Talk:Medal of Honor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Similar decorations within the United States

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)

Another Citation for Statistics

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)

G'day, thanks for that. I believe that it is already in the article, though. It is currently listed as citation # 82. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Well now I feel like an idiot; I thought I had checked through the citations for that. I guess I must have missed that. Thanks for your help! Buddenru (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, just an honest mistake. Have a good day. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

United States Navy hospital corpsmen

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)

The link has been moved to http://www.pacom.mil/media/news/2010/06/20100618-USS%20Peleliu%20112th%20B-day.shtml but I didn't see the claim of being the largest collective group. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect the intent of the original phrasing was not to claim that a group of 22 individuals simultaneously received the award together, but to make the claim that no other group of service persons by occupation (defining the term "group" loosely, e.g., "hospital corpsman", "airborne infantrymen", "naval fighter pilots", "rangers", "marines", etc.) has collectively accumulated more medals of honor. That being said, I don't see anything in the reference above substantiating any claims other than the fact that 22 Navy corpsman have received the Medal of Honor for extreme heroism (most posthumously). Should we reform this item in the text by simply reducing it down to the key point, rather than including a claim that this is the largest group versus any other? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If we had other listings by occupations, then we could include it. But really, I only see listings by conflict and branch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

AzureCitizen I also thought the claim was saying no other group of service persons by occupation has collectively accumulated more medals of honor. However, I could not think how they could qualify the statement to exclude infantry, cavalry, artillery and marines etc. Looking for ranks with either the word ‘Hospital’ or ‘Pharmacist’ I located 21 of the 22 awards and just over half survived to receive their award. Zscout370 Thanks for the reference. I agree with your comment that there are no similar listings by occupations. Until there is a comprehensive analysis of all occupations I think we should stick to listings by conflict and branch. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Composition of modern MOH Medals

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)

I don't think they are making any MOH's today, much less want to change older ones to gold ones or make new golds ones. I don't think the Navy ran out of bronze MOH's but maybe made some extra newer ones. The Army had gold-finished bronze medals at least until 6/13/70 which I added as a Federal reference (Army regulations mentioned) in the article-Appearance, for the smaller and shinier Army Gillespie medal. I don't think the Army ran out of MOH's either, but looks like they made some extras out of brass.

YOUR SOURCE, ABC News, John Martin, 2/5/2004 has Finnis McCleery (died 7/11/2002) saying "mine doesn't look good" (Army MOH, awarded 1971 for 1968). Your source says Congressional Medal of Honor 4 times before he says Medal of Honor once. Einar Ingman in your source got the Army MOH for Korea, Wikipedia shows him with the Navy MOH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk)

If I'm following what you're saying, you seem to be questioning the validity of the source? If so, I'll respond to your observations. First, it was reported that McCleery made his comments ("mine doesn't look good") before he died in 2002 when he was quoted in a February 4, 2002 Washington Times article about how he felt about the issue. In that article, it was reported that the medal was made of brass. McCleery went on to state that more pension money "would be better for each individual" rather than more expensive medals and "I know I could use some more money." At the time, his grandson was suffering from medical medical problems and his granddaughter was raising three kids without a husband. McCleery died in June 2002, but the legislation in Congress wasn't introduced until later. With regard to the article saying "Congressional Medal of Honor", it says it three times, but I'm not sure why that would matter. The official title is "Medal of Honor" but it is frequently reported in the news as the CMOH and the original Washington Times article in 2002 referred to it as the "so-called Congressional Medal of Honor". It doesn't invalidate the fact that the medals are made of brass. With regard to Einar Ingman, the source is correct that he got the Army MOH for Korea. Wikipedia incorrectly shows him with the Navy MOH, so I will fix the Wikipedia article shortly. Back to the issue at hand, the citation to 32 USC 578 from 1956 doesn't say that the medals had to be made of gold and bronze. It just says "Decription. A gold-finished bronze star, one point down..." If the law was actually requiring that the medals be made of gold and bronze, it would have said so. Instead, they've been made out of brass alloys since World War II, most likely 80 to 90% or so copper, which is manipulated through combining it with the other ingredients in the alloy to achieve the colors we see on the exterior of the medals. The same goes for all the other medals issued by the DOD. I have a BSM and looking at it this morning, I highly doubt there is bronze in it, regardless of it's name (the silver star probably doesn't have any silver in it, either). They're all just brass alloys, the most cost efficient way to go since they have to be mass produced. This is why I believe we should provide adequate sourcing or references if we're going to imply any of the medals are currently made with bronze when we have a source saying brass alloys. Do you have any other sources or information to substantiate otherwise? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Government issued or made medals are/were better quality than the ones companies have been selling for years which wasn't allowed before. So, you may have a real bronze star. The various references for the Navy design on the net I seen says only "bronze" (Institute of Heraldry). Here is what appears to be an official Navy site says > "The current Navy Medal of Honor is a five-pointed bronze star".. www.navy.mil/moh/faq.html If you really want to know what the Navy MOH / Bronze Star Medal, Silver Star medals were/are made of, the Institute of Heraldry should know.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk)

