Talk:Distinguished Service Order

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confusing[edit]

This is a highly confusing article. Perhaps someone familiar with the decoration could clean it up a tad?

The reason why it is confusing is despite the name of the decoration and the fact that it is "for distinguished services during active operations against the enemy" it was perceived until 1993 as a gallantry award. It certainly was frequently awarded to junior officers for gallantry in the First World War, to a lesser extent in the Second World War with two final awards to junior officers in Korea. After Korea it was purely a commander’s award for distinguished services during active operations against the enemy. The criticism then was that all commanders received the award whether they deserved it or not. The DSO is a decoration awarded to the military but it is not a military decoration in the real world outside Wikipedia. It is a decoration of the Imperial or British honours system and which part of the British Empire and/or Commonwealth were participating at what times should not appear in an entry on the DSO but in the entry on the Imperial or British honours system. As noted the DSO was instituted in 1886 for senior officers but it was soon awarded to junior officers for gallantry since there was no award between the Victoria Cross and being mentioned in despatches until the creation of the Military Cross in 1914. From 1914 until it was stopped in 1916, a small number of the DSO, MC and DCM awards were approved for meritorious service. Since 1993, its award has been restricted solely for distinguished service (i.e. leadership and command) which is what was intended in the first place. Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Bader[edit]

Could someone please addd Douglas BAder to the list of recipients with DSO and bar De Mattia (talk) 08:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recipients[edit]

Should there be a category for recipients of this medal, similar to the other British honours?--Peta 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Tirpitz Tait (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Brian_Tait) who died recently, should be listed in the Notable Recipients section - DSO and three bars. --Dsheppard 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable recipients - might (short) additional clarification be useful?[edit]

I recently added information to the entry "Bernard Montgomery", on the assumption that the interested reader might not realise that this refers to "Monty", aka Field Marshal Montgomery of Battle of Alamein fame. This information has just been removed without comment, although a couple of other such 'clarifications' have been left. I feel that an explanation for such a deletion would have been polite. Whatever. IMO a short clarification, shorter perhaps than my addition, would enhance the usefulness of the list of notable recipients. Opinions, anyone? --TraceyR (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really the whole section is out of control, see the equivalent on Military Cross#Notable awards whic is much more useful. The section here should be radically pruned, concentrating on those with the most Bars - which confers a degree of notability in its own right, and then mentioning any cases where there were particularly unusual circumstances which led to the award, or "firsts". Awardees in general who are notable enough to have Wikipedia article can be found in Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order, which can be given as a "See also" link. David Underdown (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The category approach does not distinguish between people on the basis of number of awards; the list in this article does that. Is there some place here where MC recipients with one or more bars can be found? The DSO list is IMO much superior to the approach of the Military Cross article; cross-referencing to the respective one-dimensional category serves little useful purpose. The other recipients mentioned, e.g. Moshe Dayan, 'Popski', T.E.Lawrence and 'Monty', to name but a few, are notable enough to stand out from the others and find mention here. I would even go so far as to suggest that the MC article would be much improved by the addition of an equivalent list. --TraceyR (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the section needs serious culling. A similar (and more detailed) discussion was held over at the Talk:Silver Star page. Adding the Category:Companions of the Distinguished Service Order to each recipient would satisfy the need for a simple list. I believe 'notable recipients] have to have some form of stand-out reason to be included - eg, "only recipient of 3 bars", "first woman", etc PalawanOz (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To look at this another way, you seem to be suggesting a list of particularly notable people who happen to have been made given the DSO. The problem is that there is no clear selection criteria, someone who seems particularly notable to you may well not do so to me, the first two examples you give above don't seem particularly "stand-out" to me, so theere isn't really any way of stopping the list growing, and completely unbalancing the article, which is generally in less good shape than those for some of the British decorations. Remember that the categories can easily be extended, and there would seem to me to be quite a good case for creating appropriate subcats of the Companions category for those with one, two and three bars, and similarly for similar decorations, although some might argue that the categories for the higher numbers would be rather on the small side, but there are ways of using the sort key to separate them out in that case. The people listed here should those whose notability is actually related to the DSO, not just that they happen to have been awarded it at some point. David Underdown (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the 'notability' section should relate to the DSO in some way, and not just a list of famous people with the DSO. I would imagine a short sentence (or two) which gives a brief synopsis of their notability. PalawanOz (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original question was about the usefulness of a brief clarification for some entries, exemplified by "Bernard Montgomery", who might not be readily identifiable to the casual reader as being the famous WWII British Field Marshal. The discussion about the usefulness of the list compared with a category is a different issue. The concept of "notability" is by definition subjective. One could argue (although I wouldn't) that anyone for whom a wikipedia article exists is in some way 'notable' and therefore deserves inclusion. IMO replacing the list by a reference to the category would reduce the usefulness of the article; wikipedia is primarily there as a reference work for the general public. --TraceyR (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we list every DSO who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, we will have entirely duplicated the category - how does that reduce the usefulness of the article, provided that there is a clear link to the caegory fo those who actually want to see the full list. Very long lists aren't particularly readable, and are discouraged by the manual of style. Once we've trimmed the lsit to something with more objective criteria, then it can be converted to prose, which might well include a brief description of who they are (although of course it's easy enough to follow the link if you're not quite sure who someone is), vastly improving the article. I believe that we should only mention in this article those whose connection with the DSO itself would make them notable, not those whose notability is for other reasons. David Underdown (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I'm not suggesting that everyone who has both a wikipedia article and a DSO should be added to the list of "notable recipients" - that would be way over the top. Nor do I agree that the "whole section is out of control". Before applying objective criteria to reduce the length of the list, it would be necessary to know a little more about those currently mentioned, which is why a short explanation or comment, not exceeding one line, would be useful (the point of the original question). 'Converting' a shortened list 'to prose' would just serve to reduce the accessibility of the information; this is an encyclopaedia, after all, not a history book.
FWIW I have just checked a couple of entries at random, and would suggest that Arthur Rhys Davids is a good example of someone whose intrinsic 'notability' is insufficient to warrant a mention here, in spite of his obvious courage and no doubt other admirable qualities. There are probably others who could be removed for similar reasons. On the other hand, Moshe Dayan on the other hand is surely 'notable' enough to be retained in any list of DSO recipients. --TraceyR (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps those for whom a short note is not possible should be weeded out! --TraceyR (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for 'culling'[edit]

