Talk:Veterans of Foreign Wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Largest veteran organization claim

American Legion claims 2.4 million members http://www.legion.org/history Tonyplakas (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

American Legion Service requirements read as (any) service during wartime. VFW requirements read as service in a combat zone during wartime (as evidenced by award of a combat ribbon, etc.). So "largest American organization of combat veterans" in the lede is a true distinction. (I have known veterans who belonged to both.) Naaman Brown (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

Chunks copied directly from http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.levelc&cid=223

Does the author have permission to do so?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mykdavies (talk • contribs)

• The above observation no longer appears to be the case. This comment was left two years ago, some rewrites have apparently been done since. Crockspot 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

moresources tag

The moresources tag is on because the article only cites self-published primary sources. There are a couple of statements tagged that really should be sourced by reliable secondary sources. An editor removed the tag, but I have put it back. Crockspot 17:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing paragraph

VFW once forbade atheists from joining, but in January of 2004 they rescinded this policy.[citation needed] By specifying overseas service, the organization excluded veterans from the American Civil War.[citation needed]

I flagged these statements several months ago. I could not find any sources for either (and I looked pretty hard), and no one else has either. The rules of WP:BLP are now considered extended to "living" organizations as well. I don't really see the relevance of either sentence anyway, especially since the organization was founded more than 70 years after the Civil War. I'm removing it. - Crockspot 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• It was actually less than 50 years after the Civil War, but the information is still irrelevant, the whole point of the organization was originally to provide an organization for veterans of the Spanish-American War, as Civil War vets has the Grand Army of the Republic. As time went on they expanded and merged to encompass all foreign wars.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vfw seal.gif

Image:Vfw seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

I'm a bit concerned about the paragraph citing partisanship on the part of the VFW.

While it agrees with the GOP more often than the democrats I think this is due to common ground on issues at the present time rather than a specific bias. The VFW has long supported a robust military budget and what might be termed unconditional support of troops in combat. This fits more within current GOP policies than with current democrat positions.

I would also question the citing of the non-endorsement of Tammy Duckworth as an incident of bias. An endorsement is usually done due to positions on issues not veterans status. As an example I would cite Sen Kerry in 2004 and the negitive reaction he recieved from many veterans including the VFW. This was not because of his party affiliation but because of a preceved betrayal on Kerry's part after he returned from Vietnam and became an "anti-war" activist.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by M167A1 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the VFW's stated mission is to lobby Congress for greater benefits for veterans, an issue that Democrats are demonstrably stronger on than Republicans, no, I'd say it is a matter of partisanship rather than common ground. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Occupation of Germany

Why are members of the US Armed Forces who served in the Occupation of Germany between May 1945 and May 1955 eligible for VFW membership? What "foreign war" was going on during that time in Germany ??? It surely wasn't the Second Berlin Crisis which occurred between 10 Nov 1958 (Khruschev's 6 month get out of Berlin Ultimatum to the Western Allies) and the 22 Nov 1962 stand down from the month long DEFCON 3 Alert for "U.S. Forces Worldwide", which began on 20 Oct 1962 as part of the Cuban Crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Also, nothing in http://www.geocities.com/usconstabulary4/Cold_War_Fulda.html deflects the above points.

I'd say it's not wikipedia's job to answer that question - it's a policy question for the VFW. Have you tried asking the VFW?--Vidkun (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Vidkun. It was not a war. But those people who wore our nation's uniform are still veterans, and they were there in case a war did break out between East and West Germany.

It is considered for membership becuase it was the occupation of Germany; many service members were hurt or killed by left over hostiles. Just becuase a country surrenders does not mean that all the people just start cbehaving nicely (Iraq is the latest example). vfwpost1 Bobbykeane (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's clarify something here - I never said it wasn't a war. I never even asked it. I directed someone who had an issue with the wording used here to ask the VFW about it. So, please, let's try and avoid wording things in such a way as to suggest I was disparaging people who served during the German occupation.--Vidkun (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

File:CrossOfMalta 4aSmall.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:CrossOfMalta 4aSmall.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikimedia does not allow uploading images that can't be re-used. Wikipedia, does, however, allow uploading images with a 'fair use' rationale, which Wikimedia doesn't; so you could try uploading the image through Wikipedia instead.Dwight Burdette (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising expenses

This ought to be added to the article:

• http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/kc's-vfw-fundraising-ranked-the-worst'-for-financial-efficiences-by-forbes-magazine

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)