The Navy MOH is made of Red Brass according to MIL-DTL-3943/2H [1]. The Army MOH is made of Gilding Metal and Red Brass according to MIL-DTL-3943/1G [2]. The Air Force version is made of Gilding Metal and Bronze according to MIL-DTL-3943/3G [3]. No opinions, just reliable sources from the Department of Defense. EricSerge (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to EricSerge for hitting the nail on the head. How did you find those source cites so quickly? AzureCitizen (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I was looking for info on US Intelligence Community awards and ended up finding the repository of all DoD milspec files. Amazing what you can find on the internet with persistence. EricSerge (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for being so helpful in this regard! I have incorporated your new references into the text and changed the appearance section accordingly. I also added material to the historical versions subsection. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:32, 2 October 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).

1863: Congress made the Medal of Honor a permanent decoration

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Medal of Honor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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 tags. Nomination put on hold until this is fixed. Retrolord (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added references where I could. Regarding how presented, with the medal presented to next of kin, I could not find any regulation that specifies that the medal must be presented in a wood and glass case with a brass label, so that was removed. From watching videos of recent posthumous presentation it appears to be the norm, but it does not appear to be codified someplace that my google-fu can find at the moment.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 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)

I have added multiple references for the two items requested above, and I have updated the numbers for the last issue as well as reworded for clarity.

As for the courtesies, the reason for why its not in the lead maybe because it isn't codified into law, and is matter of custom, which is fairly stated in the article.

As for the double recipients, it is highly notable. The level of action that the Medal of Honor is now awarded for is to the point where one must go so above and beyond the call of duty that more often than not the individual is killed in the action; therefore, to be a double recipient is even more notable.

As for states that have special MoH license plates there are:

• Delaware,
• Pennsylvania,
• New Jersey,
• Georgia,
• Connecticut,
• Massachusetts,
• Maryland,
• South Carolina,
• New Hampshire
• Virginia
• New York,
• North Carolina
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Kentucky,
• Tennessee,
• Ohio,
• Louisiana,
• Indiana,
• Alabama,
• Maine,
• Missouri,
• Arkansas,
• Michigan,
• Florida,
• Texas,
• Iowa,
• Wisconsin,
• California,
• Minnesota,
• Oregon,
• Kansas,
• West Virginia,
• Nevada,
• Nebraska
• Colorado,
• North Dakota
• South Dakota
• Montana
• Washington,
• Idaho,
• Wyoming
• Utah
• Oklahoma,
• New Mexico,
• Arizona,
• Alaska
• Hawaii

There are 40 states with Medal of Honor specific license plates, the other 10 have special license plates for veterans which MoH recipients maybe eligible for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:37, 29 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)

Theoretically, the best place for their actions to be is listed in a sub-article as is done with previous conflicts. However, as such a sub-article has not yet been created, and as the article is only 93k and can arguably not yet be split per WP:LIMIT, there is no dire need at this point to create such a sub-article. However, when the size reaches 100k per WP:LIMIT, the split would be highly advisable. If you wish I can do the split now in advance of reaching 100k. At the same time it can be argued that having their names here could be a matter of WP:RECENTISM, and that the content in this article can be merged onto the content of the sub-article List of Medal of Honor recipients, and a sub-sub-article can be created as is the case with List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War and List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:20, 30 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)

OK, I have created the sub-sub-article. See the creation here, the modificat to the list sub-article page here, the modification of the main Medal of Honor page here, and the modification to the template here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that the List of Medal of Honor recipients article was edited in March (after RightCowLeftCoast made his big edit) and the section on List of Medal of Honor recipients#Battle of Mogadishu 1993 was added back in. This seems wrong to me because either: 1: We should then also have a section each for The Iraq War and The War in Afghanistan like we did before RightCowLeftCoast's January edit OR 2: We should remove the Battle of Mogadishu 1993 section again since RightCowLeftCoast put it in List of post-Vietnam Medal of Honor recipients. I think we should come to a consensus before we re-delete the Mogadishu section or re-add the Iraq and Afghan wars. Cookiemonster70 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 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)

Is that a good article?

