Wikipedia

Talk:Silver Star/Archive 1

< Talk:Silver Star
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

Lyndon Johnson

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added Lyndon Johnson to the list of famous recipients. He was often seen wearing a Silver Star ribbon-badge. -unsign anon user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.67 (talk • contribs) on 16:15, January 20, 2005

Proper Amount of Respect for the Silver Star?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I'm going to write this entire thing as hypothetical as to not break any vows nor imply any of what I say actually happened. Consider the following narrative as fiction spoken in the first person, but consider the content as something I believe is positively likely to happen someday if it hasn't already.

"As somebody who "knows someone" and served with "someone" who received a Silver Star as a CW3 or Chief Warrant Officer 3 OH58D pilot, and was NOMINATED for the MOH, but downgraded to winning the Silver Star because he was an individual soldier without responsibility over a large number of troops or over any large action, thus making him ineligible to win the Army Distinguished Service Medal, and because his duty was in a helicopter, he was not considered to have risked his life in the face of the enemy, thus was ineligible for the Army Distinguished Service Cross--at least this was the judgement of the those who looked at the nomination and signed off on it. Note, it was downgraded at the highest level, but supported for an MOH by the Regimental C.O., Division (Post) C.O., Corps C.O., until it was finally downgraded in Washington to a SS. The way whomever it is who has written up the description of the SS in Wikipedia makes this award look like a namby pamby award received several times over by tons of people. Whereas it appears, even though the pilot in question was nearly mortally wounded by gunfire (the chicken plate, or flak jacket we wore, had it's only flaw back then in that it left the groin and about 2 to three inches above the groin unprotected when in a sitting position) to his abdomen to the point where he had to control the cyclic with his knees, his collective with his left hand, and both hold in his bowels as well as radio with his right hand, his co pilot was killed (though both had P.I.C. orders, the "someone" of which I speak was the P.I.C. that day. Co-pilot in the world of aviation is often considered a term of derision or at best as delineating which pilot has more experience with the co-pilot not being the pilot with final say. This is not the way it's used when it comes to flying Deltas. The entire explanation would take too long as to why this is so, so I'll just have to ask you to take my word for it). In any case, this "someone" flew his chopper for ~15 clicks before landing at the nearest C.S.H. (combat support hospital). He'd directly saved the lives of 2 unconscious pilots he dumped into his aviation compartment (before being shot), and indirectly saved the lives of an entire Company under overwhelming fire. Between himself and the other Delta called in for air support, they eliminated all but the few retreating troops. Unfortunately one of the Delta's had it's tail rotor shot to the point where the pilots experienced LTE to the point of no return, landing hard enough to knock them unconscious. This "someone" was flying as an attachement to the 160th S.O.A.R. If you're familiar with the S.O.A.R., you know many of the operations which take place within it are things we never hear about in the United States. This "someone" did win the SS, a DFC, AM/w V Device, and a PH, all for this one operation. In my opinion, he should have been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor (MOH on a DD210) "

I suppose I still must explain my complaint. Though the Silver Star IS listed as the "4th highest" Award in the Army, people do not realize, from the description, the degree of sacrafice one must go through just to earn it and the description of it really does make it seem like it's a next to nothing award, considering there are three higher awards. What other people don't realize are the REASONS the Silver Star, for some MOS's, is likely the 2nd highest award, or, one could argue, at BEST, the 3rd highest award for an INDIVIDUAL NOT having the necessary MOS or rank to fulfill the requirements for the DSM. This information should, IMO, be included somewhere in the description. There is a de facto nullification of the Distinguished Service Medal due to the following criteria "has distinguished himself or herself by exceptionally meritorious service to the Government in a duty of great responsibility." This is NOT something possible for MOST ranks in the entire military. Only, at BEST, an E-9, or 0-6+ would likely be in a "duty of great responsibility" as the Army defines it. It's not enough to say what someone needs to win a certain medal in the description. It should also be required we include certain medals which simply could NOT be won by most Army soldiers EVER in their entire career. I am a former Division G-1, and held that as my "additional duty" during peacetime as a CWO, and I have had the responsibility of reviewing ~20,000+ award nominations and deciding which ones would go to the Division Chief of Staff (an O-7, or O-6P) who would then forward it to the Post Commander (in this unit, normally an O-8 or O-9). Of those, less than 1% were in "positions of great responsibility," and I ONLY had to look at awards from the Meritorious Service Medal, or in effect the Bronze Star in a non-combat position, on up. Isn't it our goal to make clear to people that the Silver Star is one of the rarest and most respected awards in the military? Isn't it our goal to make it very clear just WHY certain soldiers would get a Silver Star and not a Distinguished Service Medal as their mere rank made them ineligible for one? The lack of this is disturbing to me, and people who read about the Silver Star on Wikipedia, in my experience, come away thinking it's not such a big deal, because it's the 4th highest award in combat, making it BARELY above a Bronze Star, especially when the Bronze Star description is IN the description of the Silver Star, thus further making them seem like one is just a little bit better than the other when that is not at ALL the case. It's just like the difference between a Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, and Army Achievement Medal. The difference between an AAM and an ARCOM is large, but the difference between an ARCOM and an MSM is HUGE!!! In my time as G-1, I saw more MSM's downgraded to ARCOM, than I have that of any other combination of medals by a large margin! Period. Full stop! The LOM and MSM aren't even in the same ballpark. I have never, in a time of non-combat, seen a LOM awarded to anyone under the rank of O-6 (full bird Colonel) or E-9 (Sergeant Major). The same is true of the Bronze Star and Silver Star. The Bronze Star isn't even in the same ballpark as the Silver Star. Can whomever it is who feels it necessary to stick to the Awards manual please make it clear just how high an honor it is to get the Silver Star and stop mentioning it as something which seems barely above a Bronze Star?

