Jump to content

Talk:Distinguished Service Cross (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/15149

non notables don't belong here

[edit]

To editor Lvncenturion: You do not have consensus for re-adding non-notable people to this list per WP:NLIST. Also, please read our guidance on writing the article about a person before listing them here. If you continue re-adding this content, there will be issues. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps RightCowLeftCoast should be aware of this discussion as well, since they edited the content that has now been removed. FYI - wolf 12:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris troutman:, it has been an ongoing occurrence on this article to list all post-Vietnam War recipients of the medal, including those who have not received it twice (thus meeting WP:SOLDIER). There has been past consensus for this if memory serves me, and to remove the content goes against that consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RightCowLeftCoast: Your ping didn't work. Please change your preferences so the system warns you of broken pings. "it has been an ongoing occurrence on this article..." That mistake should have been corrected earlier. "There has been past consensus for this..." I don't think there was; if there was, I posit consensus has changed. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The deletion of content has no consensus. And the text used in the deletion shows a failure of good faith. This is no different from the December 2016 deletion. Presently there are at least two editors (Lvncenturion (talk · contribs) and myself) who have supported the list of verified recipients (my opinion is based on WP:BLP1E, where the recipient of the subject (the DSC) has received WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:ANYBIO, but usually receives that significant coverage for the event which led to the awarding of the subject) from the post-Vietnam era. As was before only one editor wants to delete content verified to multiple reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited Lvncenturion (talk · contribs) to this discussion. Discussions about disputes about the content of this article are best to be done on this talk page, not the talk page of Lvncenturion.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: The deletion, and re-deletion, appears to have unintentionally violated WP:BRD. Lvncenturion, appears to have reverted your 28 February deletion on that same day; the appropriate action rather than re-deleting, would be to start a discussion and building a consensus for the deletion. Instead, after two editors worked to source the content newly added on 28 February, a single editor as taken it upon themselves to blank the content. The content was not unsourced, inaccurate, moved to another article, irrelevant, or inappropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take me to ANI or ANEW if you think you can make something stick. I initiated discussion both here (above) and at User talk:Lvncenturion pointing to WP:NLIST, which is a guideline. All I've gotten in return are sad excuses as well as your accusations. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a discussion. My intent was to add four new recipents to a pair of tables that have existed on this page since about 2007. I have been adding names to those tables since at least 2010 and probably before. My visits have been infrequent because such new awards are quite rare. I didn't mean to intrude, just trying to improve the accuracy of this page. Since the inclusion of someone on the "notable list" has to be very subjective, but it contains some errors and are missing a number of men that I would call notables. At least with the post 72 awards, all of them are (or were) listed, something that does not exist anywhere, including at the Awards Branch of the Office of the Adjutant General. Since I have apparently violated something and/or offended someone for some reason that escapes me, I will stay off and watch while this page becomes irrelevant. Thanks Lvncenturion (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I will stay off and watch while this page becomes irrelevant." - Did he really just write that? - wolf 22:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO is also a guideline which states that all these individuals, having received a notable award, passes notability requirements, and thus can be included per WP:REDLINK.
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU
These are not allegations, but facts, with diffs. But there is an assumption of good faith, that while I may disagree with the edits, that another editor meant well by them. There does not appear to be an assumption of good faith of Lvncenturion.
@Lvcenturion: the addition of the medal recipients was done with good intention, it meets WP:VER and does not give it undue weight.
Per the reasoning of WP:BLP1E, it makes sense to include the list, and meets WP:LISTCRITERIA (also a guideline).
Therefore, to point only at NLIST is insufficient logic to support deletion of the list. Per WP:BRD, I am reverting the deletion made here, and re-adding it.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any of these award recipients would fail WP:MILPEOPLE, so I don't think a case could be made that they pass WP:ANYBIO. ANYBIO makes an assumption that there will be sources written about the subject, as there would be for a Nobel Prize recipient or a Medal of Honor recipient, but I don't think that's so. Regardless, they shouldn't be listed here per WP:WTAF. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to chime in here. I can see both views present, but would have to agree with Chris troutman: since the DSC does not at the moment convey inherent notability (as far as I am aware, see WP:NSOLDIER), it is unnecessary to list all names, and I feel they should be removed. This would also be a case of WP:RECENTISM, if consensus does emerge to include all post-Vietnam, all DSCs ever awarded should be listed. That is around 13,400, absurdly long (compared to just 3,522 Medals of Honor ever). I would support, in place of this, a list of people who have received the cross multiple times (as that does convey notability afaik (per WP:NSOLDIER)). However this discussion turns out, I thank all editors involved for their contributions, and encourage everyone to continue keeping it civil. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most medal articles describe the history of the medal and related stuff and include a list of notable awards (normally restricted to multiple awards and the like). It is not the place to dump in tables of non-notable receipents they just dont belong in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are notable individuals who have received the DSC post Vietnam, which were deleted, and the wholesale deletion of content including Wikilinks to those notable people IMHO was wrong. Of the post Vietnam recipients many (if not all of them) have received significant coverage (often in multiple reliable sources) for their heroism, thus passing WP:GNG which supersedes NSOLDIER (which I helped write); while they often only receive SIGCOV for only the awarding of the subject of this article, that would place them squarely in BLP1E. So as a compromise, we can rather than having an extensive listing with date of event, rank, etc, surely we can include anything cause WP:NOTPAPER & LISTCRETERIA which states:

Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.

As the criteria is all post-Vietnam recipients, and they all can be verified, it meets that guideline. Thus just a in paragraph listing of names could be included, such as

During Operation Enduring Freedom the following individuals have been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross: Mark Mitchell, Brendan O'Conner, Thomas Bostick, Charles Wyckoff, Erich Phillips, James Takes, Joseph Lollino, Jack White, Justin Gallegos, Corey Calkins, Jason Myers, Eric Shaw, Craig Warfle, Fipe Pereira, William Eberle, Jeffrey Dawson, and Bryan Anderson.

This would preserve content (which has all been verified) while not creating a list which visually appears to give it more weight in the article than other conflicts. And other sentences could be made for Operation Iraqi Freedom, 2012 Benghazi attack, and 2015 Bamako hotel attack.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 16:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not the right place for such a list we have a category system that allows you to see receipents, its just list cruft in what should be a balanced article about the medal. MilborneOne (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be listed by category, if the content was deleted, and per WP:BLP1E the individuals who have received significant coverage are reduced down to redirects. Then again per WP:CSC it can be argued that the lists can be WP:SPINOUT into a stand-alone listC.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I dont really understand what you are saying and I try not to due alphabet soup, all notable receipents are in the category system as they have an article, they dont need to be listed here. Listing everybody who gained the award should not be part of this medal description. A seperate list of all 13,000 holders would not last long before going for deletion as list cruft. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman has been consistent about his opinion to delete the post 1975 list since 10 Jan 2017. I'm not sure how that became a consensus, until today Chris is the only on that mentioned it. Chris cites Wikipedia process crimes to support his argument. Certainly spam and other bad behaviors apparently exist on lists writ large. I started checking these lists on this article when I noticed some spamming of it in 2010. I have not encountered any of this for years. That issue is a non problem in my opinion. Both the post 1975 lists and the notable section have co-existed for over 10 years in this article. I think that it ought to stay that way.Lvncenturion (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf, Lvncenturion, is relatively new, though he has been contributing since 2010, but has under 50 edits, there please see WP:DONTBITE.
Also, my edits were done outside of the lists which is the subject of the discussion. Thanks for the concern but I don't agree with the point raised is of concern of the discussion above. Moreover, regardless of the outcome of the above discussion, my edits expand upon the article are within the article's scope, are verified to reliable sources, and written neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Wp:dontbite"...? How about; wp:don't make dick comments like that...? And as for adding content during a content dispute... it seems you're one of those "committee of one" types and you will do as you will. Siiiigh... ok. - wolf 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to the opinion raised above that having an article for each DSC recipient is impractical, I would like to rebut that opinion. Per WP:NBASE, each individual who has ever played in a single MLB game is notable, and is eligible for an article. As of 2000, there have been over 15 thousand who meet that criteria, with one source saying in 2018 the number is at 19,231. This has led to stand-alone list articles such as this, which has hundreds, and hundreds of wikilinks to articles that fall within its scope. Therefore, since we aren't a paper encyclopedia and we're constantly improving, there is no need IMHO to not include DSC recipients as being notable per WP:ANYBIO. Whether that is best served as an embedded list, stand-alone lists, or stand-alone articles, are a matter of discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because baseballenthusiasts somehow managed to install an exception, that doesnt create a rule. And just because you assume that the a DSC winner meets WP:ANYBIO criteria, WP:ANYBIO gives just a hint for a possible noteability (as it says there: "(...) meeting one or more (of these criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included."). It is somewhat overruled by Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. If there is only the DSC-related event sourceable, or worse, just the DSC win, that can not generate automatic noteability. Alexpl (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me to this discussion. I have provided my opinion and point of view. With respect, I won't be reading any policies or guidelines, I am going silent and will no longer participate.Lvncenturion (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(break #1)