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)

Tibor Rubin

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)

Reading the MoH citation, he was awarded the MoH for his actions prior to becoming a POW, and while being a POW. Not to mention his POW status would be contradictory towards the citation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tibor Rubin preformed heroically in Korea but like all late awards his claims were enhanced by exterior factors including publicity and high profile support. It has been a tradition of the MofH despite attempts to impose time limits to allow late awards. Anthony Staunton (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

USS Squalus Rescue

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)

Statistics

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:

• "Archive Statistics" ~ Congressional Medal of Honor Society [4] This source seems to be the most up-to-date, citing that the most recent recipient was on May 13, 2014. The rest of the information in the source is not used as straightforward in the article as the next source.
• "Medal of Honor recipients" ~ United States Army Center of Military History [5] The article relies heavily on the stats on this page. It is not entirely out-of-date, having been last updated on Aug 13, 2013, but there have been at least 20 new recipients since the page was updated.
• "Medal of Honor, USN Recipients" ~ United States Navy [6] This source is not the most useful in this case as it focuses largely on the Navy recipients.

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)

Although it's not 100% ideal, I think the best thing to do is use the numbers given in the linked sources. When those sources are updated, change the article numbers. Simply put a disclaimer (as in the original wording) saying "as of Date X, Y MoH had been awarded." That way you're avoiding original research or synthesis. I'd suggest staying with the .mil sources, as they're going to be considered the most authoritative. That doesn't prevent you from adding a note stating that the Society's recorded number is X, and includes awards after 2013. In either case, the number of awards listed has to agree with what the cited source says. Intothatdarkness 16:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Another round of belated awards

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)

Etymology

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:

• " It is presented by the President in the name of Congress and thus is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor." ~ Congressional Research Service [7]
• "Maine Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients" - [8]
• Congressional Medal of Honor License Plates - "A Congressional Medal of Honor (CMOH)" - [9]

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)

V device

@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)

I agree. This editor removed sourced information that was significant to the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:29, 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)

If the content is to be removed from its present location, IMHO, it should be left in tact, but created as a sub-section of the historical section, or in the double recipient section, with the image retained for visual reference. Historical content should be added about use of the "V" device, its adoption for use with the Medal of Honor, and its withdrawal of use.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I trust you're in agreement then with regard to what I've pointed out, that the now unauthorized (and never once used) "V" device does not belong in it's present location, as all the material there covers the present state, appearance, and wear of the medal and its authorized accoutrement? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, movement is one thing, removal of any verified content or the image is another. I am not opposed to moving it to the historical appearance section (or maybe into the double recipient section), just move it en mass without removing any content, maybe into its own sub-section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I will move the information down again then, you may want to tweak the new position or sub-section it to your liking. As a member of the military, my primary concern throughout has been the inclusion of a rescinded/obsolete item in the portion that covers the current items. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What branch? Active duty?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll stop by your Talk Page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Presenting

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)

"Special Act of Congress" refers to awards by special legislation, not time waivers in my opinion. See this site for some example special legislation. Does that clear things up? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Special Act of Congress" refers to awards by special legislation. However, time waivers should be mentioned. The reference blames the Mitchell error on the 1979 green book rather than the earlier 1973 consolidation. The culprit may have been the 1948 Army book which did create the error about Thomas Custer’s first award.Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of Medal of Honor awards

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)

