Talk:Jonny Kim#Education format

Why is Kim's article done in DMY? He's American and has done his activities in the United States? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

: The Manual of Style on military history says, "Per MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects predominately related to militaries or military history should use the standard format adopted by the United Nations: […] DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY)." Kim is a member of the US Navy, has been for approximately 19 years (about 52% of his life), and it was this career that led to his other two (medicine and space training). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

::Kim is only notable for becoming an American astronaut, not because of his career as a Navy SEAL or physician. He had insufficient notability for an article prior to his selection as an astronaut. The localized date format should be treated like other American astronauts, as this page did not come about as a military biography. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

::: Well, currently, 44% of the article explicitly concerns Kim's still-ongoing military service; that being the greatest percentage of the prose would seem to fit under the "predominately related" qualifier IAW WP:MILDATE. Also, his medical training (and arguably his NASA selection) sprang forth from his military service. Just because it may've been "Y" that initially brought the subject to Hektor's attention, doesn't mean that the biography isn't predominately about "X". That may change and it may not, but I'd say it hasn't thus far. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

::::Are you suggesting that once Kim has a spaceflight and presumably there is more information about his astronaut career that the date format should change? As far as I'm aware, there is not significant coverage of his active duty time outside of the astronaut corps, and this should not be treated as a military biography, but an astronaut biography. I don't believe this is any different than articles like Seth Moulton, Ron DeSantis, or Adam Kinzinger where the subject got their professional start in the military but are not notable because of their military service alone. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

::::: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything covertly. My only input on the matter is what i said above, here consolidated: {{talk quote inline|The Manual of Style on military history says, 'Per MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects predominately related to militaries or military history should use the standard format adopted by the United Nations: […] DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY).' […] 44% of the article explicitly concerns Kim's still-ongoing military service; that being the greatest percentage of the prose would seem to fit under the "predominately related" qualifier IAW WP:MILDATE. Also, his medical training (and arguably his NASA selection) sprang forth from his military service.|q=yes}} This is a biography, not an [adjective] biography. I'm only looking to the policies, guidelines, and manuals when editing, not other articles; I can't speak to the choices of other editors. Is there a superior MOS (or other consensus) that explicitly applies to biographical date-formatting of astronauts? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

He was not on expedition 65. What is meant by Increment Leads. Is it inaccurate or unclear? 24.96.87.8 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

: I don't know what it means, actually. The source just says, {{talk quote inline|And in April 2021, he was selected to serve as the [https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition65/index.html International Space Station’s Increment Lead] for Expedition 65.|q=yes}} I added it because maybe it's important and should be included, but if it isn't important, it's of no harm to include it for now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fourthords you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1143578305 reverted] my changes to the Education section. Respectfully, I think you are interpreting the guidelines ({{TQ|Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant.}}) far too strictly. It is orthodoxy to cite a person's education as simply [institution] ([degree attained]); the guidelines don't mean to cite in the exactly manner they have been presented, but rather as a statement on what should be included. As it stands, the current format uses, in my opinion, choppy and nearly Broken English when it need not be. GuardianH (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

: I did revert your changes to the… education parameter of the infobox… IAW the BRD cycle. Barring any other consensus-established SOP for the {{para|education}} parameter, we have no other instructions for how to format this information in this infobox (your "orthodoxy" notwithstanding). For what it's worth, I do agree with the instructed standard: for a parameter titled "education", the actual education received would be the most-salient and obviously first item listed (with school and year following as increasingly less so). To list the school first doesn't make sense—except in the {{para|alma_mater}} parameter, which the infobox says to use instead when "very little information is available or relevant", which isn't the case here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

