Talk:Jorge Otero Barreto/Archive 1

Most decorated
I have tagged the statements as there are other articles which make the claim that the subject is the most decorated soldier of the Second Indochina War. Other subjects such as CPT Hooper and COL Howard make similar claims.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Per, WP:CANVASS, I have notified WikiProjects which this and those other articles fall under to join this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me that Sgt Otero Barreto's claim loses. Both Capt Hooper and Col Howard earned the MOH, two magnitudes higher than he does and Col Howard also earned the DSC with a cluster.  If we are just adding up the number of medals without ranking them, there are hundreds if not thousands who have more medals, since a typical USAF veteran of Viet Nam earned 10 or more Air Medals and other awards could be added.  Assuming accuracy of the Wiki articles, it is Howard, but Sgt Otero Barreto is nowhere close even if you presume his Bronze Stars all had a "V" device.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some references for these three individuals:
 * COL Howard: (WP, NYT) 1 MOH, 2 DSC, 1 SS, DSSM, 4 LM, 4 BSM, 8 PH
 * CPT Hooper: (Huntsville Times, ArmyTimes): 1 MOH, 2 SS, 6 BSM, 8 PH
 * SFC Barreto: (Puerto Rico Daily Sun): 3 SS, 5 BSM
 * After reviewing the sources that I have found, that are reliable sources it does appear that COL Howard is the most decorated given the weight of the medals he earned. Moreover, given the scant amount of references I was able to find about the subject of this article overall, it makes me call into question the notability of the subject. Therefore I have tagged the article accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In the event that Sgt Otero Barreto's claim loses, the article could be rephrased that he is the "Puerto Rican" soldier most decorated of the Second Indochina War. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the claim should be attributed to the source--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment

This is a great discussion, an interesting one indeed. We have to thank User: RightCowLeftCoast for bringing up the issue. Sgt Otero Barreto is no longer a contender for the title of being the most decorated soldier in the Vietnam conflict. Both Captain Hooper and Colonel Howard have earned more decorations and the debate as to who is/was the most decorated should now be focused on them.

Sgt. Otero Barreto continues to be notable as the most decorated Hispanic in the conflict. His actions were recognized by the Vietnam Veterans of America who named the Chapter #866 in Springfield, Massachusetts in his honor and the town of Vega Baja who dedicated their Military Museum to him and named it the "Jorge Otero Barreto Museum".

With the intentions of not tarnishing his article I will re-write it and add the fact that even though some media's are quoted as stating that he was the most decorated soldier in the Vietnam War, both Captain Hooper and Colonel Howard, Medal of Honor recipients, have earned more decorations.

The link to follow to continue the discussion as to who was the most decorated soldier, Captain Hooper and Colonel Howard, is now here.

Tony the Marine (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still greatly concerned with the subject's notability, and unless there are more indepth significant coverage sources given to the subject in non-primary reliable sources, I may move towards an AfD on this article. Please help improve this article by providing additional sources to support that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Notable
The references in this article include Univision, the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, and the Hartford Courant.

Univision is the largest Spanish-language broadcaster in the entire United States. The Puerto Rico Daily Sun is the only English-language newspaper in the island of Puerto Rico. The Hartford Courant is the largest newspaper in the state of Connecticut.

In addition, a U.S. Veterans housing development was named after Otero Barreto in Massachusetts, and a military museum was named after him in his hometown of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico.

The notability of this individual, and this article, is abundantly obvious.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Qualifer "Puerto Rican"
The insertion of "Puerto Rican" by Marine 69-71 in the introduction to this article was removed by Mercy11 "per Talk discussion with the senior editor" and the words "U.S." substituted. I have edited (not just reverted) for the following reasons:
 * The statement that he is the most decorated soldeier of the Viet Nam War is wrong, as shown in the previous talk discussion and links.
 * A further reason given for making the change is that "this qualifier is not found in the verbatim quote."
 * Neither is the qualifier "U.S." found in the verbatim quote.
 * Moreover, the verbatim quote erroneously says that SFC Otero Barreto was the most decorated soldier in the Korean War. he was 13 at the outbreak of this war.


