Talk:442nd Infantry Regiment (United States)

message: Should Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin Faleomavaega, Jr. be included under prominent members?  According to his House Democrats . gov profile he was a member of the 100 Battalion 442nd Infantry Reserve Unit, Ft. DeRussy, Hawaii (1982-1989). — J3ff 10:50, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, although it would be worth making the distinction between members during WWII and members afterwards. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this as "notable" service. The WWII vets should be listed, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 22:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Members

message: In point of fact, a casualty rate of 314% is not impossible, since that represents killed and wounded, of which some of the latter would return to action, while others would be replaced. That said, there is a controversy over these figures -- not just the 314% combat casualty rate, but also the 9,486 Purple Heart total on which it is based (9000 purple hearts for 3000 original soldiers = 300% -- but you can get a purple heart and not be counted as a casualty, viz. the controversy over John Kerry's field wounds). The formal casualty rate seems to be closer to 98% instead (3285 KIA/WIA vs. 3500 men originally fielded). See . There are two things we should address, then -- the actual numbers need to be corrected, and the controversy needs to be mentioned. The link I've given shows the numbers for the casaulty rate, but the Purple Heart question may take some offline research; all I can find online is basically unattributed recirculation of the 9,486 number. The critics of the Smithsonian exhibit claim that's too high by a factor of three. --Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. jdb ❋ (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There's no limit to how many medals (any medal) one can get. For example it wouldn't be surprising to have someone with 7 purple hearts(Pat Flynn) or 12 medals (Patrick "Tad" Tadina) it's just not that often and/or in a single war. There's no real point criticizing this other than being correct on the numbers. But it would be interesting to actually have the number of unique people receiving the various medals. Mightyname (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualty rate

message: :As a result of the stellar record of the Japanese Americans serving in the 442nd and in the Military Intelligence Service (US Pacific Theater forces in WWII) greatly helped change the minds of anti-Japanese American critics in the US and resulted in easing of restrictions and the eventual release of the 120,000 strong community well before the end of WWII.
:One notable US national effect of the service of the 442nd was to help convince Congress to end their opposition towards Hawaii's statehood petition. Twice before 1959, residents of Hawaii asked to be admitted to the US as the 49th State, but each time Congress was fearful of having a co-equal State that had a majority non-White population.  The exemplary record of the Japanese Americans serving in the 442nd and the loyalty showed by the rest of Hawaii's population during WWII overcame Congress' fears and allowed Hawaii to be admitted as the 50th US State (Alaska with a tiny, mostly White population was admitted as the 49th State in order to counterbalance Hawaii's majority non-White majority.
).
:In post-WWII American popular slang, the phrase: "going for broke" was adopted from the 442nd's unit motto:"Go for Broke" which was derived from the Hawaiian pidgin phrase used by craps shooters risking all their money in one roll of the dice.''
I've removed the above text, which was added by an anonymous editor. It sounds like it was cut-and-pasted from one of the 442nd history pages. While I'm sure much of it has a basis in fact, the style is too puffery for an encyclopedia. It's one thing to talk generally about racism; it's another to lay claim to specific causes of political events. I'd like to see some sources for those claims. Also, I highly doubt that the phrase "go for broke" was unknown before WW2 and the 442nd. It's perfectly grammatical regular English, not pidgin. --Dhartung | Talk 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV problem

message: Gosh - it all looks quite exciting!  Is there anything there worth translating and copying over? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: French version

message: The article on the 100th Battalion duplicates information already in this article. Anything about the battalions current service can be put in here. Cyane 17:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the 100th is notable enough to deserve its own article?  The articles will overlap, sure enough, but there is no pressing reason to merge them. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: According to Robert Asahina's book, the 442nd only had three battalion, not four as mentioned just above.  The "1st" battalion was actually the 100th Battalion that was allowed to keep its name by General Mark Clark due to its outstanding service prior to being incorporated into the 442nd. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: I added Lyn Crost's book to the bibliography which can be used to cite sections of the article. It is AFAIK the only book-length treatment of Japanese American soldiers in WWII. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crost book

message: I tagged this article with the citations missing and refimprove tags because it has just two citations and they aren't even formatted properly. This article needs a lot more references/inline citations (see WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY). As for external links, they should be used instead as inline citations that would appear under references unless they are used to supplement what's already in the article (see WP:EL and WP:MOS). -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article tags

message: I moved the following here, since I have no idea if it is accurate:
 
