Talk:Robert H. Barrow

His Awards

Another article with differences in listed awards between the infobox and the ribbon's displayed/listed.

Distinguished Service Medals

The Infobox lists the Defense and Navy versions

The portrait has none (because They were awarded after the portrait was made)

The ribbon graphics and text box has 3 Defense and 1 Navy versions

The Who's Who just mention's "in addition to the Distinguished Service Medal" which could refer to the Army version as that is it's proper name, or since it is specifically a Marine Corps source it might just be meant to understood to refer to the Navy DSM.

The marine.mil source mention's one each of Defense and Navy.

Searching at the Military Times Hall of Valor (see http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/search.php?term=Robert+H.+Barrow) turns up one each- Defense, Navy, & Army. However, that database is not compleat so it should be noted that he could have other awardings of the Defense version.

So he definately had at least one of all 3, but I can't say if he had more than one of the Defense versions.

The Army one needs to be added to the ribbon display (the infobox is already fine), but that would involve re-ordering the ribbons (It should go between the DDSM & the NDSM) and I'm not confident enough in my editing abilities to pull that off.

Likewise, I don't know how many, if any, OLC's ought to be on the Defense version, so I'll leave that for now as well until someone can find a good source.

Legions of Merit

All the sources I can find say it was 3 LoM's not 4 - even the Infobox lists it that way. In his ribbon rack 3 Awardings of the LoM would be the ribbon w/2 stars, not w/3 stars which would mean 4 awardings. I suspect that is a misunderstanding so I will correct it momentarilly.

Barrow's Legion of Merit ribbon photos have the Combat "V". [1] YahwehSaves (talk) 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

None of the written sources say his LoM's were awarded with Combat "V"'s. I would be reluctant to add that device unless a reliable source was found. Our interpretation of a picture could be constituted as original research. EricSerge (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Presidential unit citations

the ribbon graphics show 2 Navy versions and an Airforce version.

The text box's say's 2 navy and one army.

The Who's Who source (which claims to be complete but isn't) only mentions one Naval version and no other.

The portrait does show 2 Naval and what appears to be the Air Force version I believe (based on the border and size).

He would of in fact gotten the Army version for Operation Dewey Canyon (see here.

I presume the graphical ribbon display is simply utilizing the Air Force graphic due to size issues.

Campaign stars

In the picture he is clearly wearing 4 stars on each of the Korea and Vietnam campaign ribbons. The Who's Who claims he has 3 on the Korean and 1 on the Vietnam.

I suspect the who's Who link is, once again, incorrect.

Republic of Vietnam awards

The Portrait dipicts him with Knight Degree of the National Order of Vietnam, a VGC w/2 Palms, the unit award version of the VGC (palm & frame all on a seperate ribbon), and the VCM.

The ribbon graphics, presumably due to graphical limitations, only shows 1 Palm on the VGC, but it otherwise agree's

The box's mentions the Knight Degree of the National Order of Vietnam, the VGC w/"2 Palms & Frame", the VGC unit award "W/Palm and Frame"), and the VCM.

The Who's Who source say's: "four Vietnamese Crosses of Gallantry with Palm; the Republic of Vietnam national Order, Fifth Class with Gold Star in lieu of a second award;"

Regarding the Who's Who version: First, Even if you account for one of the "Palms" as coming from the VGC unit award, that would still be one too many palms, and secondly I suspect the whole "gold star / second award" bit is just wrong - he's not wearing any such gold star in the portrait, and I believe that with those types of orders (where the ribbon design varies w/grade) a second awarding usually is recognized by upgrading to the next higher grade, not with a second awarding indicated by ribbon attachments which would obscure the ribbon's grade - though I can only presume that's the case here. In any event, the text box's are wrong in mentioning the frame twice. I'll correct that momentarilly as well.

Conclusion

So I'll make those two corrections, and hopefully someone more experienced in wikicode can add the (Army) DSM ribbon. Gecko G (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Number of Combat Action Ribbon(s)?

@YahwehSaves: Yes, he was a three-war combat veteran, and thus theoretically eligible for 3 awardings (2 retroactively), but I doubt that he was actually awarded it a 2nd and 3rd time. Here's why, if you'll follow along:

The Combat Action Ribbon was established during Vietnam on Feb 17. 1969, with retroactive awarding back to March 1, 1961. The details are in SECNAVINST 1650.1H Chapter 2- Personal Military Decorations, Section 3 Requirements, sub-seciton 230-14-c. Eligible Operations on page 2-33 to 2-34: ... "Appendix E to this chapter lists the operations for which award of the CR has been authorized. ...."

looking through appendix E (which lists "units and operations whose members or participants are authorized to wear it.") starting on page 2-58, there are 4 operations from before he was promoted to Brigadier General in Aug 1969 (and thus no longer eligble for awardings in future combats), and of the 4 the only one he qualifies for is the 1st one- Southeast Asia (1 Mar 61 to 15 Aug 73 -aka the Vietnam War). In his portrait he is wearing one Combat Ribbon, I suspect this is the one, and I think were in agreement about him definately having this one.

He retired on 30 Jun 1983.

Pub.L. 106-65 from Oct 1999 allows a retroactive awarding for periods between Dec. 7, 1941 and March 1, 1961 "if the Secretary determines that the member has not been previously recognized in an appropriate manner for such participation"

The specifics of this are is covered in SECNAVINST 1650.1H Chapter 8, Section 3, subsection 831-3, on page 8-11.