Although this is a good faith attempt, we need not come up with our own calculation. We should look towards what reliable sources state. For instance on this webpage, updated in May 2015, it gives a count of 3468. Any differences should be changed based on the last count of a reliable source. According to the United States Air Force, the United States Army Center of Military History, which is the source of the above link maintains the list, and the closest we'd likely get to an official list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the change.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The United States Army Center of Military History is not and does not pretend to be a reliable source. See http://www.history.army.mil/moh/index.html which states ‘Please be aware: The Medal of Honor entries on this website are posted as a courtesy to our users. CMH is not responsible for the factual content of the citations’. However, Medal of Honor recipients 1863-1978 by the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs supplemented by the CRS report Medal of Honor Recipients: 1979-2014 should be sufficient. With the two awards presented last week this leads to 3513 awards including 19 second awards. There are two figures in the article 3469 individual recipients which is obviously wrong and 3492 recipients which has not included the latest two awards. Not sure why the two tables total 3484 and 3483 recipients respectively. Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We shouldn't guess what the current number is, that would be original research. The Congressional Research Service in this report, says "there have been nearly 3,500 recipients of the Medals of Honor.", citing the Center of Military History, and the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Would this be more agreeable to Anthony Staunton?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I was unable to find current stats for an article on the MofH. Wikipedia made four attempts and got them all wrong. Using the Senate Veterans committee print and the CRS figures plus last week’s awards I will use 3512 awards including 19 double awards. I originally thought it was 3513 but have reduced the total by one since the Senate Veterans committee print includes the Congressional Gold Medal to Billy Mitchell. However, I do count the award to Charles Liteky. Anthony Staunton (talk) 03:46, 14 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)

What we have here are multiple reliable source with conflicting data, adjusting to the highest number found at the "Medal of Honor Historical Society of the United States", whoever they are, is not the proper thing to do, especially without qualifying the content. Furthermore, the reference provided in the article page does not verify the number, as it only goes to their main page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Seriously Anthony Staunton? Vandalism? Please re-read vandalism guideline. My edit was not vandalism. I am going to ask for additional editors. I refuse to enter into an edit war with you.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Medal of Honor total

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)

It is not vandalism. It is however disagreement how to handle multiple sources that do not agree on a single number.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to agree on a single reliable source for this number. At the Pritzker Military Museum & Library, we use the numbers provided by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society [www.cmohs.org] as they keep a very up to date FAQ on their website. TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There are two totals 3512 and 3514 from two good sources. The lower total matches the total of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee print (1863 to 1978) plus the Congressional Research Service publication (1979 to 2014) plus the White House (2015). I have queried the group with the higher total. Since there is two legs supporting the lower total that is the one I used. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have received a reply from the society that lists 3514 awards. They said their 'website has a coding error for totaling the number of recipients. Please see the attached document'. Their totals were 3512 awards with 3493 individuals and 19 double awards. The document was titled MEDAL OF HONOR BREAKDOWN BY WAR AND SERVICE and I am sure anyone who wants a copy could email the society. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

We cannot verify the numbers stated by Anthony Staunton, allegedly from the "Medal of Honor Historical Society of the United States".

If the United States Army Center of Military History and the Pritzker Military Museum & Library both use the numbers of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, IMHO we should go with those numbers. Therefore I agree with TeriEmbrey.

And since the Congressional Medal of Honor Society has consensus we should go with the numbers here. Is this better than being ambiguous as I tried to be Anthony Staunton?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Staunton: please refrain from campaigning as done here and here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There would be consensus to use the online Congressional Medal of Honor Society figure when their coding error has been corrected. I emailed them and they promptly replied with a comprehensive table with the total of 3512 awards. Who is fixing up the two tables in the article that have different totals? I would be happy to assist. It would be marvelous if all four totals in the Medal of Honor article were in sync. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree it would be great if all four reliable sources would be insync, but until they are not. We cannot presume that the email which was sent by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society to Anthony Staunton is valid. It technically falls under WP:UGC.

I believe that Anthony Staunton means well, but we can only go with what is published. Therefore, stating specifically who created the numbers per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and not using specific language, but language that provides range (such as "as many as", "at least", etc). allows for all sources to be used without giving a definite answer as different reliable sources disagree with one another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The list of Vietnam War recipients in the Medal of Honor article has a total of 247. The List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Vietnam War states there are 248 recipients plus five late awards but the actual list has 260 names. I will amend the totals in both pages. I would be very happy for someone to check my calculation by counting the names. If there is a quicker way of counting I would appreciate advice since I would rather not have to individually count the ACW awards. If anyone wishes to check the Congressional Medal of Honor stats, they have a website at http://www.cmohs.org/ and an email at medalhq@earthlink.net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Staunton (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I hit save instead of preview. Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops again. Is there a better way than a physical count? Recount shows it is 257. Could someone confirm the count? Anthony Staunton (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Congressional Medal of Honor