Thank you for your time--Chief 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Just listing the order of precedence does not convey the level of honor each award holds within the military. - Atfyfe 00:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hear Hear! Most people have no concept of what it takes to qualify for this level of commendation. Simply saying it's the "third highest" makes it sound like it's a throwaway honor. A Silver Star award today from Iraq or Afghanistan merits front page news in any non-national newspaper. That's pretty damned notable if you ask me! Rapier1 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list the privileges associated with the award? For example, Silver Star recipients are automatically entitled to be buried at Arlington if they wish. The award is protected by law from fraudulent claims, etc. It might also be fair to say it's the third highest award given for valor. Rklawton 03:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I saw a LOM awarded to an O-5 once. Rklawton 03:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for you support, and on top of that, as a retired CW4 myself, I received an LOM on retirement, so I suppose I should add W-4,O-5, and E-9 as the minimums for winning "non combat" LOMs. BTW, did that O-5 get the LOM for retirement? I've never seen anyone under a W-5, O-6, or E-9 get one for anything EXCEPT a retirement, and even then it was only a few of my fellow "old, crusty warrants" who received an LOM, but only upon retirement. So, you have my apologies there. Still, while I was serving as Div. G-1, the only thing I did with LOM nominations was to pass them on to my boss, the Chief of Staff. Truly though, I don't think people have a CLUE how much difference there is between getting a SS as opposed to a BS or a MSM as opposed to an ARCOM. I was lucky/unlucky enough to work under an O-6 at Fort Carson as a CW2, and was given a job normally held by a Major (BDE S-1). The Brigade was closing down though (4th Avn BDE), so I was stuck relocating everyone from E-1 to O-6 (though of course the Colonel got his choice of where to go), going over ALL the OERs of the hundreds of outgoing officers, as well as making sure every outprocessing soldier received his service award(s). I received an MSM for it. After that, my C.O.s (invariably O-3s until I hit W-4) and peers would ask continuously, how in the heck did I, a lowly CW2, manage to get an MSM. It's just THAT RARE for someone of even a low OFFICER rank to get an MSM, but this is NOT conveyed on the webpage for it either, and we really need to start pushing for more than just the Army, Air Force, Navy, or Marine regs for descriptions of these awards. If someone out there disagrees with what we're saying, then instead of just erasing it (which is what's usually done) put up your OWN evidence of how what we're saying is NOT true. I mean, go ahead... get the stats for how many Silver Stars have been handed out since the end of the 1st Gulf War. I know for a fact it's under 100, (or was last I checked). I won't bore everybody any more about this, but it annoys me that when someone looks at my "I love me" wall and then looks on Wikipedia to see what I had to do to get my Medals, they act like some of them are no big deal (more impressed with a PH than an LOM. Perhaps posting some numbers as to the amount of Silver Stars issued since 9/11 would wake people up!As usual, just my opinion Chief 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The O-5 received his LOM at his change of command (talk about your late responses). Afterwards he was promoted and sent to some joint command for a couple of years. He'd taken a crap battalion and turned it around into the best performing armor battalion in Europe. We had more visits by our division commander than I can count. So yeah, the circumstances of his award were extraordinary. Rklawton (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Front picture

