# Talk:Ross A. McGinnis

It is my understanding that his Silver Star was awarded as a temporary decoration. From the Army profile, emphasis added: "Army Decorations: Medal of Honor (to be presented to Tom and Romayne McGinnis at a June 2, 2008 White House Ceremony), Silver Star (awarded for valor exhibited during the events of Dec. 4, 2006, pending processing and approval of Medal of Honor), ..."
I read that as the MoH replaces his Silver Star, in the semi-official tradition of one action, one decoration. Does anybody have an Army source on this, or a historical example?
MatthewSMaynard (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
At this website (http://www.iraqwarheroes.org/mcginnisra.htm) is quoted an article from the Stars & Stripes 10 days after the day's events, and it states "A Silver Star already has been awarded to McGinnis for his bravery, and even if he is eventually awarded the Medal of Honor, the Silver Star will stay on his record." so my guess is that the Silver Star will not be rescinded.  Mike (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The inscription on his headstone doesn't mention a Silver Star (see here - scroll down to see a comparison between McGinnis' headstone before and after he was awarded the medal of honor). Gugganij (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The inscription on the headstone was the decision of the next of kin.  ANC sent a form to fill out what was to be included on the stone.  There is only so much room on the headstone.  Whether or not the Silver Star is a permanent medal, I don't know.  But I know that the headstone does not qualify as evidence for or against.Knoxautoguy (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do these really deserve the pics being shown or even being mentioned?  The article already mentions that he was in the 1st Infantry Division and links to that article.  I have never seen anyone's division shoulder patches linked to in any other article before.  BrokenSphereMsg me 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

David Petraeus
William B. Caldwell
-Signaleer (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
And hundreds of articles more that don't have them.  I still don't see the point.  BrokenSphereMsg me 22:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with the qualification badges or tabs.  Can you give a reason as to why the division patches need be displayed?  It seems to be window dressing to me since these sorts of things are available to everyone in a division just because they happen to be in it as opposed to being earned.  Also, the hidden text in caps not to make any changes to the decorations tables without explaining why comes off as peremptory and unilateral.  BrokenSphereMsg me 22:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I say ditch the patch, keep the CIB. The 1ID patch is a result of an assignment, not the result of merit or other action. We might want to add his marksmanship badge, but I see no reason to keep the 1ID patch. MatthewSMaynard (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
First and foremost, the unit patch is part of the uniform, it identifies the individual and what organization they are part of.  Furthermore, after combat service, most individuals display their "combat patch" on their right shoulder both during combat operations downrange and post redeployment.  Bottom line, it is an important part of the uniform; someone who has not served in the United States Army would most likely undermind this argument because they have not servced in the military.  It is also safe to say that both BrokenSphere and MatthewSMaynard have not worked dilligently on American military biographeis in the past viewing your contributions to Wikipedia.  -Signaleer (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Signaleer, your answer was fine up to the point where you belittled my and MatthewSMaynard's depth of knowledge in regards to the US military as displayed by our contribs, so I'm asking you to please be civil here and understand that not everyone who comes through in terms of reading or editing this article will have the same degree of knowledge and expertise in the field as you yourself have.  I will admit that military topics on here are a strong interest of mine, but not my first interest (anime is).  So I think my perspective as an admitted non-expert is helpful in this discussion because it presents an alternate view.  The issue is that while some readers like yourself will understand the significance of the combat patch, I'm guessing that the vast majority of them won't.  Even American editors like MatthewSMaynard and myself who have an interest in the US military did not up to this point, so where does that leave everyone else?  The  patch's inclusion raises the question as to why? in our minds when we see it displayed alongside the other decorations without an explanation.  My first instinct was to remove them, then I saw your peremptory hidden text not to modify the table and so raised the topic here in an attempt to discuss first.  If it is an important part of the uniform as you say, could you clarify how high it is in terms of importance?  I don't think it's our job here to replicate someone's dress uniform, as I have always thought and seen that generally we will mention and display decorations and qualifications, but not combat patches.  If you want additional viewpoints this can also be raised with the MILHIST Wikiproject if warranted.
First and foremost, I did look at your contributions and you do seem to lack work on United States military biographies.  This is a fact, regardless of your personal interest in military bio's.  Don't take it personally.  Second of all, listing awards and decorations is part of a military stand biography.  Again, someone like yourself who  has not served in the military or who does not understand the depth of knowledge about the culture would not understand, I do not expect you to nor do I expect you to accept my logic in reference to the patches on Wikipedia.  I firmly believe that it is Encylopedia worthy material and it should stay on the site.  Furthermore, if you would like for MILHIST to get involved, I would more than happy to go that route to resolve this "problem".  -Signaleer (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am also still waiting for an explanation from you regarding the hidden text that you inserted into the table not to modify the table without presenting a reason why.  You don't own this article any more than me or anyone else does, and this comes off as one editor's attempt to prevent others from making reasonable edits where they may see fit.  BrokenSphereMsg me 18:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If you reviewed the history, a user had modified the table and took it upon themselves to change the format which has already been established. -Signaleer (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It would still be helpful to include a note that modifying the table might break it unless the editor knows what they're doing.  I would not expect everyone to comb through diff after diff going back months to try and figure it out.  While the current format works, it's still one editor's version of how the table could be displayed, e.g. it could be one long list also.  Unless the current format an established consensus means of displaying decorations and badges here, I don't know.  BrokenSphereMsg me 18:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Classy, Signaleer, classy. It is uncontested that he was part of the 1ID or that the patch is an official part of his uniform and a legitimate point of pride for both him and his unit. The question is why place the patch in such a prominent (and repeated) position on the page, especially with so little other biographical content and a link to the unit's page in his bio box? Consider also the many Army MoH biographies that lack such unit patches, including Larry G. Dahl, Charles Chris Hagemeister, and George Alan Ingalls. I think the link in the bio box is sufficient, unless and until a MoH style guide is written (off to look for one now...) MatthewSMaynard (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to condense the description to just one patch, that would be fine by me. -Signaleer (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me there is no need to include the divisional patch. the heading U.S. badges, patches and tabs is quite confusing. Badges are qualification awards that to be earned, contributing to the understanding of the biography of the individual. Patches are just a part of the uniform as mentioned above. While I'm sure it is nice for the division to know it has these sort of individuals in its ranks, the battalion and regimental insignia is probably far more appropriate. However, being a member of any given unit says nothing about the individual being deserving of the high award. In other wards, unit insignia is not essential information that needs to be visually presented to the reader.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the CSIB from the article.  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_A._McGinnis&type=revision&diff=762782303&oldid=762177102
The CSIB was authorized in FY09, (1 July 2009) as an option for the Department of the Army (DA) photo in the Army Green Uniform or the Army Service Uniform (ASU). https://www.army.mil/asu/faq.html  Since SPC Ross McGinnis was KIA, prior to the authorization date or the creation of the CSIB, he therefore would have never worn it. --Signaleer (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)