Talk:Medal of Honor

Two Neck Awards

You're probably not going to find refs saying "there are two US military neck orders..." because the MOH Society itself is wrong--I've contacted them hoping they'll change their web site. But you can find official US military proof the Commander's Degree of the Legion of Merit is a neck order, which I've provided.Rlevse 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand-- the MOH Society itself is wrong how? (Thanks for the existing cite though!) Melchoir 02:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The MOH Society on its medal_types.htm page says the MOH is the only US neck order, but it's not, as the Commander's Degree of the LOM is also a neck order.Rlevse 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Melchoir 02:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

While this is true. The Commander's Degree of the Legion of Merit is limited to the US Government giving the award to foreigners. [1]American's can only earn the Legionnaire Degree which is not a neck order. So, from the stand point of how American's wear the Legion of Merit, its limited to the normal display on one's chest. The MOH Society is geared toward discussing awards that Amercan's can earn, from that perspective they are correct in that the only neck order issued to American Servicemembers is the MOH. Steven Harness 18:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The last guy who got a DSC was given it on a neck ribbon. What's up with that? Rklawton (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh...link? picture? What the heck are you talking about? — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

here Rklawton (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like they put it on a ribbon for the ceremony, so they could put it over his neck instead of pinning it on his uniform. You'll note that the ribbon the medal is suspended from is just a plain dark blue ribbon, rather than matching the ribbon of the DSC. CruiserBob (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, but I've never seen that before. Medals usually get pinned to the chest. Rklawton (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great question...what is up with that? Never seen that done before and I've seen a ceremony with 14 Bronze stars awarded at once... — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No heirs

What happens to a MOH when its recipient dies without heirs, or without specifying in his will who it should go to? What happens if it is awarded posthumously and again there are no heirs? Clarityfiend 08:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If not specified in his will, it would be part of his estate and be handled just like the rest of his estate per the inheritance laws of the said he resided in; usually this would be to the nearest living relative. If there were absolutely no heirs at all, state inheritance laws would handle that too, but I dont' know what the norm is in such a case. Rlevse 11:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the name of the individual but it was in vietname and the last time this happened it was presented to the service secrtary (Army I think). --Kumioko 11:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No Officers till 1891??

The article states [Army officers first received them in 1891 and Naval officers in 1915.] Yet, there were many officers that were awarded the medal in the 1860's and as written in the article it would appear that these officers could not have been awarded the medal. For example Thomas Custer, brother of George, earned two Medal of Honors during the Civil War while an Officer [2], however, based on being an officer he should have been unqualified for the award. If you look at the page referenced there is a picture of Thomas Custer and he is wearing two Medal of Honors. Since he died in 1876, its not possible that he got the awards retroactive to the 1860's when the criteria changed in 1891. There are many other cases of officers getting the award prior to 1891 [3]

It would be nice to have this line clarified to prevent confusion. Steven Harness 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

# of recipients

some parts of the article say 3,642 while others say 3,641... -- Cannibalicious! 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A Question

Can anyone please tell me if all ranks have to salute the bearer of the Medal of Honour? Thank you. Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, found it! Vera, Chuck & Dave 12:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up the statistics

There are some inaccuracies in the article regarding the number of recipients. Probably because they seem to be based off of the table at the Center of Military History, which hasn't been updated since 2003. This is an attempt to keep track of what the current statistics are:

Since the Center of Military History table was created, four people have received the medal:

• Bruce P. Crandall, Army, Vietnam War, living
• Jason Dunham, Marines, Iraq War, posthumous
• Tibor Rubin, Army, Korean War, living
• Paul Ray Smith, Army, Iraq War, posthumous

Making the current table:

War	Totals	Army	Navy	Marines	Air Force	Coast Guard	Posthumous
Civil War	1522	1198	307	17	-	0	32
Indian Campaigns	426	426	0	0	-	0	13
Korea 1871	15	0	9	6	-	0	0
Spanish American	110	31	64	15	-	0	1
Samoa	4	0	1	3	-	0	0
Philippine Insurrection	80	69	5	6	-	0	4
Philippine Outlaws	6	1	5	0	-	0	0
Boxer Rebellion	59	4	22	33	-	0	1
Mexican Campaign	56	1	46	9	0	0	0
Haiti	6	0	0	6	0	0	0
Dominican Republic	3	0	0	3	0	0	0
World War I	124	95	21	8	0	0	33
Haiti 1919-1920	2	0	0	2	0	0	0
Nicaraguan Campaign	2	0	0	2	0	0	0
World War II	464	324	57	82	0	1	266
Korean War	132	79	7	42	4	0	94
Vietnam	246	160	16	57	13	0	154
Somalia	2	2	0	0	0	0	2
Iraq	2	1	0	1	0	0	2
Non-Combat	193	3	185	5	0	0	5
Unknowns	9	9	0	0	0	0	9
GRAND TOTALS	3463	2403	745	297	17	1	616

Nineteen people received two medals, meaning there have been 3444 distinct recipients (including unknowns). Five of the double recipients received the medal twice for the same action, meaning there have been 3458 distinct actions.

