.132.139 (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand how full of it you are? The guy has a MoH and anyone who has served a day in the military understands that in the eyes of servicemembers he walks on water. No one is going to correct him. He gets a pass on everything! You missed the point of me saying that the average joe wears their uniform twice a year. The average soldier will put together their uniform and it will stay that way unless it needs to be sent to the cleaners. It is not a desirable job to take apart and put together your uniform day in and day out. He probably put it together and left it that way because of the huge inconvenience it is to screw around with it so much.

I will concede that you are right about using the photo as a source. However that does not invalidate the fact that he is not authorized a GWOTEM and is still wearing the wrong NATO medal. I think if we could come to some sort of agreement as to how it should be noted then I would be more than willing to do it. I address your claims about the GWOTEM in the paragraph above.Erikwithak86 (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP and consider finding a reliable source that explicitly states that he is wearing the wrong medal before making this edit to the article again. Comparing the medal qualification criteria to his deployment history and drawing conclusions based on that is original synthesis and inappropriate for inclusion in the article. VQuakr (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit it again, I'm over it. The regulation is the only source you need. It's very simple, it's a yes or no answer. There is no drawing conclusions. The right answer is spelled out in front of you in black and white. I don't need to look at his deployment history. All I need to do is read his biography to see that he does not rate the medal. Seeing that he is not awarded a GWOTEM via his biography and confirming it by citing relevant regulations is not original synthesis. It's not a matter of 2+2=4 (adding source A and B to come to conclusion C) it's really a matter of 2=2 (oh, he doesn't have GWOTEM listed in his awards (2) let me see if that is correct, (check regulation) oh they are correct (2)). But sure, you guys can have at it, I'm done dealing with incompetent editors who are upset they got their pee-pee slapped because they are wrong and know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikwithak86 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you privy to his SRB? Then you can't possibly know what he does and does not rate. SkonesMickLoud (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Just recently, an editor replaced File:Salvatore Giunta portrait.jpg with File:Salvatore Giunta Medal of Honor.jpg. I replaced it, but it was changed back. While the former does not show Giunta wearing his Medal of Honor, it is an official Army portrait. The latter is an unofficial photograph released to the press, and its dimensions cause it to fit the infobox awkwardly. Most bios favor the official portrait. See: President Barack Obama, Chief of Staff George W. Casey, Jr., Vice Chief of Staff Peter W. Chiarelli. Despite the fact that Generals Casey and Chiarelli have received multiple awards since the beginning of their assignments and that there are many more recent pictures of them, the portraits are still used. Why should it be any different here? Rockhead126 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer File:Salvatore Giunta portrait.jpg over File:Salvatore Giunta Medal of Honor.jpg as an infobox portrait. I think the MOH photo would be good at the start of the "medal of honor action" section. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. File:Salvatore Giunta Medal of Honor.jpg is a good picture, and I would actually like to have in the article, but I think the other one is better for the infobox. Rockhead126 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rockhead, but wouldn't the picture be updated by the military sometime soon anyway? We can simply grab one when it is updated. At least, I hope it is before he leaves the military in a few months. --Hourick (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Air Force badge

Why is it that there was a change to the Air Force badge? Since it was a bold change, I have reverted it per WP:BRD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

is it worth to mention?

is it worth to mention: https://comic-watch.com/comic-book-reviews/batman-gotham-nights-1-honor-and-commitment ? I am not sure --Qwertzu111111 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)