![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've just removed a recent good faith edit to this section which had added the BSA Honor Medal. Until this entry was added, by longstanding consensus (maintained since 2004) the list exclusively contained state-sanctioned decorations. I am not at all convinced that this section should be retained; few, if any, other ODM articles have what is effectively a limited scope disambiguation section - that is what disambiguation pages are for (but without the same limitations on scope). In my view this section is probably WP:OFFTOPIC and should be removed. The disambiguation function is adequately served by Medal of Honor (disambiguation) and Template:Highest gallantry awards. If the section is to be retained, the status quo of listing only state sanctioned awards should be maintained; to do otherwise is to open it up to WP:LISTCRUFT (not that the BSA Honor Medal is cruft). AusTerrapin ( talk) 09:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I found another source for statistics on the MoH. I thought it could at least be used alongside citation [5] (cite for posthumous comment in the article summary). Unfortunately, I've only ever done minor edits to pages, so I don't know how to add a citation. If someone could do that, I would be grateful. Here is the URL: < http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/mohstats.html>. Buddenru ( talk) 07:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the claim that ‘As of 2010, the largest collective group in the U.S. armed services awarded the Medal of Honor (with 22 medals) are United States Navy Hospital Corpsmen.’ The reference for this claim "USPACOM - United States Pacific Command". Pacom.mil. June 17, 2010. http://www.pacom.mil/web/Site_Pages/Media/News%20201006/20100617-Yokosuka%20112th%20Hpospital%20B_Day.shtml cannot be retrieved. The awards to hospital corpsmen were as individual members attached to naval ships or marine units. There were no multiple or collective awards to hospital corpsmen. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 16:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, YahwehSaves. It's my understanding that the medals that are made today (all three versions, Army/Navy/Air Force) are mostly made from brass alloys, primarily copper. Here is the source we are currently using: 1. Can you clarify/expand on why it's your understanding that the Navy version made today is made of bronze? Perhaps you've got a source cite that distinguishes the issue? Please share it. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 04:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Added an a reference in History section for 1862 with Townsend saying in a 1884 report that the ordered medals that came in were "bronze". The model(s) or sample(s) of the first version medal (Navy) appear to be the copper and bronze coated MOH's that I also reference; two diferent books on the original medals. Townsend's name (for Secretary of War) is on Civil War paperwork with "Medal of Honor" delivered to to recipients (referenced too).
The title is from the history section of the article and is referenced Above and beyond: a history of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam, p. 5. I do not have this reference at hand to check but my understanding is that the Navy MoH was established in 1861 and the Army MofH was established in 1862. The significance of the 1863 enactment was to extend the award to Army officers, an extension that Navy officers would have to wait for until 1915.
Anthony Staunton (
talk)
06:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
From p. 5: "In the meantime, the army no doubt prompted at least in part by the passage of the navy legislation, had come to favor the idea of a medal of its own."
Feb. 17, 1862: "As with the navy legislation, commissioned officers were ineligible for the medal, the assumption being that they would be better rewarded or more honored by promotion. (A year later, Congress made army officers eligible for the medal; a similar measure for the navy was not passed until 1915)."
"As the war dragged on the prestige of its new award grew, the government realized that while it was created for the conflict at hand, the Medal of Honor--and the rewarding of bravery--would be applicable to any future conflicts. In 1863 Congress made the Medal of Honor a permanent decoration."
P. 314: Epilogue: 1st para: "The stated purpose for creating the Medal of Honor was prosaic as could be: "to improve the efficiency" of the northern troops in the Civil War. In the dark days of of 1861, no one knew what meaning to attach to the medal or indeed if the Union would last long enough for it to take any important meaning"
2nd para.: "Soon the object of bronze and silken ribbon was inspiring both an army and a people."
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Retrolord ( talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have commenced review of this article. Retrolord ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
After reading i have found numerous
citation needed tags. Nomination put on hold until this is fixed.
Retrolord (
talk)
12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know the sources of these two points:
1890: On April 23, the Medal of Honor Legion is established in Washington, D.C.
1915: On March 3, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers became eligible for the Medal of Honor.
Also, is the section regarding duplicate medals significant enough to be included? Retrolord ( talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The "Privileges and courtesies" section is entitled such but in the short introduction to the paragraph it only mentions the privileges, not the courtesies?
Also, i am not sure if the claim regarding "many" states awarding special license plates can be considered accurate since only six are referenced.
Retrolord ( talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This sentence does not make sense :
Since the beginning of World War II, 861 Medals of Honor have been awarded, 530 (62%) posthumously; 627 Medals of Honor have been awarded posthumously.
Clarify. Retrolord ( talk) 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that RightCowLeftCoast!
I am just wondering wether it is neccessary to describe the actions of each post-vietnam recipient and name them. Many others arent mentioned, isnt this inconsistant? Unless there is a reason. Thanks! Retrolord ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be best for consistency if we created the sub article list. It would also makke the article flow better, but happy to hear what you think too. Retrolord ( talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that RightCowLeftCoast. I've had yet another look over the article and am very satisfied with the content. There is consistency within the article, with terms such as United States (never USA or US) and the dates all seem to be in the same format. As far as i can see there are no unreferenced claims and there is no obvious plaigirism. The use of imperial measurements seems suitable as the article references a United States medal.
I can see no reason to fail this article, and as a result, I am passing it. Congratulations to all involved. Retrolord ( talk) 02:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear retrolord,
does that mean the article is a good article?
