Talk:Jorge Otero Barreto

references

This article has some problems with what it uses as references. I've checked some, and it's not unusual for them being incapable of supporting what they are supposed to.

There is also links to fan/enthusiast websites that are not exactly reliable sources.

I believe we can calmly fix this bio. --damiens.rf 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• bad ancestry etc refs cleaned up. claim of unreliable/FV for PRDS doesn't check - cites pass WP:V and WP:RS. Mercy11 (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Do you mean we need to use the "Wayback engine" to get around the problem I noticed? Would you do that, instead of reverting my taggings? Of course you don't have to do this work. I'll read the how-to and do that in a while if you can't take the time. But there isn't a point in just reverting my taggings when you concede there is a problem going on. --damiens.rf 09:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I never said there is a problem, you said that. The issue with ancestry was addressed, there is nothing else pending here. If you fail to verify anything, try use techniques avalable at WP:V. You appear extremely excited over a minor item, am I right? Mercy11 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, so Damiens reverted edits by Mercy11 w/o engaging in an open invitation to discuss his point. Per invitation at HERE, this page is the place to discuss, not edit summaries. The edits and cites in the article have been discussed before by the community and it has found them appropriate. Please check the article's History for details or have an awfully good reason to be flagging them this way. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Description of Military Career

The text currently reads: "After his basic training, he attended the Army's Air Assault School, graduating in 1960. He was the first Puerto Rican to graduate from the U.S. Army Air Assault School." The Air Assault School was first established at Fort Campbell, KY, in 1974, so how is this possible in 1960? The 11th Air Assault Division (Test) wasn't activated until 1963, so the text could not refer to any in-house training conducted by the 11th. It's unlikely that the text's author confused the Air Assault School with the Airborne School because many Puerto Ricans went through the latter before 1960.VilePig (talk)

• Good observation! You made a good point. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The text has been changed to read: "He was the first Puerto Rican to graduate from the 101st Airborne Division training." What type of training? Divisions conduct all sorts of training. Could it have been the in-house Airborne course at Fort Campbell that was previously run by the 11th Airborne Division before the 11th was transferred to Germany in the late 1950s, making room for the 101st to be set up on post?VilePig (talk)

The list of badges awarded includes the Air Assault Badge. He retired from the Army in 1970 and the badge was first awarded to graduates of the Air Assault School in 1974, so how is it possible for him to have a badge awarded four years after his retirement?VilePig (talk).

• Before 1974, the badge was known as the Airmobile Badge. This is the same badge which was renamed Air Assault Badge in 1974. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

• Tony, the badge did not exist prior to 1974. Some history: The 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade was deployed to Vietnam in 1965. In late 1967 the rest of the division was alerted for deployment as well; however, it had been bled so badly to provide personnel for the war effort in Vietnam that it was only a skeleton, and thousands of non-Airborne-qualified personnel from other units in the Third Army area had to be rapidly reassigned to bring it up to an acceptable strength. At that point it effectively ceased being a true Airborne unit. In Vietnam the Army needed a second airmobile division, in addition to the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), and in mid-1968 the 101st officially came off jump status and began reorganizing as an airmobile unit. When the division withdrew from Vietnam it was, as one veteran stated, "a headquarters with no hindquarters" and effectively it had to be rebuilt from the ground up as an airmobile division. The 173d Airborne Brigade returned from Vietnam in 1972 and its personnel and equipment were reassigned to become part of the division's 3d Brigade, which was then on jump status. In 1974 the Department of the Army announced that the 3d Brigade's jump status would be terminated, and concurrently the 101st announced the introduction of the Airmobile Badge for graduating from the just-formed Airmobile course. An officer in the division at the time described it as a "gimmick" to replace the jump wings being lost (qualified personnel could still wear them but those soldiers would not be on jump status anymore) and the course largely consisted of what would be unit-level airmobile training tasks. Later that year the Airmobile Badge was renamed the Air Assault Badge. At that point the badge was only authorized for wear within the 101st, as it was a badge only awarded by the 101st (there was quite of bit of that sort of thing all across the Army in the 1970s), but in 1978 the Department of the Army authorized it for wear Army-wide. To sum it up, the badge did not exist prior to 1974, so it is not possible for it to have been known as the Airmobile Badge or anything else prior to that year.VilePig (talk)