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see we have some folks who wish to remove the picture at the top of the article and replace it with an actual photograph. I see nothing wrong with the intro picture and see no cause for its removal. The second picture is nice, and is posted lower down in the article. I just dont think it should be used as the top picture since it has a stick pin and the fabric of the medal in the photograph is somewhat rough and wrinkled. The top picture, provided by the U.S. Army, is smooth and too the point. -Husnock 15:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it with a very good representation from the US Air Force site: [1], where I also got an image for the ribbon. Alcarillo 18:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Autie F. Kelley was and perhaps still is a very quite person who showed the same fear we all have in combat. However, the fear left him when it was time to do his duty. I wish I had kept track of him after he left the service. Perhaps, he blended in among the others who were scorned for doing their duty to their country...Lt. Thomas Cooper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autie (talk • contribs) on 11:03, April 17, 2006

Autie F. Kelly

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The information below was added by User:Autie on 12:34, April 16, 2006. As an entry on a single recipient, it is not appropriate for the main article, though may (with sourcing) merit an article. However, it may have issues with WP:AUTO. Will be communicating with contributor on appropriateness of entry as an article and sourcing. —ERcheck @ 14:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Specialist Five Autie F. Kelley, First Medic assigned to the 2/7/Company B, 1st Air Calvaly Division, on December 29, 1968 was engaged in a night battle in the Ashau Valley about 2 kilometers from the DMZ. During the firefight, Specialist Kelley distinguished himself by rescuing 1st Lt. Thomas Cooper who was severly wounded. With communication to headquarters lost due to radios distroyed, Specialist Kelley advanced to a radio to provide airstrikes on the NVA position. While advancing to the position, Specialist Kelley was wounded twice by machine gun and scrapnel. Even though severly wounded, Specialist Kelley provided the much needed coordinates for the air-strike, thus saving numerous lives of the company. Thus, I recommend Specialist Kelley for the Silver Star. The Silver Star and Purple Heart was awarded to Specialist Kelley on April 23, 1969 in Phouc Vinghn, Vietnam.

Sincerely, Lt. Thomas Cooper

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Autie"

Note has been placed on contributer's talk page. —ERcheck @ 21:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry link was removed and replaced by [[Autie F. Kelley]] redlink. Note that the section of notable recipients is intended to contain only those who already have an article - as per comments in the section. In addition, the material with biographical information about one individual recipient — Autie F. Kelley — is out of keeping with the article. --> reverted to previous version by Husnock —ERcheck @ 11:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Chris Dean

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw than an anon added Chris Dean to the list, which as of this writing is a red link. I did some googling and found this, this and this on Lt. Dean. I am not sure what our standards of notablity are, but if every recipient of the award, all of them heroes, got a mention this article, it would make this article huge. --rogerd 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • It would be a huge article if we actively added every recipient. However, if we only passively allowed any awardee to be added, then the article would be ever-growing but not overly huge. There has to be a better option then taking down someone;s name after someone adds it and telling them that they may be a hero but not "notable." Perhaps there could be another list of names not titled "notable" but just "awardees." Such a listing would not primarily for information purposes, but Wikipedia can tolerate some very limited secondary purposes. Mainly this would just be a middle-ground to avoid having to risk insulting heros while trying to provide information about them. (Atfyfe 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

Peter Tsouprake

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Peter Tsouprake (currently a red link) was added by an anon user in this edit. Col.[2] Tsouprake appears to have been awarded the Air Force Cross, but the Silver Star isn't easily verifiable. Remove this entry or leave it as a red link? -- Jim Douglas 21:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It was removed. One stipulation for adding a name to the list is that they already have a Wikipedia article. — ERcheck (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Order of Precedence - different branches

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

U.S. Army (Pentagon.mil)

  1. Medal of Honor
  2. Distinguished Service Cross
  3. Distinguished Service Medal
  4. Silver Star
  5. Legion of Merit

USMC and USN (Navy.mil)

  1. Medal of Honor
  2. Navy Cross
  3. Defense Distinguished Service Medal
  4. Distinguished Service Medal
  5. Silver Star
  6. Defense Superior Service Medal
  7. Legion of Merit

USAF (AirForce.mil)

  1. Medal of Honor
  2. Air Force Cross
  3. Defense Distinguished Service Medal
  4. Distinguished Service Medal
  5. Silver Star
  6. Defense Superior Service Medal
  7. Legion of Merit

