Talk:"V" device/Archives/2012/October

Infobox - Device or Valor Device

Regarding the infobox, we currently have "Device" on the most prominent device articles (5/16 inch star, Oak Leaf Cluster, Service Star, etc). The thread at Talk:United States military award devices#Devices vs award devices vs service devices contains a lot of information and discussion on the issue, but I will cross-post here as it now seems we're moving from "military device" to "Valor device", which is not a "type". Is there a reason why we'd want to use "valor device" here now in the infobox? AzureCitizen (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to deviate from the other articles you mention. "Device" should work just fine. Especially since it does not denote valor in all cases of wear i.e. Air Force usage on awards other than the Bronze Star. EricSerge (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Another good point, there is no uniformity to classify that way... AzureCitizen (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is the introduction use "In the" for every sentence in the introduction when you seem against repeating things. Isn't there a better way to start the introduction at least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

I took out the repetitive "In the..." phrasing. How's that? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Its better than it was, but the - "In the ..." (you put In/For elsewhere) you use to start the article introduction still doesn't seem correct editing to me. I'm sure there are editors who know what I'm saying. Same with the, Awards and decorations of the United States military (8 words) article, why isn't it, United States military awards and decorations (6 words)? which seems to go along with, United States military award devices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

You could propose on the Talk Page there that the article title be shortened, to get it from eight words down to six while more or less having the same meaning. You might want to check the archives to see if it was discussed previously. AzureCitizen (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I put "Valor device" in the box was because the Air Force 36-2803 awards manual says: Awards and Decorations Devices (P. 4/52) and P. 53 A 3.8: "V" (Valor) Device. A metallic bronze letter "V" that represents valor. Its goes on with all the awards the "V" device is authorized for. The DoD as you said uses "device(s)" mostly instead of "service devices" or "award devices" which it really doesn't use at all in the manual since this one use means subsequent award, devices . The DoD constantly uses "devices" as devices for awards and decorations, not "award device(s)" (this was put in before for all the devices articles, "the oak leaf cluster is an award device", etc....). Isn't the box's "Type", Valor device instead of just Device? The Air Force seems to think so. The "V" still stands for valor doesn't it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

I wholeheartedly believe the "V" does stand for valor, but the Department of Defense does not call it the "valor device". It's ironic to see you arguing for the device type to be changed to valor device when you're ordinarily very insistent that something be called by it's proper name, with citation to government sources. Air Force 36-2803 says "V" (Valor) Device" which is a good way to draw the inference that "V" stands for valor, but again, that's not the name, so why would we want the infobox to say "Type: Valor device"? The item's actual type here is just like OLCs, 5/16 inch stars, service stars, "M"s, "E"s, and every other device: it's just a device. AzureCitizen (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

PS - would you please answer my question on your talk page about the use of signatures? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, who's arguing? We're both trying to improve the articles, right? I see all the effort and some of the successful things you've done. I don't see anything wrong with putting Valor device in the box otherwise Device is better than it was before sometime ago, right? I was trying to make it better by valor device (and before by, military device-title has "military" "award devices"). The general reader would know the V stands for something, valor, of some type. P. 11 in Air Force manual 2001 has heroism for Bronze Star medal, and the Commendation and Achievement medals with the V. I think those 2 AF unit awards with the V have some valor related things written into it too. Some "didn't think" the Combat V could be for valor (for Marines!) because it said "combat distinguishing device". It sure was and is for valor like the army if that's what its awarded for. You won't find 'valor' written into most of the army or Marine BSM award citations with the V but heroism. Come to think of it, I don't think most MOH citations have valor written into it (? even Audie Murphy's), Matt Urban's (2 pages) has valorous actions.... he choose to have his MOH presented to him by Carter in a hotel in DC so members of his unit... could be there. Army HQ's awarded him the medal, I have his copy of his official citation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