::Both your interpretation of the guideline and the standard construction contain at heart the very same material; it is only a matter of what makes sense to the reader, not the Wikipedia editor. For one, your format diverges from the vast majority of other Wikipedia articles, and, secondly, it uses abbreviations which may be unfamiliar with some readers (i.e. {{tq|U. of San Diego}}). Personally, I see no reason to risk the confusion over a minor stylistic detail. GuardianH (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure where you're finding a particular guideline on this matter; I'm referring to this page, formally referred to as the infobox's template documentation (and which I often call its instructions). If you can find a different, conflicting set of codified consensus for using {{tl|infobox person}}, I'd be keen to see it. I've never seen any confusion over the infobox's standardized construction of the {{para|education}} parameter, especially when it makes sense {{talk quote inline|for a parameter titled 'education', the actual education received would be the most-salient and obviously first item listed (with school and year following as increasingly less so).|q=yes}}{{paragraph break}}The article at University of San Diego lists "USD" as its appropriate abbreviation. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes certainly allows "greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies", but since "U. of San Diego" offers the reader greater context than USD, that's what was used. Now that you've pointed it out, though, the new interface has given infobox variables more breathing room and we can afford the entire name without any visual errors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1144393158 I've done that, now]!{{paragraph break}}Lastly, I recommend using edit summaries. They're extremely helpful and strongly recommended. For example, these three edits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1144385026], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1144385141], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1144385240]) seem largely fine, but an edit summary can help other editors in numerous ways. Cheers! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

::::You are addressing an issue different from my assertion; both your version and mine contains the required contents to satisfy the guideline—content is not the issue. The problem as I see it is that you are implementing a format which is more likely to be confusing to the general reader because it is an unorthodox and idiosyncratic version which differs from the established standard across the vast majority of other Wikipedia articles. If we followed the general format in other articles, Kim's education would be more easily communicated to the reader. Regardless, it appears neither of us have the needed consensus unless other editors weigh in. GuardianH (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

::::: The standard is established by consensus at Template:Infobox person/doc, which says for the {{para|education}} parameter, "Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant." This is the first time I've been called {{talk quote inline|unorthodox and idiosyncratic|q=yes}} for adhering to that standard; I don't think it's ever come up in my many previous implementations of this infobox, either. As for why you think immediately following the {{para|education}} parameter with …the subject's education… is confusing, I'm sorry that I can't help you at this time. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

::::::Like I said previously, you have far too strictly (mis)interpreted the guideline to mean—quite literally—to place the corresponding values in the exact position as the guideline states it, but the guideline isn't asking for that, it's simply saying what should be included. The {{tq|consensus}}, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia article (FAs included), is [institution] ([degree]), stickling for a format which differs from this {{tq|consensus}} is unnecessarily confusing to a reader. If your format is the {{tq|consensus}}, why then do all other Wikipedia articles' education parameter differ? GuardianH (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

::::::: My apologies: let me rephrse what I've said above, and try to make myself better-understandable. Firstly, if you're referring to Template:Infobox person/doc, that's isn't a guideline, but the template's documentation for how it's built and to be used. Secondly, I haven't checked all 410,755 transclusions of the 17.26-year-old {{tl|infobox person}} for compliance with its most-recent formatting consensus; since you have, perhaps you should argue for a change in that codified consensus. Thirdly, it isn't "[my] format" as I neither provided input there nor do I own that template; I do, though, agree it makes sense that a subject's {{talk quote inline|actual education received would be the most-salient and obviously first item listed (with school and year following as increasingly less so).|q=yes}} — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking here because I don't wish to risk the ire or wrath of {{user|GuardianH}} by further reverting their edits IAW consensuses, policies, and guidelines: without an any explanation, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1144529076 edited the article] to add full stops in the infobox's abbreviation for "United States". However, the Manual of Style says, {{talk quote inline|the use or non-use of periods (full stops) should also be consistent with other country abbreviations in the same article|q=yes}}. Would somebody else—who's as-yet uninvolved in GuardianH's edits here and less likely to risk escalation therewith—mind reverting that edit IAW the MOS & WP:BRD? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

:You aren't incurring any {{tq|ire or wrath}} from me by reverting my changes—you can just ask. It's fine if you obtain a different view so long as you communicate it to me in the talk page. Per the guideline, I'll make all abbreviations in the article consistent. GuardianH (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The formatting 'NASA Group 22 (2017)' is consistent with the standard used for most astronaut pages. In fact, of the 48 active astronauts in the NASA Astronaut Corps, this was the only page to not use that format. This naming convention is helpful given that multiple astronaut selection groups often occur within a single year. For instance, in 2017, there were also CSA and German groups. If there are strong preferences for an alternative format, I suggest discussing this further in a more appropriate forum with a broader group of editors. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