Steve92341 ( talk) 21:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I passed the article and it says good article on both the talk page and the article, and im pretty sure i added to the list of articles. i think one of teh bots that does these things may have skipped over it somehow. I may have messed something up also. But the article did pass, so don't worry, just a technical mistake by someone(probably me). Retrolord ( talk) 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The part on Tibor Rubin makes it seem as if he was awarded the Medal for surviving the Holocaust and being a POW. Could it be better written? Tinynanorobots ( talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
the rescue of the trapped crew members on the Squalus in 1939 resulted in four of the rescuers getting the MoH at the same time. Seems worthy of mentioning in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 ( talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Needless to say, the stats on this page will constantly change. However, the sources that are used to present the stats are updated at different rates. The main sources used to cite the stats are:
What would be the best way to update the stats? As of now, it seems most accurate to update the total to 3,488 recipients and the rest of the stats will have to be updated as accurately as we can. Any related percentages will change, of course.
Worldofinfo ( talk) 16:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
About a month ago another 24 awards of the MOH were made. Upgrades from DSC awards. Only 3 of the 24 were living recipients. Brad ( talk) 15:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Article says:
Because the medal is presented in the name of Congress it's often erroneously referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor; the official name is simply the "Medal of Honor".
However:
Wikipedia doesn't get to decide if something is being referred to erroneously. It's clearly an acceptable name used in many places including various laws. Please fix this inaccurate statement. -- 65.78.114.251 ( talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what any of these bodies who have nothing to do with making the award call it. The pertinent CFR and DoD and individual service regulations are in complete accordance with one another and unanimously use the title "Medal of Honor". It doesn't matter what your Aunt Hattie called it at her ladies' afternoon teas. It doesn't even matter what some of the recipients themselves have called it. The only name that is truly correct is the one the services themselves as well as US federal laws use to reference it.-- SEWalk ( talk) 19:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@
AzureCitizen:, please stop. I understand the
bold edits were meant to
improve the article, but please receive
consensus before removing
verified content. Why remove it entirely as what was done the first time? Why remove the image, as was done the second time? Can the editor provide reliable sources that gives the history of the usage of the
"V" Device, in regards to the subject of the article?
Lets work on this together to create content that has consensus and that is well sourced, rather than just boldly removing content.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
05:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It's great that you want to work on this together and achieve consensus, and of course my only goal here is to improve the article. Before we begin, however, I must point out with regard to your 3RR warning that I only removed the text once. My second edit a day later was to move the information from the appearance section (where the "V" device no longer applies) down to the historical section (where it does apply). When you ask "Why remove it entirely as what was done the first time," I'm surprised you're asking that because I covered that in my edit summary here, and you specifically responded back to that contention in your revert here. My point is that my motives aren't really a mystery here, and that two edits spaced a day apart, each different in their approach to the issue, aren't really an appropriate 3RR warning situation either. That said, turning to the text and restating so that I can ask the question:
It is my belief that "V" device information should not be appearing in the front portion of the appearance section, which describes the current versions of the medals as they appear today along with the current accessories for wear that are still in use, but should instead appear lower down (if it is to be retained at all), inside the historical section, along with the information on other versions which are no longer in use. Before we proceed further, is there any disagreement on this basic premise? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 15:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This section commences with the following ‘There are two distinct protocols for awarding the Medal of Honor. The first and most common is nomination and approval through the chain of command of the service member. The second method is nomination by a member of the U.S. Congress, generally at the request of a constituent, and the subsequent approval via a special Act of Congress.’ More than 25% of all MofH awards have been awarded ten or more years after the action being commended. The majority of ACW Army awards were late awards but the tradition of late awards continues to the present time. The suggestion of ‘nomination by a member of the U.S. Congress, generally at the request of a constituent’ seems a gross oversimplification for late awards. Does ‘special Act of Congress’refer to awards by special legislation such as the Byrd and Lindbergh awards or to the time wavers for late awards. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 15:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph states 3469 recipients. Under the sub heading recipients, the first sentence states 3492 recipients, the main table adds up to 3484 and the branch of service table adds up to 3483. My calculation is 3513 awards including 19 second awards. See Medal of Honor recipients 1863-1978 by the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs, the CRS report Medal of Honor Recipients: 1979-2014 plus the two awards presented last week. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 00:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The Medal of Honor Historical Society states ‘The first Medal of Honor presentation took place in 1863. Since then and as of June 2, 2015, there have been 3,512 Medals of Honor awarded.’ Anthony Staunton ( talk) 22:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Over the last few days I have been accused of calculating, guessing and doing original research. If adding totals by the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs (1863 to 1978), the Congressional Research Service (1979 to 2014) and the White House (2015) is calculating I fess up. Calling it a guess was insulting and adding three figures is not original research. But note I alerted anyone interested to the fact that there were four different totals (two calculated from tables) in the one article. While disappointed with the discourtesy I sought an online source and located the Medal of Honor Historical Society that stated ‘The first Medal of Honor presentation took place in 1863. Since then and as of June 2, 2015, there have been 3,512 Medals of Honor awarded.’ No other online found so far matches the totals of the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs, the Congressional Research Service and the White House. So I reverted the vandalism. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 00:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Anthony Staunton: please refrain from campaigning as done here and here.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Most would agree that the MOH is sometimes referred to as the ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ but that the official title is simply the ‘Medal of Honor’. While I prefer ‘Medal of Honor’ to ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ the article should not be dogmatic and state that it is an error to use ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’. I propose to delete the word erroneously. Most US presidents in the 20th and 21st century have on occasion called the award the ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 10:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this will help: "Above and Beyond, A History of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam" by the editors of Boston Publishing Company. Produced in cooperation with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society of the United States of America, 1985: P. 1, 2nd paragraph: "The reader of this volume is requested to think of the award by its correct name. Over the years it has come to be known as "The Congressional Medal of Honor," because the holder of the medal, though chosen for it by his peers and superior officers, is nominally given it by writ of Congress. Its real name, however, is simply the Medal of Honor. This fact is perhaps made more difficult to understand since there is an organization called the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (because it is chartered by the U.S. Congress). The society's collaboration with our editors and writers has given this book its extra scope and authenticity."— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves ( talk • contribs)
I deleted "erroneous" because the original 1882 Army version has "The Congress to" on the reverse side of the medals (Army version made from and after the 1882 Navy version which had "Personal Valor" engraved on the reverse side of the medals). One Civil War recipient (Army) referred to it as the Congressional Medal. The Army continued to have, "The Congress to" on the reverse side of their version of the medal. The Civil War paperwork I've seen on the Net given for or delivered with the medal, says, "Medal of Honor". So I put, "the original and official military title is, Medal of Honor". Private Jacob Parrott received the first Medal of Honor (The Congress to) on March 25, 1863.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves ( talk • contribs)
This Article/page is great . . . I'll be 'watching' and contributing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's quite likely that the common (if erroneous) attribution of the award as the 'Congressional' Medal of Honor stems from conflation with the Congressional Gold Medal and Congressional Silver Medal which actually are designed and awarded by Congress rather than the military services.-- SEWalk ( talk) 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
On December 9 [1861], U.S. Senator (Iowa) James W. Grimes, Chairman on the Committee on Naval Affairs,[19] proposed Public Resolution Number 82... "to promote the efficiency of the Navy" which included a provision for a Navy Medal of Valor, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on December 21, 1861 (Medal of Honor had been established for the Navy)...
The hatnote about the videogame doesn't need to be as verbose as it is now: the games series' dab page is enough, without extra links to the old and new versions of the game. I removed them because the series page has over three times the number of pageviews of either the 1999 version or the 2010 version and so should suffice. SteveStrummer ( talk) 02:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Medal of Honor |
---|
![]() |
All recipients |
American Civil War |
|
Other wars and conflicts |
|
By ethnic group |
By other criteria |
The template (?) "Medal of Honor recipients" (shown here) includes a link to the standalone article for the 27 recipients at Battle of Iwo Jima, called List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Given that there were also a significant number (16) Medals of Honor awarded for actions on a SINGLE day during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, might this be deserving – and also helpful for folks reading articles – of a standalone article "List of Medal of Honor recipients at the Attack on Pearl Harbor"? If so, could the template "Medal of Honor recipients" be updated to include a built in link? Of course, if it turns out there are multiple battles/days with numerous recipients, then this suggestion should be disregarded. Comments? Jmg38 ( talk) 06:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's the table, but I'll still wait a day or two for comments and for possible advice on how to add this to the HOH template/menu:
This with the
† indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Image | Name | Service | Rank | Place of action | Date of action | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Mervyn S. Bennion † | Navy | Captain | USS West Virginia (BB-48), Pearl Harbor | December 7, 1941 | While mortally wounded, he remained in command of his ship. For conspicuous devotion to duty, extraordinary courage, and complete disregard of his own life, he was awarded the Medal of Honor. |
![]() |
George H. Cannon † | Marine Corps | First Lieutenant | Sand Island, Midway Islands | December 7, 1941 | Refused to be evacuated from his post until after his men, who had been wounded by the same shell, were evacuated, and directed the reorganization of his Command Post until forcibly removed. |
![]() |
John W. Finn | Navy | Chief Aviation Ordnanceman | Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Stationed at NAS Kaneohe Bay, HI, he demonstrated extraordinary valor during the Japanese air assault on Oahu. Finn manned an exposed 50-caliber machine gun stand and returned significant fire upon enemy aircraft. Despite numerous painful wounds, he remained at his post and inflicted heavy damage upon the enemy until ordered to seek medical attention. CPO Finn was the first to receive the Medal of Honor for action during World War II. |
![]() |
Francis C. Flaherty † | Navy | Ensign | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | During evacuation of the USS Oklahoma, remained in a turret, holding a flashlight so the remainder of the turret crew could see to escape, thereby sacrificing his own life. |
![]() |
Samuel G. Fuqua | Navy | Lieutenant Commander | Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | For heroism aboard the USS Arizona. |
![]() |
Edwin J. Hill † | Navy | Chief Boatswain | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | During the height of the strafing and bombing of the USS Nevada, led his men of the linehandling details to the quays, cast off the lines and swam back to his ship. Back onboard, while, attempting to let go the anchors, was blown overboard and killed by the explosion of several bombs. |
![]() |