I will try to fix all the bad numbers in the article. - Jwillbur 21:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think I got everything except for this sentence from the first paragraph of the "Recipients" section: "Since the beginning of World War II, 852 Medals of Honor have been awarded, 526 posthumously". The table above gives numbers for when the medals were earned, while the sentence gives numbers based on when the medals were awarded. The table is therefore no help in verifing the sentence, another reference needs to be found or the sentence should be removed. Jwillbur 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: Michael P. Murphy, Navy, Afghanistan, posthumous

War	Totals	Army	Navy	Marines	Air Force	Coast Guard	Posthumous
Afghanistan	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
GRAND TOTALS	3464	2403	746	297	17	1	617

jwillbur 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Update: Woodrow W. Keeble, Army, Korea, posthumous

War	Totals	Army	Navy	Marines	Air Force	Coast Guard	Posthumous
Korean War	133	80	7	42	4	0	95
GRAND TOTALS	3465	2404	746	297	17	1	618

jwillbur 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal protection

"The Medal of Honor is the only service decoration that is singled out in federal law to protect it from being imitated or privately sold."

This is no longer true. See Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005

Please be kind. This is my first EVER Wikipedia message. If I'm breaking any protocols, point me in the right direction.

TxDrew 18:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)TxDrew

Thanks for the catch! This is exactly what talk pages are for. I've fixed that sentence, but someone may still need to review the section as a whole. Melchoir 20:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor Ribbon

The picture of the ribbon is upside down. The stars need to be two points up. Thanks. User:VonBlade

1. Please sign your posts
2. Please use subheadings (==) when starting a new topic.
3. Changed spelling of Honour to Honor (this is an American decoration, not a British one).
4. Please be more specific. I checked the article and found no such ribbon displayed. Please tell us the name of the picture so it can be corrected. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The text says, "When the ribbon is worn, it is placed alone, ¼ inch (6 mm) above the center of the other ribbons." But there's no citation for it (the link at the end of the paragraph doesn't mention it). I don't think it's correct here are the reasons why:

• [4] Audie Murphy -- his ribbon is with the others, not above and alone.
• [5] PFC Womack -- ditto
• [6] LT Wheeler - ditto

Supporting info is that Grunts doesn't mention it.

We need to change it, or back it up with evidence. CsikosLo (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Double Citations of the MoH

I reverted your changes (see below justification) and added a picture of a double recipient. This information is both pertinent and accurate. You, however, do not have a source for your claim. If you do, please post it here and I'll be happy to reconsider.

Corrections needed to Double Citations

Army Regulation, AR600-8-22 dated Feb95 (the current issue) states in para. 6-3 that Oak Leaf Clusters will be used to denote award of second and succeeding awards of decorations (other than the Air Medal). No exception is made for the Medal of Honor. As for modern multiple recipients, they are possible. Title 10, USC Para. 3744(a) states: No more than one medal of honor, distinguished-service cross, or distinguished-service medal may be awarded to a person. However, for each succeeding act that would otherwise justify the award of such a medal or cross, the President may award a suitable bar or other device to be worn as he directs. In other words, you can be cited for valor above & beyond more than once and receive "credit" for 2 MOH's, but will only have one physical medal presented to you.

These should be cited appropriately and, quite frankly I don't have the time right now to do all of that. As for the previous 19 multiple recipients, the rules in effect for their service upon discharge would apply. Those rules were often vague and unenforced. I would think they would wear them however they wanted, who would challenge them? — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am attempting to get this clarified by the DOD awards folks but in the mean time my take is that the authorization to present the Medal of Honor is authorized by Congress only and presented by the President and therefore is above reproach, therefore, regardless of what the service orders states, if someone were to perform actions that would constitute the presentation of the MOH more than once, they are going to get separate awards for each act, not an oak leaf cluster or device. Additionally, this whole conversation is strictly academic because its doubtful that anyone in modern times is going to receive more than one. If I do hear back from them I will post the EMAIL here.--Kumioko 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, since the MOH os the only medal authorized to be worn around the nexk I don't even know how a OLC or Star (for the Navy and USMC) would be worn.--Kumioko 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The OLC/Star would go on the octagonal part of the neck ribbon. And of course, if the MOH recipient were wearing ribbons rather than medals, he'd certainly only wear one ribbon with an OLC/Star, rather than 2 ribbons - all the uniform regs are quite clearcut about only wearing one of a given ribbon. CruiserBob 01:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

DISREGARD THE BELOW. EXPLANATION OF ERROR BELOW. My research has uncovered twenty recipients of two MOHs. I am too new to wipipedia to know how to deal with corrections, especially when they have a ripple effect through linked articles. At any rate, here's my list of recipients. Five Marines received duplicate awards during World War I because they were under operational control of the Army when they earned their MOHs. They were: Louis Cukela, Ernest Janson, John Joseph Kelly, Matej Kocak, and John Henry Pruitt.