From the above 2 sources I note 2 key points regarding retroactive awardings in this time frame:

They have to specifically be awarded it by the SecNav, likely through specifically applying for it. If a SecNav did thus award him another CR then there should be a source findable somewhere (though perhaps we just haven't found it yet). However, How likely is it that someone who's been retired for 16+ years, and already has one CR amongst all the other awards would be either applying for that or be on the SecNav's radar to initiate a reward?

Secondly, They tend not to award such if the same service is recognized by another combat award. For his WWII combat in China he was awarded a BSM with Combat V, and apparently (without seeing the actual Commendation text), that is for his entire combat role, so that might disqualify his WWII combat (I'm not sure). For Korea perhaps (since his Navy Cross was for a specific encounter, not the whole conflict), but see the 1st part.

Please don't think I am in anyway attempting to belittle the incredible actions of one of this countries war hero's - I don't in the slightest doubt Gen. Barrow's war service nor amazing valor, If anything I'd say he was probably under-rewarded and under-recognized. I just doubt - without further sources - that he was awarded 3 instead of 1 CR's. He's eligible for 2 or 3, but without a source I think he only actually got 1.

Unless I am misteaken about how it is retroactively awarded (If that's the case we should probably transfer this discussion to the Combat Action Ribbon talk page rather than continue it here).

Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

He's eligible (since 1969-1 star/1999-2 stars) for and authorized three awards of the CAR (at least by the Marine Corps). What do you think the "Additional awards of the Combat Action Ribbon are denoted by 5/16 inch stars means" ? He participated in ground combat in 3 wars (whether or not he was a general in each war or did or did not receive a decoration in each war doesn't effect eligibility for the CAR). If he retired in 2000 and was photoed in uniform, he would have 2 stars on his CAR. He should be credited the CAR with 2 stars (5/16" stars were authorized in 1999) in the article rather then not credited the CAR with 2 stars (only if he didn't meet the requirements for the 2 stars which isn't the case here especially since he has decorations for combat for each war). Otherwise you are trying to disqualify him for not retiring in 2000- (after the 1999 law). YahwehSaves (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

He is most certainly entitled to a second and third award. However, he would have had to go back and apply for those retroactive awards from the Navy Liaison Officer to the National Personnel Records Center. No reference makes mention of him being awarded a second and third award. Entitled to additional CAR's, yes. Awarded additional CAR's, no. At least, there is no reliable source for the two gold stars in lieu of a second and third award. Adding those two stars at this point constitutes WP:OR. I combed through references for him today particularly looking at awards and decorations. If you can find a WP:RS for his additional awards, then add the ref. EricSerge (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: Eric's post above succinctly makes the point I was trying (and failing) to make. Eligible, yes, Awarded, no proof. I already had the below typed up, and I think it might be beneficial to the discussion, so I'll post it anyway. Responding to you point-by-point (I'll use the tq template - if there's a better method someone please let me know, thanks)

He's eligible (since 1969-1 star/1999-2 stars) for and authorized three awards of the CAR - you'll note that I said he's eligible for 2 or 3, that part is not in dispute, but the 'Authorized' or 'Awarded' part is, see below

(at least by the Marine Corps). - Is there differences in how the USMC handles the CR compared to the USN? If so I am unaware of that (and if so that info should be added to the CR page).

What do you think the "Additional awards of the Combat Action Ribbon are denoted by 5/16 inch star means" ? - But what source lists /him/ as having stars on the CR?

He participated in ground combat in 3 wars" - agreed.

(whether or not he was a general in each war or did or did not receive any other decoration in each war doesn't effect eligibility for the CAR). - The CR is only awarded to those of O-6 or lower rank, but that's a moot point since he only became an O-7 after the time periods we are discussing where he was eligible (I had only mentioned that aspect to rule out most of the entries in Appendix E and to make the point that he didn't earn them more recently). As for 'other decorations' the SecNav is encouraged to take them into consideration since in theory the military is not to reward the same action/event/deed/etc. with multiple decorations/awards - but they often do.

If he retired in 2000 and was photoed in uniform, he would have 2 stars on his CAR. - Is there such a photo? That would be helpful.

He should be credited the CAR in the article rather then not credited the CAR - That's not in dispute, and I never removed the mentions of a CR - what's in dispute is the number of stars (I'm saying it's none, you're saying 2) Update: Y.S. edited and clarified this part of his or her post while I was typing up my reply and I didn't notice that change had been made.

(only if he didn't meet the requirements which isn't the case here especially since he has decorations for combat for each war). - As I said, he most likely does meet the requirements and is likely eligible, but my understanding, per reading the Public Law 106-65 and the Navy awards manual (SECNAVINST 1650.1H) mentioned previously, is that the retroactive coverage of it between 1941 & 1961 is not automatic to all who are eligible, but rather that each case has to be authorised by the Secretary of the Navy on a case-by-case basis. Now if the Department of the Navy is no longer following the reg's in relation to the CR (which wouldn't be the first time a branch of the military flaunts it's own award regulations) OR I'm misunderstanding those sources, and you can provide examples of such, then ok - but I'm not aware of anysuch case (though I'd have no particular reason to be previously aware of such) nor any source's listing him with award stars on his CR.