Note: 442nd World War II crest. The one above is post war
 
http://www.442ndrct.com/442DI.gif
Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crest

message: The intro says it was composed mostly of Japanese Americans. Any figures on how many and what other ethnic backgrounds were represented? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have exact figures or statistics, but one of the 442nd's most famous members was Young-Oak Kim, a Korean American. He was born in LA and drafted into the US Army, went to Infantry Officer Candidate School, and later was assigned to the 100th, whom he served with until the end of WWII. --Gar2chan (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It might be important to separate out the officer/non-comm/"enlisted" ranks. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Maybe true, but we are not talking about Japanese citizens here, as Kim and the others were American citizens —— the whole point of the problem the Japanese Americans faced during World War II. Kim actually had Nisei friends that he visited at the Jerome Relocation Center on his way after graduating from officer's candidate school prior to reporting to the 100th Battalion. When the battalion commander offered to transfer Kim out as "Koreans and Japanese hate each other," Kim replied, "You're wrong. They're Americans. I'm American and we're going to fight for America." This is from page 32-33 of Asahina's book. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Generally all of the officers were white;  that what the intro was referring to.  It also bears repeating that a percentage of decorations went to non-Japanese members of the unit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.99.127 (talk) 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Japanese?

message: It may be useful.
http://www.pbs.org/thewar/at_war_democracy_japanese_american.htm -- Takima (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PBS

message: The article seems to be contradicted by other Wik articles that deal with internment. Even the one on Japanese-American internment mentions the (much lesser) internment of European Axis-heritage Americans. Kdammers (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Italians and Germans

message: I feel that the multiple issues tag on the top of this article is relatively heavy-handed and inappropriate. I find it problematic to slap such a tag on top of an article, claiming that it needs better referencing without any effort to specify which statements require references. In response, I have added some references to the article already. Use of tags such as this often serve as efforts to discredit articles that have a good deal of validity. I would like to see this issue remedied. --Kukini  háblame aquí 13:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Articleissues template simply is a cleaner, easier way to add multiple tags to articles with more than one issue, like this one. It is not inappropriate or heavy-handed unless you feel like interpreting it that way. Fact is, this article is missing a boatload of inline citations and I shouldn't have to go through the entire article to point out where they all should be...like I said, it is missing a ton. And keep in mind that there are policies here on Wikipedia regarding verifiability and on the use of inline citations. This article doesn't meet the standards set forth in those policies yet. Tags are generally intended to be used to help point out where an article needs improvement. That was the intent. If you feel that they discredit the article, then I guess these tags should never be used. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go so far to say that "they should never be used," but I would say that they should be used sparingly. I do think it appropriate to tag specific areas of concern with the "citation needed" tag, as this approach allows other editors to work at either providing citations as needed, to argue (on the talk page) for why they are not needed, or to delete the unsourced (and/or unsourcable) statements. Blanket tagging should be used with articles that have little or no citations at all, especially those without reference sections. I use them on such articles regularly myself.Kukini  háblame aquí 18:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and thank you for the help with formatting the citations I have added. Kukini  háblame aquí 18:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to add...thanks for adding the citations you did. And yes, I went in and formatted all the citations correctly. :-) As for use of the tags, I disagree. For articles such as this one where so many citations are missing, it is silly to require anyone to add the cn or fact templates at the end of every sentence that needs a citation. If you read WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY carefully, it should become pretty clear what needs to be backed up with a verfiable inline citation and what does not. Moreover, in a controversial topic such as this one (there are those who dispute the record of the 100th/442nd just like there are those who deny that the Japanese American internment was unjust), it is better to provide as much verification as possible. Check out the Manzanar article, which is a Featured article, for an example of what I mean. Some may think it has too many citations, but I would disagree, and not just because I'm the primary contributor. That article is a solid piece of scholarship because it has been painstakingly researched. This one could be as well. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Almost forgot...you can find the correct format for citations here. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW: One thing...for articles that do not have a References section and/or are entirely devoid of citations, that's where the "unreferenced" tag comes in. "Citations missing" is for articles that have some citations, but not nearly enough. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern regarding propriety of the "Multiple Issues" tag

message: Not to be lost on history, the first insignia should be included if not even used officially.  143.232.210.38 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Also where is the hexagon with arm holding the torch insignia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.232.210.38 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First Insignia

