# Talk:Harry Kizirian

This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Kizirian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 14:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Proudbolsahye. I have taken the liberty of doing some copy edits as part of the GA review process. I hope you don't mind. Here are some items I was unable to resolve myself:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
First name should not be used. I have corrected all instances of this.
What is a beef lugger? Please go back to the source and come up with a clearer wording.Y fixed
I started working on the paragraph that starts After a month to recover from his wounds... but some of the details are confusing. For example, mounds are not dug. Holes are dug. A mound is the opposite of a hole. What kind of defensive structure was it?Y Also, you say he fired two shots, and then he's quoted as saying he shot four clips. Which is it?Y
When the battalion commander was killed, orders had arrived to seek and destroy any enemy combatants around NaHa. The wording implies that these two events were linked. I don't think they were. Could you re-word this please?Y
Shot in the legs and unable to walk, he moves on his elbows to wipe out a machine gun emplacement. But in the next paragraph, you have him standing watch at a company command post. Some dates for this next activity would be helpful, or some indication as to how much time off he needed to recover from the previous incident.Y
Japanese soldiers harassed the lines of inexperienced soldiers What did this harassment consist of? Did they shoot at them? If yes, please say so.Y
The Awards and recognition section consists of many tiny paragraphs that should be consolidated. Please arrange the material chronologically by date of award and split it into several longer paragraphs.Y
The area outside the post office was named Harry Kizirian Plaza in his honor. Which post office?Y
...downtown messenger service in which city?Y
B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Lead:
The lead mentions the iconic photograph, but this is not mentioned in the body of the article anywhere. Also the fact that the Harry Kizirian Post Office was the first  first United States federal building named after an Armenian American. These are merely two examples; there are more instances; the entire lead needs to be checked and the problem fixed. All material in the lead needs to be present in the body. The lead is otherwise fine as to content and length.Y
Links:
Please add a link to fire team in both the lead and the body. Y
Link Purple Heart, Lemuel C. Shepherd, Jr., Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, American Heart AssociationY
Sugar Loaf Hill redirects to Battle of Okinawa, which is already linked, so this link should be removed please.Y
Imperial Japanese Marines: if you are sure this is the type of units present on Okinawa, there's an article you could link to at Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces. This should probably be mentioned earlier in the article if you are going to use it.Y
Dab Solver found no problems.
External links:
The school's website is already used as a source for the content, so it should not be listed under External links.Y
Technical:
Date formatting is inconsistent. Please use US style dates throughout. (example:  Retrieved 29 April 2013 → Retrieved April 29, 2013)Y
{{cquote}} is meant for use with pull quotes only. I have changed this to {{quote}} and moved the citations to after the quotes.
A. Provides references to all sources: 
No technical errors were found in the references; Checklinks found no dead links; all material is sourced
B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 
Sources look reliable. Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or instances of too-close paraphrasing.
C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 
There's more information about his wounds available in the sources. I would like to see more information about what specific disabilities he suffered and how they impacted his life.Y explained adequately
B. Remains focused: 
Is it important that the action took place on Mothers Day? I would rather see the exact date given.Y
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
The image is the property of Corbis, a commercial news image source, and thus is not eligible for fair use or for being hosted on the Commons. Unfortunately I have to nominate it for deletion. You could add a link to the photo in the external links section.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
The other image is good, with a suitable license and caption.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
The article will be placed on hold for one week to resolve these issues. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
There's two items remain undone. I can't fix these for you, because I can't access the source material:

You say he fired two shots, and then he's quoted as saying he shot four clips. Which is it?
Japanese soldiers harassed the lines of inexperienced soldiers What did this harassment consist of? Did they shoot at them? If yes, please say so. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay well I have two things I can do or say about the first point you brought up. One is that Kizirian said, "I must have fired four clips..." It appears as though he says this because he fired much more than he is believed to have fired due to the abruptness of the situation. It doesn't seem as though he states this as a fact. If this does not clarify enough, I can just removed the quote.
