Talk:Sergeant Reckless

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sergeant Reckless article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Sergeant Reckless appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 August 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Korean war horse named Sergeant Reckless (pictured) was awarded two Purple Hearts and promoted to Staff Sergeant of the United States Marine Corps in 1959?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sergeant Reckless.

Wikipedia

Sergeant Reckless has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 31, 2013. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Military

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pritzker Military Library Low‑importance

	This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Awards

I added a section for awards, based on those listed here and in various references. However, in one reference, The Four-Legged Marine in Korea, I noticed the Korean Service Medal included three battle stars. That reference omits awards identified in other resources, so I am reluctant to use it as an accurate reference. Since that is a single reference to the battle stars, vice at least two that don't include them, should they be added or not? KMJKWhite (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geer book

Geer's book is available in a Kindle version from Amazon.PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Picture; coordinates

It would be great if someone could source or take a picture(s) of the statue, and find its coordinates, and those of the plaque at the stables. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is PD70. I asked the sculptor for a release. PumpkinSky talk 13:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You Americans and your weird freedom of panorama stuff ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, FOP is stupid. PumpkinSky talk 17:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a cell phone picture of the statue taken in Semper Fidelis Memorial Park. ~~I'll upload it to commons and add it here if there are no objections.~~ The coordinates should be in the picture's metadata. However, I'm not sure where in the article you're looking to include them. KMJKWhite (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would any of these be useable? They are in the public domain, but I'm not sure whether FOP might still apply. KMJKWhite (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gray area, maybe ask at one of the copyright pages. Montanabw ^(talk) 09:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have pictures of the headstone at Camp Pendleton and pictures of the monument by Jocelyn Russell that I can share if you still want them. Sgtreckless1 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you own the copyright to the photographs, then yes the images might be useful. To upload photos, use commons:Special:UploadWizard. If you have historic photos, then @Adam Cuerden: as he has been restoring historic photos for WP:MILHIST TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use the statue, which is a total bummer; there is no Freedom of panorama in the USA for works of art, which are presumed copyrighted. (I just got bit in the butt by this at Bleu Horses, the photographer was a WP editor, but FOP applied. As you see above, we tried... We'd love to be able to include a photo of the statue, but the artist has to be the one to give permission for the photographs to be used as free images. It's complicated, but if you can get around it by getting permission from the artist, that would be nice. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

100 all-time heros

Not so good sources say Reckless was on Life magazines 1997 list of 100 all-time heros, but I can't find a really good ref for it. Online Life archives only go to 1972. PumpkinSky talk 22:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FOUND IT!. It's in that video, with photos of the actual magazine pages. Neat stills and video clips in that video too! PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extra "}}" that shows at top of the article?

the }} first shows up in this edit [1] but dammed (joke) if I can find it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC) (don't worry, I'm from Philly)[reply]

Problem with the infobox template, fixed now. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official Rank?

I know that the linked article says that Reckless is the only animal given official rank, but the USMC's bulldog mascots also seem to be awarded rank as well. This provides a recent example. Here's some more on the subject. We might want to shift some of the wording...maybe to "Reckless was an early example of military animals being given rank." Intothat darkness 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see Chesty Puller appears again. I'll let you and PumpkinSky sort this out, as the claim is part of the hook I've proposed for DYK, so we may need to be sure we have our ducks in a row before it hits the review. Montanabw^(talk) 18:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think you could safely frame it as "A horse named Reckless attained the rank of sergeant in the USMC." without having a claim to being the first or only animal so promoted. That leaves some wiggle room. Intothat darkness 21:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we need wiggle room. I'll change both.PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I know one article says that she was the 'first,' while another remains silent. Best to avoid the issue, I think. Nice article, BTW! Intothat darkness 22:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added Purple Hearts too.PumpkinSky talk 22:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, the USMC bulldog mascots are given rank as "Canine Marines" and not official rankings as men and women in the USMC. Plus, they are "mascots" and not combat Marines. Reckless was indeed the only animal to hold an official rank in any branch of the military, but if you want some wiggle room and still want to be accurate, you can say something like "she was the only animal to be officially promoted to the rank of staff sergeant." If she outranked you, you couldn't give her orders. One of her handlers said he would get her ready for parades but then had to hand her off to an officer because he was only a PFC and she outranked him. Sgtreckless1 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are best off leaving that be unless we can find an impeccable source like the USMC itself that says "only animal". We weaseled a little, but it's at least not inaccurate... Montanabw ^(talk) 08:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berry's Rank

