Talk:Medal of Honor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Medal of Honor is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article Medal of Honor has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 2, 2005.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon Medal of Honor is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Pritzker Military Library WikiProject (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
Version 0.5
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Congressional Medal of Honor[edit]

Most would agree that the MOH is sometimes referred to as the ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ but that the official title is simply the ‘Medal of Honor’. While I prefer ‘Medal of Honor’ to ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ the article should not be dogmatic and state that it is an error to use ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’. I propose to delete the word erroneously. Most US presidents in the 20th and 21st century have on occasion called the award the ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’. Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's completely inaccurate to claim that congress has anything to do with selecting and awarding the medal. Just because it's a common mistake doesn't mean it's a mistake we should acknowledge with any legitimacy. —Ed!(talk) 11:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, this issue was last discussed in 2007-2008 in Archive #2 at this location: Talk:Medal of Honor/Archive 2#"erroneously" referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor??. It isn't evident from that thread if there was a consensus decision back then, but it gives the background on what was discussed previously. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the archive gives no consensus. Congressional Medal of Honor does deserve mentioning in the article, heck it's a redirect to this page. In looking at the United States Statutes at Large from 1918 and 1919, in the parts of the law establishing the DSC and DSM, it would seem that the law uses the terminology "Congressional medal of honor for conspicuous gallantry, etc., in actual conflict." here: SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 143. 1918. p. 870 and here: SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. Sess. III. Ch. 14. 1919. p 1056 when referring to the Medal of Honor. At one time this may have been an acceptable way to reference the MoH, but it is obvious, from more recent reliable sources, that currently this usage is considered incorrect. So is "erroneously" not as accurate as say, "incorrectly"? EricSerge (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for thoughtful comment. However, it is neither erroneous nor incorrect to call it the Congressional Medal of Honor particularly when the recipients form the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Except that it is. Please read the links in the discussion - one of which explicitly says "erroneously". Rmhermen (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Medal of Honor Legion (April 23, 1890), Washington, D.C.: Medal of Honor recipients of the Civil War and Indian War Campaign. YahwehSaves 05:19, 6 October 2012‎
From the Congressional Medal of Honor Society website: "14 AUG 1958 The Medal of Honor Society is absorbed into the Congressionally Chartered CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA under Title 38, USC."[1] Could it be that the Congressional Medal of Honor Society chose its name to indicate its congressional charter and because Medal of Honor Society was already in use in 1958? EricSerge (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
There are countless examples using Congressional Medal of Honor including remarks and speeches by many Presidents over many years and by many congressional comments and reports. The quotes in the archive referred to above are a small number of instances where some comments pontificate that it is an error to use the expression. I am quite sure there are more but it has not and will not stop the use of Congressional Medal of Honor. There is no court ruling, no speech by the President, no resolution by the Congress that states it is erroneous to use Congressional Medal of Honor instead of simply the Medal of Honor. Let’s toss out an opinionated and emotive word that is unhelpful. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: "Above and Beyond, A History of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam" by the editors of Boston Publishing Company. Produced in cooperation with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society of the United States of America, 1985: P. 1, 2nd paragraph: "The reader of this volume is requested to think of the award by its correct name. Over the years it has come to be known as "The Congressional Medal of Honor," because the holder of the medal, though chosen for it by his peers and superior officers, is nominally given it by writ of Congress. Its real name, however, is simply the Medal of Honor. This fact is perhaps made more difficult to understand since there is an organization called the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (because it is chartered by the U.S. Congress). The society's collaboration with our editors and writers has given this book its extra scope and authenticity."— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs)

Thank you for an excellent reference. It would be preferable to say that the Medal of Honor is the correct description rather than say the Congressional Medal of Honor is erroneous. My original suggestion was just to delete the word erroneously. I would now also like to amend the first words of the next sentence from The official title ... to The correct and official title ... Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I would be more in favor of such a change as long as it acknowledges that Medal of Honor is considered correct. —Ed!(talk) 13:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I deleted "erroneous" because the original 1882 Army version has "The Congress to" on the reverse side of the medals (Army version made from and after the 1882 Navy version which had "Personal Valor" engraved on the reverse side of the medals). One Civil War recipient (Army) referred to it as the Congressional Medal. The Army continued to have, "The Congress to" on the reverse side of their version of the medal. The Civil War paperwork I've seen on the Net given for or delivered with the medal, says, "Medal of Honor". So I put, "the original and official military title is, Medal of Honor". Private Jacob Parrott received the first Medal of Honor (The Congress to) on March 25, 1863.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talkcontribs)

1863: Congress made the Medal of Honor a permanent decoration[edit]

The title is from the history section of the article and is referenced Above and beyond: a history of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam, p. 5. I do not have this reference at hand to check but my understanding is that the Navy MoH was established in 1861 and the Army MofH was established in 1862. The significance of the 1863 enactment was to extend the award to Army officers, an extension that Navy officers would have to wait for until 1915. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

From p. 5: "In the meantime, the army no doubt prompted at least in part by the passage of the navy legislation, had come to favor the idea of a medal of its own."

Feb. 17, 1862: "As with the navy legislation, commissioned officers were ineligible for the medal, the assumption being that they would be better rewarded or more honored by promotion. (A year later, Congress made army officers eligible for the medal; a similar measure for the navy was not passed until 1915)."

"As the war dragged on the prestige of its new award grew, the government realized that while it was created for the conflict at hand, the Medal of Honor--and the rewarding of bravery--would be applicable to any future conflicts. In 1863 Congress made the Medal of Honor a permanent decoration."