Herbert C. Jones † | Navy | Ensign | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Organized and led a party to supply ammunition to the antiaircraft battery of the USS California after the mechanical hoists were put out of action when he was fatally wounded by a bomb explosion. When 2 men attempted to take him from the area, he ordered "Leave me alone! I am done for. Get out of here before the magazines go off." |
![]() |
Isaac C. Kidd † | Navy | Rear Admiral | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Remained on the bridge of USS Arizona, discharging his duties as Commander of Battleship Division One and Senior Officer Present Afloat even as the ship blew up from magazine explosions, until a direct bomb hit on the bridge resulted in the loss of his life. |
—
|
Jackson C. Pharris | Navy | Gunner | Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | In charge of an ordnance repair party on the USS California, severely injured by explosions and twice rendered unconscious by nauseous oil fumes while setting up a hand-supply ammunition train for the antiaircraft guns, ordering shipfitters to counterflood to address a list (keeping the California in action), repeatedly entered flooding compartments to drag unconscious shipmates to safety. |
![]() |
Thomas J. Reeves † | Navy | Chief Radioman | USS California, Pearl Harbor | December 7, 1941 | After the mechanized ammunition hoists were put out of action in the USS California, in a burning passageway, assisted in ammunition supply by hand to the antiaircraft guns until he was killed by smoke and fire. |
![]() |
Donald K. Ross | Navy | Machinist | Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Forced his men to leave the untenable forward dynamo room of the USS Nevada and performed all the duties himself until unconscious, returned to dynamo room after being resuscitated, worked the after dynamo room until unconscious, recovered and returned to his station until directed to abandon it. |
![]() |
Robert R. Scott † | Navy | Machinist's Mate First Class | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | When his battle station compartment flooded on the USS California, site of an air compressor for the guns, Scott refused to leave as "This is my station and I will stay and give them air as long as the guns are going." |
![]() |
Peter Tomich † | Navy | Chief Watertender | USS Utah (BB-31), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Although realizing that the USS Utah was capsizing, remained at his post in the engineering plant until he saw that all boilers were secured and all fireroom personnel had left their stations. |
![]() |
Franklin Van Valkenburgh † | Navy | Captain | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Remained on the bridge of USS Arizona, discharging his duties as Commanding Officer of the ship even as it blew up from magazine explosions, until a direct bomb hit on the bridge resulted in the loss of his life. |
![]() |
James R. Ward † | Navy | Seaman First Class | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | During evacuation of the USS Oklahoma, remained in a turret, holding a flashlight so the remainder of the turret crew could see to escape, thereby sacrificing his own life. |
![]() |
Cassin Young | Navy | Commander | USS Vestal, Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Moved his ship, the USS Vestal, away from the battleship USS Arizona, and subsequently beached it upon determining that such action was required to save his ship. |
Jmg38 ( talk) 01:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, JMOprof and Jwillbur. When I set it up, I think I'll borrow the following directly from the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" page, giving the overall context for that day in history: "There were near-simultaneous Japanese attacks on the U.S.-held Philippines, Guam and Wake Island and on the British Empire in Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong." Jmg38 ( talk) 20:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Medal of Honor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
Medal of Honor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)'
New recipients are not added until the award has been presented. If that is the case I question the need for including medals under consideration. In particular the current content suggests renaming along the lines 'Nomination previously under consideration but rejected by the Secretary of Army last year'. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
In this AFI it is awarded by the President, with no mention of congress http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2803/afi36-2803.pdf (page 69) Garuda28 ( talk) 18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(I have copied my own comments from this talk page over to this one because the same issue has come up in both places.) I have removed Samuel Adler from the article page because he is not a recipient of the Medal of Honor. Even though there are some non-military sources making this claim, they are in error. The truth is there is no official MOH source showing Adler as a recipient. This includes the comprehensive lists at the CMOH Society, the Department of Defense, the US Army Center of Military History and publications of the US Congress. The MOH is an extremely important and rare award. Each medal presented has been carefully recorded going all the way back to the Civil War. If Adler had received one, it would easily be found in these records. Also, the Army rules changed during WWII which restricted the award of the MOH exclusively to heroism in combat. It is simply not possible that Adler received this medal for founding the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra in 1952.
The most reliable resource should be Samuel Adler himself. There is no mention of the Medal of Honor on his personal copyrighted website. However, his biography page does say he was "awarded a special Army citation for distinguished service" for his work with the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra . So, it appears he received a special citation, not the Medal of Honor. Roam41 ( talk) 18:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
21:47, 29 August 2018 Thewolfchild . . (125,275 bytes) (+3,330) . . (Undid revision 857144668 by FlightTime (talk) its unusual, but cited and notable. See the BLP on the subject.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] In any event, this appears to be a clear example of the confusion which can emerge within the "fog of war" even as efforts are made by all to bring a lasting peace to Europe. Good luck with the discussion and as always best regards to all
References
References
So in essence it seems he did not receive the Medal of Honor. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
References
References
Who knows? Maybe
Brad had his secretary make up a custom certificate? If
AlanM1 could perhaps get Adler to state on his website that "it was not the Medal of Honor
", that would help clear this up. We could take the MoH out of the equation and then just try to figure out what award he actually did get. As for now, we have a problem; WP runs on sources and what they say, not what they don't say. Saying that he didn't get the MoH because we can't find his name on the MoH sites is running afoul of OR and SYNTH. An absence of confirmation is not confirmation. I doubt he received the MoH like the rest of you, but if there are RS saying he did, we can't ignore that, nor can we edit content based on personal interviews between an editor and a BLP subject, as that is just hearsay. I believe you, but we can't use it.
