Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 22 January 2013

If I leave a message for you: Please respond on your talk page. I'll probably add it to my watchlist, but if I miss something, feel free to leave a talkback. If you leave a message for me: I will most likely respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page. Note: I reserve the right to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to take further action through permissable means. (See this policy.) If I mistakenly called your edits as vandalism when I reverted them, it was probably because you did not leave an edit summary. Please realize that, in many cases, unexplained edits are indistinguishable from vandalism! This also applies to Rollbacks. If you're here to troll, harass, or vandalise, I might not be able to stop you, but you will be reverted...and beware the giant dice.

This editor is an Illustrious Looshpah and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge.

Archives

as Aerobird - Jul 2008-Apr 2010 - May 2010 - Jun 2010-Oct 2010 - Nov 2010-Dec 2010 - Jan 2011-Mar 2011 - Apr 2011-Sep 2011 - Oct 2011 - Nov 2011-Dec 2011 - Jan 2012-Feb 2012 - Mar 2012-Apr 2012 - Apr 2012-May 2012 - Jun 2012 - Jul 2012 - Aug 2012 - Sep 2012 - Oct 2012

This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

You may not have understood points I tried to make

In this comment I think you are addressing a counter-argument to a point no one attempted to make, and that you appear to not to have noticed the point I already made. You wrote: "The Coast Guard Medal is not at the level of medals that confers notability."

Wouldn`t it be more correct to say: "The Coast Guard Medal is not at the level of medals that confers sufficient notability, all by itself, for an awardee to merit an individual article"?

It has long been accepted here that being the recipient of a nation's highest award is sufficient to make the awardee "notable" -- all by itself. When one reviews the articles on recipients of the highest award, their awards are often their sole claim to notability. That is true for civilian medals like the George Cross, as well.

I see nothing in the record to suggest there has ever been any consensus that lesser medals confer zero notability. Are you aware of any discussions that explicitly concluded lesser medals conferred zero notability?

John Kerry won Bronze Stars -- didn't they confer enough notability that they are worth noting in an article about him, even though they confer less notability than a Silver Star, which, in turn, confers less notability than a Medal of Honor?

Some medals are very common, and not widely unknown, outside the military. In the US context the Purple Heart is pretty common, isn't it? My recollection was that John Kerry's Purple Hearts would not usually be considered worth mention in the John Kerry article, if it weren't that some critics challenged the significance of his wounds, and implied he used insignificant wounds to get sent home early. When an article says an American served in Vietnam, I think we wouldn't usually mention that they were entitled to wear campaign medals that any veteran who served in Vietnam is entitled to wear. Have I got that right?

So, don't various medals confer a range of notabilities? Is so, how does the Coast Guard Medal compare with the Silver Star and Bronze Star? I am no expert. I don't know. But they aren't awarded that often, and they do seem to require significant daring, which would suggest to me they confer a significant fraction of the notability of a Medal of Honor -- a lot more than the very common medals not worthy of mention.

I tried to make the point that while BLP1E does allow for exceptions, where a single event, like winning a Medal of Honor, is sufficient to establish notability, most individuals' notability is determined by adding up multiple factors that confer notability. I tried to make the point that in Richard Dixon's case, we do have multiple factors conferring notability.

I'd appreciate if you clarified whether you meant to suggest that lesser medals conferred zero notability.

I do recognize that it would be perfectly reasonable for you to say you acknowledge multiple factors can add up to our notability threshhold, and that, in your opinion, the factors in Dixon's case fall short. Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do, that's what I was trying to say. Sorry if that wasn't clear. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Uglified

After seeing your move on Petrel, it occurs to me this probably should be moved back, too....except LBD Gargoyle is a redirect. Can you handle it when you get a chance? Thx. Also, no need to reply; it's watchlisted, so I'll see it. :) TREKphiler 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I saw that too, but I'm not 100% sure on that one, actually - as LBD is an aircraft-series designation, and it's arguably as much an unmanned aircraft as a missile (see also Republic-Ford JB-2). It kinda straddles the line! I reckon it can be moved (I was the one who originally moved it back in the Great Aircraft Article Naming Change, I see), but it might be contested. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Quoting you

Some would no doubt advise against it, but I'm now quoting you (alongside Dennis Brown) on my userpage. :) Salvidrim! ✉ 09:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagremover disputes

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tagremover (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)