Note that while the Army site does not distinguish the Defense Distinguished Service Medal from the Army Distinguished Service Medal, the DDSM takes precedence. Therefore, the Silver Star is the 5th highest U.S. medal. — ERcheck (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A recent change indicates that the Silver Star is 2nd to the Medal of Honor for individual heroism in combat since it is reserved for O-6 and above. I disagree. Consider Brad Kasal, 1st Sergeant at the time, who was recently awarded the Navy Cross. I am going to remove that section. Please direct discussion here. — ERcheck (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Addendum to U.S. Army — the above reference from the Pentagon does not address DDSM vs DSM. However, this cite [3] (U.S. Army) does show DDSM takes precedence. — ERcheck (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

USN-USMC awards "Silver Star Medal" (in order of precedence). Same award, different name. Coast Guard currently awards "Silver Star" (Silver Star Medal, Vietnam War).

Comment on Notable recipients list

Latest comment: 16 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

As per the comment with the Notable recipients list section, the list is not intended to be a comprehensive list of Silver Star recipients. It is intended to list those who are notable in their own right, in particular, those who already have an article. I recently reverted an addition that was a redlink. (I did a quick search on the subject and did not find any immediate evidence that this was a notable person who should be included.) — ERcheck (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I plan to review each name on the list to see if it satisfies this requirement. I'm listing below the name(s) of individuals I propose to remove due to lack of notability. I would like to encourage other editors to review each name posted here and indicate beneith the name whether or not this name should be removed. Rklawton 05:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Brackett— Agree. No additional notability. — ERcheck (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Guy Gabaldon was the subject of a Hollywood film, Hell to Eternity; though this film was based on his service during World War II, his particular exploits make him notable. — ERcheck (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Subject of a movie - good point. Rklawton 02:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Miller — Agree. No additional notability. — ERcheck (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Monsoor — Agree. No additional notability. — ERcheck (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Pedro Rodriguez - Two Silver Stars in one week? I don't know about notability but, how many other soldiers do you know that were awarded two Silver Stars in the same week? Tony the Marine (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable. — ERcheck (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Humbert Roque Versace - He was the first member of the U.S. Army to be awarded the Medal of Honor ( upgraded from Silver Star) for actions performed in Southeast Asia while in captivity. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed Rklawton (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Numbers alone don't determine notability. It's it verifiable and receive press, yes. I'd only list recipients noteworthy enough to have their own wiki article. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Silver Star recipients

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

The question has been brought up — Are Silver Star recipients notable simply on the basis of this award? In particular, does this award alone establish sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article?

Points for consideration (from HomeofHeroes.com)

  • There is no comprehensive database for Silver Star recipients. HomeofHeroes is working on compiling such a database.
  • Citation Star (a U.S. Army award) , predecessor to the Silver Star, was awarded between 100,000 to 150,000 times for actions during World War I.
    • 2,591 Marines received a total of 3,077 awards.
  • During World War II:
    • U.S. Army — Nearly 100,000 awards of the Silver Star
    • U.S. Army Air Force — nearly 5,000 identified to date by HoH
    • U.S. Navy — nearly 1,000 identified by HoH, believed to be only about 10% of the total WWII awards.
    • U.S. Marines Corps — nearly 4,000 awards identified to date
  • Korean War — just over 10,000 recipients identified by HoH, which estimates this is about 50% of the awards.
  • Vietnam War:
    • U.S. Army Awards Branch estimates 21,630 Army Awards
    • U.S. Marine Corps — nearly 2,500 awards identified to date by HoH
  • GWOT — ~400 awards to date [4]