 * In addition to General Llenza's remarks that are supposedly quoted directly, two other sources are quoted.
 * Membership notes of the Vietnam Veterans of America. This source correctly identified SFC Otero Barreto as the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier in the Viet Nam War.
 * A Newspaper article that does not say that SFC Otero Barreto was the most decorated soldier in the Viet Nam War, but reports that someone said that he was "the most decorated military officer" in that war. While that source brings into question whether he was also more decorated than any airman, sailor, or marine, he was an NCO, not an officer.  This article is of marginal reliability because it is double hearsay.
 * To solve the objection to including "Puerto Rican" the direct quote, I have inserted brackets around "Puerto Rican" to indicate it is not a direct quote and have removed Viet Nam War from within the quotation marks, since that's what the good General must have meant, even though he did not say it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits. They are in violation of WP:BLP.


 * The previous discussion doesn't "show" anything: only citations can "show". We need to stick to citations: editors are not allow to speculate, change the meaning, second-guess, etc., specially when dealing with BLPs. Pushing speculation as fact, would additionally be a violation of WP:OR.


 * The qualifier "U.S.", like the qualifier "Puerto Rican", doesn't need to be "found verbatim" anywhere: it is an undisputed fact Otero was a U.S. soldier (and not a Vietnamese soldier) by virtue of his military allegiance. It is also an undisputed fact that Otero was a Puerto Rican soldier by virtue of his demographic birthplace origin. Thus, he was both a U.S. soldier and a Puerto Rican soldier. However, the adjective at the center of this dispute ("decorated") refers to a military attribute, not to a demographic one. Thus, "decorated" always refers to Otero's U.S. allegiance in the entirety of this article. From this, it follows that Otero was a decorated U.S. soldier, and only a decorated U.S. soldier -- Puerto Rico doesn't decorate its soldiers with U.S. awards.


 * "Korean" is clearly an unintentional error in the source document -- there is no merit in the argument made related to this error.


 * The VVA may call him "the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier" but, ¿So what? Being "the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier" is neither inconsistent with the previous explanation nor is it mutually exclusive with being "the most decorated U.S. soldier". These decorations are military awards and, as such, the fact a U.S. soldier was from PR, CA, NJ, or Mexico, doesn't matter for purposes of decorations,,, what matter is he was fighting for the U.S. flag.


 * Nowhere does the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, as the above editor claims, say that "someone said that he was 'the most decorated military officer' in that war." That poorly-judged claim above, at best, weakens the news report: if such claim above was allowed as possessing merit then we would also have to allow as possessing merit the other 2 statements that follow it, namely, that "someone said that 'he received a total of 38 decorations, including three silver stars and 5 bronze stars'" and that "someone said that 'the retired Puerto Rican officer fought in more than 200 combat missions.'" That would be ridiculous. All those 3 statements are all statements of fact, and in quoting them they need to be quoted as facts, not dilute their significance by prepositioning them with the likes of "someone said" blah blah blah... And, in relation to this, to follow that claim by calling the newspaper report "hearsay" is bad judgment at best.


 * Also in reference to the PRDS article argument above, like with all other sources in Wikipedia, sources are either reliable or not reliable: the "marginal reliability" category is a fabrication with no discussion value here.


 * Also in reference to the PRDS article argument above, nitpicking via arguments such as "whether he was also more decorated than any airman, sailor, or marine," etc., etc., etc." is tantamount to WP:OTHERSTUFF. The issue in this discussion is whether or not Otero was called "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War", not whether he was called "the most decorated airman, sailor, or marine." Again, there is no merit in that WP:OTHERSTUFF sort of argument.

In the end, one portion of the arguments above is based on nationality (which doesn't apply to U.S. military decorations) instead of being based on military allegiance, which does apply. And the remaining portion is based on second-guessing the citations (e.g., "that's what the good General must have meant, even though he did not say it") to the point of interfering with them -- at times bordering on WP:OR -- instead of letting the citations stand on their own. Along these lines, various instances of editorializing (e.g., "Supporting that SFC Otero Barreto is the most decorated Puerto Rican soldier", etc.) by the objecting editor above were also improper: no Wikipedia editor is empowered to editorialize to the point of changing the original meaning. That being said, the entirety of the arguments above are invalid. For these reasons, the article has been restored the previous version.

