Talk:John J. Pershing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John J. Pershing. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031010072443/http://www.armyhistoryfnd.org/armyhist/research/detail2.cfm?webpage_id=117&page_type_id=3 to http://www.armyhistoryfnd.org/armyhist/research/detail2.cfm?webpage_id=117&page_type_id=3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Mass reverts

I am confused as to why my recent edits are being mass reverted for what appears to be no justifiable reason. As mentioned in the edit summaries, most of the edits were made in compliance with MoS – en-dashes between date ranges per WP:DASHES; no icons, images, etc. in the infobox per WP:III and WP:ICON; correct block quote formatting per WP:QUOTES, and so forth. The only other changes I made were to reduce the spaces in the infobox for ease of editing (though I will concede this may be a personal preference between editors), debold the wars/campaigns in which Pershing served (as the bolding was unnecessary and inconsistent with related articles), and to simplify the second sentence in the lead. May I ask why the mass reverts? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

(1) Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

(2) You made changes in such a way that it was impossible to directly compare your version of the article to the previous version.

(3) Your edits to the infobox were not an improvement.

(4) WP:MOS is an editing guideline. It is not mandatory, and ArbCom has been quite adamant that edit warring for the purpose of upholding MOS is not legitimate.

(5) Please divide up you edits into digestible sections so that they can be properly examined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

With respect, this response does not adequately address why you mass reverted and appears to be more based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any legitimate concern. The edits can be compared here, and claiming that changes are "not an improvement" without elaboration (or possibly review) is not helpful for discussion or consensus. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

edit warring

@Abraham, B.S. and Beyond My Ken: - you guys should probably cool it with the reverts, you're racing toward 4RR. I'm sure you can work this out here on the talk page, or perhaps go with WP:3O Just some friendly advice. - ^theWOLFchild 08:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Thewolfchild: – that is why I started this thread. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Six-star rank

Read carefully in the article Six-star rank: The rank of General of the Armies had . . . been granted, in 1919, to active-duty four-star General John J. Pershing. As the five-star rank did not exist at that time, the concept of this being a six-star rank was moot. The markings used to identify Pershing's new ranking as higher than general was a bank of four gold (rather than silver) stars. The claim that he was a six-star general pops up again and again in media, general literature, private blogs and webpages, but has no base in facts. When Marshall, McArthur and Eisenhower received five-star-rank in December 1944, Pershing was accorded seniority/precedence over them, but no six-star rank was created for him. --Cosal (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Cosal: Read carefully: WP:BRD

1. you have Boldly made an edit,
2. you are Reverted,
3. you then Discuss the edit on the talk page.

You don't continually revert, trying to explain by way of continuous edit summaries. You also need to wait for the discussion to conclude before you revert again, and that's only if the outcome of that discussion supports your edit in the first place.

As for your edit, I can't speak for Beyond My Ken but you removing the words "six-star" (bolding mine) from that description doesn't make sense. It's referring to a 1944 proposal, and it has an image of a six-star insignia included.

Highest World War II rank proposed

General of the Armies, Regular Army, Retired. Proposed six-star rank from December 14, 1944. General of the Army was created as five-star rank by an Act of Congress on a temporary basis with the enactment of Public Law 78-482. The law creating the five-star rank stipulated that Pershing was still to be considered senior to the five-star generals of World War II. This could be understood to mean that he was a "six-star general". However Pershing died in 1948, so Congress never officially adopted the proposed six-star insignia for the General of the Armies rank.

References

You need to provide a better explanation than just "Read carefully". And please stop reverting until, or unless, you have support to do so. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 23:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't cite newspapers! Look at the official records instead. Pershing was given seniority over the other five-star generals, but that did not mean six-star rank. There is no merit in trying to perpetuate a myth. --Cosal (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The article itsef states further down: . . when asked if this made Pershing a five-star general, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson commented that it did not, since Pershing never wore more than four stars, but that Pershing was still to be considered senior to the present five-star generals of World War II. What else do you need to stop insisting to publish inaccuracies? --Cosal (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

References

FWIW, I did most or possibly all of the research that resulted in the current lines in this article about the four gold stars and the proposed six-star insignia. I'm absolutely confident that Pershing adopted and used the four gold stars as his insignia. I'm just as confident that while a six-star insignia was proposed at the time the WW II generals and admirals received their five-star rank, the proposal was not acted on prior to Pershing's death and so the proposed insignia was never adopted.