Otherwise you are trying to disqualify him for not retiring in 2000- (after the 1999 law). - perhaps I wasn't clear about that part - I'm not saying his date of retirement disqualified him. I'm saying how likely is it that someone who had been retired for 16 years at that point would either apply for on their own behalf -or- be considered out-of-the-blue by a SecNav to get such applied to their records.

YahwehSaves- I hope you haven't gotten the wrong impression- I'm not in anyway trying to attack you or your other edits - I'm just disputing this one point (sometimes online discussions and debates can leave the wrong impression). Cheers mate, Gecko G (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Eric, you're confused (with your own writing, "another combat award", "bronze star") with the "if the Secretary determines that the member has not been previously recognized in a appropriate manner for such participation" part. That would be if he had served in the Army in WW2 and or Korea and received the Combat Infantryman Badge (not the Bronze star; meritorious/heroic achievement). We already know he was a Marine Corps member for 3 wars with participation in combat in each war. Those sources crediting him a CAR (for Vietnam) aren't updated. There's nothing to say he isn't authorized the 2 stars. YahwehSaves (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: You said Eric but it sounds like you are replying to me given that EricSerge didn't make any mention of Bronze star's nor "the Secretary" and that you put it after my response rather than E.S.'s, so I'll presume that's the case and I'll respond- (That confusion might be partially my fault- since I was replying specifically to your post and not to Eric's I put my response on the same "indentation level" as his response)

What part is it that you believe I am confused about in that sentence- are you refering to my use of the generic "they"? I meant it as in "whichever SecNav (or SecNav's) you think awarded him such."

I'm afraid I don't see what point you are trying to make with the former Army service / Combat Infantryman Badge sentence, nor do I see the relevance- can you perhaps expand upon that line of thought?

As for the sources not being updated, well, other than the portrait, I believe every single one was published following his death in 2003. Do you have some source saying he was authorised more CR's posthumously? We would definately need a source for that.

umm... yes, there's nothing saying he wasn't authorized the 2 stars in the same sense that there is nothing saying that he was authorized the 2 stars. Just like there's nothing saying he was or wasn't authorized the Medal of Honor, or the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Blarneyastan. I don't understand your reasoning there.

Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we require reliable sources. I cannot prove a negative, read what you wrote YS: "There's nothing to say he isn't authorized the 2 stars." You cannot prove a negative, we deal in what can be verified. Find a source, add the stars. No amount of soapboxing, opining, guessing, or divining military regulations will deliver a reliable source. I am done now, as I will not engage in a Randy from Boise type discussion. EricSerge (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

cannot prove a negative - that's a much more succinct way of saying what I had in my last sentence above, thank you. On an unrelated note, if your not actually done- what is a "Randy from Boise type discussion"? Gecko G (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Gecko only, you're right, sorry I had unintentionally called you Eric instead of Gecko. Seems to me as you can see, some of these administrators and editors think they can get personal ... in bad faith. Because they are administrators and or know they are backed up by administrators of bad faith (who will attack, lie, belittle, call names ...). Marine Corps commanders have delegated authority to award CAR's which though a personal decoration has no authorized certificate of award signed by the Sec of the Navy. YahwehSaves (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: I'm sorry but where did EricSerge get personal and demonstrated bad faith? I haven't followed every edit, but I'd like to gently remind you to assume good faith (online discussions like these can easily result in misunderstandings) and remember that we are striving for Consensus here to make these articles Encyclopedic - for which we need sources. I haven't seen anything on this discussion to indicate ES has acted inappropriately (again- I haven't noticed every edit), If I'm unaware of something that took place on another page, then might I suggest you take it to the DRN?

Marine Corps commanders have delegated authority to award CAR's which though a personal decoration has no authorized certificate of award signed by the Sec of the Navy - If you can find a source for that then that would completely change this conversation. I looked a bit and couldn't find any such information, but then I'm not very motivated to find such, sounds like you would be.... so If you can find I'll gladly look at it. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Gecko, The Army doesn't authorize the V device for the Legion of Merit while the USMC does. The article photo and the recent photo both show Barrow's LM with Combat V and 2 gold stars, so the Combat V should be included in the article. The Military Times Hall of Valor isn't reliable sometimes. It uses Marine "Combat V's" for Army "V Devices" (Audie Murphy for example, 2 BSM with Combat V's citations when he was awarded one of two BSM with V Device). Eric was getting smart, and you know it, he answered as you on purpose saying he's not an adminstrator.... YahwehSaves (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: You are correct that the Army doesn't authorize it, but what point are you attempting to make? Are you suggesting his 2nd LoM was from the army? What's the source for that? His 1st & 3rd LoM's were specifically awarded by the President (if you look at the citations), and while the second one is only a synopsis on the MT HoV site, there's nothing to indicate it was authorized by the Department of the Army. By the President, by the Secretary/Department of Defense, or by the Secretary/Department of the Navy are all far more likely for a Marine Corp officer such as he. But even if that is the case, and it was awarded by the Army, then it would be proof that he shouldn't be wearing it. Might I refer you to the first sentence of the last paragraph of the Criteria and wear section of the "V" Device page.