As for the second point, I clarified/fixed it. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Now I understand what the sequence of events was, so I have tweeked the wording further. Please feel free to amend further if I have misunderstood. I am now promoting the article to GA. The questionable photo will automatically be removed by a bot if/when it is deleted from the commons (in about a week). Congratulations! -- Diannaa (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I did a check on his awards for his service in the 6th Marine Division (22nd Marines) and found corrections were needed:

China Service Medal (CSM) - for 6th Marine Division members who participated in the Occupation of China [[1]] in Oct. 1945-March 1946. The 6th Division was sent to Guam after the Battle of Okinawa ended on June 21, 1945 and then went to China after the war ended with Japan Sept. 2, 1945. Kizirian was badly wounded on June 11, 1945 and sent to and hospitalized on Guam and then sent to States from there and discharged in 1945 or 1946. Kizirian did not participate in the Occupation of China and not entitled to the CSM.
Presidental Unit Citation (PUC) - 6th Division for Okinawa (Kizirian).
Navy Unit Commendation (NUC) (2) - 22nd Marines for participation in Eniwetok and Guam battles (Kizirian did not participate, he was sent overseas Oct 1944 and assigned to the 22nd Marines after these battles ended in Aug. 1944.
Combat Action Ribbon (CAR) - for combat participation (Kizirian, Okinawa); retroactive to Dec. 7, 1941. YahwehSaves (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The PUC I think everyone is in agreement  Resolved
Might the NUC's have been for service with other units at other time periods?  (ie Did he serve with any other units before or after the 22/6?)
@YahwehSaves: Twice now you've mentioned Kizirian's times of hospitalization on Guam and back in the states - it sounds like you are refering to a source that mentions such, what/which might that be?
For the CAR, no, as discussed multiple places elsewhere.
For the CSM(Extended): regarding the source you linked to (the 6th Marine Div. website), I don't see where it say's that?  Might I suggest instead [page 219 of this], that gives specific dates.  Depending on the particular subunit(s) for the 22nd Rgt. & 6th Div., it's any where from 10 Oct. 1945 to 31 Mar 1946. Page 218 of that also gives information on the NOSM for the 6th Marine Div.  Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article first, unless you did and are deliberately agitating me? (article "Life" section: sent overseas Oct. 6, 1944 and member of "Company E, 22nd Marines"..., and hospitalized in Guam [10]). Didn't you read at bottom of 6th Marine Division site (or any other 22nd Marines/6th Divison history site) it was sent to China (Oct 45)? He was hospitalized in Guam and sent to States for further recovery and discharge and not sent to China thus not qualified for the China Service Medal/Navy Occupation Service Medal which covers the occupation medal for those participants of the 6th Divsion. CAR is retroactive to 1941 and he'd be definitely allowed to wear it for his ground combat on Okinawa. Would you tell him (or Barrow or Puller) no ("For the CAR, no")? Formal application for CAR, reason for that is there are too many past Marines to check and send it to. YahwehSaves (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Once again, your refusal to present any sources is not making your argument compelling. We cannot add any medal to the article unless there's a WP:RS that says so. Your argument is left unsourced let alone correct. See:

Kizirian was sent overseas on October 6, 1944 and has received Asiatic Campaign Medal more than twice. Even if that isn't the case, as a member of the 6th division and regardless of whether he was wounded or not, we would've probably received it anyways. But most importantly, page 133 of this source says he received it. Unless you find a source that will back your claims, I'm afraid I'll have to undo your recent contributions to this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

below is my earlier response to YahwehSaves, here's my response to Étienne Dolet's post:
As I understand the discussion (and correct me if I'm misteaken YahwehSaves) the case is not that he didn't get it because he was injured, but rather that he didn't get it because he wasn't with the unit at the time (because rather he was in hospital(s)) - for which we are awaiting YS to provide said source for.  If YS provides a source with Kizirian's dates of hospitalization - there's still the question of does he still qualify because he was technically assigned to the unit in question even if not with the unit?  I would think not, but I'm not positive (that's a highly technical question for which we would need more input on).