And so on....it is clear that the number of awards is huge. It is my thought at this point that the award alone is insufficient to establish the notability needed for a Wikipedia article. — ERcheck (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent research. Another point to consider... At present, just about every new Silver Star recipient is receiving a fair bit of press - enough press to support a biographical article. We need a solution that can accommodate these new heroes as well as the descendents of Sergeant Schmidlapp who think grandpa rates an article, too. I've been pondering this very point for my family as I have several relatives who have received this honor.
One approach would be to acknowledge that each recipient is sufficiently notable for an article. That in itself will help smooth over any patriotic indignation that might come from a blanket rejection. However, we should also make it a requirement that the subject be supported by two reliable, verifiable sources supporting the claim as well as the text of the award citation.
This approach would have several effects. First, it would make the article more interesting to read. Second, it would accommodate new recipients. Third, it would accommodate those folks who think Grandpa Schmidlapp should have an article and who have the documentation to support it. Finally, it would head off a database dump that would create stub articles with little chance to grow. I'm open to ideas, though.
Incidentally, this approach would rule out my own relatives, because I don't have access to their award certificates, and the only reliable/verifiable source I can find for one of them is a photo of his tombstone at Arlington with his awards listed thereon. Rklawton (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I my opinion, I do not believe that Silver Star recipients are notable simply on the basis of this award. Yes, they are heroes and so are those who were awarded the Bronze Star Medal, yet all of them do not merit an article. There may be an exception once in awhile, for example a soldier who may have been awarded two Silver Stars in a week but, such cases are rare. As far as I'm concerned all of the Medal of Honor recipients deserve an article. I wouldn't write an article on a person who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross nor Navy Cross either, solely on the basis of the award. The persons actions would have to be out of the ordinary such as Guy Gabaldon and Herman Bottcher for me to write about them. That is my opinion on the matter. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
When we look at notability of people within a certain category, we ask if they are notable within their field; for example, the "professor test". Looking at WP:BIO for "Creative professionals", I find some analogies for military personnel:
  • "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Does Department of Defense or their branch of the military have an "official" biography on them? For the Marine Corps, see Who's Who in Marine Corps History, from the History Division of the USMC.
  • "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." See Pete Ellis, the "Father of Amphibious Warfare".
  • "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Is there a significant military installations/ships named in their honor? For example, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton is named for Joseph Henry Pendleton.
Citations are received by members of the military for lesser awards than the Silver Star, for example the Bronze Star. Most members of the military, returning home from combat with an award for valor receive some local press that can be documented. From WP: NOT — Wikipedia is not a memorial: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." This applies to living persons as well.
All this said, even if a citation and a news article are available, I don't think this is enough. This is not a "blanket rejection". A question to ask for current recipients — Is there significant national coverage? See WP:NOT: "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news..." Historically significant is a key. For example, is a new story carried by the Associated Press?
— ERcheck (talk)
Good points, and I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm concerned about administering this going forward (and backward, for that matter). To wit: can you recommend some easy-to-understand criteria for what comprises significant media coverage? Remember, we're going to be recommending articles for deletion based on these criteria, and we want as small a gray area as possible. Rklawton (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this page's discussion is sufficient to set a basis for consideration in an AFD. Since each subject will likely be unique in the additional information and type of notice/press, I'm not sure how to set a precise guideline. — ERcheck (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It will be a huge task. There are over 400 articles listed in the "Category:recipients of the Silver Star Medal". Each and everyone of them will have to be reviewed. Plus the creator of the articles which are to be nominated for AfD must be notified. Now, I know that this will open a Pandoras Box and a lot of stressful situations will arise. For instance, I for one could not even comprehend why the names of "Guy Gabaldon", "Pedro Rodriguez" or "Humbert Roque Versace" were even listed above. All that I am saying is to proceed with a lot of caution and try to avoid any misunderstandings. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't looking to make a mass deletion of articles in this category. I'm guessing that the vast majority of subjects in the category have other notable characteristics. — ERcheck (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
These names were listed above because they are included in this article as "notable recipients", and there is some doubt about that. Rklawton (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What is your doubt about the names which I mentioned? The section in the article is titled "Notable recipients" without a clear indication of what is meant by "notable". There should be a paragraph within the article stating if this section contains the name of a person who is notable because he was awarded the Silver Star or because the person is notable because of other reasons despite being a Silver Star recipient or both.
I think we are mixing two discussions in this section:
  1. The inherent notability of Silver Star recipients, in particular whether the award of the Silver Star medal is sufficiently notable to automatically say that the recipient could have a Wikipedia article. (This was my purpose for the section when I started it.
  2. The notability of people who are included in the "Notable recipients" section of this article. This is the topic of the preceding section, "Comment on Notable recipients", in which there has been an ongoing discussion on which names merit inclusion in this article. See Tony's point below.
— ERcheck (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say that I agree that not every silver star recipient should have a bio on wikipedia but in addition to the reasons mentioned above I would like to add one and that is if the person is mentioned in another wikipedia article by name then that "may" be enough to support a bio if none of the other above criteria are met.--Kumioko (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the award of the Silver Star medal is not sufficiently notable. There may be some cases, for example I would make an exception for Pedro Rodriguez who has the rare distinction of receiving two awards in less then one week and who is considered a hero in his homeland, but these are very rare cases. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Debate on whether to include a "Notable recipients" section in this article