The nearest thing to this would have been the unofficial badge the 11th Air Assault Division (Test) awarded prior to being reflagged as the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) and alerted for Vietnam service. Since Barreto never seems to have served in the units drawn on to fill the 11th, it's doubtful he would have earned one there. And in any case, this was after 1960. Intothatdarkness 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've found what seems to be a similar issue with the Superior Unit Award...an award that doesn't seem to have existed prior to 1985. Intothatdarkness 15:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-RS

This page is poorly referenced with numerous sources of dubious reliability, specifically:

• American Greatness - is this RS? Who publishes it?
• Brave Lords - clearly POV and so not RS
• Remarks of Major General Orlando Llenza - personal opinion of a retired Puerto Rican General, clearly POV and he can't even get the war right, referring to the Korean War and not the Vietnam War
• VVA story refers to him as "the most decorated Puerto Rican veteran" not the most decorated U.S. soldier as claimed on this page
• Affluent Times - is this RS? Who publishes it? I can't even find his entry among pages of advertisements

Affluent Times is published by an outfit called Battery Media Group...it's basically clickbait content structured for specific audiences. Website is https://www.batterymediagroup.com. I don't know that I'd consider it RS, but your mileage may vary. Intothatdarkness 00:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Silver Wings - what page is it?
• Morning Journal - "Otero-Barreto said he earned five Purple Hearts, five Bronze Stars with valor, three Silver Stars, five Air Medals (each for 25 helicopter missions) and other awards for his service in the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1970." so that's just his own claims and not RS

This paper also lurks behind something of a paywall, making verification difficult. Intothatdarkness 15:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Latino Alliance Profiles in Courage - lobbying group so not RS

I don't see him mentioned in any national newspapers or peer-reviewed books or journals, just a lot of blogs and fansites that largely seem to have copied WP. This is very strange if he was indeed "one of" or "the most" "decorated soldier of the Vietnam War". Mztourist (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

One can only hope that some of those who voted to keep this article will show up to correct its many RS issues. Intothatdarkness 15:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked through the "Silver Wings" thing (a base newspaper). Otero is mentioned once on the third page (it's numbered page 3 in the upper right corner), but only in the context of being a multi-tour veteran (and the article makes the erroneous claim that he was part of "a small group of Vietnam veterans that served multiple tours").Intothatdarkness 15:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The closest thing I've seen to a source for the decorations is a very small image on the linked page from the "Brave Lords" movie website. The image doesn't identify the shadow box as being Otero's, although the majority of the decorations listed in the article may be seen (although badly). One note: it does NOT include the airmobile badge. The UT-Austin oral history page repeats the claim he was the first Puerto Rican graduate from a training center that didn't even exist in 1960 (Air Assault Training) and claims he won three silver stars. Unfortunately the audio doesn't seem to be available. Intothatdarkness 20:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes its also very strange that there don't seem to be any pictures of him in uniform showing his full medal rack, nor are any of his medal citations available online apart from the Silver Stars. I have to assume that many of the "sources" have actually just copied WP and/or each other. Mztourist (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• OMG, give it a rest already. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought you'd be interested in an accurate article about SFC Otero Barreto. Part of that includes using RS to sort out his service history, since it makes up the majority of the article. Intothatdarkness 16:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