However, all that being said, if page 133 of that Demirjian source explicitly lists the China Service Medal, then yes, it can be added to the article because it is sourced.  And that would trump the fact of when he was or was not where.  There are only three posibilities around that as far as I can see open to YahwehSaves or other editors who dispute that:
Add a dubious tag pointing to this discussion after the mention of the China Service Medal on the page (I think that would be the best thing to do)
Find evidence that the Demirjian source is either incorrect in this specific instance or is unreliable overall- I think that is what YahwehSaves is trying to do on his talk page reply using a logic argument, which while compelling, is not proof- I wouldn't recomend this route as that's a very hard thing to prove.
Find a conflicting source that explicitly address's his lack of a CSM (extremely unlikely, that's almost like trying to prove a negative).
Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the Asia-Pacific CM, it looks like he would have one star on it for Okinawa.  Other campaign stars for members of the 22nd would be before he joined them. see [on page 150, the codes are explained begining on page 61].  I'll add it unless someone beats me to it.
regarding the NUC, I see the source you mentioned on YS's talk page regarding a lone NUC.  Perhaps that should be added as a source to the section (or to that specific commendation)?
regarding the American Campaign Medal (Which I see has been removed) - it's removal was correct, I see nothing to indicate he, the 22nd Marines, nor the 6th Marine div. have that.  It looks like @Looper5920: added the American Defense Medal to the 6th Marines Div. page back in 2008 - though the 6th Marines Div. was formed after the period of eligibility for that medal and was formed in the field outside of the American theater and was never in the American Theater till after the war.  Last year YahwehSaves then later presumed it was meant to refer to the American Campaign Medal (which would make more sense, so the confusion is understandable, but still, no).  YahwehSaves had also added the ACM to the 22d Marine Rgt., but they departed the theater after only 17 days, so unless they had an extremely slow ship, they don't appear to have that either (unlike the other 2 WWII campaign medals, there is a time requirement for the ACM).
For the  CSM, as I said, if that Demirjian source explicitly lists it, then yes, keep it on the article.  UPDATE: I see you added yet another source for that as I was typing this up, good (odd that that particular one doesn't mention the NUC though, hmm...maybe it got seperated and lost at some point between his service and 1985)
Now, the "Awards" line of the infobox, as I understand it and have always seen it used, is not for listing ALL of a person's awards - only the most significant (unless it is somehow significant to the person's notability) to avoid cluttering it.  Campaign and Service medals are not usually listed and unit awards are only rarely listed and even then only if the individual was in command of the operation it was awarded for (and usually not even then).  So I'd loose the CSM, A-PCM, WWIIVM, and 2 unit awards from the Infobox (not the article all together, just from the infobox).
Regarding the placement and precedence of the Rhode Island Cross: unless Kizirian was part of the RI National Guard AND that is proper the Guard precedence, it should not be in that position on the Military decorations section.  unless the both the previous are true, then they should be listed in US Military precedence, otherwise it's completely arbitrary.  As for the order in the infobox it's more of a judgement call since I'm not aware of any specific MOS, so I'll just ask you to think about "Why between the Navy Cross and the BSM?  Why not higher? or why not lower?"  Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
note: Etienne's reply came in as I was typing this up, but I've got to run right now, so I'll have to respond to Etienne later, below is my response to YahwehSaves:
@YahwehSaves: Why are you getting defensive when I'm agreeing with you on most points here??!??  I'm agreeing that he does not appear to be eligible for the CSM and the NUC's based on his connection to the 22nd - isn't that what your saying?  not being familiar with his particular service record, I simply asked if he served with any other units at any time (in addition to the E Co./22nd/6th) and thus might of been eligible through that service.  In your discussion with Etienne on your talk page you had mentioned that you found a source - but you never said what it was - I suspected that is where you are getting the hospitalization info on guam and back in the states from, so I very simply asked what source are you refering to?  There is currently no mention of "Guam" anywhere in this article (the life section or otherwise) nor in the link at footnote 10 (I've re-read the life section and did a control-F search for "Guam" on both).  And the only mention's of "hospital" are his later connection to Butler hospital (and mentions of his treatment after service at the VA in the source in footnote 10).  The article itself only mentions "after recovery" or "after recovering".
The only point I'm disagreeing with you on is the unsourced Combat Action Ribbon.  As a non-automatic award, it would need a source.  However, regarding the Combat Action Ribbon discussion, if there is still an aspect you are unclear on, this is not the appropriate place to discuss it - it's already being discussed, directly or indirectly, on soo many other places let's not spread that discussion to a 7th (by my count) location, ok?
