Talk:Presidential Unit Citation

Untitled

Husnock: Not sure why you claim that my edit was not true. Viz. Presidential Unit Citation (Army). Specifically, Section 4.c., which states: "The emblem is worn by all members of a cited organization and is considered an individual decoration for persons in connection with the cited acts and may be worn whether or not they continue as members of the organization. Other personnel may wear this decoration while serving with an organization to indicate the unit has been awarded the Presidential Unit Citation." Also see Air Force Personnel Center. Since it's a DoD medal, I have no reason to doubt that the same applies to Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps personnel also. --Eric 03:19, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The original line reverted was: "Only those who participated may wear the decoration after reassignment from the unit". As a military records historian, I have never seen a temporary bestowal of the Presidential Unit Citation which was revoked when someone left a unit. In every case, should someone join a unit that has been credited with an act befitting the award, then the service member will recieve the Presidential Unit Citation provided they were a member of the unit during the time frame of the citation. There might be unofficial situtions where units give the award to people who were not members when the heroic act occured, but never have I seen anything official about this. Also, not a DOD award at all. It is issued under the authoirty of the individual service departments which is the primary reason the Navy and MC versions and Army/Air Force are different in apperance. You might be on the right track. Just maybe reword it. -Husnock 7Dec04

The wording was somewhat misleading. I was aiming for economy of words and ended up distorting my intended meaning. My understanding was that you were entitled to wear the PUC as a permanent part of your uniform if you were permanently assigned to and present for duty with the unit when the cited acts occurred. If you were not, you had to take it off upon reassignment from the unit. That, at least, is what the regs say. In light of that, would this:

Only those assigned to the unit for the action cited may wear the decoration as a permanent part of their uniform.

be acceptable?--Eric 16:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a member of unit that recently received the Navy PUC and of a unit that has previously earned Navy PUCs, I can attest that personell who were in the unit but who did not participate in the citable action do not get the privilege to wear the PUC ribbon. Additionally, personell who were not present for previous PUCs do not get the privilege to wear them. Only if you were present for the citable action do you get to wear the PUC and it is permanent (entered into your service record). While the Army may let the entire unit wear any PUC awarded, the Navy does not.--Burzum 04:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You got it. I put it in. It is a very interesting point. I wonder if Army and Navy units in the present day (2004), who were commissioned units way back in World War II (1944), allow thier members to wear the Presidential Unit Citation for actions performed over 60 years ago. if you read the regulation as you most correctly did, it would seem to indicate that this is the case. But, in my line of work, I've never seen any indication of this. Interesting.

P.S.- I recommend you create a User Page. it makes your edits look more legitimate and people will pay more attention to you. Nothing insulting, rest assured, thats just the way Wikipedia seems to be. Have a great day! -Husnock 8 Dec 04

Are modern Navy ships considered to be the same as their WWII counterparts? I don't think so. As to the Army, I believe all the old units were retired under the Pentomic system during the Eisenhower reorganization in the '50's. I don't believe they re-introduce any of the old units until the '80's. Not sure if the units that existed after the Battlegroup concept was abandoned were considered to still be in existence as of the '80's.--Eric 02:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Citations in the article

I noticed an anon user posted a large amount of citation text in the article. Actual PUC citations, I feel, should not be in the article but rather in articles about the particular units that then reference the Presidential Unit Citation main article. The citation in here now should be moved out. If someone beats me to it, great, as I am very busy with other articles right now. -Husnock 20:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to add in Merrill's Marauders as recipients of the citation. --Hooperbloob 21:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move at the present. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Presidential Unit Citation → Presidential unit citation — Relisted. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This a general article & not one on a specific presidential unit citation. Thus, recommend conforming to wikipedia MOS on naming conventions. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

If all the citations' titles are _____ Presidential Unit Ciatition, which I assume they are, why not keep the current title. Oppose Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The category is Category:Presidential unit citations (lower case). FieldMarine (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"References needed" for a disambiguation page?

At this point, this is pretty much a disambiguation page. Does it still need a "reference needed" header? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)