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)

And Jimmy Carter, a nuclear submariner, pronounced it nucular. Presidents are not the measure of what is right. Without going into details, of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:150:0:DA40:D095:D039:1036:8AD (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's completely inaccurate to claim that congress has anything to do with selecting and awarding the medal. Just because it's a common mistake doesn't mean it's a mistake we should acknowledge with any legitimacy. —Ed!^(talk) 11:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, this issue was last discussed in 2007-2008 in Archive #2 at this location: Talk:Medal of Honor/Archive 2#"erroneously" referred to as the Congressional Medal of Honor??. It isn't evident from that thread if there was a consensus decision back then, but it gives the background on what was discussed previously. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the archive gives no consensus. Congressional Medal of Honor does deserve mentioning in the article, heck it's a redirect to this page. In looking at the United States Statutes at Large from 1918 and 1919, in the parts of the law establishing the DSC and DSM, it would seem that the law uses the terminology "Congressional medal of honor for conspicuous gallantry, etc., in actual conflict." here: SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 143. 1918. p. 870 and here: SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS. Sess. III. Ch. 14. 1919. p 1056 when referring to the Medal of Honor. At one time this may have been an acceptable way to reference the MoH, but it is obvious, from more recent reliable sources, that currently this usage is considered incorrect. So is "erroneously" not as accurate as say, "incorrectly"? EricSerge (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The redirect is entirely inconsequential as an authority. Wiki redirects exist for common spelling mistakes, too, but they don't make the incorrect spelling somehow acceptable.--SEWalk (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for thoughtful comment. However, it is neither erroneous nor incorrect to call it the Congressional Medal of Honor particularly when the recipients form the Congressional Medal of Honor Society. Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Except that it is. Please read the links in the discussion - one of which explicitly says "erroneously". Rmhermen (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Medal of Honor Legion (April 23, 1890), Washington, D.C.: Medal of Honor recipients of the Civil War and Indian War Campaign. YahwehSaves 05:19, 6 October 2012‎

From the Congressional Medal of Honor Society website: "14 AUG 1958 The Medal of Honor Society is absorbed into the Congressionally Chartered CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA under Title 38, USC."[10] Could it be that the Congressional Medal of Honor Society chose its name to indicate its congressional charter and because Medal of Honor Society was already in use in 1958? EricSerge (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There are countless examples using Congressional Medal of Honor including remarks and speeches by many Presidents over many years and by many congressional comments and reports. The quotes in the archive referred to above are a small number of instances where some comments pontificate that it is an error to use the expression. I am quite sure there are more but it has not and will not stop the use of Congressional Medal of Honor. There is no court ruling, no speech by the President, no resolution by the Congress that states it is erroneous to use Congressional Medal of Honor instead of simply the Medal of Honor. Let’s toss out an opinionated and emotive word that is unhelpful. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:09, 7 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)

Thank you for an excellent reference. It would be preferable to say that the Medal of Honor is the correct description rather than say the Congressional Medal of Honor is erroneous. My original suggestion was just to delete the word erroneously. I would now also like to amend the first words of the next sentence from The official title ... to The correct and official title ... Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be more in favor of such a change as long as it acknowledges that Medal of Honor is considered correct. —Ed!^(talk) 13:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Which came first?

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)...

Which came first - the Medal of Valor or the Medal of Honour? Valetude (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Trimming hatnote

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)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

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)

Seems like a good idea. Two comments: Decide on a standard reference to Pearl Harbor. Several are used. And Cannon, for Midway, appears not to belong on the list. May hap the list should be Medals of Honor awarded 7 December 1941? user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 16:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I missed Cannon, but I had already excluded John D. Bulkeley, whose actions from Dec 7 to Apr 10, collectively, were cited for his MOH. Perhaps "Pearl Harbor" could be the title as it is more recognizable, but the (proposed) article itself would address (a line or two only) the context of actions elsewhere in Pacific during the attack against United States forces on Dec 7, and thus include these 2 recipients?