message: Um, that  first paragraph is a bit over the top,"they fought two wars, WW2, and prejudice in america", "they needed to win big". Seriously, this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, and that was just the first paragraph, I wonder what comes later on. --Wastedgrunt36  —Preceding undated comment added 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: While one can certainly find many web sites listing the figure of over 9,000 purple hearts awarded to the 442nd Regiment, Senator Daniel Inouye, a Medal of Honor winner and 442nd veteran, stated in Senate testimony on June 13, 2000 that the regiment received over 3,600 purple hearts.   Perhaps he was just referencing recipients who could have received it multiple times.  Still, the 3,600 figure seems low since web site, the442.org, lists a total of 4,419 casualties with 650 killed in action.  Incidentally, while it is commonly stated the 442nd had the highest casualties of any regiment, the 15th Regiment of the 3rd Division were higher.  The latter suffered 1,633 killed and 5,812 wounded during World War II.  A final note, the 442nd's casualty to death ratio figure of almost 7 is far too high.  The regiment fought largely on the same fronts as the 3rd & 36th Divisions which have ratios of around 4.TL36 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I just said above (under Casualty) there's no point in arguing over the numbers of medals as anyone can have multiple medals other than having correct numbers. Being in the same area means nothing. A unit just next to the other can receive all the artillery bombardment while the other gets nothing. Not only is the situation from the units different but also their task or mission is, too. While the attacked one might be forced to attack and come under more fire the other could just be getting around for a flank attack. Big difference. For what it's worth to get some real statistics everything has to be accounted for: getting real human numbers (and their stories) and most importantly checking the criteria for the classifications (what counts as casualty since this could change from era to era), and filtering the unique number of people receiving medals. After this long time, it's virtually impossible to do this let alone verify it and then be sure at all. It might be better to list all the numbers as is being originally provided from various sources. At some point something (connection) might become apparent from looking at them all rather than just looking for a certain number. Mightyname (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Purple Hearts' Number

message: There is presently no information regarding the units participation in the Korean War. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean War Service 

message: The first sentence of the background section says that Nisei were Japanese Americans born after the attack on Pearl Harbor, which doesn't make any sense at all because if they were born after Pearl Harbor, they would be toddlers fighting in WWII.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.46.200.84 (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nisei and Pearl Harbor

message: My husband's father was killed in action on 1-11-44 when my husband was 3 yrs old.  He was in command somewhere around Salerno at the time of his death.  After many years of research and old letters saved by my mother in law we have found that he was killed by German snipers, most likely while in advance scout of enemy positions.  Due to a fire destroying all military record's in, I believe, St Louis, it has been hard to find much more.  There was a Captain Blood that my husband found a few years before his death also and he filled him in a bit.  But it a shame, that as the years have gone by any documentation is so little and far between.
My father in law's name was First Lt. Kenneth Elvin Eaton. Born in 1910.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.71.167 (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  442nd 

message: article reminds me of "black egypitans" or some other fntasy that's largely based on nonsensical garbage. the first main body of the article  stated that most of the fighters in this regiment were toddlers do i need to tell you this is a lie?) And that their families were interned, a grossly biased, assumptive, and largely untrue premise. the entire article is similar. it's a handful of truths tied together by  bunch of lies/exaggerations. not even remotely encyclopedic. 68.115.53.79 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutting most of the garbage

message: There is a .missing deployment for 100/442 inf. I was deployed to Iraq in 2008-2009 with c company. The mission was to escort supplies from Kuwait into Iraq. Lost multiple members including my room mate cpl. Casey L Hills  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.139.132 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing deployments 

message: If the film ever was, it is no longer free on iTunes as this article states.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.213.12 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film "Go For Broke" on iTunes 