Billmckern (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I still see no reason for Cosal's edit to remove the words "six-star" from that notation. We should wait to see what others think however. And Cosal, please calm down... there is no need for exclamations marks. And newspapers are important secondary sources, since when should we "not cite them"...? - ^theWOLFchild 02:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I think whether to cite a source depends on several factors including reliability, and including whether other sources indicate the one being proposed for a citation is not accurate. Example. Several books claim that Martin Van Buren's son John Van Buren served as a member of Congress. He didn't. The John Van Buren who served in Congress was a distant relation to Martin Van Buren, if they were related at all. Even so, a number of books repeat the claim, and often cite each other as proof.

My argument is pretty simple: It didn't happen. John Van Buren, Martin Van Buren's son, did not serve in Congress. And no amount of source citing will turn that non-fact into a fact.

So it is for the six-star rank insignia. It was never approved. Pershing never wore it. It was only a proposal. Therefore, it's simply not accurate to call Pershing a six-star general, no matter how many sources incorrectly say he was.

Think of it this way - Congress approved Washington for a posthumous promotion to General of the Armies in 1976, and included an effective date that was so early that no one will ever outrank Washington, in terms of the Army's history and legacy.

But no one calls Washington a six-star general.

Billmckern (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

And the article does not call him one. I'm fine with the wording in the body of the article, but it might be too much emphasis to include it in the lead. Yes, mention he outranked his younger 5-stars, but six-star could easily be deleted from the lead without loss. I have a slight problem with the location and layout of the wording - as it follows the other insignia its easy to assume its "real" even though it says "proposed." It might make sense to "bury" it a bit by having it be a paragraph within the text. Just my thoughts. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the edit at dispute here is Cosal's repeated attempts to remove the words "six-star" from the information box (with the 6 star insignia graphic). This box isn't in the lead, it's a fair ways down the page. Comment on other related issues you will, but please comment on whether or not you agree with that edit by Cosal. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is any mention at all of six-star rank in an article about Pershing. Could I prevail upon some patient soul to explain to me why there should be any such mention? Pdfpdf (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(By all means include the background and history of the proposal for a six-star rank in the six-star rank article, by why mention the rank here? In fact, I think the whole section John J. Pershing#Highest World War II rank proposed should not appear in the John J. Pershing article — Pershing was not a World War II general, no one has ever been appointed a six-star general, and I am unaware that there has ever been any sort of official proposal that Pershing become a six-star general. Further, where does the sentence 'This could be understood to mean that he was a "six-star general"' come from? Why hasn't that sentence been tagged with – it sounds very WP:weaselish to me. If the answer is, "from a newspaper that is behind a paywall", I question the usefulness of the opinion of a random journalist who writes sentences like "This could be understood to mean ... " as a reliable source on the subject matter.) My 2c worth. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I re-worked the section on the proposed six-star insignia to remove the reference to World War II. I also added additional citations. I don't see anything wrong with including the proposed six-star insignia in the article, because those details help explain how the order of precedence question for the WW II five-stars was resolved. But the proposed insignia was never adopted, and Pershing never wore it, so I don't see that it needs to be included in the infobox. Billmckern (talk)