Might I suggest you calm down before replying.  From what I can see, I've been one of the few people going out of my way and giving you the benefit of the doubt here - You've been close to, shall I say, "snippity" with me a couple of times now, do you really want to alienate me as well by incorrectly assuming I'm deliberately trying to agitate you?
As an aside to anyone- why are these edits showing as being on Talk:Harry Kizirian/GA1 and not Talk:Harry Kizirian.  I'm editing on the later but they are registering as taking place on the former? Update: see below 22:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)  Gecko G (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The line "Kizirian is considered to be one of the most decorated Marines of World War II from Providence, Rhode Island" seems strange. While it might be interesting to someone from Providence, Rhode Island, is it at all notable that the amount of decorations he received is high compared to what almost all other marines from Providence, Rhode Island received? What is the point of making such a comparison? Isn't it just enough to say that he washighly decorated. There also seem to be several duplicate wikilinks for Providence, Rhode Island in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
a bit off topic (perhaps this part should be moved to a new section) but yes, that does seem odd Kizirian is considered to be one of the most decorated Marines of World War II from Providence, Rhode Island has a lot of qualifiers- it implies that there are significant numbers of non-Marines, and/or non-WWII vets, and/or those from other parts of RI, who are more decorated than him.  I don't have the Demirjian source to check, but the other listed in-line citations at that point say: "one of the nation's most decorated World War II servicement" "He is said to be one of the most decorated Marine Corps men in World War II, and is believed to be the most decorated serviceman in Rhode Island", & "He is known as the most-decorated World War II veteran in Rhode Island". I'd say some of the qualifiers on that statment can be moved (the Providence bit for sure). Gecko G (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
That lead looks good to me now Étienne, what do you think Tip-toe? Gecko G (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Gecko G That's fine with me as well Gecko. Something went wrong with the stars on the medals. The stars appear too too low. It should be raised a bit. Can we have that fixed? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a known current problem with the template at certaint display sizes, so hopefully someone is working on fixing it. Gecko G (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@YahwehSaves: - did you mean for this section "Kizirian Awards Check" to be on Talk:Harry Kizirian/GA1 and not Talk:Harry Kizirian?  Assuming not, I think I know how to move it there if there are no objections? Gecko G (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Kizirian: his only unit overseas was 6th Division (22nd Marines), was sent to Guam for hospitalization after he was wounded on June 11, 1945 as said in the article reference > Congressional Record - House (Senate), S15504, October 23, 1995, 1st column. He didn't go with the 6th Division that served in China, only those 6th Division members that served in China are awarded the China Service Medal. Is this clear now?The 6th Division was activated in Sept 44 and article says he was sent overseas Oct. 6, 44 and became a member of 22nd Marines (3 unit awards). Article awards does say 1 PUC for Okinawa and 1 NUC which is for Guam battle which ended in August, so he's not entitled to a NUC for Guam or the campaign star for Guam. Is this clear now?
American Campaign Medal - He was overseas long enough to be awarded it without question. Is that clear now?
No way does the state of Rhode Island Cross mix with the Marine WW2 awards, look where Audie Murphy's state of Texas Medal of Honor is placed of his list in his info box (bottom). Is this clear now?
Kizirian was said to be the most decorated living Marine from Rhode Island (who even knows that is true, people move away etc.). He received 4 personal decorations for WWII and no MOH. He is not one of the most decorated Marines of WWII (putting the Rhone Island Cross with Marine awards is wrong).  Article had errors, exaggerations, and was out of order, and I corrected it, but not for it to be in errors, exaggerated, and awards out of order (precedence) again. YahwehSaves (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The only valid argument I see here is the order of precedence for medals. I don't mind changing them around to place it in accordance with the  Marine Corps Manual. I haven't seen the manual myself, but I'll keep the WP:GOODFAITH. As for the redundant arguments claiming that he didn't receive a NUC or a CSM, please see the sources provided in the article. We can't go by your personal opinions or observations. Regards, Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
@YahwehSaves: Ok, I see now where that says "Guam", but nothing about how long he was there nor that he was then sent from there to a hospital back in the states rather than rejoining his unit or on to another unit.  Multiple sources say he has a CSM, so either a) he rejoined his unit before (or while) they were in China, or b) he earned it with some other unit.