Just to avoid a 3RR (being careful here, not part of a dispute or anything nasty), we might want to take the "Scout" away from Sgt Berry's rank. The USMC never used the rank "Scout Sergeant." What I suspect is that the original source combined his role in the platoon (platoon scouts) with his rank. The same thing happened at a couple other spots in the article, and this looks to be the best way to deal with it. Thoughts? Intothat darkness 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC) - Already taken care of...ignore. Intothat darkness 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm feeling quite pleased with the excellent collaboration on this article and have no issues with bold edits, if we think someone screwed the pooch, we can jut revert and discuss. So far the only conflicts we've really had are edit conflicts. (The wonder of using good source material, isn't it an amazing thing when we verify as we go? ;) )Montanabw^(talk) 23:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such rank as Platoon Sergeant either. The military does this all the time, combines roles/positions with ranks. I'm not so sure it's a big deal. Geer, a Lt. Colonel in the 5th Marines, called Latham a Platoon Sergeant (both in Caps) most of the time. PumpkinSky talk 23:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At one point the Marines did use the rank of Platoon Sergeant, but it had been phased out by the start of Korea. There is a position of platoon Gunnery Sergeant, though. So that format's correct. No worries, though. It's looking good. Intothat darkness 13:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

collapse to condense talk page

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sergeant Reckless/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting around to reviewing this article...should have my full review up by late tonight. Dana boomer (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be larger: perhaps two paragraphs? Her military career especially could stand to be fleshed out in the lead.~~

I think I'll leave that for MTBW, she's better at that than I am. PumpkinSky talk 22:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origins, "The horse was originally named Ah Chim Hai in Korean,[6] which translates to "Morning Flame" or "Flame-in-the-Morning",[7][8] reputed to be the name of her dam," - She had the same name as her dam?

Yes, she did have her dam's name. PumpkinSky talk 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took a stab at it today. PumpkinSky talk 20:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ITD helped too. PumpkinSky talk 22:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MTBW just did her part. PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Who is the real publisher for Giaffo, Lou "Gooch's Marines"? The Google Books page says that it's Dorrance Publishing, which appears to be a self-publishing company. RoseDog Books appears to be a bookstore. If the book is self-published, what makes Giaffo a reliable source?

As that material all has other sources, I've moved that to Further Reading and cut the refs for it. PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Military service, "When learning a new delivery route, Reckless would only need someone to lead her a few times. Afterwards she would make the trips on her own." Source?~~

It's in the Geer book and it's made very clear. Hopefully I can find the page number with Kindle search function. PumpkinSky talk 03:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On pages 181-183 and probably a few other spots. I found it searching for the word "alone". Ref added. PumpkinSky talk 22:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
~~File:Reckless with Sgt. Latham.jpg could use an expanded source description (date of publication?), but is technically accurate.~~

Good catch! The source was wrong and it's fixed. I checked her commons cat and that's the only image that had that error. PumpkinSky talk 22:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, looking good. A couple more comments above, but that should take care of the majority of the work to be done. Once the above are addressed, I'll take another read-through, but at this point the article is very close to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redid and expanded the lede. Hope it's an improvement and we are good to go! Montanabw^(talk) 23:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've re-read and everything looks good. Sorry for taking a few days to get back to this. Now passing to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Dana. We all have real lives. Thanks for the great review, article is much better. I love Reckless' story, I love it! PumpkinSky talk 21:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt Reckless