Thanks. I agree with you; you've changed my POV. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps changes should've been proposed first, since this started with a challenge to Cosal to stop edit-warring and discuss this content on talk page before any more changes were made. But, he seems to have disappeared, and I don't have any particular issue with the changes, so... ce la vie. - ^theWOLFchild 01:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the current phrasing regarding both his alleged six-star rank and the alleged insignia: It was proposed. Proposed by whom? Any person or institution with the authority to propose a six-star-rank and/or to propose insignia? Or was this just bandied about in the press and by some individuals? (I’ve seen multiple different artistic renditions of possible insignia for an American six-star general.) Pershing was accorded seniority over all the five-star generals; that is fact. He was given the rank of General of the Armies; that is also fact. And that is pretty much it. And Henry Stimson’s statement regarding Pershing’s stars pretty much nails the case shut. It matters not one iota what various individuals may have “proposed” or speculated or interpreted. --Cosal (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The quoted source does not contain 'This could be understood to mean that he was a "six-star general"'. Where does this come from? Pdfpdf (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Whether you guys have an issue with what is on the page right now or not, there is an active discussion here, and yet I see people going and changing content to whatever they feel like, without proposing their edits here first. Once this discussion started, all editing to that content/section should have stopped. Any further changes should be proposed here for discussion. What's the point of having discussions, consensus, agreements, or even talk pages... if everyone is just going to treat every article like a free-for-all? FFS. - ^theWOLFchild 03:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild: The replacement by User:Cosal of "states" with "speculated" is entirely reasonable. Any sentence that starts with "Presumably" is, by definition, speculation. I am assuming that you are acting in good faith, but I can't help but get the feeling that you are more interested in asserting your will upon all who don't agree with you than you are on achieving consensus. How about you stop reverting others and start discussing stuff on the talk page? I have asked several questions and made several comments, but you have yet to engage in discussion on any of the matters I have raised, and I haven't noticed you discussing matters that others have raised, either. How about you stop focusing on "disputes" and start participating in discussions? (And no, I'm not saying that others, including myself, are blameless.) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: Well, where to begin with this...? First, how about acknowledging the fact that I am the one that encouraged Cosal to stop edit-warring (after he had already ignored and reverted another editor) and to come here and discuss this matter, like the way it's supposed to be done? Second, how about acknowledging the fact that all I've done is revert to QUO, until there is a consensus formed about this content, and that I haven't added any content of my own, or have outright removed any content I don't like? In other words, I have no dog in this hunt. I just want the disruption to end. Third. you are waaay out of line, preaching to me about "good faith" out one side of your face, while at the same time accusing me of bad faith out the other side of your face. I am perfectly willing to "discuss" this, help form consensus and even contribute to the whatever prose we collectively agree to add or change. But that hasn't been happening. Cosal just keeps removing and things he doesn't like. without giving a FF what the community thinks. Billmckern has been working away trying to come up with reasonable changes and additions to keep Cosal happy. You've just been flip-flopping between the two. I happen to agree with the content that Billmckern has come up with, but I even raised the issue of adding without consensus after he made changes. None of you are following the guidelines or taking the wider community's interests into account here. It's a free-for-all. So, in short... I am the last one you should be criticizing here and you are one of the last that should be doing any criticizing.

Now, as for the recent edit; was it proposed here first? Nope. (so I didn't really have a chance to "discuss" it, did I? Neither did anyone else.) If I'd had that opportunity, and I will take it now, I say, do we really need to add "speculated" right before "Presumably"? How much do we need to water this down? How tenuous and doubtful does it need to sound before Cosal is happy? It's a fact that source "stated" that comment and stated is the appropriate verb to use. ..."speculated: 'Presumably... is just an awful looking, sounding and clunky combination. You yourself just wrote: "Any sentence that starts with "Presumably" is, by definition, speculation" - so why do we even need to have the word speculated there? It's overkill. However, I's like to see what others have to say about it, before (and if) that is re-added. Now, this is getting longer than I would have cared for. Have I contributed enough for you yet? Can we now stop editing whatever/whenever we feel like and, like civilized editors follow the guidelines? Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 09:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. Many years ago someone far wiser than both you and me said to me "You can be right, or you can enjoy life". I prefer to enjoy life. Your response is far too long. Maybe I'll read it one day, but not today. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: Oh come now, You obviously don't care for the remarks I made about you, but I think you've taken them out of context. That's the reason for the shift in your attitude and demeanor now, because we both know you read it, every. word. So, in choosing to "enjoy life" instead of "being right", I'll take that as your tacit admission that you were wrong? (maybe I'm "speculatively presuming" that?) Well, anyway... you go ahead and "enjoy life". I know I'm enjoying mine! - ^theWOLFchild 11:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I said "Your response is far too long. Maybe I'll read it one day, but not today." because your response is far too long. No, I haven't read it (yet), and now I won't read it, (or anything else you've written), any time soon – what possible incentive would there be for me to do so? Also, please stop making assumptions about me and then attributing them to me – you're not very good at it. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: ...and what does this have to do with article? (but, please, keep trying to convince me you didn't read that comment. If you're going to post off-topic nonsense, it might as well be amusing) - ^theWOLFchild 17:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: To quote you: Well, where to begin with this...? Please don't revert history. It was not I who began reverting other authors -- someone reverted my edit, and that is how this began. And your diatribe on the use of "speculate" is so over the top that it is just ludicrous. As for further "discussion" with you, I am with Pdfpdf. --Cosal (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you were reverted, and rightfully so. But then you continued reverting, that is called edit-warring, and "that is how this began". As soon as you were reverted, you should have started a talk page discussion then. But you still haven't worked toward any kind of consensus here. Instead, you edited that content again, and you were rightfully reverted, again. My assessment (or "diatribe", as you referred to it, in your rant) of your "speculated" edit was obviously correct. Neither one of you have offered any kind of discourse, or even defence, of the edit. Instead, you just attack me, then run off ("to be happy" apparently). As long as the disruption to the article stops, I don't really care what you do. But, if you're willing to have a civil discussion, about content, and not contributors, then let me know. I am always willing to discuss article improvement. Have a nice day - ^theWOLFchild 22:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Silver Star