While not exhaustive, the following list contains some names which could be considered for deletion:

Apologies in advance to friends/relatives who may disagree!

I suggest that anyone who was awarded the DSO more than once should be included as 'notable' for that reason alone.--TraceyR (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A single bar is far from rare (just from the figures in the article 62 for RAF officers in WWII, so the numebrs for all services must be over a hundred, then include Commonwealth forces too), even including those with two bars would make the list pretty unwieldy - if we were to be truly exhaustive. I think essentially we're looking for those people (as I've said before) where we could make a reasonable case for them being notable purely by virtue of their association with the DSO alone. So those with 3 bars yes, possibly Dayan and Peniakoff as non-Commonwealth citizens serving in British units (though in passing I've been unable to verify Dayan's receipt of the medal), and in fact even a quick search on The National Archives website turns up a number of foreign nationals (albeit serving with their own forces) who were awarded the DSO http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/search-results.asp?searchtype=browserefine&query=scope%3ddistinguished%20service%20order&catid=22&pagenumber=1&querytype=1&mediaarray=* (slightly curiously a search on "bar to the distinguished service order" only turned up 3 results) David Underdown (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Owen[edit]

Please correct em if I'm being really dense and I've simply missed his name on the list but I'm sure Wilfred Owen, the world war 2 war poet, was awarded the DSO. HJMitchell You rang? 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Pierre Koenig[edit]

DSO, OB : see http://www.ordredelaliberation.fr/fr_compagnon/524.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.132.62.66 (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll add it to his article as well then. David Underdown (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Livry-Level[edit]

See : http://www.ordredelaliberation.fr/fr_compagnon/613.html Translation welcome... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.22.120.14 (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Idem for André Dewavrin-Passy : http://www.ordredelaliberation.fr/fr_compagnon/284.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.22.120.14 (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to undisambiguated title[edit]