Umm... We've both determined that the NUC must not be for Guam - I don't see anyone still claiming it is for Guam nor any source saying it is for Guam.  More than one source has him having a NUC, so it must be for something else (other than Guam).  I checked a NAVMC 2922 from 2012, I didn't see any obvious entries for any levels of: "2nd Platoon, Company "E", 2nd Battalion, 22nd Marine Regiment, 1st Provisional Marine Brigade, 6th Marine Division".  The navy unit database isn't working at the moment, so I couldn't check there, but thats a long shot anyhow.  Perhaps a temporary Task force/Task Group/tactical Group, or a higher level MEF, Corp, or EAC that the 22d was part of OR someother unit he was a part of before or after his time with the 22nd?  Ultimately it would be good to know to further improve the article, but we don't need to know the specifics just to include the NUC, all we need for that is sources which includes it and Y to that.
Regarding the ACM - I believe you are thinking of the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal.  The American Campaign Medal is for service in the American Theater, which covers the US, the rest of the America's (inc. Alaska), and nearby waters (not including the then Territory of Hawaii).  It works a little differently than the other 2 WWII theater campaign medals.  There's a multitude of way's to qualify for it, during the time period:
A) The most common method is by serving in the US for a year, aggregate.  (The 22d was in the US for only 17 days, and the 6th Div. was never even in the US).  I suppose it's possible that his time in training plus those 17 days could add up to a year's total, but that would be an awful lot of training and an assumption (and Original Research to boot), especially given that sources listing his other campaign medals specifically don't mention an ACM amongst them.
B) serving elsewhere in Theater but outside the continental US - ie the Carribbean, South America, Alaska, and I think maybe Iceland (I'm not positive on Iceland though), etc., etc. - for 30 days or 60 non-consecutive  (There's no indication he served any of these places.)
C) shipboard in the relevant waters (ie Convoy or Patrol duty) for 30 days or 60 non-consecutive  (That would have to be the slowest transit from California to Hawaii ever to take 30 days one way) or
D) participate in combat in the theater and be recognized by name by a Corps or higher unit, or by an independent force for said combat action (a Rare occurance, which there is no indication, he nor the rest of the 22nd, did, and for which we would likely need source)
You mentioned him being "overseas long enough to be awarded it" - That would seem to imply you are suggesting that "B" was the case?  I'm not aware of any indications in support of this.
For the various "one of most decorated" claims, that's why those parts are soo heavily sourced (ie with multiple sources with quotations).  Of course there's enough ambiguity in the phrasing that even had there been only a lone source it would at best be worthy of a dubious tag rather than outright removal.
The placement of the precedence of the RI Cross was, at the time of your reply, still being discussed with Étienne, and Étienne has since replied and consented now that the reasoning was explained.  As for the precedence within the Infobox (putting the RI Cross 1st/2nd/3rd/or last) - your example of Audie Murphy is a compelling point - though a lone example does not establish a precedent.  I can see arguments on it supporting various placements (ie the Infobox is supposed to help summarize at a glance why the individual is noteworthy, and his rare RI Cross is part of his "noteworthyness"). Since I'm not aware of a MOS about it, and since it's such a small point, I'll leave that to the discussion of the rest of you folks.
Concerning that you "corrected it, but not for it to be .... again", well, that's part of the BRD-cycle that Wikipedia operates under. It can sometimes be slow and frustrating, but the end results to come out over the long run are worth it.  Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Kizirian. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512220757/http://www.riheritagehalloffame.org/inductees_detail.cfm?iid=202 to http://www.riheritagehalloffame.org/inductees_detail.cfm?iid=202
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611062439/http://www.providenceschools.org/elementary-schools/kizirian/about-our-school to http://www.providenceschools.org/elementary-schools/kizirian/about-our-school
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) 08:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harry Kizirian. 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:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130629212751/http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=7783 to http://projects.militarytimes.com/citations-medals-awards/recipient.php?recipientid=7783
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) 18:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)