So far I have been able to verify both silver stars, one of the bronze stars, and the ARCOM using a site dedicated to the 101st's 2nd Brigade that hosts scanned images of the award citations. Otero earned both SSs with Alpha Company, and the BSV with Echo Company's Recon Platoon. The BSV citation does not mention oak leaf clusters, but that's a common error from this period. I have seen no RS confirming the airmobile badge, and I doubt I will considering it didn't exist until after he left the army. Based on the shadowbox linked by the article's creator (which does not show the badge), I'm considering removing that badge unless RS confirmation is forthcoming. Intothatdarkness 15:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The Air Assault badge has been removed. I'm not crazy about the silver star citations, especially the incomplete one leading off that section. They feel like filler to me. I'm also curious about the air crew badge and the award of air medals. Intothatdarkness 19:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at a number of pages of people who were awarded the silver star, and the majority of them don't have the citations slapped on in the way this page does (some do, but they appear to be in the minority). Personally I think it detracts from the article, but wanted to seek other input before removing them. The first one in particular (which lacks any information) is in my view especially egregious. If we can't show a proper one, why show it at all? Intothatdarkness 15:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The 2nd citation can be put into a paragraph. Mztourist (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the citations to be fine as they are. No one as ever complained about them since the article was created therefore they are not disruptive. Instead they are informative. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking at common practice for articles like this, and adding the citations as block doesn't seem to be common practice. Also, frankly, that first citation doesn't even look real. I know that's how it's shown in the cited source, but it's not complete. It doesn't even have a date for the award. Intothatdarkness 17:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I fully understand your reasoning. The citations could be included as a paragraph instead of being in a block/quote. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not looking to remove things that can be verified, but bring them more into line with what seems to be standard practice. I've seen some that don't even bother to go into the circumstances of the award when I'm sure the information is out there (and know of at least one case where it is...a project for another day). Intothatdarkness 19:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The first SS citation in the article is simply a general summary used as a placeholder by the Hall of Valor website. It is not the actual citation. This is clarified right on their page by the addition of the phrase "citation needed". Roam41 (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't make it look any better as the leading citation, does it? And in keeping with a number of other articles like this, it flows better as summaries. Converting it doesn't detract from the article. Intothatdarkness 23:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording

I'm trying to find ways to rework the article discussion about Ortero Barreto's status as 'the most decorated veteran.' There's no question he was highly decorated, but in addition to the cited MoH winners I can think of a number of others who had at least as many decorations (and that's not even including pilots from the Vietnam War era). I suspect the claim of his being the most decorated Puerto Rican veteran of the conflict may be supportable through RS (and saying he's the most decorated living Puerto Rican veteran from the Vietnam War even more so), but wider statements are frankly much harder to support. I may tackle this after I rework the SS section. The objective, as always, isn't to diminish but to make the article as accurate as possible. Intothatdarkness 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Prior Units

So far I've had no success tracking down any RS information about his time with the 25th ID, 173rd Abn, or the 82nd. This makes things difficult, because his Vietnam campaign stars seem to line up only with his service with the 101st (which I can slightly track using the SS and BSV citations...although I can only confirm 1 BSV that way). Some non-RS claim he has three silver stars, but I've only been able to confirm two. Does anyone have any good RS concerning the early advisory period, especially the helicopter crews detached from the 25th ID? Intothatdarkness 23:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think I've done about as much as I can with this. The most decorated veteran claim isn't sustainable unless it's qualified with Puerto Rican (David Hackworth, for example, earned 2 DSCs and 7 SSs in Vietnam, and Hugh Mills earned 3 SS and 6 DFCs), but I don't want to tussle too much more with that language. I think what's there is enough to show the nature of the claim. I'm just not finding enough outside of his time with the 101st ABN to really amplify his service history through RS. Intothatdarkness 02:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Most Decorated

There's a problem with this whole gushing over the "most decorated Soldier" jazz. There is no central office in the Pentagon that keeps track of who has more decorations for a particular occasion and it's not like there's a point system where some number of Bronze Stars equals or surpasses a Medal of Honor. Compare the "Puerto Rican Rambo's" fruit salad with the medals awarded Colonel Robert L. Howard for Vietnam: the Medal of Honor, 8 Purple Hearts, a Distinguished Service Cross, a Silver Star, and 4 Bronze Stars. How do you say that someone with 2 Silver Stars,5 Bronze Stars, 4 Army Commendation Medals and 5 Purple Hearts is "the most decorated" in a a Universe where COL Howard existed?John Simpson54 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with in the article. He's listed as possibly the most decorated living Puerto Rican veteran. And if you look past Howard there's also David Hackworth and a whole slew of aviators (Hugh Mills for one). Intothatdarkness 20:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

