This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Is there any reason the dates in this article are not written mm/dd/yyyy? It is about an American after all. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 21:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It's part of the manual of stile for WP:MILHIST. Dates in articles primarily dealing with military topics use DMY. —Ed!(talk) 12:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I find this very annoying. Why is this mode arbitrarily correct? I guess it is in accord with military practice in discussing wars and battles, but a birthdate?? This is a bio, not a tactical treatise. Wikipedia becomes more British daily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the U.S. military prefers DMY format as well. And that's an issue you'll want to take up at WP:MILHIST. —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I came here wondering the same. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Both the article for Jessie L. Brown and the article for Thomas J. Hudner, Jr. list the other man as the wingman. Jessie L. Brown article: "...and Lieutenant Junior Grade Thomas J. Hudner, Jr., who was Brown's wingman". Thomas J. Hudner, Jr article: "He rose to the rank of captain, and received the Medal of Honor for his actions in trying to save the life of his wingman, Ensign Jesse L. Brown, during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War".
I don't know much about aviator tradition but the wingman article says that the wingman is the plane that follows behind the leader. As one would have had to have been in front of the other I would take it one man would have been the other's wingman. Do the sources specify which was wingman? Wolfhound668 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
They don't; only that the two were flying together that day, and that Hudner was replacing someone else. In all likelihood Brown was the lead, as he was more experienced, but I don't have sources confirming that directly. —Ed!(talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you think it would make sense in Hudner's article to change from "wingman" to "squadron mate" since its unclear? Squadron mate is the term used in his MOH citation. As an aside, I find it interesting that he's still alive and has a ship ordered that is to be named after him. I was in the army so not too familar with Navy traditions but always assumed that sort of thing is posthumous. Would that be rare enough to add to his article? Wolfhound668 (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that would be fine. —Ed!(talk) 15:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I've been searching the Life archive on google books - and can't find any reference to the Brown photo - so I think he may have recalled wrong (perhaps Time?) but I'm still looking--- for what it's worth Gonne Yeats (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC).
There would be no reason not to edit it to say "Taylor recalls ..." if that's what the ref says. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
That's what bothers me---- It would be inappropriate to say Taylor's recall is perhaps apocryphal. I know the AP picked up the story (I have a reference in the October 22, 1948 New York Times), but the Life magazine photo I haven't found yet, so I guess the statement should stand as is----- just because I can't find it, doesn't mean it isn't there. :) Gonne Yeats (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)