Hi there, my name is Robin Hutton and I have written the biography on Sgt Reckless, Sgt Reckless: America's War Horse. I found several things that were incorrect on the Wikipedia page and inserted new material that I thought the readers would enjoy, and I spent hours doing this yesterday (forgot to save and lost all edits - oye!) only to find the corrections were reverted back to what was there before -- which some of the information is factually incorrect. I have spent the last 8 years of my life researching this horse. When I started researching this story there wasn't a Wikipedia page on her at all. After a few years, there was a page with a paragraph or two, and now it has morphed into this wonderful page. NO ONE knows more about this hero than me. I raised all of the money for the first monument to her at the National Museum of the Marine Corps and I'm raising money now for a second monument at Camp Pendleton. I would love to discuss with you the changes that I made. I put references to all of my changes hoping that would show that what I changed is factually correct. I'm hoping we can discuss this and revert to the pages that I corrected. I have never done a correction on Wikipedia, so forgive me for all of the different saves etc. but after I lost it all after hours of work, I would save as I corrected. Sorry if I did it wrong. Please let's discuss the changes that I made. I look forward to conversing with you! :) Sgtreckless1 (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgtreckless1: Some of your information was potentially helpful, but some of it repeated what was already in the article, cited to other sources, such as Geer's postwar work. The other problem is that you over-cited to your own work. You removed material that was very carefully cited to other sources - are you saying they are all wrong? I am glad to discuss your changes. Let's start by opening the conversation here instead of on my talk page and perhaps we can get some other eyes on your book; the problem is that you are quoting yourself, and even if you are providing us the gospel truth, we have a WP:COI problem. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you list the specific errors or omissions here? Personally, I am particularly interested in your evidence or sourcing for the Cheju (Jeju horse?) breeding and that she had laminitis; those are quite relevant, if true. On the other hand, I don't think we need to add the stuff on Native Dancer being horse of the year, people can read his article for that; I feel similarly about the various 2014 honors for Sgt. Reckless at the racetracks and such, that's nice and all, but unless they are permanently renaming races or something, it's just trivia. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin, thank you for taking the time to try and improve this article, and for writing a book on this great war hero. Don't be discouraged by changes to your contributions. What's important is to lay out an argument here on the talk page for the changes you think would improve the article, and your rational for those changes. Then the community can understand better and determine if the changes improve the article within the scope of Wikipedia, and in turn added to the article. The intent of this talk page is to obtain consensus from the community for the changes you recommend. Personally, I don’t think all your changes should have been wholesale reverted, because there were lots of improvements. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, thanks for this. I really appreciate your help!! I will take a look at the original posting and make a case for all of it. I have an over-scrupulous conscience, and I probably over quoted my resources because I thought I HAD to - sorry - LOL! There are other books out on Reckless that don't cite references in their material and some of the information is wrong in them, and it makes me nuts, as I'm sure you can understand and appreciate! I've worked hard to get the history of this horse correct, and it's been my mission to make sure the world never forgets about this wonderful hero. Some of the stuff I added was fun stuff - like Horse of the Year and what's been happening to honor this hero over the last few years bringing her back into the collective. I can understand why you wouldn't want that in there now, and I apologize for adding that material. Will get to work on this! Thanks again! Sgtreckless1 (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that you guys did a GREAT job on this page for Sgt Reckless. The article is so well written and tells her story beautifully and succinctly. For me it's harder to write succinct! hahaha! I'm fascinated by the editing process here on Wikipedia, and how you converse back and forth to get the facts right. I had no idea how it all worked! This is wonderful! Sgtreckless1 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem I see is the WP:COI if this editor is quoting her own book, that is a flat-out violation of wikipedia policies, COI and also WP:OR. This could be remedied if others have access, though: Does anyone else have a copy of this "Hutton" book or any reviews or snippets of it? I see it listed in the external links, but I have not seen a copy of it. Overall, the lead editor on this article (who is retired from WP editing, but has a military background) relied quite a bit on Geer and other solid sources, I want to tread carefully before changing things already cited. Also, the edits made removed existing sources, didn't follow GAN guidelines for lead structure, the citations weren't kept consistent with what is already there in format, and frankly, they added a lot of cruft like the stuff on Native Dancer. I'm sympathetic to fixing actual errors, but I don't want to deal with the drama of having this article sent to a GAR due to poor edits that are against the criteria. So please let's tread carefully. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Being a Mascot

Posted for @Sgtreckless1:

She quickly became a unit mascot and was allowed to roam freely through camp, entering the marines' tents, where she would sleep on cold nights, and was known for her willingness to eat nearly anything, including scrambled eggs, beer, coca-cola and, once, about $30 worth of poker chips. (RH: I would like to take out “mascot.” She was never really a mascot, and this kind of demeans her and isn’t necessary IMO. While there is discussion in Andrew Geer’s book on p 130 about “getting” a mascot, Eric Pedersen says “Being a mascot would be additional duty, sort of.” And it’s clear from their actions in Geer’s book or the SEP articles, Hoffman’s article, or interviews that I made with the men who served with her that she never acted as a mascot or was treated as one. Might be a petty change, but I think it’s important.)