There were fifteen servicemen who won two MOHs for two separate acts of valor. I will list them by name, branch of service, and theater of action or date of award.

Frank D. Baldwin, USA, Civil War, Indian Campaigns

Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC, Vera Cruz, Haiti

John Cooper, USN, Civil War (twice)

Thomas Custer, USA, Civil War [twice]

Henry Hogan, USA, Indian Campaigns [twice]

John King, USN, 1901, 1909

Patrick Leonard, USA, Indian Campaigns [twice]

John McCloy, USN, China Relief Expedition, Vera Cruz

Robert Sweeney, USN, 1881, 1883

Albert Weisbogel, USN, 1874, 1876

Louis Williams, USN, 1883, 1884

William Wilson, USA, Indian Campaigns [twice]

Dan Daley, USMC, China Relief Expedition, Haiti

John Lafferty, USN, Civil War, 1881

Patrick Mullen, USN, Civil War (twice)

I'm willing to cooperate with a more experienced wikipedist in making these corrections. I can be contacted at justplaingeorge@msn.com. ``George J. Dorner`` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.161.17 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for this information so it may be included. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent research by Raymond Collins published in an article “Double recipient identified as two men” published in Annals, the Journal of the Medal of Honor Historical Society, Vol 6 No 4, June 1984, pp 80 to 83 revealed that Patrick Leonard was in fact two men. They were Sergeant Patrick J Leonard, Company C, 2d U.S. Cavalry awarded the MofH for gallantry at Little Blue, Nebraska on 15 May 1870 and six years later Corporal Patrick T. Leonard, Company A, 23d U.S. Infantry awarded the MofH for gallantry near Fort Hartsuff, Nebraska on 28 April 1876. The mistake was made by the compilers of the 1948 Army Medal of Honor book.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Time to eat crow

According to www.muskingum.edu/~rmunkres/military/Medal.html, Patrick Leonard is a double MOH winner. Only problem is, there are two Patrick Leonards who won MOHs, but they are different men with different middle names. Could someone please pass the meat tenderizer? And, oh yeah, you might want to line out my bogus info above, but leave it as a warning so someone else doesn't commit the same gaffe. ``George J. Dorner``

Special Pension

It says that MoH recipient's receive a special pension and was subject to cost-of-living increases in 2004; Does anyone have these figures?71.145.191.237 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Heres a link to a site that tells about it.

Medal of Honor Pension--Kumioko 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Heres another one Va Pension rates--Kumioko 00:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pics of the MOH in recipient's articles

Some of the articles have a pic of the MOH either in the infobox or in the body of the article. I've removed a few from those that do and wonder if this should be done for all the articles that do have them because the MOH is linked to in the article space anyway so a pic of it isn't necessary, unless there's a guideline for these articles that a pic of the MOH should be in the article. I've written 3 MOH bios myself and haven't included a pic of the MOH in any, although I do have pics of the recipients for all 3. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 20:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, remove them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that any discussion took place on this issue and I ask that removal of the MOH images cease until a discussion is allowed to occur. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Medal of Honor image on a recipient's page easily distinguishes the Sailor, Soldier, Airman or Marine as a unique military service person. The fact that the image does not exist on all recipient's pages indicates simply that it is a work in progress. Perhaps a guideline should exist that dictates the size of the image in relation to the portrait image and that it should be included in an infobox. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there was prior consensus on MOH pic inclusion/exclusion (doesn't appear to be), but I'll hold off for now. The inclusion of the MOH pic appears to have depended on the creator/editors who were working on the page. I've written 3 MOH bios and I didn't include a pic of the MOH in them. I've taken them as far as I can with the sources I could find and consider them done (although I still need to try and expand 1 to renom for GA). As I said above, I really don't see the point of including a pic of the MOH in the articles. Especially putting a pic in the infobox along with a pic of the recipient I think is window dressing. Now Peter Tomich has a pic of his own MOH displayed with his name on it, so I'm not sure yet if this should be made an exception, or else every recipient of whom a pic of their particular MOH will be found and that will be added to their articles, but I really question the necessity of that. Maybe linking to it might be better.