: At {{template link|infobox astronaut}}, the explicit instructions for {{para|selection}} say, {{talk quote inline|Date when person selected to train as an astronaut.|q=yes}} It says nothing about the group, and it certainly doesn't instruct users to duplicate the "NASA" qualifier that's already in the line immediately above. As we don't have the exact date Kim was chosen, {{var|2017}} is the only thing we're instructed to use that field for; adding and linking "(Group 22)" is extra, and should be formatted duly. Cheers for your partial reading of WP:BRD. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

::I don’t disagree, that is indeed what the template instructions say. (For the record: Kim and the rest of his group 22 classmates were officially announced/selected on 7 June 2017.) However, as I said, that is not the format that has been established across the pages for the other 47 active NASA astronauts and countless other pages for international astronauts and retired NASA astronauts. I can put in a talk page request over at the template to change the instructions to follow this established practice. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

::: {{talk quote inline|I don’t disagree, that is indeed what the template instructions say.|q=yes}} So the consensus-based instructions, and this page's longstanding formatting are the same, but you... just don't like that other pages're out of said compliance? I certainly don't object to your trying to change that consensus, but until you do, neither WP:CONSENSUS nor WP:BRD support making such edits in the face of opposition. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

::::That presumes that the template instructions were written through a robust process of consensus making. Considering the absolute crickets on the talk page to my suggestion, I’d respectfully suggest that the instructions may have just been added by a well meaning editor without such a rigorous process. In my 15 years of experience, that’s often how I’ve found these instructions were written.

::::On the flip side of this discussion, I’d like to make the case that sometimes on Wikipedia, the established practices are the consensus. The vast majority of pages follow this format, most were not because of me. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

::::: Either this page needs to be changed to comply with the instructions, or the instructions need to be changed to reflect your presumptive consensus; which are you tackling? Secondly, what is the purpose of repeating the "NASA" descriptor a mere two words apart? Per the infobox instructions, he is a "NASA Astronaut"; we don't need to repeat that information in the very next line, do we? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

::::::Not sure what you're asking as this page now complies with the revised instructions. The purpose of repeating the NASA descriptor a mere two words apart is that there are different types of astronauts and different groups of astronauts. This concern will be alleviated in a few months when Kim launches into space and the time in space parameter will be added to the infobox between the astronaut type and selection parameters. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The enormous gallery section of decorative images is trying to make claims to awards earned and issued, by assuming so based on a photograph of Kim, couched in describing said photo, in opposition to the original-research policy. There's already a paragraph in the "U.S. Navy" section (beginning with "Kim is a recipient") describing some of his significant awards. This section, equal in size to all prose about his Navy & NASA careers combined, is unnecessary, runs afoul of WP:NOR, and is unencyclopedic. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Forthords, I have noticed a pattern of edits on this page that misapply various WP policies, essays, and guidelines and refuse to recognize consensus in high quality articles.

:"Source information does not need to be in prose form: Any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information."

:Ribbons are a key aspect of military visual information, and are easily identified by frequent readers of articles in the military BLP category. This section exists to provide a full translation of the service of the subject for those readers who are unfamiliar with military ribbons. If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, perhaps you should abstain from editing this section. If you think the visual information conveyed in the sources has been misidentified, you should detail your skepticism here so it can be discussed.

:However, as it stands, since you have removed the special warfare insignia, aviator insignia, silver star, bronze star medal w/ V device, and commendation medal w/ V device, which have all been detailed unambiguously in the article sources, I can't tell which other awards you feel may have been misidentified in the official government source I provided. Because you are removing clearly cited awards but only referring to NOR as the basis for this removal, it creates the impression that you are using your misapprehension of WP:NOR as a pretext for disruptive editing, and it is clear from the multiple times that editors have attempted to add this information that it is in fact of encyclopedic interest. This is particularly true given the media attention for Jonny Kim's achievements and commensurate decorations in service: readers may very well want a summary and translation of his decorations, as has been done for many military biographies in this category on Wikipedia, and the evidence of reader interest is a pattern of reversions of these edits done solely by yourself.