I don't think this is a petty change. Service animals that are awarded the UK and Commonwealth's Dickin Medal generally aren't referred to as mascots. Does anyone disagree? TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, I do object, as~~ "mascot" here is not demeaning, it implies the affection the men held for her, her status as near-human, not a confined animal kept in a pen. The word in the lead is a simple way to explain what is in more detail later. Now, I'm open to someone grabbing a thesaurus and offering a different word than "mascot," or a rephrasing that keeps the concept. And to some extent, I wish we'd stop fussing over the lead and look at the body of the article first. We have to use summary style in the lead, we can't just say everything twice in the same fashion. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But never mind, we can toss "mascot." I'll agree with the combat marine thing. See if you like my changes there. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Hill

Posted for Sgtreckless1 @Sgtreckless1:, proposed change:

Currently: The highlight of her nine-month military career came in late March 1953 during fighting around Vegas Hill when, in a single day, she made 51 solo trips to resupply multiple front line units.

Sgtreckless1: I would change “Vegas Hill” to “Outpost Vegas” because it is referred as Outpost Vegas in most sources and this keeps it consistent. Also, I would either take out the word “solo” or change it to read, “made 51 trips, most of them solo (or “mostly solo”...”), to the firing sites.” The reference given was an interview I gave, and the writer misquoted me. I always say “51 trips, most of the time by herself” because in those 51 trips she was led up and down a few times to show her the way. Also change “multiple front line units” to “firing sites” or “up to the gun sites.” I had a Marine set me straight about this one - “front line unit” would have meant that she was on Vegas in the heat of the battle, and she never was on Vegas itself. She was always working behind the line where they set up the firing sites because the gun needed distance for it to work properly.

There is no article for the Battle of Outpost Vegas on Wikipedia. Should we create a stub and link to it? Has anyone seen sources that refer to it as the Battle of Vegas Hill? TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may need a source other than Hutton for "mostly solo" - if User:Sgtreckless1 is Hutton, then it fails WP:OR. While I agree that "mostly solo" is probably more accurate, we do need to firm that up - do we have sources? Now if Teri looks at the Hutton book and considers it reliable for the "mostly solo" piece, then we could consider adding it - but PLEASE use the sfn templates so the citation format remains consistent! Montanabw ^(talk) 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am less comfortable with "firing sites" - Miller does say "front lines" - but perhaps we could just tweak the lead to say "resupply ammunition" or something - the article body text phrases it a bit differently. What do you think? Montanabw ^(talk) 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the name of the battle, the article body states: "Her most significant accomplishment came during the Battle of Panmunjom-Vegas (also known as the Battle of Outpost Vegas/Vegas Hill)" That sentence has four sources for the content. The lead is shorter and why it's footnoted at all, I'm not sure, because it doesn't need to be, so I'm tossing that footnote. The lead says "Vegas Hill" but I guess I suggest seeing an analysis of "most sources" - Hoffman says "Battle of Vegas", Litallen says "Battle of Panmunjom-Vegas", Miller doesn't mention the name, and at the moment, the links to Geer at the Hathi trust pages aren't cooperating for me - slow connection tonight - can anyone else access them and note how Geer is phrasing it? As for the battle, whatever it is called, it would be nice if someone did start an article about it. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for Outpost Vegas was created today by Jdanbeck, PMML's Wikipedian in Residence. He's tweaking his citations and references a bit still. Please feel free to look at the article and make improvements. He's a new editor and this is his 1st big battle article (although he has worked on other things). He will appreciate any constructive feedback that you can give him. TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Flame-of-the-Morning"

Posted for Sgtreckless1@Sgtreckless1:, proposed change:

...which translates to "Morning Flame" or "Flame-of-the-Morning",[7][8]

Sgtreckless1: People get this wrong a lot, but both Geer in his 4/17/54 SEP p. 185 and Nancy Hoffman in Leatherneck p. 78, among others, say “of” - they are stronger sources.