Please do not attempt to change the meaning of these citations again, nor the fundamental attribute related to being the "most decorated" soldier, unless --of course-- you can support it via sources that contradict those citations or if you can come with a different U.S. soldier that was more decorated.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Contradictions tag
An editor placed contradiction tags but failed to state how this article contradicts the other two articles in question. Centainly, a discusion cannot be started unless the objecting editor states unambiguously where precisely he perceives there is a contradiction. Placement of such tags clearly assumes ("until the contradictions are resolved") that a discussion about the alleged contradiction would be opened up by the issuing editor, yet the word contradiction is never found on this discussion page -- except for once ("contradict")... but it came from myself. As such, I have removed the tags as invalid. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Hello Lineagegeek, Please let's put an end to this. I can understand why User: Mercy11 removed the tags. You see, the article doesn't contradict the other two at all because it does not state that the subject "was" or "is" the most decorated soldier in Vietnam. What the article states is that he has been "called" the most decorated soldier in Vietnam by some sources which is different then stating that he "was". Which is what happened. Thank you for your service. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony the Marine. In our litigious, half-educated society, the qualifiers cited by both Tony the Marine and Mercy11 are absolutely valid and necessary. They specify precisely what was stated in the article sources and references. As stated by Tony the Marine, Otero Barreto was called the most decorated, and that is what this Wiki article reported.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the statements are in quotes, thee statement directly contradicts statements as it previously did prior to the addition of the qualifier "Puerto Rican". Therefore, the contradict tag, IMHO, is appropriate.
 * That being said please attribute the quotes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As the initial discussion was initially announced at MILHIST, I have invited other interested editors at MILHIST to respond per WP:CANVASS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Here we go agian. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's right, there is no contradiction here, as much as some editor/s insist in fabricating a contradiction. The other two articles that someone alluded to do have a serious problem: WP:OR. Why? Because the U.S. government does not bestow a "most decorated U.S. soldier in the Vietnam" citation, declaration, or award on any serviceperson. As a last recourse, what the editors there are doing (while, admittedly, probably in good faith) is they are counting up and adding the military awards of each of those two ex-servicemen to determine, among the editors themselves, which serviceman received the most awards and, from there, establish and publish in this encyclopedia who the "most decorated U.S. soldier is/was" - via their own definition of "most decorated soldier". This is so contrary to Wikipedia policy, and it is so far removed from what Wikipedia is trying to stand for, that it is hard to believe it is being done by well-established Wikipedia editors. As disguise to their actions (while, again, admittedly, in good faith) these editors are using purportedly reliable sources to back them up. However, the various sources they are using, with one single exception, do not call any of these people "the most highly decorated U.S. soldier/serviceman".

For one thing, Howard (1) is never called "the MOST decorated U.S. serviceman" by the cites provided (NYT and WashPost) but instead he is called "ONE OF the most decorated servicemen". And (2), Brian Williams/NBC did not say Hooper was the "most decorated U.S. veteran" but that "IT WAS BELIEVED he was" -- and there is a big difference between fact and faith. (The AP Fort Worth Star-Telegram at one point ran the same "believe" news story.) In addition, the Williams/NBC quote does not indicate Vietnam specifically, but clearly qualifies it with "...veteran of THE MODERN ERA." That could be any war since the War of Revolution in 1776. This qualifier matters as much as the difference between the "Puerto Rican soldier" and "U.S. soldier", an apparent contradiction which I commented on above.

For a second thing, Hooper is (1) NOT called "the most highly" anything by the Army Times, a cite provided above by an editor. The word "most" doesn't appear in the Army Times article even once. And (2), only the one reference in the Hunstville, Alabama, Huntsville Times calls Hooper "the most-decorated soldier of the Vietnam War". This one single cite from the boy's hometown paper (HERE), a paper that serves a city of 180,000, is all that the editor there has to proffer as evidence of this informal "most decorated" title by the media. But, does it hold weigh? I think we should consider that the statement "Otero Barreto was the most decorated U.S. military officer during that war" is made by the Puerto Rico Daily Sun, a paper serving 4 million residents in Puerto Rico, plus a couple more millions in southern Florida and the New York Metro areas.

That said, this article --Jorge Otero Barreto-- does not purport to claim Otero Barreto is the most highly decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War, a title the editors in the other two articles continue to debate over. The Otero Barreto article is here simply to state what the facts are: what decorations Otero Barreto has and what he is being called by others: the Puerto Rican Rambo and the most highly decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War. These statements are both facts, and they are both presented as they appear in their sources, plus they are both presented with the necessary, adequate, and sufficient amount of fully disclosed and reliable sources. So, as for the "please attribute" above, there is nothing else that needs attributing here, but there may be attributions needed in the other two articles. I also notice that there are 34 citations in the Jorge Otero Barreto article vs. 7 in Howard's and 3 in Hooper's. So, again, it is the other two articles the ones that need attributing and fixing.