:Needless to say, I feel that your reversion here is quite clearly in error, and I am sure you are aware that a pattern of reverting numerous editors over several years to your preferred article style is giving the impression of WP:OWN and causing disruptions on this and other pages, including being out of line with FA in this category. If you plan on reverting again, I hope you will do us (plural, the numerous editors who have tried to include this information, in line with the established norms of articles in this category) the courtesy of referring explicitly to a community reviewed and established editorial principle.

:As far as your objection to length, the length is whatever is required to properly document the subject's military awards for readers. If you have an issue with the documentation of military awards on Wikipedia in general, I suggest you desist in edit warring on a single article and instead address it on the talk page for Template:Ribbon or somewhere else where your ideas can better be implemented across Wikipedia.

:I hope you will also provide comment on the matter of the infobox documentation. In case it was a failed ping, you can join the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox person#Education parameter change request Ihpkt (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Additionally, since your revision implies you do not agree that "the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources," I'm still holding out hope that you will detail the exact nature of your objection. If you can identify that France borders Switzerland on a map, I think we can have faith in the vast pool of editors to determine what colors are next to each other on ribbons and follow well established sources to identify them, but you seem to have different thoughts. Ihpkt (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::: This addendum was an edit-conflict with my below reply to your comment on 04:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC). If it doesn't resolve whatever you're asking here, please feel free to ask me to clarify. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, to be clear, here are some Featured Articles that include an awards section with a visual summary such as the one I and other editors over the years have attempted to include for this article. I think this should put to rest the issue of consensus on Wikipedia regarding your personal stylistic preferences regarding the inclusion of a visual awards section.

:::John Glenn#Awards and honors

:::Lesley J. McNair#Military awards

:::Audie Murphy honors and awards is an entire Featured Article dedicated to cataloging this information in an encyclopedic fashion.

:::Early life and military career of John McCain#Military awards

:::Service summary of Douglas MacArthur#Orders, decorations and medals is not FA, but nevertheless makes clear that the documenting of notable service records is of merit for inclusion in Wikipedia.

:::Some FAs do not visually represent the awards, but nevertheless consolidate military awards into a single comprehensive awards section (perhaps these articles, ever-evolving as they are, are simply in need of an editor to dedicate time to the task of creating the tables and implementing the proper templates):

:::Jim Lovell#Awards and decorations

:::Scott Carpenter#Awards and honors

:::Michael Collins (astronaut)#Honors and awards

:::Buzz Aldrin#Awards and honors Ihpkt (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Is it your contention that Kim, his verifiably-received awards, and this article are as lengthy and comprehensive as your examples? Not only aren't Kim's awards as numerous and high-level, but we don't have a single reliable source (or combination thereof) which comprehensively verifies what he's received—and are unlikely to while he's still active with both the Navy and NASA. Additionally, those tables aren't duplicating information found elsewhere in the article; but we here cannot replace prose with an incomplete table which implies it represents all of his awards/decorations. There is no benefit to duplicating the clear prose of 'he was a SEAL', 'he is a Naval aviator', and "Kim is a recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star Medal (with Combat "V"), the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (with Combat "V"), and Combat Action Ribbon." with a table suggesting comprehensiveness we cannot verify. As for {{talk quote inline|a single comprehensive awards section|q=yes}}, not only does it reflect that not all articles of equal quality are designed and written the same, but are you desirous of an entire third- or fourth- level section with 163 rendered characters? The MOS says not to have such stubby (and one-sentence!) sections. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The section is not comprehensive because of your insistence on reversion and your apparent inability or refusal to adhere to consensus built through comprehensive FA review or parse visual sources, even at the same time that you admit that the image substantiates the information, notwithstanding your straw man of a further claim.