Does anyone disagree? TeriEmbrey (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tending to favor Geer over the others, as he was closest to the source material. So I take no real position vis-a-vis of or in, but either way, if we change it, we need proper formatting and citation, consistent with existing cites, as this is already a GA-class article. To change the footnotes, just use the sfn formatting and do it properly. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book by Hutton

I had redlinked the book by Robin Hutton as a future Wikipedia entry, since it is a New York times bestseller. See: http://www.barrelhorsenews.com/articles/industry-news/4131-sgt-reckless-hits-new-york-times-bestseller-list.html and http://www.equisearch.com/article/dual-book-review-sgt-reckless-americas-war-horse-reckless-racehorse-marine-corps-hero-24913

But it looks like someone has created a dab link directly to this article. Should we keep or break the dab link? TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. Basically, I don't know if it really makes any sense for there to be a separate article given that the book is about the horse. The book was on the "Animals" best seller list, not the main one - still impressive, but it was #11 - behind the book by Grumpy cat, so my thinking is that it's a gray area. I wouldn't be upset if someone wanted to do an article about the book, but I would have issues if it just repeated what's already in this article about the horse herself and I wouldn't do much to defend an AfD unless the article was spectacular. Hutton might be a better choice for an article if she's done addtional books or could pass WP:NOTABILITY. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hutton has written other things, mostly screenplays with other authors. She is borderline on WP:NOTABILITY. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book by Tom Clavin

Has anyone seen this volume:

Clavin, Thomas. Reckless The Racehorse Who Became a Marine Corps Hero. New York: New American Library, 2014. <http://rbdigital.oneclickdigital.com>.TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a press notice on Clavin's book: http://www.horse-news.net/2014/08/reckless-racehorse-who-became-marine.html TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New to me. Is it based on Hutton's research or is this author writing independently, I wonder? Montanabw ^(talk) 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is another author writing independently. His book only covers Reckless' story through the war. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 26, 2016 -- Pendleton

Please add new info, re: Camp Pendleton dedication, October 26, 2016. See press release:

"Memorial dedication for Marine Pack Horse, Staff Sgt. Reckless". The Official United States Marine Corps Public Website.

2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A9A0:C5D8:7B36:31C4 (talk) 15:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks TeriEmbrey 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:A9A0:C5D8:7B36:31C4 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would this be a better lead photo?

I think she looks like a higher-quality horse in this image: http://www.marines.mil/Photos/igphoto/2000796900/ Montanabw^(talk) 17:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Staff Sergeant Reckless

Sergeant Reckless Korean War horse statue going to KY Horse Park Apr 16, 2018 Staff Sergeant Reckless, a Mongolian mare used for carrying canisters of ammunition throughout the Korean War, is receiving a statue at the Kentucky Horse Park which was being positioned Monday for fitting outside of The International Museum of the Hors Marcus Dorsey mdorsey@herald-leader.com

 They did put a statue of Reckless in The Kentucky Horse Park on May 12 2018  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.214.7 (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the original name

The original name of the horse "Ah Chim Hae"(아침해) actually means "Morning Sun" in Korean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalslug200 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about original korean name

Did US marines really call Reckless as Ah Chim Hae"(아침해) at that time or US marines just understand her korean name's meaning "Morning Flame" / "Flame-of-the-Morning?

In my opinion, "Ah Chim Hae(아침해)" is liberal translation of "Morning Flame" / "Flame-of-the-Morning by South Korean Press. There is another Korean name "Yeo Myong(여명)", Yeo Myong(여명) is more close to meaning of "Morning Flame" / "Flame-of-the-Morning.

In South Korea, Before 2006, Any people don't know about Reckless before. Through an american press, South Koreans know the exploits of Reckless since 2006. Footwiks (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children

How can a horse have "children"? Offspring, yes, Children? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.112.128 (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know if there are any bloodlines still living of Sgt Reckless,if so who and where if known ❓🦅🇺🇸 2601:14F:C080:9260:913B:F97B:5C34:288 (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. 2605:59C8:40D:5410:2501:3019:DA0C:D6 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred not Mongolian

I've seen Mongolian horses and she has absolutely no features of a Mongolian horse. Instead, she has all the features of a Thoroughbred race horse.and was, in fact raced. 66.38.69.148 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was her name really flame?

do Koreans even say flame? 50.81.26.48 (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it was probably translated from korean 77.71.37.94 (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]