Also, what do you think of simplifying "Place of Action" to just read "Pearl Harbor" for the 15? Further to that, I've tried to add the vessel throughout the "Notes" section (a few left to do, including link to Naval Air Station Kaneohe Bay, Sand Island at Midway Atoll, Battle of the Philippines for the 3 who were not at the harbor itself), as it usually forms part of the citation, so no need to repeat it in the "Place of Action". Jmg38 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of excluding Cannon and Bulkeley from the list but mentioning them in the text. As for adding a link to the template, you just have to edit Template:Medal of Honor recipients. — jwillbur 19:05, 10 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)

Cannon's action was on 7 December 1941 and could be included but while the periodic award for Bulkeley commences with 7 December 1941 it should be remembered that day was the last day of peace in the Philippines. The near-simultaneous Japanese attacks on Malaya, Philippines, Guam and Wake Island occurred on 8 December 1941. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have started Draft:List of Medal of Honor Recipients for Attack on Pearl Harbor, and would ask that you add further comments to the "Talk" page there. Not sure if I need to copy your comments from here to there - I will, instead, start the "Talk" there with a link to the page you are reading now. Thanks, all. Jmg38 (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150518093741/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Medal-of-Honor-Recipients-Tell-Their-Stories/10737435807/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Medal-of-Honor-Recipients-Tell-Their-Stories/10737435807/

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120331032923/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil:80/Awards/legion_of_merit.aspx to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/legion_of_merit.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121203020400/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/awd/us-indiv/moh-3t.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/awd/us-indiv/moh-3t.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061008063242/http://www.news.navy.mil:80/search/display.asp?story_id=25834 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=25834
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150518093741/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Medal-of-Honor-Recipients-Tell-Their-Stories/10737435807/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Medal-of-Honor-Recipients-Tell-Their-Stories/10737435807/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120130143839/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq38-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq38-1.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090906172852/http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=7048 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=7048
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110720101849/http://webster-new.dmz.usna.edu/Admissions/stnommed.htm to http://webster-new.dmz.usna.edu/Admissions/stnommed.htm

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} 15:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)'

http://web.archive.org/web/20120331032923/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil:80/Awards/legion_of_merit.aspx to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Awards/legion_of_merit.aspx ‘The other, the Commander's Degree of the Legion of Merit, and is usually awarded to individuals serving foreign governments.[53][54]’. Do we need two referencesas well as the link to the Wikapaedia article on the legion oif Merit. I prefer reference 54 http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7732 that states the Commander degree only goes to foreign forces. The current US Army Institute of Heraldry reference is http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Catalog/Heraldry.aspx?HeraldryId=15246&CategoryId=3&grp=4&menu=Decorations and Medals&ps=24&p=0.

I receive a disallowed message for http://web.archive.org/web/20121203020400/http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/awd/us-indiv/moh-3t.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/awd/us-indiv/moh-3t.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20061008063242/http://www.news.navy.mil:80/search/display.asp?story_id=25834 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=25834 See http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=25834

Message received The machine that serves this file is down http://web.archive.org/web/20150518093741/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Medal-of-Honor-Recipients-Tell-Their-Stories/10737435807/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Medal-of-Honor-Recipients-Tell-Their-Stories/10737435807/

I received a disallowed message for http://web.archive.org/web/20120130143839/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq38-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq38-1.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20090906172852/http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=7048 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=7048 see http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=7048

http://web.archive.org/web/20110720101849/http://webster-new.dmz.usna.edu/Admissions/stnommed.htm to http://webster-new.dmz.usna.edu/Admissions/stnommed.htm true Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination under current consideration

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605001140/http://www.navy.mil/moh/faq.html to http://www.navy.mil/moh/faq.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/awd/us-indiv/moh-3t.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq38-1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121213232029/http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/451513r.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/451513r.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150406195111/http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf to http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf

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) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915153310/http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7732 to http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=7732
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060726122511/http://www.fbi.gov/page2/may04/052804medal.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/page2/may04/052804medal.htm

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) 12:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125111633/http://bmv.ohio.gov/g_cmoh.stm to http://bmv.ohio.gov/g_cmoh.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130625202911/http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/offices/motorVehicle/Pages/specialityPlatesCategory.aspx?category=Military to http://www.dfa.arkansas.gov/offices/motorVehicle/Pages/specialityPlatesCategory.aspx?category=Military
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211040513/http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/vehicle/platevet.aspx to http://www.oregon.gov/odot/dmv/pages/vehicle/platevet.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130201101205/http://www.transportation.wv.gov/dmv/Vehicles/Pages/PersonalizedPlates.aspx to http://www.transportation.wv.gov/dmv/vehicles/pages/personalizedplates.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130202005948/http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/State__Territory_Benefits/_New_Hampshire.html to http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/State__Territory_Benefits/_New_Hampshire.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903224919/http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/CSM/docs/FM7_21_13.pdf to http://www.smdc.army.mil/2008/CSM/docs/FM7_21_13.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203221121/http://www.indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content to http://indigenouspeoplesissues.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023064717/http://www.voicenet.com/~lpadilla/mohintro.html to http://www.voicenet.com/~lpadilla/mohintro.html