Question for you guys; of the sources that say he did receive the MoH, how many can we discount as questionable and how many are reliable and unambiguous? - wolf 06:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
References
I do not need to be convinced but am pleased this matter has been explored in depth. It is not first time that such an issue has arisen. From 1963 to 1979, the Senate Veterans Committee Medal of Honor publications included the name of Billy Mitchell. He had been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1946 with an unfortunate citation that included the generic phrase 'Medal of Honor'. The Congressional Gold Medal, unlike the Medal of Honor, is not worn and is custom designed. An image of the medal shows it is nothing like the Medal of Honor see https://twitter.com/phipsiarchives/status/497846213212127232 Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've just removed a recent good faith edit to this section which had added the BSA Honor Medal. Until this entry was added, by longstanding consensus (maintained since 2004) the list exclusively contained state-sanctioned decorations. I am not at all convinced that this section should be retained; few, if any, other ODM articles have what is effectively a limited scope disambiguation section - that is what disambiguation pages are for (but without the same limitations on scope). In my view this section is probably WP:OFFTOPIC and should be removed. The disambiguation function is adequately served by Medal of Honor (disambiguation) and Template:Highest gallantry awards. If the section is to be retained, the status quo of listing only state sanctioned awards should be maintained; to do otherwise is to open it up to WP:LISTCRUFT (not that the BSA Honor Medal is cruft). AusTerrapin ( talk) 09:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I found another source for statistics on the MoH. I thought it could at least be used alongside citation [5] (cite for posthumous comment in the article summary). Unfortunately, I've only ever done minor edits to pages, so I don't know how to add a citation. If someone could do that, I would be grateful. Here is the URL: < http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/mohstats.html>. Buddenru ( talk) 07:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the claim that ‘As of 2010, the largest collective group in the U.S. armed services awarded the Medal of Honor (with 22 medals) are United States Navy Hospital Corpsmen.’ The reference for this claim "USPACOM - United States Pacific Command". Pacom.mil. June 17, 2010. http://www.pacom.mil/web/Site_Pages/Media/News%20201006/20100617-Yokosuka%20112th%20Hpospital%20B_Day.shtml cannot be retrieved. The awards to hospital corpsmen were as individual members attached to naval ships or marine units. There were no multiple or collective awards to hospital corpsmen. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 16:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, YahwehSaves. It's my understanding that the medals that are made today (all three versions, Army/Navy/Air Force) are mostly made from brass alloys, primarily copper. Here is the source we are currently using: 1. Can you clarify/expand on why it's your understanding that the Navy version made today is made of bronze? Perhaps you've got a source cite that distinguishes the issue? Please share it. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 04:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Added an a reference in History section for 1862 with Townsend saying in a 1884 report that the ordered medals that came in were "bronze". The model(s) or sample(s) of the first version medal (Navy) appear to be the copper and bronze coated MOH's that I also reference; two diferent books on the original medals. Townsend's name (for Secretary of War) is on Civil War paperwork with "Medal of Honor" delivered to to recipients (referenced too).
The title is from the history section of the article and is referenced Above and beyond: a history of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam, p. 5. I do not have this reference at hand to check but my understanding is that the Navy MoH was established in 1861 and the Army MofH was established in 1862. The significance of the 1863 enactment was to extend the award to Army officers, an extension that Navy officers would have to wait for until 1915.
Anthony Staunton (
talk)
06:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
From p. 5: "In the meantime, the army no doubt prompted at least in part by the passage of the navy legislation, had come to favor the idea of a medal of its own."
Feb. 17, 1862: "As with the navy legislation, commissioned officers were ineligible for the medal, the assumption being that they would be better rewarded or more honored by promotion. (A year later, Congress made army officers eligible for the medal; a similar measure for the navy was not passed until 1915)."
"As the war dragged on the prestige of its new award grew, the government realized that while it was created for the conflict at hand, the Medal of Honor--and the rewarding of bravery--would be applicable to any future conflicts. In 1863 Congress made the Medal of Honor a permanent decoration."
P. 314: Epilogue: 1st para: "The stated purpose for creating the Medal of Honor was prosaic as could be: "to improve the efficiency" of the northern troops in the Civil War. In the dark days of of 1861, no one knew what meaning to attach to the medal or indeed if the Union would last long enough for it to take any important meaning"
2nd para.: "Soon the object of bronze and silken ribbon was inspiring both an army and a people."
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Retrolord ( talk · contribs) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I have commenced review of this article. Retrolord ( talk) 12:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
After reading i have found numerous
citation needed tags. Nomination put on hold until this is fixed.
Retrolord (
talk)
12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know the sources of these two points:
1890: On April 23, the Medal of Honor Legion is established in Washington, D.C.
1915: On March 3, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers became eligible for the Medal of Honor.
Also, is the section regarding duplicate medals significant enough to be included? Retrolord ( talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The "Privileges and courtesies" section is entitled such but in the short introduction to the paragraph it only mentions the privileges, not the courtesies?
Also, i am not sure if the claim regarding "many" states awarding special license plates can be considered accurate since only six are referenced.
Retrolord ( talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This sentence does not make sense :
Since the beginning of World War II, 861 Medals of Honor have been awarded, 530 (62%) posthumously; 627 Medals of Honor have been awarded posthumously.
Clarify. Retrolord ( talk) 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that RightCowLeftCoast!
I am just wondering wether it is neccessary to describe the actions of each post-vietnam recipient and name them. Many others arent mentioned, isnt this inconsistant? Unless there is a reason. Thanks! Retrolord ( talk) 22:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be best for consistency if we created the sub article list. It would also makke the article flow better, but happy to hear what you think too. Retrolord ( talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that RightCowLeftCoast. I've had yet another look over the article and am very satisfied with the content. There is consistency within the article, with terms such as United States (never USA or US) and the dates all seem to be in the same format. As far as i can see there are no unreferenced claims and there is no obvious plaigirism. The use of imperial measurements seems suitable as the article references a United States medal.
I can see no reason to fail this article, and as a result, I am passing it. Congratulations to all involved. Retrolord ( talk) 02:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear retrolord,
does that mean the article is a good article?
