Talk:Presidential Unit Citation (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

MACV Army PUC (24 January 64-30 April 72)[edit]

I couldn't find any documentation on the posting: 18:44, 28 May 2009 Presidential Unit Citation (United States) ‎ (→Vietnam War) where the following was added: MAC "V" U.S. Marine Corps 24Jan64-30Apr72 Army PUC Vietnam

I've done quite a bit of looking for documentation to confirm this information but thus far have not been able to find any documentation. Also, the user that posted the information doesn't have "e-mail this user" enabled to be able to obtain that information from them directly. I would really like to know the source of this information. I propose that if the content can't be verified, then it should be removed. --TnCom (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the problem. The dates listed are for the MACV-SOG PUC awarded in 2001 which listed "U.S. Marine Corps: assigned individually to Studies and Observation Group staffs". --TnCom (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

MACV-SOG Service[edit]

MACV-SOG is listed as penis for service. Is this correct? Seems like this would be multi-service.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Information on Streamers sought[edit]

I am not familiar w/ the "Streamer" concept (shown on this page for "Normandy") and would appreciate more information. Does it mean that every PUC award is accompanied w/ a streamer that bears the name of the action, e.g. "Kumyangjang-ni"? Does the streamer apply to foreign recipients as well? Thank you in advance - Todd (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a streamer is one of the award elements the award for the PUC, and is authorized for display from the staff of unit colors. See AR 840-10, Chptr 9, and AR 600-8-22, Chptr 7-13 for details of the Army policy on this. The other elements are PUC Streamer (Army); Presidential Unit Emblem (Army); certificate and citation; and Department of the Army General Order. For the Army, the Presidential Unit Citation Streamer is the color and design as shown on the Article page, and inscribed in the manner specified; in may show the name of an individual battle, or campaign. Streamers are awarded for a number of purposes, to include unit awards (including selected foreign awards to the unit), campaign credit, war service and some unit qualifications (infantry and medical). The streamer is presented as part of the award elements to foreign units; whether their government authorizes the streamer to be flown from their colors is a matter of that nation's individual regulations. (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs list of unit recipients[edit]

I'm not sure how to edit the PUC page that lists PUC awardees. However, I served on the USS Constellation (CVA-64) from July 1971until August 1974. The ship and CVW-9 were all awarded the citation at the ned of the 71/72 Cruise to Southeast Asia. We participated in the loss of 12 enemy Migs during which Lt. Randy Cunningham and LtJg. Willie n Driscoll became the first fighter aces of the Vietnam War. The Ship and Air Sqaudron particpating in the Mining of Haiphong Harbor during the Sping and Summer of 72. Believe it was referred to as the Easter Offensive by the Norht Vietnamese. Anyway the PUC was awarded by then President Nixon. Could someone let me know how to go about editing the PUC page or could someone familiar with the editing process please include this update. Thanks. D Hoag

  • D, first get yourself a Wiki account so you can edit properly. Then contact the Pentagon Library and ask the research section to provide you with the full citation text. They will e-mail it to you as a pdf or other image. Then contact me. Meyerj (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

