Jump to content

Talk:Mentioned in dispatches

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

I'm confused

[edit]
In the nations of the British Commonwealth, soldiers who are mentioned in despatches receive a certificate and are entitled to wear a bronze oak leaf on the ribbon of the service medal issued to soldiers who served in a conflict.
If you are awarded a Mention in Despatches you are entitled to wear a silver oak leaf on the ribbon of the campaign medal.

Are these different? If so, what's the difference between the silver and bronze leaf? If not, why do we say it twice? Marnanel 13:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1914 there was no emblem for the MiD. From 1914-20 it was a bronze spray of oak leaves. From 1920-94 it was a single bronze oak leaf. From 1994 onwards it has been a single oak leaf in silver. This article notes the change, but obviously fails to do it in an intelligible way. This article will probably need to be revised.
Xdamrtalk 13:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Dispatches spelled with an e?

[edit]

Is that a typo, or is it French? An explanation or correction is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.51.82 (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer to why it is spelled with an e is...... because it is. See here and here and here. PalawanOz 08:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One may cite numerous examples of despatch being spelt with an "e," and indeed my Oxford Dictionary gives that spelling as an alternative, with "dispatch" being given first. The fact remains that, in this particular context, "dispatches" is usually spelt with an "i." An uncle of mine was a British officer during World War Two, and received this honour. Look at genealogical sites or official records sites dealing with military matters if you doubt it. Pavel (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sample mention?

[edit]

A mention in despatches is always spelt with an 'e', though in modern times referred to as an MiD. Prince Phillip has one MiD plus the Greek Cross. It is technically incorrect to say that he was MiD'd twice in WW2. likewise, Prince Andrew was MiD'd on one occasion in the Falkland Conflict of 1982. To be MiD'd can sometimes be considered as a staging post for a more senior award. Often the 'Fog of War' prevents the process going further, as was the case with 'Major' Hewitt, in his capacity as a Tank Commander during one of the Iraq 'Wars'.

Could the text of a sample mention be included in the article? I check some of the links but no sign of one there either. - SimonLyall (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In modern usage all that's published is a list of names under the heading "Mentioned in Despatches" in an operational honours list. I think the individual gets some sort of certificate, which may have a citaiton on it, but it isn't really a matter of public record. David Underdown (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I sort of got them impression there was something like a summary of an action with phrases like "and Private John Smith showed exceptional ...." in it. I guess they don't do that anymore. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More national examples?

[edit]

Isn't this concept similar to being mentioned in the german Wehrmachtbericht? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.244.132 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is correct. I have added a bit about this to the article. Thank you for the information. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States

[edit]

This entire section is false. The Purple Heart was a VALOR award when initially conceived, and called the Badge of Military Merit. It was awarded to a handful of Continental soldiers, then was not awarded again until 1932. It did not become an award for the wounded until around the Second World War, and was NEVER something a soldier could purchase at his leisure. The author of this section felt the need to fill a space, without regard for fact. This section not only has nothing to do with Mentioned in Despatches, but also denigrates the Purple Heart with its falsehoods. This needs rewriting and citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.11.17 (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this passage, deleting the offending material, and replaced it with factual information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.11.17 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mentioned in dispatches. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the Wehrmacht Report

[edit]

Hi, I've started a topic relevant to this page on Talk:Wehrmachtbericht, under the section "Military commendation?" I am trying to submit the article for B-class review, but I'm lacking a source. Any help the editors could offer would be much appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany

[edit]

During World War II, the Wehrmacht Supreme Command (OKW) sometimes mentioned individual soldiers in its daily propaganda radio report to the public. This was known as the Wehrmachtbericht and a mention in this report was held in high esteem by German soldiers. In mid 1941 mentions in Wehrmachtbericht were awarded by the soldier's name being included on the Honour Roll of the German Army. Later, after January 1944, inclusion on this list was also sometimes rewarded with an honour clasp, known as the Honour Roll Clasp of the Army.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Army Roll of Honor Clasp". Retrieved 2009-05-27.
  2. ^ "World War II Awards". Retrieved 2009-05-27.

Moving here for storage; please see discussion at Talk:Wehrmachtbericht. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Table is wrong

[edit]

I see that the first section here is en-titled 'I'm confused'.
So am I, for some reason the 'Vietnam' campaign medal is under the UK heading. When I was serving in the British army, I don't remember anyone going to Vietnam.
I would change it, (to either the Australian or US sections?), but thought consensus might be needed first.

RASAM (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede OK

[edit]

I don't think the lede needs any extending (as requested in the tag). The article is largely a listing of other countries, and these are not suitable for summarizing. Valetude (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mentioned in dispatches. 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) 13:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despatches/dispatches

[edit]

2607:FEA8:E983:F200:5876:15A8:2CD8:ECC8 (talk · contribs) reverted my use of the sic template to clarify that MiD in the UK uses the spelling 'despatches', on the grounds that "removed inappropriate use of SIC, as despatch(es) is a recognized spelling. SIC is not used the show different dialectic spelling."

This leaves the spelling at risk of amendment to "dispatches", to give in-article consistency (which is what I might otherwise have done), but would be incorrect. How should this spelling be protected? Masato.harada (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mentioned_in_dispatches&oldid=1257626236"