I certainly agree that we're all here trying to improve the articles. Military decorations, awards, and devices are some of the trickiest articles to work on because there are so many subtle nuances, across the services and across time spans and among the items themselves. With regard to "valor" and the "V" device article, we could try working something in right at the start to make reference to it. Maybe we should add a sentence like this to the lede, in new a 2nd paragraph: "The meaning of the device varies between the services and the particular decoration on which it is worn, but it usually indicates it was for valor or heroism in combat." But again, it gets sketchy when it's essentially unsourced and/or WP:OR. Interesting that so many certificates for BSMs and even the MOH don't even use the word valor as you said... AzureCitizen (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think one time I had "Ribbon device" in the box which sounded right. If you have just Device than all the medals would have Medal or Medal (Decoration) in the box and all the service ribbons would have Ribbon or Ribbon (Decoration) in the box... I prefer Silver Star Medal and Bronze Star Medal rather than Silver Star or Bronze Star because there are other bronze and silver stars, and these can and do get mistaken for medals by families of the deceased etc when they read their awards on their DD 214's or bio's or somethings. So, If you got an article for a campaign medal now, you have Campaign medal in the box for type instead of Medal, but don't allow Valor device or Ribbon device for the "V' Device?
Maybe the article - United States Military award devices should be United States military awards and decorations devices since you seen it in the Air Force Manual, 2001, that way now? How about, United States military medal and ribbon devices (United States military award devices) and United States military medals and ribbons (Awards and decorations of the United States military) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

We can try "Ribbon device" provisionally again in the "type" box and see if it works better than just "device". With regard to changing "United States military award devices", I will think over it some more. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think its better now as Ribbon device (or as Medal & Ribbon device) since basically its worn on Medal suspension ribbons and service ribbons. Just "Device" sounds like a mechanical part or something.

The Medal of Honor

I saw the edit changing "In the rare case... more than once..." to "In the rare case... another..." in an effort to avoid repetitiveness, but that change actually introduces a new ambiguity, since it can be initially read to mean it's saying that any MOH is being issued by the Government (to anyone, the next recipient, etc.) rather than a single individual earning a second award. I'm also not able to discern what exactly it was about the DOD quote that was being repetitive. I'm going to change it back and ask if you could explain what it was that the was repeating "what the DoD quote says"? I certainly agree that service ribbon needed to be changed to ribbon, obviously we shouldn't be changing direct quotes. AzureCitizen (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what I wrote is better because no one has received more that 2 MOH's which is really rarer nowadays. You put more than once and its repeated that way more or less in the quote (doesn't have a 2 MOH limit). Could change first to orginal MOH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

It's definitely very rare - nobody alive today has two of them - but I think it helps the way it's set up to use two sentences (the one about how rare it is, then the direct quote from the DOD Manual). I could be wrong though. Does anyone else want to weigh in on this? Is it better with two sentences, or one sentence, when it comes to explaining it? I think that because lots of folks are used to the old way (pre-2010) where this wasn't done, it has to be spelled out extra clearly as well because many at first don't believe it. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Admiral Boorda

The edit changing the text to say "caused by a naval investigation into whether he was wearing "valor devices" on the service ribbons" is misleading because there wasn't a naval investigation into "valor devices" (there was a naval investigation into his Combat "V"'s, check the source citation). Some media reports may have referred to it that way in other contexts but unless we work it in with a quoted source, I think it's a mistake to include it this way. AzureCitizen (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't misquoting what the TV news said and repeated because I heard it myself. When the story broke, I don't recall Combat V being said, the word valor was repeated and that's what the news made a big deal out of, "valor". I't would be misleading for me to say otherwise when I know better. That was years ago, it was called valor device by people. When you changed this article from Valor Device to V Device for the this article it was because it was from the 2010 DoD manual that I brought up... and some editors bashed me for, for trying to say and change V Device for Valor Device for the article. Look at Audie Murphy awards,, BSM, it says valor device. They won't let anyone put "V" device no matter of others having "V' device for theirs. Now seems you can't have valor device in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

I will take your word for it that you heard media accounts saying "valor device" on TV, radio, newsprint, etc. It's just that the way it was inserted, it makes it sound like the official naval investigation was calling it a "valor device". If you follow the citation and read the Navy report, they do not use that term. Maybe there is some other way to phrase it? That being said, it's more of a footnote in most respects and is more likely to just confuse the reader. With regard tot he Audie Murphy article saying "valor device", I'm going to go check that out right now... AzureCitizen (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC),br>

Its been a while but the news maybe rather said or also said, devices for valor instead of valor devices. Anyway he and many many other sailors and marines (dictionary-marines) (most of the marine lawyers and judges in Nam got the V) got the word to wear the V for being in or near Vietnam if they got a commendation or achievement medal. Looks like it was authorized verbally. Boorda got singled out for wearing the Vs and the high naval commander that allowed and authorized them to wear the Vs tried to have the admiral keep the V's posthumously. Field marines and their line corpsmen generally didn't get either medal or get either medal for their 12-13 month tours of duty or even a Marine Corps Certificate which isn't considered an award but had a citation written on it (no ribbon) during Vietnam. Some movie actors playing marines get the certificate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)