Looking closer at the official portrait, it's blocked by the lapel, but your right it does appear to be the edge of a "V" device just barely peeking out. So we've got two depictions, presumably from different time frames, thus I suppose that would be enough to include it in the article for now, albeit with a cn tag and explanation (which I'll add that shortly). However, given that it's not 100% and given that it's use in the infobox is a bit cluttered appearing, I'll suggest removing the "with Combat V" to that portion, though I invite further comment.

as for the MT HoV being unreliable - it is only in the sense of it being incomplete, not erroneous (at least to my limited knowledge). Or are you saying it is unreliable because it, a non-branch specific entity, confuses the differing terminology of the same thing? Even the Department of Defense basically say's all the "V" Device's are the same thing (see DoD Manual 1348.33 Volume 3, Enclosure 3, Chapter 14, Section "b" - it's on page 53 on the Oct. 31, 2013 version)

As for what you are saying about EricSerge, that is both a personal attack "Eric was getting smart, and you know it", and a serious acusation (Claiming that he signed as someone else - namely as me). Where did he do such? If it's on another page somewhere, point it out - but looking at his edits on this page I do not see any indication of him doing so, and it sounds like you are refering to my post in the next section (the one which was timestamped 05:10 UTC, 17 April 2014) - which I can assure you was indeed by me (you can check the edit history to confirm, just remember to convert UTC to the local timezone your account is set for to find it)

In online discussions, it is very easy to unintentionally send or percieve the wrong impression. Based on what I have seen on this page, and this page only, I have not seen any misconduct by EricSerge, whereas I fear that you appear to be approaching that line. Might I kindly suggest you pause and take a calming breath.... After that, might I then further gently suggest that you consider the possibility that you have read-between the lines something that was not there. I do not wish to spend my Wikipedia time refereeing a - from my view - pointless and avoidable squabble. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Gecko, no it doesn't look like Barrow has any Army LM's which I didn't say or suggest. He is entitled to the LM w Combat "V" (2 photos). Even if 2/3 of his LM's were from the Army, he would still have the V on his LM ribbon. I also believe he's entitled to the two CAR's for WW2 AND Korea combat. The Army "V" Device (bronze V for valor only) is not the USMC Combat "V" (gold V, for valor or _____). Both names of V are strictly used separately in various service citations (not as Military Times misuses and confuses viewers). I looked at the Criteria and wear section for the "V" Device article and corrected it, so now look at it. He wouldn't have the V on his LM ribbon if it wasn't authorized, he got the LM's in war. I doubt if any former Marines here would doubt that Barrow didn't get the LM Combat V and that he's not entitled to the CAR for Korea, and WW2.
I asked by Name if you were an an administrator and the reply came back from Eric saying... "no I am no admin", ...
2nd Photo of Barrow: I mistook the new yellow ribbon above the UN ribbon as the yellow KWSR which should be added to his ribbons. He would be too old for a millennium photo they just got the 1986 date wrong. I would doubt that he didn't get the CAR's rather than doubt he did get the CARs-this makes more sense to me considering his combat background with all the combat decorations that reveal he's entitled to the CAR's. No, I'm not (and wasn't) saying "that is a millennium photo", but said the thought occured to me the date was wrong and it was a post-retirement photo especially since i thought I seen the KWSM ribbon.
Navy and Marine Corps Awards Manual: SECNAVINST 1650.1H, 2006: pp 1-2&1-3, 112. 6. "The Combat Action Ribbon may be approved and awarded by the NCO, CMC (Commandant Marine Corps), and their designees, under delegated awarding authority from SecNav, in the name of the SecNav." YahwehSaves (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: regarding the LoM, I hope you didn't think I was suggesting removing the info entirely from the article. I just wanted to make note of it on the talk page (which is what I did) so that in the future when someone does find the full citation for his 2nd of 3 LoM's they can be aware to look for that detail to confirm it. I briefly contemplated perhaps adding a citation needed tag, but it's such a minor issue, and given that he clearly has it in the photo's, I was not going to do so.

regarding the minor technical terminology distinction between different names for the bronze V (and it's always bronze, never gold) amongst the different branch's - I would not declare an entire branch-non-specifc source unreliable due to an ocassional confusion of such an insignificant terminology distinction. Even the Department of Defense notes their similarity, just one example of which I sourced elsewhere.

Regarding your accusations against EricSerge, I'll ask again- 'Where' did this occur?

