Talk:Four Chaplains' Medal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals (Rated Start-class, Mid-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Image[edit]

Need a picture of the Four Chaplains stamp. There is an original concept drawing at http://www.schwimmer.com/fourchaplains/stamp.html, and details at http://www.schwimmer.com/fourchaplains/ with the official stamp near the bottom. I might edit this article do add these if possible. Jimcripps 17:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Chaplain's Medal of Honor[edit]

Simple internet searches of the Congressional Record clearly indicate that Congress intended the award to be equivalent to the MOH. Please stop editing without research.--Revmqo (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Find a better source than Patty Murray, perhaps the dumbest member of Congress. I will post additional comment shortly, not done with the article, and BTW I am the one who just included the statute authorizing the award, so I am trying to stick to the facts. Again, more to follow.--Nyctc7 (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I did not quote Patty Murray. I used the Congressional Record as a source. It should be sufficient. Put your x-acto knife away for the night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revmqo (talkcontribs) 03:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, x-acto knife is sheathed. While editing the article, I unintendedly and mistakenly took out a chunk of the article. If that's what you saw, it was an error, and I was trying to correct it when you happened on the article. So a misunderstanding there, and if you thought I was trying to delete that material, sorry. The article as I found it was full of unsourced assertions. So I looked up the statute, and copied it on the article. I am still working on it (the article). As to the Medal being referred to as a "Chaplain's Medal of Honor", I will research that, but initially all I can find is that one comment by Patty Murray (dumb as a rock). Other sources are actually about chaplains and the Medal of Honor, not a "Chaplain's Medal of Honor". Other places it is clearly generated by this wikipedia article. But I will investigate further. But even if it is referred to colloquially as "Chaplain's Medal of Honor" there still need to be a source(s) that it is considered the equivalent of a MOH, which I doubt--Nyctc7 (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Found one source (it was right under my nose, already used in the article elsewhere) about Congress intending it to be the equivalent of the Medal of Honor. However, I would like a better one as the assertion in the source is unreferenced.--Nyctc7 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm dubious about the Foundation's statement that “Congress attempted to confer the Medal of Honor but was blocked by the stringent requirements that required heroism performed under fire. The special medal was intended to have the same weight and importance as the Medal of Honor.” The problems with this are: 1. It is poorly worded in that the MOH is awarded in the name of Congress, not by Congress itself; 2, the “under fire” language is incorrect in that the MOH is awarded for acts performed while engaged with the enemy (and being on a ship rapidly sinking because a torpedo attack would qualify); and 3, nothing (other than the statement) supports the idea that the Chaplains’ Medal was to have the same weight and importance as the MOH. In other words, where did the Foundation come up with that idea? Keeping in mind that we are not seeking WP:TRUTH, I wish we had a better reference that would verify.-- S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I concur with S. Rich and hope someone can find a better source. I have added an "additional citation needed" tag.--Nyctc7 (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Name of the Medal[edit]

As far as I can tell, the medal doesn't really have an "official" name. It has been referred to by a variety of names. In a bill that recently passed the Senate (unrelated to the medal itself), it is referred to as the "Four Chaplains' Medal for Heroism". S. CON. RES. 4 112th Congress However, I still don't think that the Medal has an "official" name. But it has to be called something, and I think it important to keep the word "Four" in the title of this article to convey that this was a special, one-time award. I also think it useful to use the apostrophe thus--Chaplains'. Not Chaplain's as that seems to infer that it could be awarded to Chaplains generally, as in Chaplain's Medal of Heroism. It can, of course, be spelled that way when citing what the medal is also known as. I am referring to the title of the article.--Nyctc7 (talk) 05:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Four Chaplains' Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)