Steve92341 ( talk) 21:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I passed the article and it says good article on both the talk page and the article, and im pretty sure i added to the list of articles. i think one of teh bots that does these things may have skipped over it somehow. I may have messed something up also. But the article did pass, so don't worry, just a technical mistake by someone(probably me). Retrolord ( talk) 05:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The part on Tibor Rubin makes it seem as if he was awarded the Medal for surviving the Holocaust and being a POW. Could it be better written? Tinynanorobots ( talk) 23:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
the rescue of the trapped crew members on the Squalus in 1939 resulted in four of the rescuers getting the MoH at the same time. Seems worthy of mentioning in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 ( talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Needless to say, the stats on this page will constantly change. However, the sources that are used to present the stats are updated at different rates. The main sources used to cite the stats are:
What would be the best way to update the stats? As of now, it seems most accurate to update the total to 3,488 recipients and the rest of the stats will have to be updated as accurately as we can. Any related percentages will change, of course.
Worldofinfo ( talk) 16:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
About a month ago another 24 awards of the MOH were made. Upgrades from DSC awards. Only 3 of the 24 were living recipients. Brad ( talk) 15:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Article says:
Because the medal is presented in the name of Congress it's often erroneously referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor; the official name is simply the "Medal of Honor".
However:
Wikipedia doesn't get to decide if something is being referred to erroneously. It's clearly an acceptable name used in many places including various laws. Please fix this inaccurate statement. -- 65.78.114.251 ( talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what any of these bodies who have nothing to do with making the award call it. The pertinent CFR and DoD and individual service regulations are in complete accordance with one another and unanimously use the title "Medal of Honor". It doesn't matter what your Aunt Hattie called it at her ladies' afternoon teas. It doesn't even matter what some of the recipients themselves have called it. The only name that is truly correct is the one the services themselves as well as US federal laws use to reference it.-- SEWalk ( talk) 19:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@
AzureCitizen:, please stop. I understand the
bold edits were meant to
improve the article, but please receive
consensus before removing
verified content. Why remove it entirely as what was done the first time? Why remove the image, as was done the second time? Can the editor provide reliable sources that gives the history of the usage of the
"V" Device, in regards to the subject of the article?
Lets work on this together to create content that has consensus and that is well sourced, rather than just boldly removing content.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
05:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It's great that you want to work on this together and achieve consensus, and of course my only goal here is to improve the article. Before we begin, however, I must point out with regard to your 3RR warning that I only removed the text once. My second edit a day later was to move the information from the appearance section (where the "V" device no longer applies) down to the historical section (where it does apply). When you ask "Why remove it entirely as what was done the first time," I'm surprised you're asking that because I covered that in my edit summary here, and you specifically responded back to that contention in your revert here. My point is that my motives aren't really a mystery here, and that two edits spaced a day apart, each different in their approach to the issue, aren't really an appropriate 3RR warning situation either. That said, turning to the text and restating so that I can ask the question:
It is my belief that "V" device information should not be appearing in the front portion of the appearance section, which describes the current versions of the medals as they appear today along with the current accessories for wear that are still in use, but should instead appear lower down (if it is to be retained at all), inside the historical section, along with the information on other versions which are no longer in use. Before we proceed further, is there any disagreement on this basic premise? Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 15:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This section commences with the following ‘There are two distinct protocols for awarding the Medal of Honor. The first and most common is nomination and approval through the chain of command of the service member. The second method is nomination by a member of the U.S. Congress, generally at the request of a constituent, and the subsequent approval via a special Act of Congress.’ More than 25% of all MofH awards have been awarded ten or more years after the action being commended. The majority of ACW Army awards were late awards but the tradition of late awards continues to the present time. The suggestion of ‘nomination by a member of the U.S. Congress, generally at the request of a constituent’ seems a gross oversimplification for late awards. Does ‘special Act of Congress’refer to awards by special legislation such as the Byrd and Lindbergh awards or to the time wavers for late awards. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 15:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The 2nd paragraph states 3469 recipients. Under the sub heading recipients, the first sentence states 3492 recipients, the main table adds up to 3484 and the branch of service table adds up to 3483. My calculation is 3513 awards including 19 second awards. See Medal of Honor recipients 1863-1978 by the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs, the CRS report Medal of Honor Recipients: 1979-2014 plus the two awards presented last week. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 00:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The Medal of Honor Historical Society states ‘The first Medal of Honor presentation took place in 1863. Since then and as of June 2, 2015, there have been 3,512 Medals of Honor awarded.’ Anthony Staunton ( talk) 22:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Over the last few days I have been accused of calculating, guessing and doing original research. If adding totals by the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs (1863 to 1978), the Congressional Research Service (1979 to 2014) and the White House (2015) is calculating I fess up. Calling it a guess was insulting and adding three figures is not original research. But note I alerted anyone interested to the fact that there were four different totals (two calculated from tables) in the one article. While disappointed with the discourtesy I sought an online source and located the Medal of Honor Historical Society that stated ‘The first Medal of Honor presentation took place in 1863. Since then and as of June 2, 2015, there have been 3,512 Medals of Honor awarded.’ No other online found so far matches the totals of the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs, the Congressional Research Service and the White House. So I reverted the vandalism. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 00:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Anthony Staunton: please refrain from campaigning as done here and here.