So, in short, Howard's article cannot be taken seriously if only 1 citation from the boy's local hometown newspaper is the only thing you can show as a source to support its "most decorated" claim, and Hooper's article cannot be taken seriously for it distorts what its very citations state. But above all, you cannot take EITHER article seriously, if the allegation of "most highly decorated serviceman/soldier/whatever" comes at the expense of a violation of the WP:OR policy via the counting up and adding up of awards by Wikipedia editors doing simple matemathical additions.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Yet again, the reasoning and sources presented by Mercy11 address all the core issues in this discussion. It is unclear why these issues are "re-introduced," and then inadequately discussed or documented by those who re-introduce them. Hopefully it will not lead to edit-warring or 3RR violations. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 06:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
There was no consensus on what the lead section should have, however my change was bold, and thus open to reversion, however to pretend that there is consensus when there was none previously is wrong.

The lead section does not meet WP:LEAD.

A lead section is suppose to be as follows "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects."

There is no summarization of the article after the reversion. There are three sections to the article, early life, service in Vietnam, and later recognition of his Vietnam service. However, the lead ONLY focuses on the second part. I understand that the primary notability of the subject is based on that service, but to only have a list of his medals, and a bunch of accolades of what others call the subject does not meet LEAD.

The lead section should state why his is notable, without delving into unnecessary detail, and then summarize the rest of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Good observation. Your concern has now been taken care of. I re-added "Due to his multiple awards he has received recognition from numerous organizations and has had buildings named after him.", to the lead which you once added and which was removed. Plus, I added the following: "He is also the main subject of "Brave Lords", a documentary which tells the story of the Puerto Rican experience in the war in Vietnam". Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The subject is not notable because the subject has been called "Puerto Rico Rambo", or because he is called by some "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War.". He is notable because other individuals have championed his service. Otherwise, the subject on his medals alone would clearly fail WP:SOLDIER. Therefore these quotes would be far better off in the body of the article, and not in the lead section. I did this once, but it was reverted on false claims of there being a consensus for those quotes to be in the lead, which at the time non had existed.
 * Since my edits had been reverted time and time again, I can only ask that those who are part of the group of editors who are actively editing this article I can only ask that the lead be greatly modified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
An editor complained that "the lead ONLY focuses on the second part." When the lead was expanded, to incorporate other portions of the article, this editor then tagged the article because "the introduction (i.e., the lead) is too long."

This same editor has placed other tags on this article, for "contradictions" that did not really exist (as was repeatedly explained and documented on this Talk page).

This same editor opened a discussion in WikiProject Military History, to repeat the same "contradiction" argument and amplify the confusion.

This same editor was recently blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations.

The last two sentences in the lead paragraph were added due to this editor's insistence, that the lead "only focused on the second part."

I believe that:


 * 1) this last two sentences should be removed from the lead
 * 2) the tag should be removed from this article
 * 3) the editor should cease this tendentious editing. He or she is simply wasting everybody's time.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That's right. First of all, the editor just can't be pleased. After a long-history with this editor related to this article, it now seems to me he wants to have "his way or the highway". To address his recent argument, WP:LEAD is a guideline, yet the editor was trying to override the WP:CONSENSUS policy by arguing about a guideline. In his most recent claim, he is now bringing on the WP:SOLDIER argument. Again, WP:SOLDIER, is not a policy, it is an essay -- long way to make it into policy.


 * The editor in question has brought up charges of (in this order) Wrong claim of Most Decorated, Lack of Notability, Unreliability of Sources/RS on ancestry.com/genealogy.com, Contradiction with other articles, Lack of WP:ATTRIBUTE of the citations, and Lead section being Incomplete, and at every one of his claims he has failed to garnish consensus for any of them.


 * Given this history, the editor's claims appear to be a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. At one point the editor in question, invoking WP:CANVASS, said he went to MILHIST. Apparently unsatisfied that he didn't get the results he expected from that, the editor now comes back claiming that the lead section is still wrong because (at 1 paragraph in length!!!!) it is now "too long". As I read WP:Disruptive editing I find that this editor's behavior fits the profile of a disruptive editor.