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

This is what I suggest in regard to the "Notable recipients" section of this article. Unlike the top two military decorations, the Medal of Honor and the Distinguished Service Cross; Navy Cross and Air Force Cross, the Silver Star Medal has thousands of recipients, which User:ERcheck has pointed out, whose notablility may be debatable. This article should follow the example set by the articles of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart and should eliminate said section altogether. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(I've added a section heading above Tony's preceding comment to separate the two discussions. — ERcheck (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
  • If the "Notable recipients" section is kept, then perhaps the list should be limited to people whose notability is completely outside of the military. My reasoning for this — it is not uncommon for military personnel to have been awarded the Silver Star (see statistics in the preceding section), especially if one has a notable military career. For example, it is not unexpected that Chesty Puller and Chuck Yeager were awarded the Silver Star. However, I find it unusual and notable that Derek Allhusen (British Army Cavalry, World War II) who is notable as an Olympic medalist (equestrian), is a recipient of the U.S. Silver Star medal. — ERcheck (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the section should be deleted, however if the section is to be kept, it should be as ERcheck suggested, it should be limited to people whose notability is completely outside of the military. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That would wipe out a lot of generals, but that's OK with me. Rklawton (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable apart from military career

I'm beginning a list, from the current posting in the article, of those who are notable outside of their military careers. This list is in alphabetical order, with a comment about their particular notability:

— ERcheck (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Sid McMath (WWII, USMC) — Governor of Arkansas
  • Cliff Montgomery (WWII, USN) — College Football Hall of Fame
  • Audie Murphy (WWII, U.S. Army, MoH) — actor
  • Bismarck Myrick (Vietnam War, U.S. Army) — U.S. Ambassador to Republic of Liberia (1999-2002) and Lesotho (1995-1998).
  • Mike O'Callaghan (Vietnam War, U.S. Army) — Governor of Nevada
  • Barney Ross (WWII, USMC) — world boxing champion
  • Dick Rutan (Vietnam War, USAF) — pilot Voyager - nonstop around the world flight
  • Pat Tillman (Afghanistan-GWOT, U.S. Army) — American professional football player
  • Jim Webb (Vietnam War, USMC) — Secretary of the Navy, U.S. Senator from Virginia

— ERcheck (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the current list and reviewed for notability aside from military service. This is the subset that meets the criterion. If there is consensus to set this as the criteria for the list, then perhaps this is a good start. Tony has suggested an alternative — to delete the section altogether. — ERcheck (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Either approach is fine with me. Rklawton (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
ER, I completely trust and will support your judgement. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm thinking there is a different way to go about this. It might be advisable to create a seperate article, listing all recipients of note (based on whatever criterion on this talk page you like), and then link it to the article on SS. There could be a tiny section on notable recipients whose noteriety is due to the award itself or the circumstances of the award, such as the fellow who earned two in a week. The article is, after all, about the Silver Star, and not the men and women who wear it. This would keep the article on the award free form a large, ungainly list, but allow recognition of those who are notable, as well as keep every one of the hundreds of thousands of recipients from being listed.
    You also might consider listing recipients of note without creating an article for them. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

$100,000 penalty?

Neither [5] or [6] contain the string "100" within them let alone "$100,000". Aside from wikipedia.org, I can find no evidence that such a penalty exists. I even tried the following Google searches: [7] [8] [9] [10] TerraFrost 03:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cpl Angelo Vaccaro

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Should this man, the only person so far to receive TWO Silver Stars for heroic action in the Global War On Terror that we are CURRENTLY FIGHTING, be recognized? I think so, Hello Control thinks not, what do you think? I put it up to a popular vote. Until it is voted on I will continue to add him. Xaulzan (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone who has received a Silver Star is deserving of recognition, and they receive that recognition. Vaccaro was a remarkable soldier and hero. However this encyclopedia project has certain policies and guidelines. Obviously, we can't include a paragraph about each of the thouands of recipients of this medal. We do list recipients who are sufficiently notable to have a biography on Wikipedia. The threshold for a biography is, roughly, an article about the person in a newspaper or magazine. Given the accomplishments of this solider, he may very well qualify. I suggest that you find out as much as you can and then write an article about him, Angelo Vaccaro, that includes those sources. Once there's a bio then there won't be any question of including the name among the list of notable recipients. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • No mention - the list of notable recipients is for people who are notable for achievements other than receiving the Silver Star. Vaccaro is notable enough for his own article, but that's about it. Rklawton (talk) 13:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If you google his name, he was given lots of mentions. Lots of articles. Indeed, the VA named a facility after him. Given he was awarded TWO Silver Stars, and being the only person in the current conflicts to be so honored, I would say that he deserves his own article, and also a listing in this estimable article when that is accomplished. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Stan
...which is what I suggested to Xaulzan in the first place. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Silver star <-- --> Gold star?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why is the silver star gold-colored? --MoRsE (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Silver star" is the small siver-colored star in the center. But I can't answer the general question of why it isn't just a big silver star. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Based on the material here:[11], it appears that the decoration originated as a small silver star added to other citation ribbons to show additional acts of gallantry. Eventually they decided to make it a decoration of its own, and so the small silver star was given a background of a gilt-star. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Muddle

