Talk:Richard Winters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

American Defense Service Medal?[edit]

I see on Major Winters' article, as well as on Lt. Lynn Compton's article, they have the American Defense Service Medal under their list of medals and decorations. Wouldn't they have been ineligible for this medal? The article about the medal states that it was discontinued, and instead the American Campaign Medal was given to US soldiers who participated in WWII. Wouldn't Major Winters have been awarded this medal? --Ifrit (Talk) 23:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Never too later, I suppose. Both Winters and Compton were in the Army before Pearl Harbor (Compton in ROTC). That qualifies them.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Date stylings changed[edit]

The way dates were formatted on this page were done in a way that typically suits British subjects. Seeing as Winters was not British, I changed the style to reflect American standard. Rusted AutoParts 15:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Winters. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"He was the last surviving Easy Company commander" is inaccurate[edit]

@Gaarmyvet: About your reversion of my deletion: Easy Company still exists. So this statement is inaccurate on its face: "[Winters] was the last surviving Easy Company commander." Now perhaps he was the last surviving person to command Easy during World War II. But a) that's not what the sentence says, and b) even if it did, there's no reference cited for that assertion. So unless you can dig up some documentation, we ought to delete this false statement without delay. PRRfan (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Does E Company exist? Certainly not as E Company; the Army did away with that usage decades ago. If there was an E Company today, it would be called Echo Company.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The Army begs to differ with you. Take, for example, the 2013 Army press release I linked to in my initial post above. Entitled "Easy Company supports ANSF mission", it reads, in part, "U.S. Soldiers with Easy Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, supported Soldiers of the Afghan National Army..." PRRfan (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Absent further discussion, I'll reinstate my deletion. PRRfan (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a press blurb written by some sergeant who may or may not have talked to his chain of command. Find one other valid reference to a current E Company, keeping in mind that the Army uses the NATO phonetic alphabet and "Easy" was rep[laced by "Echo" decades ago.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
G'day, it is possible that they decided to maintain "Easy" as the designation for historical reasons. Just speculation on my part, though, so it would be good to get a few refs to confirm. If it can't be confirmed, and the decision is made to keep the sentence, I think it needs a reference also. I would also suggest that there is a potential compromise solution, which could be to keep the sentence (with a ref) and clarify that he was "last surviving wartime Easy Company commander". Just a suggestion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think that the Army broke the lettering of the companies in infantry regiments when it switched to the Pentomic structure which abolished the regiment as an echelon of command beginning in 1956. So there would have been legitimate commanders of Easy Co., 506th PIR, through then. Even a claim of the last surviving "wartime" commander of Easy Co. would be problematic pending proof that all the others had died.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gaarmyvet: Of course the Army uses the NATO alphabet, except when it doesn't, and a simple Google search would have shown you plenty of references, all from army.mil, to latter-day Easy Companies — e.g., [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. (I found particularly interesting this March 7, 2017, letter from the commander of E Company, 1st Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Infantry School at Fort Benning to the family and friends of soldiers entering infantry training. It reads, in part: "Your Soldier has been assigned to Easy Company for his One Station Unit Training. As his Company Commander, I would like to welcome you to Easy Company, 1st Battalion, 19th Infantry Regiment, and to the Army Family.") I suspect @AustralianRupert: is correct: that the Army keeps a few Easy Companies around as a nod to the WWII unit's heritage. PRRfan (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)