[edit]

So, we have one guy who only posts once every 10 years and refuses to learn any policies or guidelines (thanks for stopping by) and another who apparently wants to create tens of thousands of bio-stubs for every person who has ever been awarded a medal in US military history (good luck with that). Interesting discussion so far... - wolf 02:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • RightCowLeftCoast: If you want to create an article for every single recipient of the DSC, propose to change WP:MILPERSON from what it currently says Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times; to Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour, or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross);, and then bring the discussion here again, because right now they do not meet notability. Yes there are lots of other things that inherently make larger amounts of people notable, but other stuff does exist, and right now policy is against you. That will have to be changed before your argument has any substance. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy, but an essay. We couldn't elevate the essay to a guideline. It's hard to get a SNG elevated in the current Wikipedia community. As for above, please see BLP1E, since many recipients have received significant coverage (in multiple reliable sources)(which is the case for most (if not all) post-Vietnam conflicts)(thus they meet GNG, which supersedes MILPERSON) for the event which is why the subject was awarded the DSC, BLP1E says to redirect that biography to the event (or in this case the medal). Therefore, since GNG and ANYBIO as guidelines supersede MILPERSON essay, to say that MILPERSON essay is why we shouldn't have articles about DSC recipient articles, is an opinion which can be held, it is one which I disagree with.
If consensus is to remove the list, so be it. But to also ask that the prose which I recently added (which is not a list), is also removed, is IMHO counterproductive.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people listed fail GNG and ANYBIO; I don't think you could develop consensus to keep them. Further, while the table is ugly, long lists of names in prose aren't helpful, either. If the list was less than a dozen people I could tolerate it but we're talking about potentially thousands of names. Please accept that not everything that is true should be found on Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And don't be so dismissive of MILPERSON, even as an essay, it represents a significant and longstanding consensus of the community. - wolf 01:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(break #2)

[edit]

My grandfather, Dwight T. Colley in the Yankee Division, is the only person (far as I know) to receive the DSC in both WW I and WW II. Would he be suitable for the Notables list? AnalogGround (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnalogGround: Probably not. Please see WP:MILPEOPLE. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AnalogGround: Do you have any sources that support your comment about your grandfather? I'm not doubting you, but without any sourcing, you wouldn't be able to add him. But with sources, and the more the better, then it's possible you could add him. Being the only person (in the army? the entire military?) to receive the DSC in both world wars might be notable. - wolf 20:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnalogGround (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)I see this in the military notables guidelines: "WP:MILPEOPLE In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour,[1] or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times;" The key is "multiple times". His name can be found in any of the lists of DSC recipients for WWI and WWII. For example, see the Defense Department web site at https://valor.defense.gov/recipients/army-distinguished-service-cross-recipients/ I have not correlated the two lists and cannot say if he is the ONLY person. I think I have a copy of a newspaper article (somewhere) which mentions it. Anyway, I will plug along and find what I can about it. Thank you for the consideration.[reply]

AnalogGround (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC) After a little research I find about 10 who received the DSC in WWI and WWII. Three of them are currently in the notables list of the article. For example, Lewis Brereton or, notably, George Patton. Thanks! It's been fun![reply]

Kyle Morgan Should be on the List

[edit]

Former SMU operator and Distinguished Service Cross recipient Kyle Morgan during a deployment, late 2010s. Morgan performed with bravery and audacity during a hostage rescue operation in Bamako, Mali on November 20, 2015. His actions directly influenced the success of the mission, and during it, he was able to form a combined team of multinational SOF units which carried out the rescue of hostages and civilians in the hotel resort. 170.249.170.138 (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Distinguished_Service_Cross_(United_States)&oldid=1206984466"