P. 314: Epilogue: 1st para: "The stated purpose for creating the Medal of Honor was prosaic as could be: "to improve the efficiency" of the northern troops in the Civil War. In the dark days of of 1861, no one knew what meaning to attach to the medal or indeed if the Union would last long enough for it to take any important meaning"

2nd para.: "Soon the object of bronze and silken ribbon was inspiring both an army and a people."

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Medal of Honor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have commenced review of this article. Retrolord (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


After reading i have found numerous [citation needed] tags. Nomination put on hold until this is fixed. Retrolord (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added references where I could. Regarding how presented, with the medal presented to next of kin, I could not find any regulation that specifies that the medal must be presented in a wood and glass case with a brass label, so that was removed. From watching videos of recent posthumous presentation it appears to be the norm, but it does not appear to be codified someplace that my google-fu can find at the moment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know the sources of these two points:


   1890: On April 23, the Medal of Honor Legion is established in Washington, D.C.
   1915: On March 3, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers became eligible for the Medal of Honor.

Also, is the section regarding duplicate medals significant enough to be included? Retrolord (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The "Privileges and courtesies" section is entitled such but in the short introduction to the paragraph it only mentions the privileges, not the courtesies?

Also, i am not sure if the claim regarding "many" states awarding special license plates can be considered accurate since only six are referenced.

Retrolord (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


This sentence does not make sense :

Since the beginning of World War II, 861 Medals of Honor have been awarded, 530 (62%) posthumously; 627 Medals of Honor have been awarded posthumously.

Clarify. Retrolord (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added multiple references for the two items requested above, and I have updated the numbers for the last issue as well as reworded for clarity.
As for the courtesies, the reason for why its not in the lead maybe because it isn't codified into law, and is matter of custom, which is fairly stated in the article.
As for the double recipients, it is highly notable. The level of action that the Medal of Honor is now awarded for is to the point where one must go so above and beyond the call of duty that more often than not the individual is killed in the action; therefore, to be a double recipient is even more notable.
As for states that have special MoH license plates there are:
There are 40 states with Medal of Honor specific license plates, the other 10 have special license plates for veterans which MoH recipients maybe eligible for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that RightCowLeftCoast!

I am just wondering wether it is neccessary to describe the actions of each post-vietnam recipient and name them. Many others arent mentioned, isnt this inconsistant? Unless there is a reason. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically, the best place for their actions to be is listed in a sub-article as is done with previous conflicts. However, as such a sub-article has not yet been created, and as the article is only 93k and can arguably not yet be split per WP:LIMIT, there is no dire need at this point to create such a sub-article. However, when the size reaches 100k per WP:LIMIT, the split would be highly advisable. If you wish I can do the split now in advance of reaching 100k. At the same time it can be argued that having their names here could be a matter of WP:RECENTISM, and that the content in this article can be merged onto the content of the sub-article List of Medal of Honor recipients, and a sub-sub-article can be created as is the case with List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War and List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best for consistency if we created the sub article list. It would also makke the article flow better, but happy to hear what you think too. Retrolord (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have created the sub-sub-article. See the creation here, the modificat to the list sub-article page here, the modification of the main Medal of Honor page here, and the modification to the template here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that the List of Medal of Honor recipients article was edited in March (after RightCowLeftCoast made his big edit) and the section on List of Medal of Honor recipients#Battle of Mogadishu 1993 was added back in. This seems wrong to me because either: 1: We should then also have a section each for The Iraq War and The War in Afghanistan like we did before RightCowLeftCoast's January edit OR 2: We should remove the Battle of Mogadishu 1993 section again since RightCowLeftCoast put it in List of post-Vietnam Medal of Honor recipients. I think we should come to a consensus before we re-delete the Mogadishu section or re-add the Iraq and Afghan wars. Cookiemonster70 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that RightCowLeftCoast. I've had yet another look over the article and am very satisfied with the content. There is consistency within the article, with terms such as United States (never USA or US) and the dates all seem to be in the same format. As far as i can see there are no unreferenced claims and there is no obvious plaigirism. The use of imperial measurements seems suitable as the article references a United States medal.

I can see no reason to fail this article, and as a result, I am passing it. Congratulations to all involved. Retrolord (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that a good article?[edit]

Dear retrolord,

does that mean the article is a good article?

Steve92341 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I passed the article and it says good article on both the talk page and the article, and im pretty sure i added to the list of articles. i think one of teh bots that does these things may have skipped over it somehow. I may have messed something up also. But the article did pass, so don't worry, just a technical mistake by someone(probably me). Retrolord (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Tibor Rubin[edit]

The part on Tibor Rubin makes it seem as if he was awarded the Medal for surviving the Holocaust and being a POW. Could it be better written? Tinynanorobots (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Reading the MoH citation, he was awarded the MoH for his actions prior to becoming a POW, and while being a POW. Not to mention his POW status would be contradictory towards the citation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Tibor Rubin preformed heroically in Korea but like all late awards his claims were enhanced by exterior factors including publicity and high profile support. It has been a tradition of the MofH despite attempts to impose time limits to allow late awards. Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

USS Squalus Rescue[edit]

the rescue of the trapped crew members on the Squalus in 1939 resulted in four of the rescuers getting the MoH at the same time. Seems worthy of mentioning in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

Article says:

Because the medal is presented in the name of Congress it's often erroneously referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor; the official name is simply the "Medal of Honor".

However:

  • " It is presented by the President in the name of Congress and thus is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor." ~ Congressional Research Service [2]
  • "Maine Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients" - [3]
  • Congressional Medal of Honor License Plates - "A Congressional Medal of Honor (CMOH)" - [4]

Wikipedia doesn't get to decide if something is being referred to erroneously. It's clearly an acceptable name used in many places including various laws. Please fix this inaccurate statement. --65.78.114.251 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)