 * All of this editor's concerns have been addressed/accomodated in WP:good faith to no avail. His newest claim of the lead being too long is meritless - the other editors here disagree with his interpretation of the WP:lead. To add, his interpretation of WP:LEAD lacks common sense - a required ingredient for a proper implementation of WP:LEAD. As such I have removed the lead-too-long tag. It could be placed back, of course, if he can garnish consensus that the lead of this article is, at 1 paragraph long, in fact too long. Or, of course, if WP:SOLDIER becomes policy. But for now, using guidelines and common sense, this subject IS notable because it fits the guidelines: "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."


 * My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * OK, another editor beat me to the removal of the meritless tag. Fine. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Let's put an end to this already. It seems as if there is a personal agenda against this article. I removed the tag and I did shorten the lead somewhat, but not with the intention of appeasing anyone. The reason that I did so, is that the individual military decorations are already mentioned within the article. Another thing, let me make it clear that the reason that the subject is "notable" and has received all of the recognitions is because of his actions in the war and being "called" one of the most decorated soldiers of the conflict is to remain in the lead. Let's stop the nonsense and respect those who served their country. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PERSONAL & WP:CIVIL.
 * My one time I was caught with a 3RR was due to a contentious article, with others who had a disagreement with what NPOV was suppose to be. That is unrelated to this article, so please do not attack me.
 * Please see The value of essays & WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE. More specifically, the value of SOLDIER is in that it was created with a consensus of those editors at MILHIST. However as I will state later, I mention it, but it matters not.
 * Please see what I said about notability again.
 * "The subject is not notable because the subject has been called "Puerto Rico Rambo", or because he is called by some "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War.". He is notable because other individuals have championed his service."

- Myself


 * Read what I said please.
 * My concerns about the quotes in the lead is that they aren't following MOS for the lead, that they are not clearly attributed. There are clear guidelines regarding this, and consensus or ignore all rules, as I have been reminded elsewhere, does not mean that this article should ignore standing guidelines and policies. Additionally I see that another MOS should be noted WP:MOS, in it states:

"As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader."


 * It is my suggestion that the quotes are better off in the body of the article and not in the lead. Please see Lead section TT first sentence content, more importantly see WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. The statement of the military decorations are perfectly fine, as that is what leads to the primary notability of the subject. Not that the number of decorations alone making the subject notable (as there is a consensus per WP:SOLDIER that it isn't) but because others have championed his service and have given significant coverage to the subject (thus meeting WP:GNG) and due to this the subject has been lauded with buildings named after him.
 * As for "Puerto Rican Rambo" is the subject best known as SFC Barreto, or this name? If not then this does not meet WP:OPENPARAGRAPH.
 * Does the quotation "the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War." fundamental to the subjects notability, significance, or give the subject context?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion the introduction, which is a brief summary of the article, is fine.

1. "Puerto Rican Rambo" is the nickname given to him by the press and for which he known by most Puerto Ricans. Similar to the "Splendid Splinter for which Ted Williams is known or Lucky Luciano for which Charlie Luciano is known.

2. Is "Called the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War." fundamental to the subjects notability? Maybe not, but it is a fact and helps the reader understand what led up to the subjects notability.

