Talk:Navy Cross/Archive 1

First/Last Recipient

I think it important to include the most recent recipient in this article because it well illustrates the heroism necessary to receive this medal today. Rklawton 12:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad data

An anonymous user has made dozens of attempts to insert an unverified claim for a "last recipient" who allegedly received the medal on October 5, 2005. No such award was made on (or even near) this date - not even a classified award where the recipient's name has been omitted from the un-classified citation. Due to these repeated attempts, the editor's IP address has been blocked (repeatedly). Navy Cross awards are a matter of public record, and modern awards are easily verifiable. For the sake of argument, if an award is so secret that no part of it can be declassified, then it would obviously fail WP:V, and we'll just have to wait along with the rest of the world before we can publish it. Rklawton 04:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating

Could use work, especially in the reference department. Carom 18:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable recipients

What are the criteria for "notable" recipients? We've already got Category:Navy Cross recipients - and that's a pretty big list. On what basis do we decide which of them should be listed in the Navy Cross article? Ideas:

1. Multiple award recipients
2. Recipients who are notable apart from the Navy Cross award
3. Recent recipients (the last ten years)
4. None: get rid of the section

I favor any of the above (or logical combinations thereof). Rklawton 00:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not all NC recipients belong on the list, as there is also a NC category. I don't think that "recent recipients" is a good criterion as this makes it a news-like section, albeit long term. The list seems to capture those who are notable apart from their award of the NC. I think this is the best criterion. Recipients of multiple awards can be mentioned in another section. — ERcheck (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds quite reasonable. Rklawton 01:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note the criteria I set forth on the talk page for the Army DSC: Talk:Distinguished Service Cross (United States Army). Those criteria were basically a combination of your 1 and 2. Not all multiple Navy Cross recipients can be listed though, as there are over 300 of them. Most are not otherwise "notable"; most are WW2 Marine and Naval aviators and submariners. Generally, those who received three or more, or who received them over multiple conflicts, or who also received the Medal of Honor, helps narrow the list. In essence, this limited criterion 1 becomes more like criterion 2, as the ones left are notable personalities not just for their Navy Crosses. Of those currently listed, I would remove Gordon Pai'ea Chung-Hoon and Guy Gabaldon, for example, for not being notable enough. I would certainly think that John C. McCloy, though, should be added. Only one Navy Cross, but two Medals of Honor. Also I would add Herman H. Hanneken, Howard W. Gilmore, Lawson P. Ramage, Henry L. Hulbert, John H. Quick and Evans Carlson. Airbornelawyer 05:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with the Guy Gabaldon article. I believe his specific situation makes him notable. His story at Saipan was made into a movie — Hell to Eternity. — ERcheck (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Similar logic would apply to Dieter Dengler. I'm not sure about Barry K. Atkins or James Shepherd Freeman. There is certainly no argument that the deeds of these men are remarkable, but when deciding among the thousands of recipients whom to include, many remarkable men may not make the cut. Essentially, what the Navy sadi as described in the Atkins article about naming a ship after him could apply here as well. Airbornelawyer 05:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If there are no objections then, I plan to comb through the list and remove those who lack sufficient notability per the recommendations above. I won't object if someone wants to add one back, but if that happens, I think we would all benefit from seeing the reasons posted here. Rklawton 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than deleting and then looking for objections, how about making a list of your proposed deletions and bringing it to this talk page for discussion? — ERcheck (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Rklawton 03:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the above criteria. Notability is based upon how remarkable as well as well known. There are some very notable recipients of the Navy Cross who only received it once such as John Basilone who also received the medal of honor and has had much attention and notability. The subject of a movie, TV series and stamps.92.234.109.79 (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Status: pending needed support/citation?

The following was added without any in-line citation support; and a cursory Google search doesn't immediately resolve any questions about notability. Until more is known, the name is probably best posted here:

• Joseph C. Geraghty, U.S. Navy (Reserve) - World War II.

Geraghty's name is identified in an website listing recipients, but without enough information to determine whether or how his name enhances this article. --Tenmei (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Post 1975 Recipients

On the DSC page there is a list of all post Second Indochina War recipients in the notable section. Since the awarding of the Medal of Honor has become more stringent (being exclusively posthumous) and the DSC, NC, and AFC are second level medals for combat valor shouldn't there be a comprehensive list of post 1975 awardings in this article as well?

If they are included there have been 30 to day, with the most recent action being in 2008, including one that is unidentified. (making it appear that the US Army is lagging in its review process, or there maybe a difference in branch opinions in awardings of this level of medal). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"The Oliver Hazard Perry-class guided-missile frigate USS Clifton Sprague (FFG-16) was named after Vice Admiral Sprague. The unclassified citation for the Navy Cross was displayed in the wardroom until shortly before decommissioning." According to Sprague's own Wikipedia page, he too received award and is also awarded with a ship's name. Should be added SirrahGreed (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC) SirrahGreed

References

Charles P. Cecil

Have re-added Charles P. Cecil (two awards), namesake of USS Charles P. Cecil (DD-835) and turned in a request for article creation seen here. Anyone who has had a ship named for them by the US Navy is notable in my book. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If is preferable to have a non-link instead of a redlink, that would be acceptable, though in this case I think the WP:REDLINK highlights the fact there is an article in need of creation. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I created the article as a stub, feel free to flesh it out some more.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Navy Cross. 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/20140407031313/http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/search.php?medal=3 to http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/search.php?medal=3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=9787
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722185231/http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/01000%20Military%20Personnel%20Support/01-600%20Performance%20and%20Discipline%20Programs/1650.1H.PDF to http://doni.daps.dla.mil/Directives/01000%20Military%20Personnel%20Support/01-600%20Performance%20and%20Discipline%20Programs/1650.1H.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) 13:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)