message: In hopes of addressing some of the concerns about lack of citations I've tried to add references to reliable sources where I could find them and added a citation needed tag where I couldn't  In addition, the references and further reading sections had morphed into a creature that was neither fish nor fowl in that it didn't track any one system of citation.  I have tried to address this but moving towards one system.  I have no preference amongst the various systems out there, but had to pick one direction to go.  More work needed to be done, of course, before this article reflects the excellence of the amazing unit that is its subject.Ocalafla (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1653647/ 442: Live with Honor, Die with Dignity Bizzybody (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 movie 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.history.army.mil/html/topics/apam/patriots.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States). 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/20120714204202/http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=45180 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45180
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813061639/http://www.goforbroke.org/history/history_historical_maps.asp to http://goforbroke.org/history/history_historical_maps.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usip.org/aboutus/history/bios.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States). 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/20150130053324/http://www.consulfrance-losangeles.org/spip.php?article2410 to http://www.consulfrance-losangeles.org/spip.php?article2410
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121028212638/http://www.defense.gov/specials/medalofhonor/ to http://www.defense.gov/specials/medalofhonor/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709024954/http://www.usip.org/aboutus/history/bios.html to http://www.usip.org/aboutus/history/bios.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091225153627/http://libweb.hawaii.edu:80/libdept/archives/mss/aja/index.htm to http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/archives/mss/aja/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100329205736/http://www.442film.com:80/ to http://442film.com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States). 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/20121022113411/http://www.goforbroke.org/history/history_historical_campaigns_southern.asp to http://goforbroke.org/history/history_historical_campaigns_southern.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150203203640/http://www.goforbroke.org/history/history_historical_campaigns_central.php to http://www.goforbroke.org/history/history_historical_campaigns_central.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://libweb.hawaii.edu/libdept/archives/mss/aja/index.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.442film.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 442nd Infantry Regiment (United States). 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/20071221201449/http://www.littleironmen.com/ to http://www.littleironmen.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'd like to add a link to the Tuskegee Airmen in the See Also section. Both were American majority-minority units that served in WWII with distinction.
I would also consider the Māori Battalion to be similar other than nationality.
--Spellingbee91 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed See Also Addition: Tuskegee Airmen 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'll admit I do not fully grasp the labelling/naming pattern with military regiments, battalions, units, squads, etc., but this sentence sounds like it contains an error: 
"Because of its combat record, the 100th was allowed to keep their original designation, with the 442nd renaming its 1st Infantry Battalion as its 100th Infantry Battalion." 
It sounds like the 100th battalion, after being transferred to the 442nd Infantry Regiment, retained its designation as the 100th battalion. Furthermore, the sentence seems to indicate the 442nd's 1st Infantry Battalion was renamed the 100th Infantry Battalion. That doesn't make much sense since there would then be two 100th battalions in the same regiment. There might even be three 100th battalions if the 442nd Infantry Regiment already had a 100th battalion before the other 100th battalion was transferred and the 1st battalion was renamed. This is very confusing. If someone knows how to clear this up, please edit the sentence or section accordingly. Thank you. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to its arrival in Italy, as noted in the attached source, the 442nd had transferred much of its 1st Infantry Battalion personnel to replace members of the 100th Battalion. When the 442nd did arrive in Italy, it did so without its remaining members of the 1st Battalion (see the last paragraph at ). So when the 100th Battalion joined the 442nd, it did so as a replacement for the 442nd's 1st Infantry Battalion. See also 442nd Infantry Regiment (United_States)#Reunion with the 100th. I'll edit the lede to state that the 442nd arrived in Europe with only two of its three infantry battalions. Thanks for pointing out this shortcoming in the text.—Myasuda (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  100th Battalion 

message: These numbers seem all over the place: 
1. "More than 12,000 Nisei volunteers answered the call."
2. "Ultimately 2,686 from Hawaii and 1,500 from U.S. incarceration camps assembled..."
3. "Size ~3800"
4. "...the unit quickly grew to its fighting complement of 4,000 men..."
5. "...an eventual total of about 14,000 men served overall."
Why do none of these numbers match? If 12,000 Nisei volunteered and 14,000 men served overall, were there 2,000 non-Nisei in the 442nd? 2,686 from Hawaii and 1,500 from the incarceration camps make 4,186. Why are 3,800 and 4,000 also given as the size of the force? Do some numbers account for casualties while others don't? From the highest number (14,000) to the lowest (3,800), what accounts for the difference? Casualties? Discharges? Transfers to other regiments? 
To a lay person, these number discrepancies are confusing. It would be helpful if someone with the appropriate knowledge clarified this and made distinctions either with explanatory parenthetical statements, footnotes, or even a separate paragraph in the text if necessary. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Per my reading, 12,000+ corresponds only to volunteers. The number of inductees was closer to 4,000, which was about the size of the effective fighting force at any one time. The 14,000 number is the total that served during the war: see the first paragraph at Service decorations and legacy. I'll modify the infobox to say ~4000 instead of ~3800, due to variability in numbers during the war. Feel free to suggest other changes to help clarify the article.—Myasuda (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: "Seravezza" Italy, not Serravezza.   
minor typo. 2603:8000:B500:95BB:10E9:DEB0:4092:BD87 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks!–Myasuda (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Misspelling

message: ::Earl Melvin Finch (December 5, 1915 - August 25, 1965): The One Man U.S.O.
*
*
*
*
*
*search:"Earl Finch"|"Earl M. Finch"|"Earl Melvin Finch" 1915|1965|Hattiesburg|Mississippi|Honolulu|Hawaii -Idaho -Kansas -Hatton -British -Sandwich -Texas -CANANDAIGUA -William
*search:"Ralph Yempuku" "Earl Finch"
*search:"Earl Finch Hula"
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
:.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl Melvin Finch: new article?