Jump to content

Talk:International military decoration authorized by the United States military

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled

[edit]

If any one can help me and add more UN medals, I can only put the ones I have see people wear. Any adds would be helpful! EHDI5YS 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose that this article be merged into both International decoration and Authorized foreign decorations of the United States military, and then redirected to the latter. This is because this list seems to be somewhat limited in scope and entirely duplicated by those two articles. As part of this proposal, Authorized foreign decorations of the United States military would be expanded to include the contents of this article, and possibly renamed to Authorized foreign and international decorations of the United States military.

Perhaps the awards at International decoration could also note which ones are authorized by the U.S. military. However, I don't see the need to have both International decoration and a nearly identical copy of it that basically just omits part of the list. Does this sound like a good idea, and should we move forward with the merge? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"should we move forward with the merge?" - Not yet. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I propose that this article be merged into both International decoration" - It depends what you mean by "merge", but in principle that sounds like a good idea.
"and Authorized foreign decorations of the United States military" - I think that is a bad idea. "International" and "Foreign" are two entirely different things - I don't think it makes logical sense to merge them.
"and entirely duplicated by those two articles." - No, as stated, "Foreign" and "International" are two quite different things.
"Perhaps the awards at International decoration could also note which ones are authorized by the U.S. military." - Excellent idea. (I wish I'd thought of it.)
"Does this sound like a good idea?" - Bits of it does. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on (i.e. Modified proposal required?)

[edit]

I've just noticed the page United Nations Medal. It looks like we have at least 4 pages producing the same piece of information, plus some other information. Also, the US approach to UN medals is very different to the approach of most other nations. It looks like some homework needs to be done with a view to identifying and rationalising identical, similar and overlapping pages.

I suggest this particular merge proposal be abandoned, and a new and broader proposal be investigated, developed and presented. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