the total list of all BN and larger units to ever earn a PUC is quite large, and I've never seen it in one place. maybe we should remove the table until someone finds the whole thing - it gives the impression only a few units have earned it. Gluefarm 06:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be a separate article, but there definitely should be a list of units who've received the citation, the date awarded, and justification (if any). For instance, the 101st Airborne Division was cited for actions during Operation Overlord. Also, MACV-SOG was a recipient. I'll start with a basic table and hopefully others will expand upon it. Alcarillo 17:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the task force known as "Taffy 3" in the Battle off Samar was a recipient, but I don't have more information than is in that article. Krellkraver 06:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Marines defending Wake Island in December 1941 were the first recipients. Here is a link to a recent obituary of one of them. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Another unit which won the Presidential Unit Citation was the 333rd FA during the Battle of Buldge in WW2. I was assigned to the 1/333 FA during the 1970's and we wore the Presidential Unit Citation above the right pocket of our dress greens. During WW2, the 333rd was a segregated unit, so its earning the Presidential Unit Citation has special significance. John N. Cox ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnncox (talkcontribs) 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm - the 3rd/C/614st TD was the first segregated black unit to recieve it, a few weeks earlier. (You can guess what article I'm writing just now...)
In general I agree that a list is useful and interesting - especially if annotated with details - but I'm not sold the current list is at all helpful. An incomplete list is fine, but an incomplete list of random examples (not "the most interesting", however we define that) isn't; it implies an editorial decision we haven't made. Is there a comprehensive list anywhere we could draw off a new article from? Shimgray | talk | 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference pointing to the Navy and Marine Corps awards manual gives a list of nearly all of the Marine Corps units that have received the award. Thats a good place to start. I also think we need to separate the list into a separate "list" article.--Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, seems the best way - and if we have it on a seperate page we can easily enough label it prominently as incomplete! List of recipients of the United States Presidential Unit Citation? Perhaps one list for the Army/USAF PUC and one for the Navy/USMC? Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, WRT lists... poking around, I can't see a full Army/USAF list. Perhaps a FOIA request to the DoD would be worth a shot? You're in a better position to do this than I am... Shimgray | talk | 00:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, a bit more digging. Awards to Navy/USMC units were - until recently - all recorded in a document going by the name of OPNAVNOTE 1650; a copy of that document as of March 2001 is here, which neatly covers everything up to the recent operations. This has since been discontinued for the Navy/USMC and replaced by their website at, which allows you to search by unit but not by award, which is a bit irritating for our purposes. (The USMC list mentioned above is basically just an updated copy of one section of 1650 - same format)
On examination, it seems that the USMC list includes a lot of units which happened to be serving under one which was awarded the PUC, but wasn't itself awarded it - so it's probably better to rely on 1650. Shimgray | talk | 00:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The USS Bogue received a PUC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumples (talkcontribs) 23:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drz1627 (talkcontribs) 06:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Task Group 22.3 also earned a PUC during WWII for the capture of U-505 —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-easyx (talkcontribs) 02:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The USS Card, and her task group, also received a PUC. My grandfather served on the Card and had a copy of the PUC framed on his wall. If I can get a hold of it I'll add the text.Gmalcolms (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed 1st Force Recon from the USMC section under Marines in the World War II section since it is a Vietnam award (1965-1968) could someone please make sure this information gets moved to the Vietnam section if its missing their? I would have moved it but it lists 3 citations but doesn't list out the three citations which seems to be what is done in the Vietnam section. Be Bold In Edits (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 1st Force Reconnaissance Company U.S. Marine Corps||1965-1968||[[Vietnam] Awarded three citations (2 Bronze Stars present)

If you include the number of times the DUC was awarded, then the PUC has been awarded much more often than 100 times- see the army 1961 Unit citations and campaign credit register for WW2 and Korea

Clearly any reasonably complete listing of the units that were awarded the DUC/PUC is beyond the scope and ability of this page to present. The Army alone has two separate DA Pams covering this subject: DA PAM 672-1 for WWII and Korea (547 pages long); and DA Pam 672-3 for Vietnam through 1988 (114 pages long). While these publications include entries for more than just the DUC/PUC (they include Meritorious Unit Awards as well, and in the case of 672-3, Valorous Unit awards, too), it is nevertheless obvious that cramming that much data into one Wiki page is impractical.

Despite the best efforts of many good contributors, as the page reads now, the unit listing is grossly incomplete, superficial, chaotic, completely non-representative, and rife with errors. Again, this is no reflection on any contributor; rather it is an indication that the task is simply impractical.

As a simple indication of the impractical scope of this task, consider that the Army WWII/Korean Pam alone includes approximately 2000-25000 DUC awards. Further, the 670+ pages of the two Army Pams do not even include the texts of the citations themselves . . . which some contributors have attempted to include in the article. I could begin transcribing this huge list into the article . . . but is this where the editors really want to take this project?