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As it is often the case the worde "medal" is used for a star. I find the words Silver Star Medal alongside Silver Star in this article. But it is a star and not a medal isn't it?

Americans tend to call everything an award or a medal, including stars and crosses of orders of knighthood. Robert Prummel (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

On the American uniform, you can have ribbons, medals, or badges. This one's a medal. Affixed to each of these three, one might find "devices" such as stars, oak leaves, "V" device, and numerals. Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "sole female recipients" of the Silver Star

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, just wanted to turn your attention to this line:

"The four nurses remained the sole female recipients of the Silver Star until Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester was awarded the Silver Star in 2005 for gallantry during an insurgent ambush on a convoy in Iraq."

A Filipina special agent and member of the United States Armed Forces in the Philippines, Northern Luzon (USAFIP, NL) under Col. Russell Volckmann was awarded the Silver Star in 1945. Her name is Magdalena Leones. Some references: http://www.homeofheroes.com/members/04_SS/2_WWII/indexes/army/Army-L.html http://www.philippineconsulate-sf.org/news07_1140.htm

Will be glad if someone would look into this :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.55.188.234 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Color of the Silver Star

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Question? The name is: Silver Star, right? Why, is the Star Gold????--PimboliDD (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look closely, you'll see that the star in the center is silver, not gold. Rklawton (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Ambrosia on recipients list

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why mr Gregory Ambrosia, while appearing in the photo, is not mentioned in any of two recipients lists ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.100.146 (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The list contains only the most notable of the Silver Star recipients. Rklawton (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Gregory Ambrosia

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An IP insists on removing Gregory Ambrosia's name from the caption of the photo of him receiving the Silver Star. The captain's name has been in this article for over four years, so one editor's "I don't like it" isn't sufficient reason to remove it. If the IP wishes to explain him or herself here, then I invite it. Otherwise this removal has all the appearance of random vandalism and will be treated as such. Rklawton (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of "Notable Recipients" section - revisited

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Given that the prior section contains significantly incorrect information regarding this section, I thought it would be best to start fresh with three proposals (none of them new):

1. The current state of the Notable Recipients section is this: individuals with articles in Wikipedia who are notable for something other than receiving the Silver Star should be included in this list.

2. User:Tony the Marine had proposed further limiting the list to individuals with articles in Wikipedia who are notable for something other than their military service. This would eliminate not just the one-trick war heroes but most general officers many of whom have received this award.

  • Comment this would also remove most of the people who received this award multiple times as well as war heroes who have received higher awards like the Medal of Honor. Most of the names remaining, I think, would be celebrities and politicians. Rklawton (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

3. User:Pdfpdf and User:Tony the Marine have also suggested removing the list entirely.

  • Comment this would certainly simplify maintenance, and we could still list exemplars: first award, most recent award, most number of awards by branch and/or war. Rklawton (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
a)Given that the prior section contains significantly incorrect information - Please state, explicitly, which information is incorrect, and which information is significantly incorrect, so I know what you are referring to. (No, it is not "Given", it needs explicit explanation.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
b) The previous section contains a proposal, a number of statements, and number of questions. You have chosen to ignore all but one of the statements, and all of the questions, so here they are again, plus some more:
  • The page is about the award - not about people who have received the award, so why is there a list of recipients on the page.
  • The "standard" way this is usually handled in wikipedia is to have a separate page with a name similar to "List of recipients of the Silver Star". Note that such a page is not just a list of names - the category already does that. There are many examples of such pages. See, for example, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients, and other examples in: {{Victoria Cross recipients}}
  • More particularly, why should the Silver Star page be different from every other such page on wikipedia?
  • The section on the page is titled "Notable Recipients". By wikipedia definition, everybody with a page on wikipedia is notable. You are saying: The standard on this page is that the recipient be notable for something other than receiving the Silver Star. If this is indeed the case, then the section should not be titled "Notable Recipients". It should be titled, and/or contain an explanation, that "The standard on this page is that the recipient be notable for something other than receiving the Silver Star." Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
c)Item titled "1." is not a proposal. Please reword it as a proposal. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
d)The implementation of the proposal titled "3." avoids the need for item titled "1." and proposal titled "2." Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