I'm done. There is no point to continue dragging this discussion. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * RightCowLeftCoast, your suggestions have been heard and acted upon. Tony is not attacking you nor being uncivil, so do yourself a favor and don't play the uncivil card here. And Nelson is not attacking you, as you are accusing him of, when he states that you were recently blocked for edit warring and 3RR violations. He is making a statement of fact. If you don't like the responses your have received here, maybe you should consider taking myself or Tony or Nelson or whoever you choose to the appropriate uncivility complaint channels: hey, every editor has the right to exercise that right - and that includes you! This Talk page is not for arguing and nitpicking about trivialities, but for improving the article. You have had more than one chance to *really* improve the article - for example, when you complained about not enough sources, or the sources not being reliable, or the contradiction with other articles, etc., but instead it wasn't you when went out to get additional sources, who identified and resolved the perceived contradiction, who supplemented the seemingly unrealible sources with others, etc. But even after all that attention was lent to your comments, you still kept on fabricating additional complaints that you hadn't even hinted at before. Want to be that way? Be my guest: knock yourself out! But as for the introduction, which is a brief summary of the article, it is fine the way it is. If you haven't noticed yet, you are running solo against the consensus. I suggest you take notice of those facts. Your suggestionms have been heard, considered, taken into consideration, and acted upon: sometimes other editors felt that your suggestions held merit and at other times they felt they didn't. In checking the history of your interactions here, I find you have been relentless in your pursuit of just proving a point even after others gave your suggestions a second and, at times, even a third thought. You are failing to be a teamworker by capriciously not accepting the consensus: decisions in Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, and you seem unwilling to go along with that. Want to be that way? Be my guest: knock yourself out! But the article stays as it stands now - for that was the consensus. Maybe you don't understand Wikipedia's meaning of Consensus. I suggest you read up on that carefully and, ask not what the consensus can do for you, but what you can do for the consensus. If you don't like the article, the lead, the citations, the attributions, the ancestry.com, or whatever, you can take it to the appropiate dispute resolution channels. There is no point to continue dragging this discussion for every aspect has already been considered to death and you do not appear interested in a resolution that includes consensus. That's that. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * I think the consensus is that if the distinction between being the most decorated and being called the most decorated is clear enough, there is no conflict with other articles. I also think there is consensus concerning notability.  However, I would not agree that the current lead achieves consensus that the conflict has been resolved.  The problem may lie in part with those pesky quotation marks.  Several editors have asserted that their use is appropriate, but they don't comport with WP:MOS on the use of quotation marks.  None of the three references say exactly what is placed within the quotes.  MOS requires the use of square brackets or an ellipsis as appropriate when material placed within quotation marks departs from the quoted source, as this lead does.  I would think that something like:
 * His military service has been [insert non POV verb phrase] that he has been called the most decorated soldier in the Viet Nam War. Followed by the three citations which support the statement as a statement, and complying with MOS.
 * I'll let one of the editors who has been striving for consensus pick the exact wording, but the quotation marks need to go.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that User:Lineagegeek's suggestion is fair enough and that once applied we can put an end to all of the discussions here. Do you all agree to this? Tony the Marine (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead section doesn't need any more changes. While we should strive for no citations in the lead, they are needed and used when the material has been challenged. This lead contains quotes because editors, apparently unfamiliar with Otero, challenged the material, and tagged the article demanding citations. As a result the citations were added, and it is the citations in the lead that led to the quotes in the lead. I understand the concern that the quotes are in fact not an verbatim representation of what the citations say and, from that perspective, THE QUOTES (but not the text) would be inappropriate and should be removed. For that one reason I think removing the quotes and leaving the text intact (for the text accurately represents what the citations state) is a good choice.

There is, however, a second reason why I think removing the quotes and leaving the text intact is the right option (By this I mean having it read "...was awarded 38 military decorations and is the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War." [these quotes are mine and they wouldn't appear in the lead]). The reason is that the other serviceman that was mentioned before is dead. So, while it could be said that he (Hooper and/or Howard) WAS the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam war, it could not possibly be said he IS "The most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War", because they are dead! This leaves only Otero as "The most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War" no matter how you look at it, and that is what the lead here should say - that he IS the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War. This also means the other two articles (Hooper/Howard) shouldn't be making the claim they are making and should be reworded to read "[Hooper and/or Howard] WAS the most decorated U.S. soldier of the Vietnam War," or, hey, they are the perfect candidates to read something like "he (Hooper and/or Howard) has been called the most decorated U.S. soldier in the Vietnam war."

By the way, I don't care how anyone spells Vietnam - just spell it. Ad nauseum. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * I made a minor adjustment to the lead and removed the quotation marks, which I believe to be a minor issue. It doesn't affect the article in any way. While it may be true that Otero is the most decorated soldier to serve in Vietnam living today. Let's leave things as is, otherwise we will end up with a never ending discussion that will drag on and on, causing disruptions. Let's end this discussion. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I just made a minor edit in the lead -- italicized Brave Lords. Otherwise, I commend the editors who have worked so hard on this page (on both the article and the talk page), to make Jorge Otero Barreto the best article it can be. The patience and consideration which have been extended here, is truly extraordinary. Thank you for all your work. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I made a minor edit for consistency in the subject's naming. There are still some 3 or 4 instances (of a 30 or so total) that name it with a dash ("-"), but that's becuase that's how those 3 or so sources list him. The rest is fine with me. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.


 * Since all of th econcerns have been addressed, I will proceed to archive this entire discussion within the next 24 hours. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)