Suggest instead that the article merely provide links to each service's publication that documents such awards. Selective references to notable, specific units might be appropriate (though the criteria for inclusion should be clear, so that is doesn't degenerate into a list of everyone's daddy's units). (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The comment immediately above being such an excellent suggestion, and already nearly a year old, why has a knowledgeable Wiki editor not followed through? There is no reason for the article to attempt to include all awards of the DUC/PUC, but more importantly at the present time it does not succeed in doing so, there being many awards left from the list, and others full of errors.'s suggestion of a simple link to each service's publications makes sense. Is anybody out there going to do it? Sciacchitano (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I cannot speak to all the military services, but the Army, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a single document listing who (which units) has/have received a DUC/PUC. I have researched some of these and found that the Pentagon Library research department can provide the citations as they were published in a War Department/Department of the Army General Order. I realize the amount of space this article uses, but it is a matter of History and should be preserved and supported. There are articles about computer games that are less important to history. The availability of the information to the readers/viewers/researchers using Wikipedia is what is important. I think that we should encourage people to provide what they know about each issuance and let Wikipedia be the single source for DUC/PUC knowledge to the world. There are those who wish to limit this published information, are they paying for the space? This article is a work in progress as are all Wikipedia articles. Not a sermon, just a thought... Meyerj (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh - just this section of the talk page is pretty big !! I will suggest a seperation both the list on the main page and this section of the talk page. Some thoughts - I know some citations for the award of the PUC are classified. For any units is even the fact of award of PUC classified. How does declassification date stuff work on these? - Most of the cold war submarines awards citation were certainly originally classified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfoj2 (talkcontribs) 21:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect PUC citation[edit]

The citation for TU 77.4.3 reads: "For extraordinary heroism in action against powerful units of the Japanese Fleet during the Battle off Samar, Philippines, October 25, 1944. Silhouetted against the dawn as the Central Japanese Force steamed through San Bernardino Strait towards Leyte Gulf, Task Unit 77.4.3 was suddenly taken under attack by hostile cruisers on its port hand, destroyers on the starboard and battleships from the rear. Quickly laying down a heavy smoke screen, the gallant ships of the Task Unit waged battle fiercely against the superior speed and fire power of the advancing enemy, swiftly launching and rearming aircraft and violently zigzagging in protection of vessels stricken by hostile armor-piercing shells, anti-personnel projectiles and suicide bombers. With one carrier of the group sunk, others badly damaged and squadron aircraft courageously coordinating in the attacks by making dry runs over the enemy Fleet as the Japanese relentlessly closed in for the kill, two of the Unit's valiant destroyers and one destroyer escort charged the battleships point-blank and, expending their last torpedoes in desperate defense of the entire group, went down under the enemy's heavy shells as a climax to two and one half hours of sustained and furious combat. The courageous determination and the superb teamwork of the officers and men who fought the embarked planes and who manned the ships of Task Unit 77.4.3 were instrumental in effecting the retirement of a hostile force threatening our Leyte invasion operations and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

The citation in the article is for USS Aaron Ward (DM-34) which was not present at Samar, and for an action eight months later - she needs a separate entry. I cannot fix this, but somebody here can. (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Presidential Unit Citation Text for U.S.S. Sealion[edit]

I have a copy of the PUC for the Sealion; my grandfather served on the Sealion and had a framed copy on the wall. It reads as follows, though I do not have the date it was awarded:

The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the PRESIDENTIAL UNIT CITATION to the UNITED STATES SHIP SEALION for service as set forth in the following CITATION:

"For extraordinary heroism in action during the Second and Third War Patrols against enemy Japanese surface forces in restricted waters of the Pacific. Operating dangerously in defiance of extremely strong air and surface opposition, the U.S.S. SEALION penetrated deep into hostile waters to maintain a steady offensive against ships vital to Japan's prosecution of the war. Consistently outnumbered and outgunned, she pursued her aggressive course in spite of formidable screens and severe anti-submarine measures to strike at every opportunity and, by her concentrated torpedo fire, delivered against convoys and combatant ships, sank thousands of tons of enemy shipping including one large battleship and a destroyer of a major hostile task force, and seriously damaged another battleship. Daring and skilled in carrying the fight to the enemy, the SEALION also braved the perils of a tropical typhoon to rescue fifty-four British and Australian prisoners of war, survivors of a hostile transport ship torpedoed and sunk while enroute from Singapore to the Japanese Empire. Her meritorious record of achievement is evidence of her own readiness for combat and the gallantry and superb seamanship of the officers and men who brought her through unscathed."

For the President,

James Forrestal Secretary of the Navy

USS Liberty[edit]

The article for the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) states that the crew received the Presidential Unit Citation following the USS Liberty incident. --Vrmlguy (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I added a listing for the USS Liberty.

I'm also questioning the claim that the USS Parche is "The most decorated unit in U.S. Navy history." Perhaps for the PUC but among the awards won by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty are the Medal of Honor, two Navy Crosses, eleven Silver Stars, twenty Bronze Stars, nine Navy Commendations, 208 Purple Hearts, 294 Combat Action Ribbons and the Presidential Unit Citation which makes the USS Liberty the most decorated ships in US Navy history. USS Liberty Survivor (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


Marines from Task Force Tarawa received PUC 2003. reference: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


How come the platoon of Lyle Bouck (I&R Platoon, 394th Infarntry Regiment, 99th Infantry Division, World War II) isn't mentioned at the recipients list? Sustructu (My Talk) 10:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Neptune's Spear[edit]

According to CNN and other news sources, the unit involved in killing UBL just received one, but the article's light on details. I added it under "Other actions"; someone else should verify. -- Schneelocke (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Two PUC's for VT8 the only such instance?[edit]

My review says there are several WW2 submarines with multiple PUC's, such as Albacore, Flasher, Guardfish, Gudgeon, Haddock, Jack, Rasher (3!), Redfish, Silversides, Tang, Tinosa, Trigger and Trout. The claim that VT-8 is the only such unit can not stand.JMOprof (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for PUC if TDY[edit]

I've heard that the criteria for the PUC differs from service to service. For instance, you can receive the PUC in the Air Force if you're stationed TDY with the receiving outfit when the action occurs. But in the Navy, from what I've heard, they don't count TDY's for unit citations. Anybody know the criteria for the Air Force? Got any RS? Thanks. (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

2nd Awards[edit]

How are multiple awardes denoted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Air Force, with oak leaf clusters; in the Army with attached stars. (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse Me[edit]

Why is the Presidential Unit Award Purple in the image for this article? It's supposed to be blue right? Ya'll are freaking me out, I had to have someone come in here and verify that I'm not blue purple colorblind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


The article is missing some units i served in that rec'd this award ... e.g. RADC , Griffis AFB, NY rec'd this award approx 1968 and again 1969 for work to support USAF and other aircraft during Nam war esp in electronic warfare gear ; .... and also during this same time frame the , GEEIA Hdq Unit at Griffis AFB, NY also rec'd the award ; and also during this time frame, the SAC Wing on Griffis AFB, NY also received the award .... and in Nam the phantom f4 wing at cam rahn ab, nam, also rec'd this award in 1970 but is not recognized ... and also the SR71 blackbird , special reconnaisance unit also rec'd this award but is not included ,... and the early warning sat and OTH units intel units providing early missile attack warnings units are not included hampton bays sr ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Where are 41 Royal Marines mentioned? They along with the US Marines were honoured for the involvement during the Chosin reservoir.