:::::Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, but your serial reversions have prevented the accumulation of good edits to allow this section to fulfill its purpose.

:::::This matter is pending a third opinion. Ihpkt (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{talk quote inline|The section is not comprehensive because…|q=yes}} It isn't comprehensive because we don't have a reliable source (or multiple in conjunction) that says so. {{talk quote inline|Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required|q=yes}} It isn't, but we should strive for it. Implying that a photo certifies all the awards & decorations that are afforded Mr. Kim is the wrong direction. Cheers on availing yourself of the DR processes! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That's an interesting way to sneak your straw man back in.

:::::::Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves

:::::::You keep inventing new claims to rationalize your reversions. Which of the following do you feel the photograph fails to meet?

:::::::* The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

:::::::* It does not involve claims about third parties;

:::::::* It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

:::::::* There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

:::::::* The article is not based primarily on such sources.

:::::::Please be specific. Ihpkt (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: Again and still: the photo only serves to source what Kim was wearing on a given day. The application of that source in the article, alongside the large table of images and links, implies to readers that it's a live and accurate representative of all/some of Kim's medals. That implication is the original research, whether intended or not. (All of which is just a rephrasing of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1287374773 what I said 11.83 hours ago].) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, it is a rephrasing of an assertion of your view provided with no evidence: your straw man that I keep referencing. And it is a further example of your moving the goal posts and motivated reasoning. If the criteria for inclusion of listed information is that it be in fact comprehensive, then no such section can be composed on Wikipedia for any subject. John Glenn and the rest of the Mercury Seven no doubt received awards and honors beyond those listed anywhere in their articles. Many films have received accolades beyond those listed in their Reception section. The point of Wikipedia is not to make a guarantee to readers of completeness, because Wikipedia is not and never will be finished. Readers are well aware that facts may exist that have evaded inclusion in an article. However, the article should make an effort to document what is known, and make that information readable for a broad audience.

:::::::::You think the section is not comprehensive? You can help by expanding it.

:::::::::Jonny Kim has worn these decorations in an official and public capacity, which is universally understood to be a claim that he has earned them. By the policy above, which you declined to highlight an objection for in this instance per the policy, he is an acceptable source for his decorations. There is no implication for readers, this is a pure fiction you have invented. Readers are told in the section quite clearly that these are the awards he is known to have publicly worn as of the date that they were worn, like any other information sourced on Wikipedia. It should also include further known permanent awards that he does not wear due to limitations on number of badges on Navy uniforms, such as the flight surgeon and naval parachutist insignia, as these are also well established in sources. We do not need discharge paperwork to document this information for readers. Ihpkt (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:: {{talk quote inline|Source information does not need to be in prose form|q=yes}} I'm sorry, you've misunderstood my original comment regarding the ribbons and other decorations. You're effectively just saying that "on this specific date, this is what Mr. Kim wore," and you can absolutely say that with your source. However, what you cannot do is imply or state outright what he wore on any given day is an accurate reflection of anything beyond that fact; "this is what Mr. Kim wore on 29 Febtober, and therefore these are the the awards and decorations he has officially received and is authorized to wear" is the original research.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|…you have removed the special warfare insignia, aviator insignia, silver star, bronze star medal w/ V device, and commendation medal w/ V device, which have all been detailed unambiguously in the article sources…|q=yes}} Did I remove the table and imagery, taking up as much space as all the prose about his Navy & NASA careers combined, which just unnecessarily duplicated information already in the article? Yes. Kim's SEAL assignment, his aviator status, his Silver Star, his Bronze Star w/device, and Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal w/device: they're already in the article, and I did not remove it. The rest of the awards in your giant table may've been worn on the 32nd of Augvember, but as already mentioned, that isn't a reliable source for claiming anything else.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|…it creates the impression that you are using your misapprehension of WP:NOR as a pretext for disruptive editing…|q=yes}} I appreciate your assumption of good faith.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|…it is clear from the multiple times that editors have attempted to add this information that it is in fact of encyclopedic interest.|q=yes}} The cited awards are already in the article (see Jonny Kim#U.S. Navy), and for those that aren't cited as being received and awarded, "encyclopedic interest" doesn't outweigh Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|readers may very well want a summary and translation of his decorations|q=yes}} Fortunately, the ones which are verifiable are already to be found and cited at Jonny Kim#U.S. Navy.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|Needless to say, I feel that your reversion here is quite clearly in error, and I am sure you are aware that .|q=yes}} It plainly wasn't and isn't. You cannot make claims to the proper assignment and awarding of decorations without a reliable source explicitly saying so, and you shouldn't double the length of the article with a giant decorative table just to duplicate information already present in the article. {{talk quote inline|As far as your objection to length, the length is whatever is required to properly document the subject's military awards for readers.|q=yes}} Yes, that would be the reliably-cited prose that was already present in the article.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|I suggest you desist in edit warring on a single article|q=yes}} Expecting participation and accordancy with WP:BRD is not edit warring.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|I hope you will also provide comment on the matter of the infobox documentation. In case it was a failed ping, you can join the discussion here: Template talk:Infobox person#Education parameter change request|q=yes}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fourthords&action=history I definitely wasn't notified about any such discussion], but if you desire my input there, I can look around and see what's written. All this being said, I'm going to again remove the unnecessary duplication of information from the article in the form of your admittedly-smaller decorative table and images IAW WP:BRD. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So you're saying the part that you claim is original research was not included in my edit, and I never wrote it? Got it. I think you'll notice that I did not make a claim regarding what Kim is authorized to wear, but thanks for inventing the implication for your straw man. I leave it to journalists to determine whether Kim is engaging in stolen valor, and the source (Kim's own uniform) is just as clear to readers as personal biography sourced from subject interviews, they can scrutinize as they see fit. Given the documented nature of all of Kim's significant awards and the fact that the remaining ones are basically formalities in the course of a combat deployment already in evidence, this information is hardly failing the criterion of verifiability.