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Most would agree that the MOH is sometimes referred to as the ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ but that the official title is simply the ‘Medal of Honor’. While I prefer ‘Medal of Honor’ to ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’ the article should not be dogmatic and state that it is an error to use ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’. I propose to delete the word erroneously. Most US presidents in the 20th and 21st century have on occasion called the award the ‘Congressional Medal of Honor’. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 10:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this will help: "Above and Beyond, A History of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Vietnam" by the editors of Boston Publishing Company. Produced in cooperation with the Congressional Medal of Honor Society of the United States of America, 1985: P. 1, 2nd paragraph: "The reader of this volume is requested to think of the award by its correct name. Over the years it has come to be known as "The Congressional Medal of Honor," because the holder of the medal, though chosen for it by his peers and superior officers, is nominally given it by writ of Congress. Its real name, however, is simply the Medal of Honor. This fact is perhaps made more difficult to understand since there is an organization called the Congressional Medal of Honor Society (because it is chartered by the U.S. Congress). The society's collaboration with our editors and writers has given this book its extra scope and authenticity."— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves ( talk • contribs)
I deleted "erroneous" because the original 1882 Army version has "The Congress to" on the reverse side of the medals (Army version made from and after the 1882 Navy version which had "Personal Valor" engraved on the reverse side of the medals). One Civil War recipient (Army) referred to it as the Congressional Medal. The Army continued to have, "The Congress to" on the reverse side of their version of the medal. The Civil War paperwork I've seen on the Net given for or delivered with the medal, says, "Medal of Honor". So I put, "the original and official military title is, Medal of Honor". Private Jacob Parrott received the first Medal of Honor (The Congress to) on March 25, 1863.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves ( talk • contribs)
This Article/page is great . . . I'll be 'watching' and contributing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's quite likely that the common (if erroneous) attribution of the award as the 'Congressional' Medal of Honor stems from conflation with the Congressional Gold Medal and Congressional Silver Medal which actually are designed and awarded by Congress rather than the military services.-- SEWalk ( talk) 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
On December 9 [1861], U.S. Senator (Iowa) James W. Grimes, Chairman on the Committee on Naval Affairs,[19] proposed Public Resolution Number 82... "to promote the efficiency of the Navy" which included a provision for a Navy Medal of Valor, which was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln on December 21, 1861 (Medal of Honor had been established for the Navy)...
The hatnote about the videogame doesn't need to be as verbose as it is now: the games series' dab page is enough, without extra links to the old and new versions of the game. I removed them because the series page has over three times the number of pageviews of either the 1999 version or the 2010 version and so should suffice. SteveStrummer ( talk) 02:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Medal of Honor |
---|
![]() |
All recipients |
American Civil War |
|
Other wars and conflicts |
|
By ethnic group |
By other criteria |
The template (?) "Medal of Honor recipients" (shown here) includes a link to the standalone article for the 27 recipients at Battle of Iwo Jima, called List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Given that there were also a significant number (16) Medals of Honor awarded for actions on a SINGLE day during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, might this be deserving – and also helpful for folks reading articles – of a standalone article "List of Medal of Honor recipients at the Attack on Pearl Harbor"? If so, could the template "Medal of Honor recipients" be updated to include a built in link? Of course, if it turns out there are multiple battles/days with numerous recipients, then this suggestion should be disregarded. Comments? Jmg38 ( talk) 06:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's the table, but I'll still wait a day or two for comments and for possible advice on how to add this to the HOH template/menu:
This with the
† indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously
Image | Name | Service | Rank | Place of action | Date of action | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Mervyn S. Bennion † | Navy | Captain | USS West Virginia (BB-48), Pearl Harbor | December 7, 1941 | While mortally wounded, he remained in command of his ship. For conspicuous devotion to duty, extraordinary courage, and complete disregard of his own life, he was awarded the Medal of Honor. |
![]() |
George H. Cannon † | Marine Corps | First Lieutenant | Sand Island, Midway Islands | December 7, 1941 | Refused to be evacuated from his post until after his men, who had been wounded by the same shell, were evacuated, and directed the reorganization of his Command Post until forcibly removed. |
![]() |
John W. Finn | Navy | Chief Aviation Ordnanceman | Naval Air Station, Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Stationed at NAS Kaneohe Bay, HI, he demonstrated extraordinary valor during the Japanese air assault on Oahu. Finn manned an exposed 50-caliber machine gun stand and returned significant fire upon enemy aircraft. Despite numerous painful wounds, he remained at his post and inflicted heavy damage upon the enemy until ordered to seek medical attention. CPO Finn was the first to receive the Medal of Honor for action during World War II. |
![]() |
Francis C. Flaherty † | Navy | Ensign | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | During evacuation of the USS Oklahoma, remained in a turret, holding a flashlight so the remainder of the turret crew could see to escape, thereby sacrificing his own life. |
![]() |
Samuel G. Fuqua | Navy | Lieutenant Commander | Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | For heroism aboard the USS Arizona. |
![]() |
Edwin J. Hill † | Navy | Chief Boatswain | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | During the height of the strafing and bombing of the USS Nevada, led his men of the linehandling details to the quays, cast off the lines and swam back to his ship. Back onboard, while, attempting to let go the anchors, was blown overboard and killed by the explosion of several bombs. |
![]() |
Herbert C. Jones † | Navy | Ensign | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Organized and led a party to supply ammunition to the antiaircraft battery of the USS California after the mechanical hoists were put out of action when he was fatally wounded by a bomb explosion. When 2 men attempted to take him from the area, he ordered "Leave me alone! I am done for. Get out of here before the magazines go off." |
![]() |
Isaac C. Kidd † | Navy | Rear Admiral | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Remained on the bridge of USS Arizona, discharging his duties as Commander of Battleship Division One and Senior Officer Present Afloat even as the ship blew up from magazine explosions, until a direct bomb hit on the bridge resulted in the loss of his life. |
—
|