  • Don't forget Company B, 1st Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment was with 41 Royal Marines there too. Meyerj (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also missing are USS Tang's two, repeat... TWO Presidential Unit Citations. The only Sub to receive two and you don't even have them down for one.--Cg23sailor (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Cg23sailor - no, Tang is not the only submarine with two. Referencing Roscoe, page 500, USS Guardfish (SS-217) also had two. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 02:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, What about the 28th Infantry Division's 109th Regiment???[edit]

The have a PUC from the Colmar Pocket Battle, so why aren't they mentioned???Johncheverly 14:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)johncheverly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talkcontribs)

254th Combat Engineers[edit]

My grandfather's unit, the Army's 254th Combat Engineers, was also awarded a presidential unit citation (and a French Croix de Guerre) for their actions in the Battle of the Bulge. Here's a source from the Army museum: [2]. - Dunc0029 (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


I think that sections 2 and 3 should probably be split into a "Recipients" article. The bulk of the article is made up of those examples. A further question is whether recipients should be listed at all, as it is unlikely an exhaustive list could ever be created and maintained (as discussed above). However, splitting would at least tidy up this main article. Any thoughts? - Dunc0029 (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

AGREE. The basic information of what the PUC stands for is fairly solid, and deserves a standalone article. The lists of PUC's issued over the years is a little more haphazard, likely to be steadily updated so never a "finished product". This readily lends itself to being its own standalone, constant flux, article. If the split does happen, the list article should clearly state that the list is incomplete.Jmg38 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Support having a long list of anything in an article tends to skew it, in this case the huge tables really muck it up. the list element could probably be split into more than one list. I would also advocate purging those huge blocks of text that form the actual citation and replace with a summary of what the citation was issued for. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Support If one examines the edit history of this article, much of it is done by editors that do not reference anything and are not really careful about how things are kept in the various sections; i.e. there are units that have awards from one war and it is posted in the wrong war or service. I would agree with Graeme that the very verbose citations should be substituted with a summary and not the citation. If the entry is referenced properly, a citation shouldn't be necessary. The top part of the article describes the award and if it were a stand alone article would be very close to a B class article with just minor can never become that because of the atrocious editing and poor referencing that occurs in the bottom part of the article. Most of the edits on the talk page of this article address the lack of a entry for one unit or another and lament that it isn't there for some reason. Some entries are rather indignant about it. If a standard style of entry could be adopted for the split off article, perhaps this would help matters somewhat. The first half of the article deserves better than a Start class, but its "brother" will never be more than a Start at best. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Support There is no way that the list will ever approach completeness. Further agree that including the complete citation is a waste of space. It also smacks of original research since few complete citations are in encyclopedic sources. If anything beyond a short sentence is appropriate, the location for it would be in the narrative of the article on the specific unit (presumably any unit with this award is notable) --Lineagegeek (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and agree about the citations. Remove citations when the split occurs. (Also, the breakout by service needs cleanup. We have USAAF included with US Army & vice-versa.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    I do agree that cleanup should take place. USAAF should always be with the US Army. After all that is what the first three letters stand for. Not being sarcastic S. Rich, your a good JAG.Meyerj (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost 120 days have passed since a split of this article was proposed. Six individuals have agreed that something needs to be done and even offered some suggestions as to what needs to be done. There have been no negative comments. I would split this article, however, I am not experienced enough to attempt this, but would like to go through the process with someone who has the experience to accomplish this. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Support with reservations My reservations are:
That the list portion would become unimaginably long and require further splits for each of the armed services (and I can conceive of further splits of each service by conflict).
That there would be muddling of the Distinguished Unit Citation and Presidential Unit Citation for US Army and Air Force units.
Responding to points made by the loyal opposition:
The discussion itself disproves the contention that there is no one with the intention to move "pertinent information" to a subpage.
Size is not a minor problem, The reason paper encyclopedias limited size is irrelevant. So is the fact that some Wikipedia articles might be "advertisements for computer games" (I suggest they can be edited). If the page were divided and divided again, I would expect that a Google search for "Presidential Unit Citation" would bring up a hypothetical Presidential Unit Citation (list of Marine Corps units cited) in the top ten or twenty results. A lot easier to search than an interminable single article.
Organic units may well be omitted, but non-organic units are usually separately cited and would be separately listed.
Keeping the citations (if they are retained) in a single article does not make them any easier to find. Copying the citations to Wikisource and linking them in Wikipedia sounds like a good idea to me.
Providing information to "E readers" is not an issue here, where the information is located is.
Full disclosure: I have one of these hummers and I have no idea what the citation says. (and I don't like shouting) --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