Coming back again to the CR issue. I see you found a source in an earlier section of a same source I have quoted to you. Ok, I've noted it and read the section. First, an aside: there's a minor typo- It's CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) not NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer). There's still no source of anyone from any of three positions awarding a second or third CR to Gen. Barrow specifically. Once again, awarding of the CR for the relevant time period is not automatic to everyone who meets the criteria or is eligible (please see the multitude of sources that have been mentioned in the various long discussions on this page). They have to be both eligible (meet the criteria - which YES he does) and be awarded or authorized it (for which there is no proof for him specifically yet found - and I doubt there will be, for - amongst the other reasons discussed elsewhere on this page- you'll note he's not wearing any stars on his CR in either of the photo's. Every single combat veteran from the Sea Service's during WWII is eligible (I imagine that is thousands of individuals), but relatively very few have been awarded it. If you wish to discuss this particular point further might I suggest you take it, - with proof -, to the talk page on the Combat Action Ribbon because this particular sub-point has long since moved past any discussion specific to information about Gen. Barrow or about improving his article - which is the purpose of this specific talk page. It's no one's fault that it has done so, it just grew organically that way. I welcome further discussion on any of the other points on this page, but any further discussion of that particular point should be at that talk page with a backlink to here (I might even consider partaking in such). good nite, Gecko G (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I forgot that I did end up adding a citation needed tag because of the discussion here. I've struck out the relevant section in my message above. Gecko G (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Grecko, in regard to the above that you addressed to me, "bronze V (and its always bronze, never gold)". I'll point out that the USMC V is a gold V > ~USMC web regulation 5402, 2. Bronze Letter "V". b. "The approved bronze letter "V" is golden in color"... "gold colored "V". YahwehSaves (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you not read further on in the regs? "The approved bronze letter "V" is gold in color. Black or darkened devices may continue to be worn until the individual's awards require remounting, at which time the appropriate gold-colored "V" will be worn." This would indicate that the reg was updated, as prior versions are authorized until "individual's awards require remounting". EricSerge (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: interesting, I see that is refering to the color but yet still repeatedly calling it the "Bronze" V. But anyway, at least I see where you are coming from now and the source of confusion. In any event, the original question still stands: If even the Marine Corps own updated reg's refer to it multiple ways, how can you fault a non-branch specific source for such a minor terminology issue? Gecko G (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mind not rudely interfering by answering quickly after I address someone else personally and I'm waiting for that person who has been communicating with me to reply. You also don't have to ever say "I'm" trying to award CAR's. The other two CAR's may have been awarded to Barrow by the Marine Corps already which you don't know and wouldn't know. This is the 3rd time in Talk I addressed Greko here that you quickly responded to as if for him. Point (for Grecko) who I think was not aware of the gold "V", is the Marine Corps has gold "V"s. YahwehSaves (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. Let's call it your guess that they were awarded, that does not however make that a reliable source which can be verified. Those are the bars that info must pass for inclusion. Otherwise, you might as well be trying to award additional CARs. Additionally, on an article talk page, all are entitled to participate in a discussion. If you wish to have a more private discussion, I would suggest doing so on your talk page. If you are replying specifically to another user, please use the template. At times your comments are difficult to follow as you seem unwilling to follow conventions for formatting and signing your comments. I would also suggest using the "show preview" button so you do not have to do some much re-factoring of your comments. EricSerge (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: Aha! Now I see the crux of the misunderstanding. You've misunderstood the point and usage of an articles talk page and thus thought EricSerge had violated a non-existent Etiquette rule. As EricS points out just above - this is an open conversation. By posting to an article's talk page the explicit implication is that you are hoping for anyone and everyone with relevant facts, experiences, viewpoints, or other input to reply. It is not at all surprising that EricSerge replied, especially given that you specifically mentioned him (claiming he was an admin) so he responded to say he was not. If anything, it would of been more surprising if he had not replied to that. If you want a reply from a specific person - and that person only - it would be better to ask on their user talk page and/or ping them on your user talk page- though even there it would not be terribly unusual for third parties to take part as well.

You were wrong, not through any Malice, but via a unintentional misunderstanding. Might I gently suggest that an apology and/or maybe some wikilove would not be amiss and would be in good form on your part here? Of course a more immediate priority would be a response to the last section below about why you reverted the edits to the ribbon device configuration and labeled them "disruptive" without any further explanation. I can imagine some potentially possible legitimate reasons, and one big illegitimate reason, but by not offering an explanation, especially in light of the rest of this discussion, the appearance and impression that you are giving (if it continues to go unanswered) is that you are simply being petulant - which I'm sure everyone is assuming was not your intent. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Grecko, MT HoV has three Marine Corps Legion of Merit citations for Barrow. The two complete Marine citations (1st & 3rd citations) there mention no Combat "V" authorization. Marine citations authorize the Combat V after the worded citation is quoted. The Combat V had to be authorized on Barrow's 2nd Marine LM which had to include combat participation in Vietnam in order for him to wear it. HoV leaves out the worded citation and put "1967 to 1969" leaving out the exact days, months, and the Combat V authorization. I don't think you were aware the CDD (Combat V) authorization for Marines follows the quoted citation with one line below it beginning with his name (The Army does not do it this way)? YahwehSaves (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned that very bit about the MT HoV citations in my edit of 01:02 18 April 2014 (UTC) (This discussion is so long and fractured it's understandably hard to follow). As a minor aside, the phrase "combat participation in Vietnam" is not the relevant bit, but rather a specific mention of the V (or "Combat device" or whatever the appropriate minor terminological variation is for the USMC too minor a detail to keep straight) but as I said that's a minor aside- we're on the same page here, so to speak. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The 2nd Marine LM wouldn't be an Army LM since he's a member of the Marine Corps, and has the Combat "V"; and his BSM w Combat "V" wouldn't be Army BSM since there's a Combat "V". His 2nd LM is for or includes his service in Vietnam which as we know from his DSC for 1969 includes heroic combat participation which merits the Combat "V" for heroism.
Gen. Barrow's LM citation would say something like this after the quoted citation part: General Robert BARROW is authorized to wear the Combat Distinguishing Device or it says General Robert BARROW is authorized to wear the Combat "V". Marine Corps writes it either way for medal citations (no citation for CAR). The Army citations have Bronze Star Medal with "V" Device topside w/o any authorization statement bottom side. Does this help and answer your question? YahwehSaves (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: you had mentioned "Army" in relation to the LoM in your post timestamped 17:22 UTC of 17 April 2014. I didn't understand why you had done so so I asked if you were implying that his 2nd LoM was an army award in my post timestamped 01:01 UTC of 18 April 2014. You replied back that you were not implying such in your post timestamped 21:56 UTc of 18 April 2014, so I didn't think anything further of it. But now, looking back I see you had mentioned it again with the LoM (06:19 UTC of 27 April 2014) and now in connection with the BSM (20:58 UTC 27 April 2014). One of 2 possibilities is going on A) I am completely missing some point you are trying to make OR B) [combined with the second paragraph you wrote,] it almost sounds like you are mentioning and trying to explain specific differences between branch's of the armed forces when it comes to citation formats. If it's "A", perhaps you could try again please? If "B" Why? - We don't have the full citation for his 2nd LoM (only a synopsis), so Why are you explaining such a detail? In either case, I don't follow nor see the relevance.