As for distinguishing that this particular individual is special, the following has already been done:

• They already have an article page on here because they are an MOH recipient. For many of them, the fact that they won an MOH is the only reason they're notable.
• The fact that they are an MOH winner is most likely cited in the lead, as well as why this is significant.
• The MOH is listed first due to precedence in the infobox's awards parameter. When looking at a non-recipient's infobox, the thought will likely come to mind, "Oh, they didn't win an MOH."
• They are in an MOH category, e.g. Army MOH recipients.
• They are on the lists of MOH recipients.

Do we still need to highlight how special they are by putting a pic of the MOH up? If someone wants to know what the MOH looks like or read up on it further, they can click on the wikilinks to it in the article.

Now I am wondering if there is a guideline (particularly a Wikiproject MILHIST one) for including pics of the highest awards for valor on the recipients' pages because some Victoria Cross recipients also have a pic of it on their pages. So far I have only seen this sort of thing being done on articles relating to these two subjects, MOH and VC. No other bio articles I have seen yet are consistently adding pics of the highest decorations particularly into the infoboxes. If the MOH has to be displayed in the infobox, then it should be a guideline based on a consensus to add, especially by MILHIST because this comes directly under their umbrella. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 06:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a picture of the MOH and the recipient do not belong in the infobox. One or the other, but not both. What I did for the Korean War MOH winners, was to include a picture of the MOH in the infobox if I didn't have a free to use picture of the recipient. See Emory L. Bennett for an example. I may have messed up on a few though, as I did a bunch. Feel free to correct as you wish. wbfergus 16:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me also, I do think that we need to be careful that we use the correct medal based on service and era.--Kumioko 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The MOH image gives immediate and deserved visual distinction to the article. If I stumble across a veteran's page that has the MoH image, I stop and read. But if it just looks like any other veteran page, I'm not going to scroll to the bottom to see what categories they're in. We've got other articles that have little flags in the infoboxes and such indicating allegiance or place of birth. Those facts are also covered by categories, etc. The question that I have is - what is the harm in this particular image (or these 3)? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 18:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Harm is not the issue, consistency is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency can be achieved with a bot in no time if that is truly the issue. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And that is what the original poster wants to do: should we use the medals or not in the infoboxes. If you want my opinion, wbfergus's suggestion is pretty good. And we can match the medal with the branch of service, so that will not be an issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

wbfergus' suggestion is viable. I also raised the question on MILHIST's talk page, where someone suggested that a pic of the MOH could be put into the article body if it were long enough and wouldn't disrupt the text flow while keepting it out of the infobox assuming there's a pic of the recipient. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, it was suggested on MILHIST's talk page that text such as this: <!-- This image is used as a placeholder image. If available please replace with an image of the recipient. --> be added along with a pic of the medal in the infobox if none is available of the recipient. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 16:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be late in weighing in. I've been on a WikiBreak. I agree User:Mufka — "with The MOH image gives immediate and deserved visual distinction to the article." The Medal of Honor is distinctive and gives immediate recognition of the notability of the recipient. The infobox serves as a place for a quick list of details about the person, which are also contained in the article. As far as consistency, I've created over 100 biographies on USMC Medal of Honor receipients. In these articles, the MOH image is included. — ERcheck (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• As creator of many MoH articles, I agree with both User:Mufka and User:Ercheck. There are over a hundred MoH articles with the image within the infoboxes. A standard for formatting the infoboxes of the MoH articles has been set aand since there isn't a policy against it, it should be followed or at least be up to the creator of the article to decide if he wishes to include said image. Tony the Marine 00:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• This has been debated on the WT:MILHIST page at the same time (started by the same editor). The agreement from the discussion shown here was to put in this hidden comment: <!-- This image is used as a placeholder image. If available please replace with an image of the recipient. -->. This is not to say that articles have to omit the medal from elsewhere: that it the editor's discretion. The infobox should contain a picture of a recipient, in lieu of such an image being available then i see no reason why the MOH (Or any other similarly prestigious) award should not go in its place. Woodym555 01:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I missed that discussion. Still doesn't change my opinion. I think that as Medal of Honor recipient are unique, they merit both their photo (if available) and the Medal of Honor image in the infobox. — ERcheck (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the Medal of Honor articles (and the articles for the other equivelant medals) warrant special recognition. However, we should be cautious about the president we set. If we add the picture of the medal to the infobox with the picture of the recipient for these then we should also make it known that this is an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. Else the articles may start looking like myspace pages.--Kumioko 01:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this being an "exception". The highest military honor is exceptional and most notable. — ERcheck (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think having the picture of the MoH in the infobox is distracting if there is a picture of the person in the infobox. I have no problems with a picture of the MoH elsewhere in the article, but please, only on picture in the infobox. I'm not sure if there are any examples, but what there was an article on somebody that had a 'usable' picture, and was also awarded the MoH and the Victoria Cross, or any other nations highest honor? Where do we draw the line? If a picture of the individual appears, just use that. After all, in many case the article is about the person, not about the medal. wbfergus ^Talk 12:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Audie Murphy is a good example. He not only won the MoH, but also won France's highest medal as well. So, should his infobox contain all three pictures? wbfergus ^Talk 13:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone seen bios for anyone other than MoH or VC recipients that put an image of something that distinguishes them alongside their pic in the infobox? This is another issue I have with putting these pics in the infobox alongside that of the recipient - it's inconsistent with the rest of the bio articles I've seen thus far (please point out exceptions) that do not do this in order to distinguish the subject, no matter who they are. E.g. an article on a US president doesn't put the presidential seal next to his pic. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm kinda late weighing in on this, but I thought it might be a good idea to use a small icon to designate it. That way, it doesn't interfere with the article/pictures already in use. Feel free to alter the image if this one doesn't work so well. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this, which might be better and will keep the upper right of the articles free from icons other than FA, GA, or protections: take a look at John Steinbeck, which has a mini icon of the Nobel Prize next to his name in the infobox instantly identifying him as a Nobel Prize Winner. How about doing something similar for the MoH and VC winners? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Be even better if there's a pic of the MoH with a transparent background, the current one in the upper right which I tried experimenting on has a white BG. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Recipients template use