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) 08:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130619233956/http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/sec-military-medals-decorations-19190976 to http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/sec-military-medals-decorations-19190976
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060722172254/http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Rates/special1.htm to http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Rates/special1.htm

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) 20:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose removing "in the name of congress" from the infobox

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)

So? We already show the origin of the term in the article in a quote from the establishing law. Rmhermen (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

After further review i was mistaken. Garuda28 (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123005419/http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ovs/plates/plates.htm to http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/ovs/plates/plates.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201222906/http://www.ok.gov/odva/Oklahoma_Veterans_Benefits/License_Plates/index.html to http://www.ok.gov/odva/Oklahoma_Veterans_Benefits/License_Plates/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150701192148/http://www.whitman-walker.org/our-mission-values/our-history/our-namesakes/ to http://www.whitman-walker.org/our-mission-values/our-history/our-namesakes/

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) 00:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Adler

(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)

Just a thought: A puzzling development since this issue seems to have been previously considered and resolved on August 29, 2018 as per an edit made to this article by User:Thewolfchild who reversed a previously executed deletion of the reference to Adler as shown below:

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)

Perhaps the article musician (rank) offers a possible clue for an explanation. It indicates that the Army Medal of Honor was awarded to several musicians during the Civil War for services on the battlefield. This suggests that it is not entirely impossible for a musician in the Army to be the recipient of the medal. While it is apparent that the Army modified the rules for awarding the medal during World War II, this article on the Medal of Honor also indicates that exceptions to that rule have been made. In this case an exception may have been made by General Eisenhower himself. Adler was interviewed in person as a faculty member of the Juilliard School of Music on this subject. The interviewer makes reference to General Eisenhower recommending Alder for the Army Medal of Honor Award in the course of the interview. (in the second to last paragraph of the interview here ). This suggests that Eisenhower circumvented the Army's guidelines for awarding the medal and executed a special citation (as indicated on Adler's Web page). Such a special citation of the Medal of Honor might not be recorded in the traditional Army reference sources mentioned above if Eisenhower took matters into his own hands to execute the award as a special citation as opposed to a combat related award. The reference citing the web page maintained by the enlisted members of the Army who participated in the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra appears to support this hypothesis. On this page, members of the Army itself indentify Adler as recipient of the Medal of Honor as shown here . This hypothesis might explain the mystery of why Adler himself identifies the award as a special citation on his web page as well as the mystery of why nonmilitary related publications identify the award as the Medal of Honor(as shown below) while military related references fail to record the award as a combat related decoration (as mentioned above).

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

refs

104.207.219.150 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)PS

As mentioned above, the individual in question’s official biography makes mention of a citation (no MOH), and no government site mentions a MOH for him - only other music sites. With this it seems the most reliable source makes mention of an unit citation (or have no mention of an MOH, which is unheard of). Garuda28 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI - The BLP for this guy states that he received the Army MoH, with five refs attached. So either he did, and this article should reflect that, or he didn't, which means that page needs to be fixed. That's about all I have to add here. - wolf 15:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Also note that further clarification might be obtained from a reference to Samuel Adler's memoirs "Building Bridges with Music - Stories froma Composer's Life" which were recently published by Pendragon Press in 2017 as shown here . If an editor has access to a copy of the book, clarification can probably be obtained in Chapter 5 "You're In the Army Now!" pg 51 -61 as shown on the table of contents page for the book shown here . I hope that this is of some help. Many thanks again for your kind consideration. Respectfully

References

104.207.219.150 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)PS

Also of interest is this article dated Feb. 7, 1953 which is posted on the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra's web page. It is written by Omar Anderson apparently for the Army's publication "Star's and Stripes" in Bonn, Germany. The article identifies Corporal Samuel Adler as the conductor of the 7th Army Symphony Orchestra and the recipient of the "Army Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant for his efforts on behalf of better German-American relations". Evidently this is a reference to the Army Commendation Medal which can be awarded to a member of the Army who performs noteworthy service in any capacity including distinctive meritorious achievement and sustained meritorious performance of duty after December 1941. See the link to the article here . I hope this information proves helpful. As always, thanks for your consideraton. Respectfully