1. I totally disagree with you. In 2007 there was much talk on the PUC discussion page to no avail because there is no GOOD justification for taking all the pertinent information out of the tables. There was some suggestion for moving it to a new page or a subpage where people could find the information they seek. But that was not done then and I don't think anyone has any intention to do that.

2. In my opinion an encyclopedia is for providing information to those people researching a particular subject or area of interest. Providing the entire (which is the appropriate thing to do) information which includes the cited authority, issuing authority and complete text supporting the awarding of the award is encyclopedic. The only reason paper encyclopedias restricted article size was because of the cost of publishing. In a world of electronic encyclopedias size is a minor problem. When there are Wikipedia articles that amount to advertisements for computer games we should not be discussing eliminating historic information.

3. The entire citation often includes individual organizations down to section and platoon level who participated in the events leading to the heroic efforts for which they are being awarded. These individual units may not normally be organic to the larger organization and therefore not identified singularly. Which is another way we could list awardees, down to platoons and sections.

4. Finding the citations published by the government, either the Department of War/Navy or the Department of Defense or one of the subordinate services is not easy. The Pentagon Library is the only source that I am aware of to find this information.

5. I would gladly leave this up to the Military History WikiProject folks for determination. Meyerj (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

50/50 I agree with the split, but not with the purging of the citation information. It is hard to find the information. I have Navy lists from the 50s (IIRC) and Army Lists from the Vietnam (and prior) era's, but nothing more recent (the Air Force at least has a website where you can look them up, but I don't offhand have the URL). Gecko G (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The full text of the citations could be copied to wikisource. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and deals in summaries of knowledge. From WP:NOT with my stresses "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". ie the individual entries should explain the why of the issue more than the "official" text. In the same way as Victoria Cross articles are more than than the citation in the London Gazette. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Support split and transwiki citation text to Wikisource. --Kkmurray (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Disagree again Wikipedia is an "E" encyclopedia - In days of old when print cost bunches, summaries were economical. Today, 21st century and all, provide as much information as possible to the interested "E" reader. Meyerj (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support The list is ridiculously long, not to mention the article itself. Illegitimate Barrister 03:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Support The page as a whole is 233K right now, well over the 100K rule of thumb at WP:SPLIT, and the main issue is readability. Whether or not there is consensus on splitting, transwikiing the citation texts to Wikisource will go a long way towards cleaning up the lists and shortening the article as a whole. -Xpctr8 (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

12th Tactical Fighter Wing[edit]

during Nam known as 12th tactical fighter wing, today known as the 12th space wing, but you are not showing its presidential unit citation award during Nam war ... see its page , the chart under decorations, , pls add (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)col braddock sr

additional citation -

1 prez unit citation, 6 usaf outstanding unit awards, 2 nam gallantry awards w palm (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)sere jay sock jr

41st Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army[edit]

This is one of the most decorated regiments from World War II, especially it's 3rd Battalion. How to get the regiment included here? See the Wikipedia article on the regiment. [1][2]Bemcfarland (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Presidential Unit Citation (United States). 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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Unit Citation eligibility[edit]

I have a transcript of a US Army soldier’s military record who served in the 358th Infantry. He arrived after the Mahlman Line, he did serve in Ardennes. It is listed on his transcript he received the D U Citation. The link above if accurate may confirm other units that aren’t included on the page. Your thoughts? DSPORTS (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)