Template:Medal of Honor recipients has been added by User:Kumioko to several recipient articles from which I've removed it (not all of them though) as until now I haven't seen it used in this way. What's the guideline (s) for where it should be used? BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC).

My fault, when I first started working on the Medal of Honor articles a couple weeks ago I used an article as a shell and it had that template. I have since stopped using it and thought I had removed it from the pages I had created.--Kumioko 11:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Medal of Honor citations

I think we need to come to some kind of a consensus on how to display the citations for the Medal of Honor recipients. I have seen at least 4 different variations of the way they are displayed. Some are using block quotes, some are using Cquote, some are centering it and I have been simply using : to offset it. I have even seen examples of citations being italicized after I have been told that using italics on a citation is inappropriate. I am going to post this on the talk page for manual of style also to get a wider consensus.--Kumioko 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, some are displaying just the quote of the citation itself, while others are also including the biographical data that is at the top of the citation, i.e. name, rank, unit, hometown, etc., so we also need to figure out if this is to be included or not. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 15:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Would this not be better at WP:MILHIST as it relates to VC holders as well. I think it would be good to get a consensus although i think it all boils down to editor preference. All articles are different... Woodym555 15:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would normally concur with the editor preference however, I have seen many cases where its done one way and then changed 2 or 3 times by different editors who all have their own style.--Kumioko 17:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

VC FAs:Thomas Crisp and Ronald Niel Stuart have boxes at the bottom. Current A-class and FAC article Issy Smith has it in a box at the side. I dont think you could introduce a guideline and rigorously enforce it because it all depends on the individual page. Look at Audie Murphy, that has an indented paragraph. Woodym555 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I forget how I did it with the Korean War MOH recipients. I remember that I was extremely confused at first, and had to look at numerous existing articles before settling on the approach I did. I think I went with the approach of also including the "biogarphical" info, where it was awarded for, etc., as most of the articles I created were basically stubs, and gave the context of which unit the person was in, approximately which battle (even though many of the descriptons aren't readily apparent as to which battle), etc. If that's wrong and others see fit to change, that's fine by me. I would just be opposed to the deletion of the 'stub' articles. It seems like if they earned the MOH, other additional information on the indivudaul should be available someplace, but I haven't spent the time trying to find it. wbfergus ^Talk 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I created a page in my sandbox to give an Idea of the problem. Here are some of the methods currently being used to display the citation. Medal of Honor Citations. I think that we should try and set forth some kind of standard as to how to display award citations whether its for the Medal of Honor or the Navy Acheivement Medal.--Kumioko 21:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of the actual citation presented to a Medal of Honor recipient? Your example of Jason Dunham's citation is as it appears on an official military site. The other information is about the recipient. The "citation" is what is in the cquote. — ERcheck (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"erroneously" referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor??