Removal of "Notable Recipients" section

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Today, Category:Recipients of the Silver Star contains 1,152 pages. i.e. Wikipedia contains (by definition) 1,152 "notable" people who have received the Silver Star. Quite clearly, it is ridiculous to add the 1,152 entries to a page which is about the award - not about people who have received the award. The "standard" way this is usually handled is to have a separate page with a name similar to "List of recipients of the Silver Star". Note that such a page is not just a list of names - the category already does that. There are many examples of such pages. See, for example, List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients, and other examples in: {{Victoria Cross recipients}}

I propose that the "Notable Recipients" section be removed from the Silver Star page, and placed on a page with a name similar to List of recipients of the Silver Star.

  • Remove - As above. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pdfpdf has misconstrued this page's standard for inclusion. The standard on this page is that the recipient be notable for something other than receiving the Silver Star. As a result, a "List of" page or Category simply doesn't do the job. Rklawton (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No, Pdfpdf has not misconstrued anything. The talk page discussions have concluded that receiving the Silver Star is not, by itself, a sufficient criterion for notability. Thus, by definition, everybody with a page on wikipedia who has been awarded the Silver Star is notable for something additional. Therefore both the category and the list "do the job". Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • More particularly, why should the Silver Star page be different from every other such page on wikipedia? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Afterthought: What's the definition of "most notable"? Isn't notability like pregnancy? i.e. you either are, or you aren't. If not, then please explain what the levels of notability are. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • The comments on this page are primarily related to inclusion on this page. They have no bearing on whether or not a person is sufficiently notable for an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are the one and only place for any final word on whether or not a subject is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Next, there are numerous articles in Wikipedia about people who are notable only for receiving the Silver Star, so you're assertion that people notable only for receiving a silver star not meriting an article in Wikipedia are simply wrong. Lastly, I've been involved with this page and discussions about notability for inclusion on this page for several years, so I'm pretty familiar with the subject and current consensus. I have no objection to Pdfpdf or anyone opening the topic for a fresh look, but I do object to Pdfpdf's including arguments that are patently not valid. Also see scores of edit summaries to that effect when individuals have been removed from this list. Rklawton (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm very disappointed by your response.
The comments on this page are primarily related to inclusion on this page. They have no bearing on whether or not a person is sufficiently notable for an article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's notability guidelines are the one and only place for any final word on whether or not a subject is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - How it that relevant to my proposal, and to what is it relevant?
Next, there are numerous articles in Wikipedia about people who are notable only for receiving the Silver Star, so you're assertion that people notable only for receiving a silver star not meriting an article in Wikipedia are simply wrong. - Somewhere in the discussion above I read the statement that, by itself, earning the Silver Star is not sufficiently notable. Are you now telling me that earning a Silver Star is sufficiently notable?
Lastly, I've been involved with this page and discussions about notability for inclusion on this page for several years, so I'm pretty familiar with the subject and current consensus. - How it that relevant to my proposal, and to what is it relevant?
Do you think, perhaps, you could read and consider my proposal, and respond to my proposal?
With thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove - as it is currently constituted, it is poorly referenced and provides no more structure or information than the category page. If you wanted a section about individuals for a notable number of awards of the Silver Star medal that might be worthwhile, if properly referenced. It would function much like the Notable Recipients section on the Distinguished Service Order. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability VS Significance: Silver Star

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have read the discussions above and ask that Wiki editors step back and look at the big picture ...

Adam Greenberg is notable because he only batted once in the major leagues ... thus he qualifies for a Wikipedia article.

Pete Bremy is notable because he is the third replacement bassist for the 1960's rock band Vanilla Fudge.

A silver star recipient risks his life, often losing it, in defense of his country and fellow soldiers. This is significant, important, and it is very notable ... but not 'celebrity' notable (like, say, Kim Kardashian or Here Comes Honey Boo Boo - both of whom notable for being notable ... and both have Wiki articles). Therefore, the silver star recipient does not justify a Wikipedia article.

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedic resource ... or pop culture resource? We have got to do better than this. --Tolinjr (talk) 23:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silver_Star/Archive_1&oldid=1258058174"