[edit]
After looking over the pages again and considering what you said, I agree that we should not merge into the foreign decorations article. Your interpretation of what I meant in the proposal is correct as far as I can tell. On the issue of United Nations Medal, I do not think we need to include that page in the merge; it seems to be sufficiently different in nature (prose rather than list) and scope (more specific information on each medal than would work well at International decoration) that I think we should keep it separate. Thus, the merge would only be between International decoration and International military decoration authorized by the US military.
Since my original proposal was somewhat lacking in specifics, I propose the following merge:
  1. All items at the US-authorized decorations page that are not currently in the international decorations page will be placed in the international decorations page.
  2. All items in the international decorations page that are US-authorized will be annotated with a footnote that marks its status as US-authorized and explains how the US differs in this matter.
  3. The US-authorized decorations page will be redirected to the international decorations page.
  4. International decoration will be renamed to International military decorations, which is a clearer title.
If you disagree with part, but not all, of this proposal, please note which part you oppose and if you have an alternative idea. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. This seems rather more complicated than I would prefer. It also seems that I did not convey some of my points particularly clearly. There are several issues - let's start with the ones you have raised and see if I can be a bit clearer this time.
(More later ... )
Sorry about the incomplete response. I'm afraid I need to dramatically reduce my WP involvement, so I'm not going to be able to supply the response I had intended. (This might be a blessing-in-disguise for all those potentially about-to-be-bored-to-death readers.)
Very briefly, it seems to me that there are a number of other issues and articles which overlap this issue and these two articles. I was going to propose a more comprehensive solution, but I don't have time to work out what that solution might be.
So, I'm going to leave "well enough" alone, and simplify things by saying that merging the articles is the simplest of the possible solutions.
Although I agree that two similar articles seems like duplication, I do feel the need to mention a couple of things that you may not have considered. (If you have, sorry to bore you.)
  • The way US treats UN decorations is quite different from the way others do. I'm not sure how easy it is to represent those differences in the one article - two separate articles certainly makes representing the differences easier ...
  • I expect the two lads who created this separate article, largely as a result of difficulties in representing the two different types of treatment in the one article, are not going to be very impressed by having the separate articles merged! (They don't seem to be contributing to this discussion.)
  • On a different point, why change the title to "international MILITARY decorations"? On the one hand, I guess the Nobel Prize could be classed as an international decoration, but I think that would seem out of place here. On the other hand, I'm not sure that you would class the Venerable Order of Saint John as a military decoration, but it seems right at home here. And what about Emergency services and Police awards? (Though I must admit that I can't immediately think of any such awards which are International.) Perhaps some thought needs to be given to what the scope of the article is, and/or should be? Yes, your proposed title is indeed clearer, but is that what you want to achieve? On the other hand, it might simplify things if there were separate "international MILITARY decorations" and "International CIVIL decorations" pages ...
At this point I'm going to "jump ship" and leave the matter in what appears to me to be your capable hands. Should you want me to re-involve myself, please drop me a line on my talk page - however, I may not respond as quickly as you might wish.
Good luck, and best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong a lot of times mergers are needed, but sometimes simplicity is best. I think that the merging of International military decoration authorized by the US military & International decoration be more pain than good. In my personal opinion if we change any thing it should be theInternational decoration page, making it more like the List of military decorations page. Put any military International decoration that is awarded world wide on the International decoration page, and have a list on the bottom of each separate country's international decorations page. Do you guys see what I'm trying to say? Because the way one country allows the wear of international decorations is quite different from the way others do. If people really feel that I am wrong or right, then please contact me on my personal page. Thanks! --EHDI5YS (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do see what you mean; I think what you've said is what I was trying to say. I'm not sure that what you have proposed is the best way to address the "problem", but I most certainly do agree that, because potentially every country could treat them differently, putting it into one page might be "a challenge". One approach I've seen is to have a main article, and underneath a "list" of treatments by country. Sometimes this "treatment" is a sub-article, other times it is a pointer to a separate article.
Examples: General officer, Lieutenant General, Major General and Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear admiral.
As you can see, each of these 6 articles is of a different style!! (There isn't even consistency in the capitalisation of the titles!)
My personal preference, and the example I was trying to verbally illustrate, is Major General, and to a lesser degree, Vice Admiral, but as I said, here are 6 different examples to "aid" your thinking.
In any case, it's not completely clear if these examples can handle this situation, anyway.
So, in summary, there's more than one way to "solve" this problem, and it might be difficult to merge into one article and achieve the desired end.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am for a merge since this strikes me very much as a "fork article". I also found it distasteful that someone said something to the effect that this page was created solely for United States persons to use as a reference. As I have found out (the hard way) we USers are not the only folks that use this site! -OberRanks (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree. In practice (no, I'm not American) the realities are that this page was created for good practical reasons based on the fact that almost every nation's approach to International decorations is just ever-so-slightly different. (Sorry if you find it a distasteful reason at first glance.) So, in practice, until someone can propose a way of merging that will solve that issue, at the moment, I oppose the merge. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Distasteful? It's called International military decoration authorized by the US military, not International military decoration used by the whole world. It was created for United States persons to use as a reference, hence authorized by the US military, not authorized by the Canadian military. (only an example) I have to go with Pdfpdf on opposing the merge also, until we can come to some what of an majority consensus on how it should be done. --EHDI5YS (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck with the merge. An added complication is that military commands in the US forces have grown very lax about enforcing, or even mentioning for that matter, when someone chooses to break uniform regs and wear EU medals or multiple UN medals or several different NATO medals instead of the standard medal with the service star like they should. IN the Navy and Army, of which I have daily contact, I have seen a few cases of people ust wearing these medals and even having them put into the service records as such. I dont have contact with too many USAF people, but did know an Air Battle Manager who wore four different NATO medlas when I think the current regs are against this. Like I said, the individual military commands dont really care and let them get away with it. I mean, in my own reserve unit, we just had a guy pretty much blow us off when we told him to stop wearing the Marine Corps Reserve Ribbon. He had been told years ago by some Gunny that he was entitled to it even though the ribbon went out of business decades ago to be replaced by the AFRM. So, yes we should merge it, but yes also the need to clarify US specific issues also exists. -OberRanks (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New International military decoration

[edit]

I added a whole new medal, this one is from SICOFAA. It was awarded to and worn by former United States Southern Command Commander General Robert H. Foglesong. --EHDI5YS (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International military decoration authorized by the US military. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_military_decoration_authorized_by_the_United_States_military&oldid=1238865875"