The article on Army.com simply states that the medal is ALSO referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor. NOT that it is erroneously referred. Should the word "erroneously" be removed? Cgonsalves 18:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes...anyone else? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, go read through the archive for the why. Rmhermen 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I read through it and did not see any consensus on the subject. Perhaps a simple vote is in order so we know where everyone stands (if 90% support one way or the other, then we pretty much have a consensus. If it is 50-50, then an extensive discussion is likely warranted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The formal name is simply "Medal Of Honor." But it, like any noun phrase, can have an attributive adjective placed before it. So, the formal name is not Congressional Medal Of Honor, it's Medal Of Honor, but you can call it the first Medal Of Honor, the prestigious Medal Of Honor, perhaps a posthumous Medal Of Honor, or since it's "in the name of the Congress," the Congressional Medal Of Honor. Or you can specify the service, an Army Medal Of Honor, to distinguish which specific service's version of the medal is being referred to. It's not part of the formal name, but it's not erroneous either; unless by typography or otherwise, you try to shoe-horn the adjective "Congressional" into the formal name. It's OK to put the adjective "Congressional" immediately before the formal name. If the context does not clearly indicate whether you are using that adjective correctly (before the formal name), or incorrectly (within the formal name), then you can't really say that it's incorrect. Calling something by a phrase other than its full formal name is not necessarily incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well according to an official Congressional document below it is erroneous to add the adjective Congressional to the front of the Medal of Honor. Jons63 01:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine that people insist on calling it the "Medal of Honor" without Congressional in it for political correctness, for die-hard memorabiliac devotion or whatever reasons (even though this is very ethnocentric since other countries also give "Medals of Honor"). However, using "erronenously" in the lead is just plain POV pushing and the source cited DOES NOT match up. I am, therefore, removing it. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are some web sources that do say that it is 'erroneously' referred to as the 'Congressional Medal of Honor'.

one from the Library of Congress [7]

one from the Marine Corps Association 'Leatherneck Magazine' [8]

one from the 'Stars and Stripes' newspaper [9].

Based on these it would appear to me that the word does belong. I will let someone else make the decision though. 71.242.188.50 22:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was curious and I looked for other sources that talk about the name also. These are sources that say it is incorrectly referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Medal of Honor.com [10]

Army.mil [11]

Newspaper article [12]

This is now 6 reputable sources that says it is either incorrect or erroneous to call it the Congressional Medal of Honor. Any thoughts? Jons63 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, the article is already titled MEDAL OF HONOR. “It is sometimes referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor” is stating a fact - whether or not this is correct or incorrect (it is clearly debated). But if you do add “correctly” or “incorrectly,” that makes it a clear POV, thus, making it an opinion rather than a fact. Therefore, the word erroneously has no place in the sentence. The issue here is POV! aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct it is a POV issue. It is your and others POV that adding the word erroneously is not correct. It is the United States Congress's POV that adding the word is correct, as evidenced by the above website from the Library of Congress. If I made the decision, I would opt for adding the word erroneously to the sentence in question as the US Congress does. I believe they are better qualified to make the decision whether the word Congressional is erroneous or not when used with the Medal of Honor. So far though, it looks like most of the editors are saying erroneously doesn't belong and I will go with that decision. Jons63 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Medal exists by an act of Congress, and they can decide, by statute, what the formal name of the Medal is. But they cannot decide what context to put the name in. They can't control what adjectives or verbs or interjections may be used near it. They simply do not have the authority to decide whether someone can use a specific adjective to modify the the noun phrase containing the formal name. Neither can the Library of Congress, the President, or Funk and Wagnall's. The Conress is NOT more qualified than anyone else to decide if an adjective is "erroneous." They can, and do, specify the formal name of the Medal, but not he context in which it is used. The claim that it is erroneous the the very popular fallacy of misplaced pedantry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No Congress can not dictate what adjectives are used with the name of the medal. But if someone is using the name Congressional Medal of Honor as the official name as many people do, they can comment that it is erroneous. I believe that most of the people who use the term Congressional Medal of Honor believe that is the proper name of the medal and those people are erroneously calling it Congressional Medal of Honor. I believe that is what the Library of Congress, Marine Corps Association, Stars and Stripes, Army site, Medal of Honor site and Sequoyah County Times is talking about. Not that people are adding a modifier to what they know is the name of the medal as you seem to be saying. Jons63 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation isn't something exclusively in the province of Wikipedia; we disambiguate things all the time. Congressional Medal of Honor is the simplest, clearest, and most widely understood disambiguation of this award. It is fine to have the article where it is with (disambiguation) on the disambiguation page, but I agree with those who say that "erroneously" has no place in the article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole issue of making a controversy out of Congressional Medal of Honor is as pedantic as it gets. It is not erroneous to refer to it as such because merit awards can either be established as an Executive order (Purple Heart) or specifically by an Act of Congress. Awotter (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk about pedantic. People DO erroneously think it is part of the formal name. That is why they call it the "Congressional Medal of Honor" and why I added the word "erroneously." You really think people use the word 'Congressional" because they have an urge to put an adjective in front of it? I hardly think so. I am really disappointed with some of the people on Wikipedida who can't write, spell, or use grammar correctly, but find immaterial things to argue about. I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, a meticulously crafted, formal body of work. I have never seen so much garbage shoved into anything as on Wikipedia. This really spoils the work for the few good, well-thought-out articles that are here. I find Wikipedia useful for a wealth of information, but it pales in comparison to other works for the garbage it contains and the spur-of-the-moment ideas that get thrown into it. Pardon my ranting, but it is so irritating to have to put commas here, take commas out here, correct possessives because a contraction was used, or read an article because a term that applies to one instance suddenly gets applied to a whole list that doesn't really exist (see "queen mother" for example) because people just willy-nilly edit things. Some people write such far-fetched nuances, it is like watching a Harrison Ford movie (see V.P. of the U.S. references to Clinton for example). Have a Happy New Year. . . Bobopaedia (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"People DO erroneously think it is part of the formal name. That is why they call it the "Congressional Medal of Honor" and why I added the word "erroneously." You really think people use the word 'Congressional" because they have an urge to put an adjective in front of it? I hardly think so."