Jackson C. Pharris | Navy | Gunner | Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | In charge of an ordnance repair party on the USS California, severely injured by explosions and twice rendered unconscious by nauseous oil fumes while setting up a hand-supply ammunition train for the antiaircraft guns, ordering shipfitters to counterflood to address a list (keeping the California in action), repeatedly entered flooding compartments to drag unconscious shipmates to safety. |
![]() |
Thomas J. Reeves † | Navy | Chief Radioman | USS California, Pearl Harbor | December 7, 1941 | After the mechanized ammunition hoists were put out of action in the USS California, in a burning passageway, assisted in ammunition supply by hand to the antiaircraft guns until he was killed by smoke and fire. |
![]() |
Donald K. Ross | Navy | Machinist | Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Forced his men to leave the untenable forward dynamo room of the USS Nevada and performed all the duties himself until unconscious, returned to dynamo room after being resuscitated, worked the after dynamo room until unconscious, recovered and returned to his station until directed to abandon it. |
![]() |
Robert R. Scott † | Navy | Machinist's Mate First Class | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | When his battle station compartment flooded on the USS California, site of an air compressor for the guns, Scott refused to leave as "This is my station and I will stay and give them air as long as the guns are going." |
![]() |
Peter Tomich † | Navy | Chief Watertender | USS Utah (BB-31), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Although realizing that the USS Utah was capsizing, remained at his post in the engineering plant until he saw that all boilers were secured and all fireroom personnel had left their stations. |
![]() |
Franklin Van Valkenburgh † | Navy | Captain | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Remained on the bridge of USS Arizona, discharging his duties as Commanding Officer of the ship even as it blew up from magazine explosions, until a direct bomb hit on the bridge resulted in the loss of his life. |
![]() |
James R. Ward † | Navy | Seaman First Class | Pearl Harbor, Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | During evacuation of the USS Oklahoma, remained in a turret, holding a flashlight so the remainder of the turret crew could see to escape, thereby sacrificing his own life. |
![]() |
Cassin Young | Navy | Commander | USS Vestal, Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii | December 7, 1941 | Moved his ship, the USS Vestal, away from the battleship USS Arizona, and subsequently beached it upon determining that such action was required to save his ship. |
Jmg38 ( talk) 01:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, JMOprof and Jwillbur. When I set it up, I think I'll borrow the following directly from the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" page, giving the overall context for that day in history: "There were near-simultaneous Japanese attacks on the U.S.-held Philippines, Guam and Wake Island and on the British Empire in Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong." Jmg38 ( talk) 20:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Medal of Honor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on
Medal of Honor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)'
New recipients are not added until the award has been presented. If that is the case I question the need for including medals under consideration. In particular the current content suggests renaming along the lines 'Nomination previously under consideration but rejected by the Secretary of Army last year'. Anthony Staunton ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
In this AFI it is awarded by the President, with no mention of congress http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-2803/afi36-2803.pdf (page 69) Garuda28 ( talk) 18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Medal of Honor. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(I have copied my own comments from this talk page over to this one because the same issue has come up in both places.) I have removed Samuel Adler from the article page because he is not a recipient of the Medal of Honor. Even though there are some non-military sources making this claim, they are in error. The truth is there is no official MOH source showing Adler as a recipient. This includes the comprehensive lists at the CMOH Society, the Department of Defense, the US Army Center of Military History and publications of the US Congress. The MOH is an extremely important and rare award. Each medal presented has been carefully recorded going all the way back to the Civil War. If Adler had received one, it would easily be found in these records. Also, the Army rules changed during WWII which restricted the award of the MOH exclusively to heroism in combat. It is simply not possible that Adler received this medal for founding the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra in 1952.
The most reliable resource should be Samuel Adler himself. There is no mention of the Medal of Honor on his personal copyrighted website. However, his biography page does say he was "awarded a special Army citation for distinguished service" for his work with the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra . So, it appears he received a special citation, not the Medal of Honor. Roam41 ( talk) 18:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
21:47, 29 August 2018 Thewolfchild . . (125,275 bytes) (+3,330) . . (Undid revision 857144668 by FlightTime (talk) its unusual, but cited and notable. See the BLP on the subject.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] In any event, this appears to be a clear example of the confusion which can emerge within the "fog of war" even as efforts are made by all to bring a lasting peace to Europe. Good luck with the discussion and as always best regards to all
References
References
So in essence it seems he did not receive the Medal of Honor. Garuda28 ( talk) 17:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
References
References
Who knows? Maybe
Brad had his secretary make up a custom certificate? If
AlanM1 could perhaps get Adler to state on his website that "it was not the Medal of Honor
", that would help clear this up. We could take the MoH out of the equation and then just try to figure out what award he actually did get. As for now, we have a problem; WP runs on sources and what they say, not what they don't say. Saying that he didn't get the MoH because we can't find his name on the MoH sites is running afoul of OR and SYNTH. An absence of confirmation is not confirmation. I doubt he received the MoH like the rest of you, but if there are RS saying he did, we can't ignore that, nor can we edit content based on personal interviews between an editor and a BLP subject, as that is just hearsay. I believe you, but we can't use it.
Question for you guys; of the sources that say he did receive the MoH, how many can we discount as questionable and how many are reliable and unambiguous? - wolf 06:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
References
I do not need to be convinced but am pleased this matter has been explored in depth. It is not first time that such an issue has arisen. From 1963 to 1979, the Senate Veterans Committee Medal of Honor publications included the name of Billy Mitchell. He had been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1946 with an unfortunate citation that included the generic phrase 'Medal of Honor'. The Congressional Gold Medal, unlike the Medal of Honor, is not worn and is custom designed. An image of the medal shows it is nothing like the Medal of Honor see https://twitter.com/phipsiarchives/status/497846213212127232 Anthony Staunton ( talk) 03:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)