References

104.207.219.150 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)PS

So in essence it seems he did not receive the Medal of Honor. Garuda28 (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but it might be problematic to draw a categorical conclusion based upon this citation since the title of the publication utilized in the reference is not known (as indicated at the top of the posting on the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra). It might be best for an experienced editor to consider the matter before closing the discussion definitively especially since this reference appears to contradict other publications which are known - including an encyclopedia. This might call the quality of the reference into question. Just a thought.

To make matters even more confusing note that Adler's biography posted by the American Academy in Berlin in 2004 identifies Adler as the recipient of an Army citation for distinguished service (as shown here ) yet as an member of the "American Classical Music Hall of Fame" (2008) he is identified as the recipient of the Army's Medal of Honor as shown here Perhaps only Adler himself knows for sure. In any event, Good luck!

References

104.207.219.150 (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)PS

@Roam41, Garuda28, and Thewolfchild: I asked the man himself He did not receive the MoH, and has apparently been trying to correct that misconception, which may have originated here. In his 2017 autobio (Building Bridges with Music: Stories from a Composer's Life), he says he clearly explains that he received "a special Citation of Excellence from the Army for forming the 7th Army Symphony Orchestra and its success in Europe between 1952 and 1961". —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

While I normally don't just take the word of an editor, given the source and personal interview (I'll allow backed up WP:OR), I think it's certainly reasonable to remove such a reference unless more information becomes available. Buffs (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick question for clarification -- Is the "Citation of Excellence" from the Army the same award as the "Army Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant" mentioned in what appears to be an article from the Army publication "Stars and Stripes" dated 1953 (here ? If it is the same medal, should a link for the wikipedia article Commendation Medal be utilized in Adler's biography based upon this reference material or is the reference too vague (since the name of the publication is not actually shown)? Thanks again for the help. Repsectfully 104.207.219.150 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)PS

References

I don't think it's the ACM. The photo is so grainy, it's hard to see clearly, but there may be a pair of ribbons over his left breast pocket in the upper pic – I've asked Dr. Adler for clarification that it is the name I quoted above from his previous response (not the ACM), and what the other ribbon(s) might be. The article was either from S&S directly or syndicated from them (if that was done back then) according to the (S&S) in the by-line. I think they simply got it wrong, being so used to writing about the various standard awards. "Citation of Excellence" seems to be used as a general award by many executive departments for various things when one of the standard awards doesn't quite fit. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

(break)

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)

Also note - The following information may also be helpful. This reference from a search at the Cambridge University Press from within Adler's book "Building Bridges Through Music" illustrates that the phrase " Citation of Excellence" does appear within the book in several chapters. A similar search for either the phrase "Medal of Honor" or "Medal of Commendation" does not generate any results from within the book. I hope that the reference is helpful in your discussions. (See reference here ) With best regards2620:65:8000:A203:6517:5189:3E5:FC19 (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)GCU

References

Upon further reflection, Dr. Adler has remembered that there was a medal associated with the citation and that it (or perhaps he meant the ribbon upon which it was suspended) had the color green in it, so I think it was likely the ACM (which has a predominantly green ribbon). I'm assuming it is currently inaccessible. Again, he stated clearly to me, as well as in the past, that it was not the Medal of Honor, and this is confirmed by the standard lists of MoH recipients. I think the S&S article from 1953 on the 7ASO site is the earliest ref, and is confirmed by his latest statement, so I would be comfortable in calling it either the ACM (per S&S) or the non-specific citation (as in my last edit). He stresses that the controversy is somewhat painful, as he never attempted to gain from any such recognition – the work, and its contribution to easing post-war tensions, was the important part. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Bravo for the additional research and Bravo to Dr. Adler for his insightful analysis. Adler's philosophical insights are those of a genuine humanitarian and consummate musical artist! The exact title of the award bestowed upon him pales in comparison to the profundity of the diplomatic/musical activities which resulted in the honor which it conveys. The use of the generic non-specific citation seems to be consistent with Adler's generosity of spirit and humble approach to resolving the discussion. Excellent job!104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)PS

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)