What you do or do not "hardly think" is no basis for what goes into Wikipedia. The adjective is perfectly appropriate, and your opinion on why people use it is completely irrelevent. The grammar is correct, the usage and definition of the adjective is correct, and it is outside of the scope of Congress to dictate context and usage. If your whole argument is based on what anyone "really thinks" or what you "hardly think," then you've lost the debate. All that other stuff, your ranting about commas, queen mothers, and Harrison Ford movies, is totally irrelevant, and has no bearing on whether the adjective is "erroneous." A big red herring. 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In Movies?

Anyone know what happens when a movie wants to display a Medal of Honor? I see the article mentions that any creation of them is strictly supervised and misuse is strictly penalized by federal law, but there's no mention of fictitious or recreated accounts and presentations. One can assume that the movie studio requests authorization for some kind of up-close-obviously-fake item, but does anyone know for sure?
--Drego5 04:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One resource might the the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. — ERcheck (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Their web page is at http://www.cmohs.org/ and their name, Congressional Medal of Honor Society is quite relevant to the discussion in the section above, #"erroneously" referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor??. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Referencing other awards

BrokenSphere, I'm hoping this gets to you. I'm not REALLY sure I'm doing this right, but here is my reply. You are right that it is somewhat unfair to reference only a few awards, such as the MOH and the VC. But these are the awards that most people are most familiar with. Ask anybody from commonwealth nations, and they know about the VC, ask people from US, they know about the MOH. So, it helps illustrate the point that these are the highest possible awards, without creating a huge list of every highest award offered in the world. That's why I was putting the comparisons up. It's true that they are not EXACTLY the same (the Legion of Honor is a bit different from the MOH), but it's close enough to illustrate a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.238.53 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

69.229.238.53 is referring to a comparison to the VC in the lead of this article and a comparison to the MoH on the VC article that he had put in, both of which I reverted as I didn't see the need for comparison and because of perceived bias, i.e. why mention these particular awards in relation to each other as opposed to x? However if there's consensus for mentioning other comparable examples in the lead of the MoH, then that's fine with me. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The MofH and the VC are similar single class awards only granted for gallantry in action. If the criterion is prestige then the French Legion of Honor is an equally prestigious award but otherwise it unlike both the MofH and the VC. The French Legion of Honor is a five class order which is awarded for everything from gallantry to meritorious service to long service to living 80 years after World War 1 and 60 years after WW2. Neither the MofH or the VC is ever awarded to service personnel of other nations (other World War I unknown soldiers) whereas the French Legion of Honor is generously handed to foreigners decades later and continue to be issued to foreigners today. The MofH has been awarded about 3400 times and the VC 1356 times compared with hundreds of thousands who have received the French Legion of Honor. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal protection

It has been illegal to buy or sell US military medals since 1948. Collectors of military medals were able to get around this provision by trading medals. I am not sure if the Stolen Valour Act has has forbidden trading of medals but the trading of the MofH has been illegal since the enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "Recent?"