What hasn't been addressed is when I follow the "reference" to what's currently #6 all I see is a newsletter page stating Otero is the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier without any verification. As I stated, the Department of the Army didn't do a comprehensive statistical breakdown of every Puerto Rican who earned an award for valor in Vietnam. And THAT hasn't been dealt with in the article. I refer to the whole thing as "gushing" because there is no authoritative source backing this claim and saying it's "possible" is a cop out. This whole conceit is based on the assumption that there were no Puerto Rican soldiers that won at least the Distinguished Service Cross. I'll do you one better. It so happens that Wikipedia has a page for Puerto Rican winners of the DSC and Puerto Rican recipients of the Medal of Honor rendering this whole thing moot. Yes, I'm familiar with Robert L. Howard and Hackworth was wrong to self-identify as "America's most decorated living soldier" in interviews and books. I don't agree that it's been "dealt with". I ask again, on what authoritative basis do you say that it's "possible" he's the most decorated so on and so on. It's like Miracle on 34th Street. The prosecution says Kris Kringle isn't the real Santa Claus, the Defense says that he is. You can go back and forth all day with people offering their opinions, but without official, authoritative confirmation it's just useless speculation. Go see how many of those recipients of the MOH and DSC received them posthumously. I think it's in bad taste to perpetuate this made up title as "winner" of a contest that doesn't even exist.John Simpson54 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

John Simpson54, I completely agree with you. Intothat and I have numerous issues with this page, including the low quality sources and the many tenuous claims. I AfDed it: [1], but it was kept despite those concerns. Mztourist (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

John Simpson54, you'll notice the phrasing Mztourist and I are using centers on "possibly" and "living". Both Mztourist and I voted to delete the article, and once it was kept I started working on it because no one who voted to keep it seemed even remotely interested in the sourcing problems and verifiability issues. I believe Mztourist worked out the phrasing involving the most decorated stuff and added the section on Howard prior to the AfD. You seem to be a strong Howard supporter, but Hackworth also had a strong showing in Vietnam and there were many others who were also highly decorated (when I was verifying Botero's DSCs I found a number of other people in his brigade alone who had at least two DSCs as well...and the majority were not awarded posthumously and verified by posted copies of the citations). Neither of us created the article...we're just trying to make it as accurate as possible given the poor sources that exist. Intothatdarkness 15:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a Howard supporter for any made up title of "most decorated" I merely refer to him as a point of comparison. I can't express it any better than saying there isn't any official "most decorated" outside of an occasional press release much less categorizing into different Communities or identities (like Most Decorated Left Handed Asian Soldier of the Grenada Invasion or some such nonsense). As I tried to point out, with the existence of a list of Puerto Rican Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor, no amount of Silver and Bronze Stars and Purple Hearts "surpasses" a MOH, that's why the whole concept is in poor taste. I haven't been making myself clear. I'm not saying that either Hackworth OR Howard were "the most decorated". I'm saying the title doesn't exist. The only way to make a comparison is apples to apples on awards. So for instance, Over a 20-year acreer Hackworth was awarded 8 Purple Hearts. The Department of the Army thinks that he's tied in awards FOR THAT MEDAL with Major General Robert Frederick who earned his all in WW2 with the last couple as a General Officer. Hackworth's first Purple Heart was awarded in the Korean war and his last in Vietnam. Those are comparisons that can be made. John Simpson54 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent Edits

@Mercy11 the "most decorated" claim also lacks RS when it comes to this individual. If you'd looked at the talk, you'd have seen this came up some time back and was resolved (not perfectly, but in a way that provided balance to an unsubstantiated and frankly inaccurate claim). If you're going to remove stuff and leave the "most decorated" claim intact, you'd better come up with some actual RS to support it. @Mztourist might have some insight into this as well, as they were the one who hammered out the original language and participated in quite a bit of the work on this article. Intothatdarkness 20:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A couple of things:

(1) We don't build consensus by canvassing other members of your favorite wikibuddies as you did above with Mztourist. That by itself elevates this to the WP:ANI.