Secondly, the V device is not eligible for use on a DSC, and even if it was and had been so here (which it's not), a V device authorised on one medal does not allow for a V device on another different medal.

Thirdly, as for "does this answer your/my question" - I'm sorry but I'm not even sure which of my question's this is meant to be in response to. Confused, Gecko G (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Army Presidential Unit Citation

He's given an "Army PUC" in the article display of his ribbons (its a framed "Air Force" PUC ribbon). I couldn't find any written sources including USMC verifying any other PUC's (Army or Air Force) other than the 2 Navy PUC's. Please explain. YahwehSaves (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I addressed that (indirectly) above under Presidential unit citations. He and the rest of the 9th Marines were awarded that for Operation Dewey Canyon, per Department of the Army General Orders 20, 73 (meaning #20 from 1973), section I, which I found here. I'll add that source to the pages for 9th Marine, Presidential Unit Citation, & Operation Dewey Canyon later today, (unless someone beats me to it). Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Cecko (I don't know if you're an administrator?, those written sources don't list his Army PUC nor his retroactive (1999) ROK War Service Medal. In all fairness to Gen Barrow and his article, he appears qualified for the 2 more CARs. Marine Corps has delegated authority from Sec. Navy to award CARs which had and have no authorized certificate signed by the Sec. of the Navy. The Marines came out with the CAR in 1969 in regard to the Army's CIB for combat, they wanted a similar combat award. The CIB is retroactive to 12/6/41 and is for those Colonel or below. Thanks for not getting personal and deliberately attacking my edits and I in bad faith like some administrators have in past like this Eric character who is now dogging me and attacking through me, Chesty Puller's Marine Corps article, with CAR's, that I worked on to improve. YahwehSaves (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:RELIABLESOURCE, add the source for his subsequent awards, not the theory or grounds of his theoretical subsequent awards, but the source where it says Barrow was awarded two gold stars in lieu of a second and third CAR. I am no admin, merely an editor who is concerned with the quality of content. We cannot make guesses, not even educated guesses. EricSerge (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Cecko only again (I don't know if you're and administrator?, those written sources don't list his Army PUC nor his retroactive (1999) ROK War service medal etc etc). YahwehSaves (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: (I'll combine my responses to both the above post and your post dated 2:49) - no, I'm not an administrator - I would qualify only as a Novice Editor, I'm still learning aspects of Wikipedia myself.

The ROK Korean War Service Medal / 6.25 Incident Participation Medal is a whole seperate can o' worms that I don't care to get into, (I believe it has been discussed to death elsewhere - this would not be the place to continue/resume such a discussion - if you wish to might I suggest that here would be a more appropriate place to do so)

I was going to suggest some of the very changes to other articles that EricSerge made, but only after we've reached a conclusion and consensus here. I haven't looked too closely, but on a quick glance I'd say EricSerge was following S.O.P. - again, I say that without having looked at each and every edit so I could be misteaken. See my comments in the section above for more.

The PUC to the 9th Marines for that period, in addition to the DAGO 20,73 which I linked above, it is also sourced by NAVMC 2922, (page 86 of the Jan 31, 2014 version) - the latest version of which can be viewed here -by the Manpower Management Division, HQMC Military Awards (MMMA) & also by the Department of the Army Pamphlet 672-3 (I have the 29 Jan. 1988 version on my HD where it is on Table 12 on page 108 - it's likely to be on other pages in versions from other dates - I'm sure a link to the current version could be found online somewhere if your interested.)

Technically no, none of the online written sources explicitely list it (I don't have the book sources to check), and that's partially why I mentioned it in the first section, but not only is he wearing it in the portrait and the picture that EricSerge found, but more importantly the PUC is a unit award, which is a completely different animal. Unlike personal decorations, such as the retroactive CR's like we've been discussing above, If you are eligible you are automatically authorized to wear it.

If you don't believe me, I know I've seen a better source in the past, but for now I'll point you to Army Pamphlet 670-1, Section 22-5, subsection (b) U.S. unit awards. "A unit award is given to an operating unit and is worn by members of that unit who participated in the cited action." The navy equivalent would be found in the current forward to NAVMC 2922 (linked above), Section 3 through 3-a-1, which I'll summarize: ...and accommodating requests by Marines regarding their eligibility to wear appropriate unit award ribbon bars. [Presidential Unit Citation] ...All personnel permanently assigned and participated in the action(s) for which the unit was cited.