I was about to edit the following:

The most recent award of the Medal of Honor for operations related to the War on Terrorism occurred

when I realized that there are (or will be) two honored in the Month of March. Should only one recipient be mentioned as "recent" or the two of the same month....etc. I won't edit until its discussed, if there is no response, I'll just mention the most recent and delete the others mentioned. --Hourick (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume the two you are talking about are Michael P. Murphy and Michael A. Monsoor. Monsoor's medal has been announced but not yet officially awarded, the ceremony is scheduled for April 8. For now Murphy's is the most recent award for the war on terror, once Monsoor's is official we can update the article as you say. jwillbur 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, never mind. I missed the part of your question that said "two honored in the month of March". Murphy's was awarded in October. The only Medal of Honor awarded this past March was Woodrow W. Keeble, but his was for the Korean War, not the War on Terror. Which two recent recipients you are talking about? jwillbur 17:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was going to redo the sentence where the "Most recent awarded" which would be Master Sergeant Woodrow W. Keeble, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor, would replace him once the award becomes "official."--Hourick (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Medal of Honor vs. Silver Star

I don't really understand from this article what the distinction is between acts earning the Medal of Honor and acts earning the Silver Star. They seem very similar. Are gallantry and intrepidity military terms with specific meaning? (If so, they should probably have articles). -- Creidieki 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It mostly depends on just what happens in the field of battle and what commanders who file the paperwork consider "above and beyond the call of duty." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, with the Medal of Honor the act must be above reproach with several witnesses and in the end there must be no doubt as to the act. The Silver star is not as stringent, although it could still be an extreme act of heroism.--Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this opinion or fact? I see no mention of this in the article, and can't actually seem to find out information on what the current criteria is for an MofH besides that there may be a committee. Jklharris (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Satanist badge?

Why is the pentagram lpaced upside-down in the medal? Considering the USA is based on christian-fundamentalist ideals I find it very strange that the sign Supreme Evil is used in the medal. Won't some soldiers refuse it on conscience grounds?

Was that done to distinguish it from the Golden Star (Hero of the Soviet Union)? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Read The Friendly Article. In 1862 there was no Soviet Union. Also, see pentagram, a well-done article. It explains that around 1855 some European occultists started making a big deal out of upside-down pentagrams, eventually creating a twentieth century cliche, but I doubt this would have been well known. Of a 5000-year plus history maybe the most interesting parallel is the 14th-century Sir Gawain and the Green Knight where it represents the five knightly virtues of noble generosity, fellowship, purity, courtesy, and compassion. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Might also want to check out the Order of the Eastern Star. I really don't think they're satanists. No soldier would refuse it because they know that's not what it means. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to read up on your history; the USA is most definitely not based on Christian fundamentalist ideas, regardless of wild claims to the contrary by Christian fundamentalists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Valor and Honor

It is interesting that the medal says "VALOR" but is called the Medal of Honor. And Wikipedia defines "gallantry" either as bravery or as honor (or as being polite to women...) I have a vague impression that the military views valor and honor as two different things - perhaps the resistance to fear vs. the resistance to carelessness or temptation? - but I don't really know. When they give someone the Medal of Honor for valor, does that mean that they're saying that the recipient has valor and the congress gives the medal to honor that? (in yet another sense of the term...) I feel like I and most of the general public don't even really know what these words mean in any useful detail. Wnt (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bravery in combat above and beyond the call of duty. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the problem is that everyone, military or not, has a slightly different definition for each term. For some folks, some of teh terms are interchangable, some similar, and some distinct. There really can't be a set standard that everyone will agree on, but I think we can suffice to say that awarding a Medal of Honor is how the government of the United States wishes to set apart its most most endeared warriors, however you want to decide that.

That said, I'd like to think that honor is in keeping with the highest ideals and traditions, while valor denotes exemplary service under difficult circumstances. Gallantry tells me that a person has performed selfless deeds (the tried and true "above and beyond the call of duty"). To me, a person who has earned the MOH exhibits all three qualities. The Medal may not define them, but they define the medal. bahamut0013♠♣ 02:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "typessecnav" :
  • {{cite web |last = |first = |authorlink = |coauthors = |year = |url = http://www.cmohs.org/medal/medal_types.htm |title = Types of the Medal of Honor: 1862 To Present |format = |work = |publisher = Congressional Medal of Honor Society|accessdate = 2006-07-23}}
  • {{cite web |last = |first = |authorlink = |coauthors = |year = |url = http://www.cmohs.org/medal/medal_types.htm |title = Types of the Medal of Honor: 1862 To Present |format = |work = |publisher = Congressional Medal of Honor Society |accessdate = 2006-07-23}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Was Captain William McGonagle's Medal of Honor an "exception"?

The article states, "Capt. William McGonagle is an exception to the enemy action rule, earning his medal during the USS Liberty incident.[29][30]". Can someone refer me to the reference that supports that claim? Other awards that are made for action against an enemy of the United States were awarded as well. The Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart. All were awarded as a result of the June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. To my knowledge none of these awards were granted a waiver to the requirement that they be awarded only in the case of action against an enemy of the United States. Can someone direct me to (and include the appropriate reference in the article itself) an authoritative source that supports the claim made by the article? USS Liberty Survivor (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

new resource

Perhaps a good reference for you folks who maintain this and related articles: http://www.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/ bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)