(2) We don't validate wrong statements by questioning the validity of other stuff. This is what you are doing with "the "most decorated" claim also lacks RS when it comes to this individual".

Mercy11 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You're disregarding the discussion above. And threatening people with ANI is a clear violation of AGF. The best solution here would be to remove all claims of "most decorated" status entirely, both for this individual and anyone else. We also don't simply remove sourced content we don't like because it happens to dispute an element of the article. I'm attempting to discuss those changes...you're pontificating and making threats. Intothatdarkness 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If you consider ANI a threat, feel free to report me, but perhaps you might want to go there without having canvassed for help as you did above with Mztourist as that would violate AGF and more, right? Your notion that one fictitious wrong justifies your injecting your false claims isn't valid either, is it? You are violating WP:V by insisting on text that doesn't support the words you injected there, like "some", "many", and "various", all comparative WP:OR terms, not found in those sources.

You keep linking "the most decorated soldier of the war" with my edit but my edit says nothing about your "most decorated soldier of the war"; it says, "This article is about Otero Barreto, not about those other soldiers.".

To you and your wikibuddy, do not revert again without following policy and first providing verifiable sources that are first agreed upon here. I will not issue any additional warnings. Mercy11 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mercy11 this page is on my watchlist given the unverified claims regarding him, so I would have come here no matter what. I have reverted your changes to the last good version, because this issue has been debated already and that good version reflects the consensus. Mztourist (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Excuse me, what "unverified claims" would those be when you are the one restoring unverified text here that includes the cites "some, many, and various" that isn't supported by your sources? You are violating WP:V.

The burden "to demonstrate verifiability lies on the editor who restores content", and that would be you, who restored content here with a shallow claim to "the last good version". If it's such a "good version", prove it with sources that say "some", "many", and "various". There's nothing to show "this issue has been debated already". Nothing. Prove it with sources.

To you and your wikibuddy, do not revert again without following policy and first providing verifiable sources that are first agreed upon here. I will not issue any additional warnings. Mercy11 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that you're in any position to threaten anyone or demand anything. If you would bother to scroll up on this very talk page you would see this was discussed. If anything, the entire "most decorated" section should be removed entirely, as it can easily be disproved with sources. If you choose to ignore the consensus as demonstrated in the discussions on this very page, you're the one who's violating policy. You don't have any "right of approval" on sources, especially since the information you're so keen to retain (the "most decorated" stuff) is at best questionable and certainly not supported by RS. Intothatdarkness 21:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Do not attack me personally and instead concentrate on finding the sources to verify your claims to this Biography of a Living Person. You seem to be hung up on "most decorated" stuff, which no one but you brought up. Finding your sources is how you address your intentions to restoring the material. It's that simple. Mercy11 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You have been attacking people personally since you starting posting here. You also refuse to address why you feel entitled to ignore an established consensus in an article. That burden lies on you. The sources and content you removed were verified...the things you ignore are not RS-based. As a reminder, we don't build consensus by threatening or bullying behavior. Intothatdarkness 23:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Mercy11, as you will see under the section Non-RS above, Intothat already showed in February 2021 that the sources of the "most decorated soldier" claim, American Greatness and Brave Lords were not Reliable Sources. You are the one breaching policy by adding back this dubious claim based on non-RS and then edit-warring over it to push your very obvious POV. I have made an edit-warring compliant against you at ANI, here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mercy11 reported by User:Mztourist. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• @Mztourist, Mercy11, and Intothatdarkness: please stop trading insults and threats with each other and edit warring, and focus on the evidence and merits of the various arguments. I have protected the page for 2 days to enable discussion without further warring. The evidence raised in the 2021 discussion can inform the discussion now, but is not an excuse to simply revert on sight. The merits of the issue should be discussed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  My proposed solution would be to remove all mention of "most decorated soldier" status. It's based on non-RS sources, is easily disproven, and was the root of the original discussion and consensus language as far as I can tell. Take that out, and the article becomes stable. I don't see any merit in retaining claims in an article that are both false and non-RS based. It was removal of RS-based material disputing this claim (which was added following a discussion of source above) that sparked the current dispute in the first place. Intothatdarkness 16:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)