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 page moved by Dekimasu. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguished Service Order (United Kingdom) → Distinguished Service Order —

This page was moved without discussion from simply Distinguished Service Order, to Distinguished Service Order (United Kingdom), citing project guidlines. What links here shows that the overwhelming majority of incoming links to Distinguished Service Order are related to the the British/Commonwealth decoration. Rather than trying to fix all these after an undiscussed move of Distinguished Service Order to Distinguished Service Order (United Kingdom) it makes more sense to move this to Distinguished Service Order (disambiguation) and move DSO (UK) back to the undisambiguated title per Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. Which the project guidlines the original mover referred to don't seem to take into account. David Underdown (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Clearly this is the primary topic and should be moved back to where it came from and had been sitting undisturbed for many years. MilborneOne (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Notable recipients[edit]

Following on from a discussion above from 2008 about notable recipients do we need some way to constrain the list from random adding of companions. We have a category of over a thousand holders what make them notable for inclusion in this article. I would think those awarded a bar or two are notable to the award but I am not sure about the others. Any ideas? MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree DSO and Bar should be considered notable for this article. While many recipients of the DSO will be notable in their own right. If we added everyone who was awarded the DSO the list could be endless. If no objections I will trim the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even a single bar would probably give us over a hundred recipients. As I tried to explain before, I think this section should be more like the one in Military Cross, talk about siginificant firsts, first award, first woman (when it happens) or most bars, or any particularly unusual circumstance leading to the award. David Underdown (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can agree with that. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a reasonable idea. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The present list seems random and if the qualification for the list is that the name produces a blue link, then it just duplicates the Category. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Henri Clostermann ?[edit]

See "Ordre de la Libération" [1]

See photo (www.pierre-clostermann.com/decorations) [2] 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.64.182.240 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many during WWII?..[edit]

Somebody should find this essential info. Pibwl ←« 13:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4919 DSO, 501 DSO*, 59 DSO**, 8 DSO*** from Abbott and Tamplin, British gallantry awards, 1981.
18% of Australian awards in the First World War were to junior officers compared to 14% in the Second World War.
In both wars just one Australian junior officer was awarded a bar to the DSO. Anthony Staunton (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing article[edit]

Although this is an order, it is actually a military meddle which was second only to the VC. It has since been superseded by the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal. So what this has to do with the Victorian Order and precedence, I don't know?? Very convoluted article and it's using the wrong infobox as it's a military award not a civilian one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.57.172 (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many did see the DSO as second only to the Victoria Cross. However, the Australian statistics of only 18% First World War awards and only 14% Second World War awards to junior officers, which was probably typical of all DSO awards, indicates it was not a pure gallantry award but a prestigious award also given for gallantry. In 1993, the situation was rectified and at the same time the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross was created to replace the Military Cross (created 1914) and the Distinguished Conduct Medal (created 1854) as the second highest gallantry award for both officers and men. The Military Medal (created 1916) was replaced by the Military Cross which had previously been the second highest gallantry award for officers as the third highest gallantry award for both officers and men. As to the wrong infobox the concept of military awards and civilian awards is a Wikipedia invention which is not reflected in the real world.Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain receives DSO[edit]

  • Michael Olaf Chetwynd Dobbin, Grenadier Guards. Dobbin received the DSO at the rank of Captain, just three years after he received the Military Cross.Source 1 & Source 2
What a beat up by the Daily Mail. My congratulations to Captain Dobbin for his second award. It is good to see it being awarded to other than unit commanders. The DSO was always an award for leadership in action although in a small number of cases in both world wars it was given to junior officers for gallantry. The gallantry awards for Army officers and men since the John Major changes are the Victoria Cross, Conspicuous Gallantry Cross and the Military Cross. The DSO is a prestigious award which has not been awarded for gallantry since Korea. Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Era[edit]

Since the medal is still awarded (and has been awarded since the end of WWII), shouldn't there be a count of how many have been awarded under Queen Elizabeth II? 03:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There should, but the number doesn't seem to be available (and, of course, it grow from time to time). For that reason I've removed the "Total" from the statistics box. — Stanning (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Distinguished Service Order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Distinguished_Service_Order&oldid=1206984455"