I think all that combined is sufficient to prove both eligibility and authorization to wear. If that's not sufficient, and thus we still don't seem to be any closer to consensus, then perhaps we should initiate a official Request for comment? what do you say mate? Gecko G (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Gekco, I miss-posted here, my top above post was meant to be posted in CAR section - I'm not saying Barrow's not entitled to the Army PUC, but was saying all of Barrows awards are not listed in the written sources such as the Army PUC and KWSM (retro 1999) besides the two possible 5/16 CAR stars (retro 1999). The photo of him now in uniform with more ribbons (has 1999 KWSM) "as Commandant 6/24/86" [2] is evidently incorrectly dated (retired as Commandant on 7/1/83 and PX Kelly was Commandant 7/1/83 to 6/30/87), which made me wonder if this is a post-retirement photo (millennium photo). YahwehSaves (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: You're right in that no one single source explicitly lists all of his awards by itself. That was largely the point of my long initial post of the first section above (the one timestamped 21:59 UTC 14 Aprl 2014).

good catch about the date issue, it is probably a transcription misteak. However, I do not think it is a "post-retirement millennium photo" for a number of reasons. The simplist and quickest of which to prove is to point out that your reasoning that it is a post 1999 photo because he is wearing the 1999 KWSM has a flaw: If you'll look closer (in both that photo and the official portrait), you'll see that is a Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation, not the Korean War Service Medal, in the photo's. There's other reasons I could go into, but I think that alone will cause you to reconsider your dating of the photo. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The unidentified ribbons in the later photo are likely the Philippine Legion of Honor and the Order of Orange Nassau. However, with no WP:RS that is just my guess. EricSerge (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A Filipino LoH, of course! I thought it looked familiar! Thanks, Gecko G (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Gecko, its not the Philippine Legion of Honor which is EricSerge's guess ("that is just my guess"). Its a foreign ribbon for his WWII service. To your 2nd paragraph comment of this section I commented (3rd paragraph): "Gecko, I dont' know if you are an adminsitrator?..."). He then responded (4th paragraph), "... I'm no admin.... "We cannot make guesses, not even educated guesses". EricSerge also says in the Combat Action Ribbon section above, "if you are commandant you can probably put whatever you want on your rack. Who is going to bust your balls". YahwehSaves (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: what's your point buddy? BTW, it is the PHL Legion of Honor, but I have no reliable sources, so I cannot include it in the article. Bottom three rows of Barrow's ribbons from this pic [3]: RVN Gallantry Cross; ROC World War II Service Medal; SACO Commemorative Medal; Philippine Legion of Honor, Commander Grade; Ribbon of the Order of Orange-Nassau; Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation; RVN Gallantry Cross Unit Citation; United Nations Korea Medal; Vietnam Campaign Medal. Have a nice day. EricSerge (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@YahwehSaves: It sure looks like the PLoH (which btw IS a foreign ribbon which was occassionally awarded to Americans for WWII service, ie see here). If you zoom all the way in it even has those distinctive sun ray's radiating out. Why do you think it is not?

Ok, that is from his edit here. And what came immediately after the "educated guesses" bit you just quoted? HIS signature (his username linked to his userpage and his talk page). I don't know how he could possibly of been more clear about who was writing the bit you are refering to. He in no way whatsoever, in that instance specifically (nor for that matter in any other instance I have seen), claimed to be anyone other than himself, and he signed thusly. You accused him of - amongst other things - of responding as me - and that couldn't be further from the truth. You claimed he was an admin and so he responded to say he wasn't and again, he clearly signed as himself, not as me nor as anyone else. You are in the wrong there - there's no other way to read the situation as you've spelled it out.

You have made a number of other accusations against EricSerge, and similarily I have seen zero evidence for any of them either.

As for the other quote, that was just part of a discussion about those 4 new ribbons in the picture he found - we were just having a discussion, on the talk page (not the article) about trying to ID them - and If I recall correctly we both stated that we were not suggesting such info be added to the page because there is no Reliable source for them. So in regards to that other quote I'll echo EricSerge's question from above, "What's your point?" Gecko G (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've seperated out the discussion about the photo with the new ribbons into it's own section. I'd recommend any further discussion about "is it or is it not a PLoH?" be taken to that section. Thank you kindly, Gecko G (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

New photo with other ribbons

- note: I seperated out the below discussion into a new section after the fact. Gecko G (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

- and grouped the stuff together 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

BTW here is a late career photo, under magnification you can see his ribbon rack:[4]. He is wearing a couple of ROC ribbons that I was unaware are officially sanctioned, but if you are the Commandant you can probably put whatever you want on your rack. Who is going to bust his balls? EricSerge (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

great find, there's 4 new medals there! And good eye b/c I looked into it a bit and the first two do appear to be rare Taiwanese awards: a RoC War of Resistance Victory Commemorative Medal and a Sino-American technical Cooperation Medal - both of which make sense for someone who was part ofthe SACO and still alive in 1974 (see this Military Trader article) apparently there was a very brief window, post 1974, where (at least for the second one, if not both) wear was authorized by US personnel.

Not sure what the other 2 new ribbon's are- the style of the third one looks like a decoration with various degrees or classes.

