Talk:Clinton Romesha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleClinton Romesha has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2013Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 11, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Clinton Romesha (pictured), who today is being awarded the Medal of Honor, joined the United States Army after deciding not to be a missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Report published by U.S. Army historian Richard S. Lowry?[edit]

Why is there no citation and or link to the report published by Richard Lowry? If the entry is going to say "according to the report published by Richard Lowry" it seems that there should be a link to the report, or at the very least the name of the report.

DouglasCalvert (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find this report? A reference relayed it, but we would need to make sure it was a secondary source before we could include it. —Ed!(talk) 21:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In another Richard Lowry article he references his entire story named "Incoming", that might be it. — - dain- talk    22:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failure To Serve LDS Mission is Not Notable[edit]

I'm perplexed why it is necessary to mention decision NOT to serve LDS mission, especially in connection with 4 years of Seminary attendance. LDS Seminary is simply a high-school-level religion course of study that is offered "on the side" in various forms (or not at all) depending upon availability -- this might be confusing to some readers who do not realize that the use of the title "Seminary" does not imply some form of preparation for the professional ministry, like it does in some religious traditions. That many young men and young women take Seminary in high school but then do not subsequently serve missions makes mention of it rather non-notable. As if he took Spanish classes all four years and ended up studying Russian in college instead.

I propose to leave mention of his church affiliation in the article, but remove the reference to Seminary and not serving a mission.Cyberherbalist (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat ambivalent. That was the DYK hook for the article yesterday, but it's there primarily because it was one of the only early ideas we knew about Romesha following the announcement. —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's alright to leave in there seeing as that fact is one of the few details of his pre-military life. Just my .02 though.— - dain- talk    20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The questions here proposed is WP:WEIGHT; as the content is verified. As such, I don't think one sentence is to much weight in an article where the primary focus is on the subject's military service. Therefore, I am in support of keeping the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that he didn't contact his wife for four (4) days? This is absurd because I can recall a stretch of overseas service of 2 years and 7 months duration in which I made one (1) phone call home. People who served in Iraq and Afghanistan were used to emailing and phoning and Skype-ing all the time, but there are many millions of living veterans who did not have such conveniences.

Awards[edit]

Just curious but I noticed in the awards section he has devices on his campaign ribbons but in his pictures he doesn't have them. Any idea what's up with that?— - dain- talk    20:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content verified through this reliable source; as for why the subject is not wearing all the devices he is authorized to wear, I do not know. ADM Thad Allen is known not to wear all his authorized medals, so the practice is not without precedent. Furthermore, there have been cases wear individuals have warn badges and medals when not authorized, such as this case with a 2LT wearing a SEAL badge, or what occured with ADM Jeremy Michael Boorda. Therefore, although images are often useful, they are not alawys the best reliable source all the time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Air Force at least it's pretty common to see officers not wearing decorations at all unless they're in the most formal dress (ie, the coat jacket, in the example you mentioned the officer wasn't wearing his.) Enlisted men tend to take a different view, from my experience. Anyway, his jacket here should have the most up-to-date stuff, but Romesha himself might not know for sure; it's possible he was awarded decorations after he retired and didn't have the time or documentation to purchase those uniform items before this ceremony. If you have a more recent source noting decorations he's authorized, I say go with them. —Ed!(talk) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point with the "it's possible his units were awarded them after he separated" bit. All my unit awards I got ~2 years after they were awarded, i.e. my unit won outstanding in 2008 and I got it in 2010, etc. — - dain- talk    21:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yeah, same prescedent takes place in the USAF as far as you aren't required to wear all your ribbons and such but most people do and when you don't everyone is like "wtf" (from my experience anyway.) I've never heard of people not wearing the right amount of devices though, meh. It's just rather interesting in that regard. — - dain- talk    21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Clinton Romesha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one. Review forthcoming in the next day or two. Thanks in advance for the work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial readthrough[edit]

This appears excellent so far: strong prose, solidly sourced. I've made some minor changes per WP:OVERLINK and WP:REPEATLINK, and some very small changes for style and grammar. Please feel free to revert any you disagree with. I'll begin the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Some additional detail could still be added, such as his biology degree from Pueblo Community Coll.[1](free version here), or perhaps a blurb from Panetta's remarks in awarding the medal.[2] But these details hardly count as a main aspect.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass.

LaVor or Lovar ?[edit]

The official Medal of Honor webpage ways Lovar, but most internet hits is LaVor. I tend to believe the official page. Any thoughts? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I say what has more weight? I can see giving Lavor more weight as it is more official, than giving weight to a multitude of reliable sources who may not be as accurate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal[edit]

Recently this medal was added, but the reliable source used to verify it does not list in the list of Romesha's medals. Can someone please provide reliable source(s) verifying that Romesha received this medal, otherwise it is subject to removal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor, 2001:7E8:C64F:1501:406:D1B9:F0F7:D5A0, added a DoD release as a reliable source. It does not verify that the subject of this article was awarded the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Please provide a reliable source, otherwise it is subject to WP:BURDEN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clinton Romesha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clinton Romesha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Separation[edit]

I have reverted unsourced edits by IP editors, removing the name of the spouse and vandalism of removing verified material from the Personal life section. The IP editor listed the subject as being separated from his spouse, but I cannot find any reliable source verifying that as fact.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clinton_Romesha&oldid=1209393665"