:::Please see my comment above yours to see that visual documentation of awards is a well established practice that has survived the scrutiny of Featured Article review, and is therefore a rather clear consensus achieved through editing. This addresses your repeated points about (ironically) duplicate material in an article. Material is reproduced in various locations where consensus indicates it is included to enhance readability and make the article accessible, such as dedicated awards sections and infoboxes.

:::Your third reversion is noted in addition to your pretextual justifications based on a straw man argument. I have presumed good faith and added citations after you claimed WP:NOR. I have made no accusations against your good intentions for the article, but continuing to move the goal posts after OR is addressed, engaging in motivated reasoning and post-hoc rationalizations of your preferred style and outright ignoring established consensus and best practices in high quality articles while engaging in serial revision (not just in the last 24 hours but over a period of years) does smack of edit warring and suggest a conflict with the various policies and guidelines I have referred to in my comments here. Ihpkt (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: {{talk quote inline|So you're saying…|q=yes}} I'm saying that, whether or not you it was your intention (stated or unstated): the outcome of that table, that's cited to a photo, is the implication that it's a reliable-sourced reflection of what he's been officially awarded, when we cannot assume that.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|Given the documented nature of all of Kim's significant awards and the fact that the remaining ones are basically formalities in the course of a combat deployment already in evidence, this information is hardly failing the criterion of verifiability.|q=yes}} Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. […] Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|Please see my comment above yours to see that visual documentation of awards is a well established practice|q=yes}} You also demonstrated above that it's not a even universal practice in Featured Articles, and therefore it's neither an informal consensus (nor did you link to any codified consensus), suggesting it's a practice that's sometimes done on an article-by-article basis that's discussed among interested editors there.{{paragraph break}}{{blockquote|Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, don't restore your bold edit, don't make a different edit to this part of the page, don't engage in back-and-forth reverting, and don't start any of the larger dispute resolution processes. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement.}} I have repeatedly encouraged this discussion (here and in edit summaries); I did not {{talk quote inline|move the goal posts|q=yes}}, but explained how you misunderstood which aspect I meant—which you didn't know because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1287423506 you reverted my edit] rather than beginning this discussion; and you yourself have demonstrated a lack of informal consensus (and not linked to any formal ones). I try to only edit within the policies, guidelines, manuals of style, and other codified consensuses; I do my utmost to explain their application—as this and countless other discussions support; and I never shy away from asking for clarifications or assistance. If that's frustrating, I don't have an answer for you, but am always willing and interested in discussing as we're finally doing now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::A practice is not universal because the notability of a military service member's awards varies based on the individual. For instance, most astronauts do not also have substantial awards for valor in combat, nor have they achieved multiple rare warfare qualification pins (which also forms the basis for much media coverage of Kim, and therefore his notability, some of which is discussed in the article).