Also I notice in that picture he has a Combat "V" on his LoM, but none of the citations include that (ie see here)

It's very interesting, but don't misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting those should be added to the article at this time. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't tell that the blurry ribbon and device is the Philippine ribbon. Far as the China medal Barrow is wearing on his white uniform, that isn't a China "commemorative" medal. It may have turned into being a commemorative medal later, after he was allowed to wear it. YahwehSaves (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah, you have to zoom all the way in to get it to resolve clearly enough - I didn't recognize it as such until I did so. For the RoC one, your right - much like the Medal of a Liberated France it went from being an official award to a gray area is-it-or-is-it-not a commemorative from official US viewpoint. Another consideration is where was this photo? If it was in Taiwan, or while he was meeting an important official from Taiwan, some of the reg's change (I'm not sure if the Marine's are one of them that do or not).

Do you mind if I move this to the relevant section further up the talk page? (or you have my permission to do so if you feel technically competent enough to do so). I've indented it for now, but it would be better to move it. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The lone white uniform photo of Barrow with the large RoC (China medal) I'm referring to is the photo I added 4/23 to the "His Awards" section (Legions of Merit). [5] Don't know what you mean, where was this photo? We talking about white uniform photo? I guess you can move the paragraphs, I'm not going to. YahwehSaves (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved and merged, Gecko G (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I thought we were discussing the one found by Eric [6] (and I was going from memory so didn't recall which uniform it was - I had only been focused on the ribbons). On the full dress uniform one you are refering to- between the microphones and the overlapping medals, can't see much outside the top most row - but I do see the SACO medal in the mix. Is there a date for that photo? Gecko G (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gecko G: this is the picture: [7] this link is more "zoomable". EricSerge (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

ok, just for fun, let's see what we can make out between those two...

Is it 3 rows of 6 collums?, or does the number of medals vary as you move down? The last row or two looks like it might be 7

top row, I can see the Navy cross, Distinguished Service Cross, Defense DSM (no OLCs), no Navy DSM yet, SS, LoM w/"V" and what I think is 1 star, BM w/"V" & 1 star. The Navy DSM and second star for LoM were basically retirement awards so that would make sense.

on the second row I can just barely see part of the ribbon for the JS Commendation (not enough to tell if there is an OLC there), and then a whole slew of Campaign and Service Medals (too dim to identify them - asides from the NDSM, which stands out a bit - second to last on that row). If it's six across in that row, then Presumably they are the China service, American and Asia-Pacific campaign medals, and WWII VM before the NDSM, and the Korean medal after). If it is 7, then I don't know what else could be behind the microphone on that row.

On the bottom row, I can make out the National Order of Vietnam, the SACO medal, and the Vietnamese Vietnam Campaign Medal (I think I can even see a bit of it's ribbon) interspersed with a few campaign and/or service medals. I'm presuming the Vietnamese Gallantry Cross is obscured by the National Order of Vietnam (assuming the American Vietnam Campaign medal is behind the microphone and it is 7 on this row). There's another one before the SACO medal, and it's rounded at the bottom so I'm guessing that's the RoC WWII Service Medal (actually zooming all the way in you can just barely make out part of the shape of the top part of it, it's in shadow, but there), which would mean the last campaign medal (between the SACO and Vietnamese Vietnam Campaign medal) would be the UN medal for Korea.

Notably no Filipino LoH nor the Orange-Nassau Order.

and of course the JCS ID Badge below

On the right side, the microphone is still blocking the view, but I can see the corner of the Navy PUC on top right (his right, our left viewing it), and on the other side of the microphone there's the Navy UC on top and the Vietnam gallantry cross unit award. From trying to judge the space, it looks like a total of 2 rows of either 3 or 4 each. 3 each would make sense (The Navy PUC, Army PUC, Navy UC / Navy MUC, RoK PUC, & Vietnamese Gallantry Cross UC). I guess the Combat Action Ribbon would be on a third row centered above the other two - and thus completely blocked by the microphone).

Does anyone read those differently? Gecko G (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I read as well. The Filipino LoH and Orange-Nassau Order would likely be neck medallions or some combination of sash and star, not commonly worn by US personnel unless they are in that country. EricSerge (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Configuration of devices on Barrow's ribbons

Another editor accused me of making a disruptive edit and reverted it here: [8]. I would like to reassure the community that my intention was not disruptive, but to set the devices on ribbons right when it comes to their display on articles of members of the Naval Service. Current regs have the V Device in the middle with the stars on either side, with the wearers right side loading first. That makes a service ribbon for three awards of the Lom with V look like this:

As another editor has reverted my bold edit, per WP:BRD, I have taken it to the talk page for discussion. I believe my edits had merit, if there are other editors who wish to weigh in, then by all means, please do. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert H. Barrow. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304144351/http://www.mca-marines.org/mediakit/MCAPresidents-1976-2006.pdf to http://www.mca-marines.org/mediakit/MCAPresidents-1976-2006.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert H. Barrow. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709012147/http://www.keystonemarines.com/article.php?story=20040604103436417 to http://www.keystonemarines.com/article.php?story=20040604103436417

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert H. Barrow. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mca-marines.org/mediakit/MCAPresidents-1976-2006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223222110/http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/10/marine_barrow_dies_103008w/ to http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/10/marine_barrow_dies_103008w/

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)