Talk:Southern Cross of Honor

message: In reading the current references it appears that primary sources are needed for the act of Confederate congress as well as the actual roll that was kept.  There seems to be a great deal of confusion over postwar UDC awards versus the original roll that is mentioned. Red Harvest (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary Sources?

message: Is there a rank that is not included in this list? If not, shouldn't it read "all ranks" or "all levels?"
70.88.213.74 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Officers, noncommissioned officers, and privates"

message: This is what a real Confederate States Medal of Honor looks like NOT that one issued by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Should this image be added to the article? -- Avazina, (Talk to me)  08:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend.  Where did the photo come from?  Yeah I found it here .  So this image is from an artist's rending based on a 1968 SCV resolution?  That and it is probably a copyvio if you do not have permission.  i would say that it should not be included.  EricSerge (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish to point out that the Southern Cross of Honor issued by the Confederate States and that issued by the United Daughters of the Confederacy are NOT the same medals. One was issued by a Government while the other was issued by a heritage preservation organization.  -- Avazina, (Talk to me)  01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with your statement, except that the cross was never issued by the CSA.  At least that is what the reliable sources in the article indicate.  EricSerge (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Photo of an actual Wartime Confederate States Medal of Honor  

message: The documentation of the wartime medal is still very poor in this article.  The Ancestry.com link is a dead end and should probably be removed.  I did manage to find the act itself only because of the date given:  http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/csstat62/csstat62.html  It's from page 89, "CHAP. LXI.--An Act to authorize the grant of medals and badges of distinction as a reward for courage and good conduct on the field of battle" from the journal 2nd Session of the 1st Confederate Congress.  Text mentions medals for officers and badges for enlisted.  Not any mention of "Southern Cross of Honor" so it isn't clear where the name came from.  I'm guessing it was not contemporary.  Nor do I see any references for a contemporary name of the award.  
Also, no source is given for the "Honor Roll" that was supposedly compiled for the AIG during the war.  Could we please get some references for this?  Similarly the infobox says it was first awarded in 1862...no reference given.  I'm hoping we can get some actual reliable sources, otherwise this will have to be stricken.
Another problem is that 3 of 4 external links are also dead. Red Harvest (talk) 08:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged these and will begin clean up in a day or two if no verifiable fixes are made.  I can't see any reason to keep around dead external links.  The reliable sources I've read indicated that there were no wartime issues of the "medal or badge of distinction" named in the act.  The closest thing I've found to it in wartime was the thanks of Confederate Congress combined with a locally made medal for the men who successfully defended Sabine Pass (the Sabine Pass Davis Guard Medal) and it wasn't a national medal. Red Harvest (talk) 01:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation in article is poor 

message: I don't have Clemmer's Valor in Gray, but the following review of it http://www.thehearthsidepublishing.com/review-VG-Robbins.htm explains the matter well.  I'm hesitant to use the review as a source but it summarizes these important aspects from the book:  "He explains that Congress authorized every regiment, by majority vote after each battle, to select a recipient from its ranks for inclusion in the Confederate Roll of Honor. Since the roll grew beyond 2,000 men, Congress later confirmed a Medal of Honor for truly courageous service.  Political differences stemming from design of the medal and who would get the contract to make it, as well as military reversal, prevented Congress from finally establishing a Confederate Medal of Honor. The Confederacy faded from history with no medal ever having been made or awarded."  
So according to Clemmer there is an existing Confederate Roll of Honor with over 2,000 names.  Seems an odd way to do it though...lightly or unengaged regiments would automatically be adding someone to the list. Red Harvest (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone with Clemmer's  "Valor in Gray" should help clarify wartime info 

message: What is its legal status? is it a legally recognized award for valour (is it an award for valour or just service) Can you wear it on your uniform? Does anyone in fact treat it as a real award?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: To this first point, no it has no legal recognition as a military award in any country or the former Confederacy. Can’t be worn on a uniform since it belongs to no country. And it doesn’t seem that anyone treats it as a real award. Garuda28 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

text: To point two, I don’t think this is a notable award. It was made by a post civil war confederate organization that has no relation with the confederacy or any state. Garuda28 (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This (to all of the above) is what I suspected. Its awarding does not seem to be accompanied by fan fares or any meaningful publicity. It seems no more notable or worthy then those "give us $400 to get your WW2 veteran of WW2 award" from the "committee for charging veterans for fake wards, inc" i used to see in US militarily history magazine. The only real difference seems to be you get it for free (I think).Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, is it not a real military award. I’m not an expert on weather it is notable enough for its own article though. Garuda28 (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Lets not soapbox, the issue is notability, not rightness.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Understood. But you beg the question. Is any article acceptable, so long as it is notable? Think twice,and think hardOldperson (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, any subject is.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status