:::::The point of demonstrating that it is a common practice for individuals with notable decorations, as Kim clearly has, was meant to demonstrate the clear consensus that your objections about the practice being needlessly duplicative, not encyclopedic, unnecessary, etc. are quite forcefully contradicted by the clear encyclopedic interest in creating a comprehensive section to document the awards and honors of notable subjects. Whether it is required is simply a red herring that you have tossed because you clearly understand the argument, but you are well established to be in the game of giving yourself pretext, whether it is citing one policy to sneak in four changes or evading an argument aimed directly at your objections.

:::::First you complain that a section is too long, then when it is shorter you complain that it is too stubby and does not fulfill its purpose as a comprehensive summary of the category. You can't have it both ways, that is moving the goal post, it is motivated reasoning to reach your desired conclusion, which is deletion of a section that the community has decided belongs in articles of this category and subjects whose decorations are notable and varied.

:::::A visual summary of military awards is encyclopedic and merits inclusion, and that merit means it will be as long as it needs to be to fully document notable information for readers.

:::::We have wasted a great deal of time and effort over information that is clearly verifiable and content that is clearly encyclopedic, and now you are singing a different tune. Have you thought about contributing any sources of your own to attempt to source information in this section? That is the prescription in WP:CITE, not blanket removal, especially when, even if I grant your argument, the source I provided should at least tell you that there is a credible reason to believe these awards were earned by Kim. Ihpkt (talk) 07:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: {{talk quote inline|For instance, most astronauts do not also have substantial awards for valor in combat, nor have they achieved multiple rare warfare qualification pins (which also forms the basis for much media coverage of Kim,|q=yes}} And we've enumerated his significant awards and qualifications, at Jonny Kim#U.S. Navy; we're not obfuscating them. The pin isn't the qualification, the qualification—written and cited, is.{{paragraph break}}As for any consensus, I was trying to explain how you've not demonstrated such. Yes, some articles apparently eschew prose for comprehensive tables cited to reliable sources; some also don't. I haven't done any research into how many articles choose one or the other, but I've certainly seen enough variety to know it isn't a standard nor a consensus. That's not to mention that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide#Biographies, the WikiProject's consensus of advice, says "Awards and dates of promotions may be incorporated into the body at the appropriate chronological points, but may also be listed in separate subsections for ease of reference." Nary a mention of images & tables.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|First you complain that…|q=yes}} I'm allowed to object to multiple disperate things. {{talk quote inline|You can't have it both ways…|q=yes}} I can. The large table implies that it's comprehensively reflective of something unverified (OR), while ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonny_Kim&diff=prev&oldid=1287429232 as I said]), I removed the small table IAW WP:BRD; I also repeatedly called them both unnecessary—a categorization about which we can and should discuss.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|A visual summary of military awards is encyclopedic…|q=yes}} So you ascertain, and about which we're discussing, while it remains in the article history, IAW WP:BRD.{{paragraph break}}{{talk quote inline|We have wasted a great deal of time and effort…|q=yes}} I'll disagree with you most vehemently on this point; for our project, based on widely-varied volunteers, all of whom must arrive at the same place with infinitely-different backgrounds & experience & patience & English literacy & assumptions & interests & more… discussing anything and everything, thoroughly and clearly, for as long as needed to come to a consensus, that's a core tenet.{{paragraph break}}We can explicitly verify that Kim has received four awards, and they're accurately summed up in 163 characters of prose. If you want to explain why you think seeing little or large images of those same awards will be helpful to readers of Jonny Kim over and above the extant prose, I'm happy to discuss that. As for additional sources: the article contains all those I've found, but if you've more you want me to look at and/or add, I'm certainly happy to. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 08:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Readers of military biography are familiar with awards, and the visual summary is a convenient way for these readers to quickly ascertain information about a subject's career. The table translation also allows readers not familiar with military awards to understand (and through hyperlinks, read further about) the awards earned by an individual who is in large part notable from media coverage of his achievements in military service. This is the encyclopedic function, and the reason it has been included in FAs in this category. The fact that it has been included in such articles and that I and other editors have tried to include it here means that you need to stop reverting when it is not necessary and make an argument about why it should not be included here.

