Talk:Navy Cross

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve, organise, and standardise Wikipedia's coverage of national honours systems. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Contents 1 First/Last Recipient 1.1 Bad data 2 Rating 3 Notable recipients

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rating

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

[edit] 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)