:::::::My argument is supported by high quality articles and reader interest. What is your argument supported by? Ihpkt (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I will also go ahead and tell you quite frankly that while discussion and consensus building is an important part of how the encyclopedia functions, every single issue on this talk page consists of you reiterating your views and refusing to actually address the views of other editors, and filibustering with highly repetitive objections, that is the part that I feel has been a waste of time. If every Wikipedia editor insisted on such lengthy deliberations to determine how to style infobox content that is not a problem anywhere else on Wikipedia outside of your edits, the encyclopedia would not survive. The whole point of consensus is that once it is reached, it should bypass further argument and allow productive edits to proceed, but you seem to want to litigate every minor issue on every individual article once it becomes clear that you are contradicted by the vast majority of articles rated GA and FA. The fact that few people have been willing to dedicate the time required to reach consensus with you and attempt to put an end to a years long cycle of disruptive edits is not surprising. Ihpkt (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Since you keep linking to BRD, I'll highlight some things you seem to have failed to read:

:::::::::* BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view or for tendentious editing.

:::::::::* BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.

:::::::::* BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle.

:::::::::* BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. This applies equally to bold editors and to reverters. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider discussing instead of reverting. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

:::::::::* BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.

:::::::::* BRD is optional, but complying with Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing and Wikipedia:Edit war is mandatory.

:::::::::* BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. Try to revert only when necessary and always follow the editing policy.

:::::::::Ihpkt (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; padding: 4px;" | Image:Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:

style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | I would say include the ribbons based on inclusion for other astronauts such as John Glenn and others. I'm not an expert on this topic, although it is pretty easy to verify which awards Kim recieved. For example, here is NASA's list {{url|https://www.nasa.gov/people/jonny-kim/}}. If the award granter or a RS like NASA says Kim got an award list it, even if you aggregate multiple sources Closetside (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Closetside, thank you for your third opinion. I agree it is easy to verify, unfortunately that NASA list does not contain a few of the ribbons Kim has been documented wearing such as the National Defense Service Medal or the Iraq Campaign Medal. I know it's an insane amount of text to read and parse above, but the real question to be resolved here is whether a photo of Kim wearing ribbons at an official event is a reliable source to claim that he wears/claims/has earned the medals in question.

:Unfortunately, while I obviously agree with the inclusion of the ribbon images, I am dealing with a rather contrived argument from a counterparty who does not want to see the images included and is claiming that lack of documentation for these lesser awards means the entire visual summary of his awards must be omitted (if you are unfamiliar with the military, the NDSM and campaign medal are basically self-evident from his documented deployment to Iraq that earned a Silver Star). He insists that including an image gallery implies to the reader that this is an exhaustive and authoritative documentation of Kim's awards.

:I know it's a lot to ask, but if you have the time to comment specifically on the use of the image in the article as a source on Kim's awards, it would help resolve this issue. As it stands, while I think the spirit of your third opinion is to support the restoration of the edit I have made, it would be premature for me to implement any changes, and thus this matter remains unresolved. Ihpkt (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I believe that is evident. Every soldier that served honorably in the Iraq War got the NDSM and ICM, Kim served honorably in the Iraq War, therefore Kim got the NDSM and ICM. This is a AAA syllogism so this a routine calculation, and not SYNTH. Closetside (talk) 03:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)