@Pdfpdf: Leave the ribbon image as it was. It's being fixed at Commons right now (apparently), but we won't be able to tell if it's been fixed if you keep changing it. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 03:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: The CommonsDelinker bot has been fixing it - right now. For example, see Peter Badcoe. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Right, so if it's being fixed, then there is no need for you to change it. This affects over a 100 pages, so I want to make sure the bot does it's job, and the commons editor that started all this in the first place has done their job. Again, thank you. - ^theWOLFchild 03:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The delinker changed file names on several dozen pages, but it now seem to have stopped for some reason. There are still 100+ pages that need to be fixed, including this one. I've notified the commons editor and will be keeping an eye on this page until the delinker fixes it or the commons editor find another solution. - ^theWOLFchild 03:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. (I'd made the same observation and was wondering what to do next.) Pdfpdf (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

For now, just wait. I'm in contact with the commons editor that started this snafu. After I brought it to his attention, he managed to get the delinker going, but now it's stopped and there are still pages in need of updating, like this one. I've notified him and I'm waiting to either hear back from him or see if the delinker fires up again. - ^theWOLFchild 03:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As User:Thewolfchild forecast, the original problem has been fixed without the necessity of a bot to change anything. Thank you @Thewolfchild: Pdfpdf (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Tombstone

I prefer the one I can actually read, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Ok I don't really mind which one is up. I just found that photo on Commons doing license reviews, compared it to the one that was up, and in my own opinion it was better. But if you and @Thewolfchild: feel that one is best that's fine with me. And because I don't want to spam this over talk pages; yes I am familiar with BRD. I did not see this talk page message before the photo was reverted. I should have started a topic about this as was done, but I didn't think it would escalate to that and felt a detailed edit summary feeling that was enough. I thought this since you may have thought I was vandalizing the page since you left a message on my talk page though TW. Entirely my fault for not starting a talk page topic about this and leaving the previous one up is fine with me. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sixflashphoto: - "Vandalizing"...? No, not at all. I completely accept your first edit was a bold, good faith effort at improvement. The post to your talk page (that I made at least) was to add a 'welcome' template. I was hoping you'd find it useful and a sign of good will. I didn't notice any "vandalism" notices. Meanwhile I was busy typing out my post here, then looking up the gallery tag markup so I could change the size of the images. I think the one you selected is a beautiful shot, but as I explained below, I just don't see it as an improvement over the current image. Still, I think others should have a look and add their thoughts. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Headstone image

@Sixflashphoto: Hi, this is where, if you care to, we can discuss the image you are proposing to add; (sizes adjusted to size in article)

• images
• 
  current image
• 
  proposed image

While I agree the proposed image looks nice, professional even, it's unreadable within the article. People have to open it as a separate page to be able to make out the inscription. That's not always convenient. Meanwhile, the current image, and it's inscription is easily read within the article. Per WP:BRD & WP:QUO, I have reverted to the current image. With this post, we can discuss the matter, and also give others an opportunity to contribute. If there is a consensus to change to the proposed image, then in it goes. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree not to change it. When looking at the photo's I wasn't really seeing it from that perspective. I previewed the edits to make sure the formatting was correct but I had spent most of the time seeing it in full screen reviewing the license on Commons not from the perspective of the article's thumbnail view. Let's keep the previous one. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply, I totally understand your thinking going into this now. Glad it's worked out. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 20:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Final paragraph of the lead section

Hi there,

I notice that my edits to the final paragraph of the lead section have been reverted. That's fine—they didn't do a great job of what I was trying to do—but I do think that there are a couple of clarity and writing quality issues with that paragraph in particular, and so I'd like to discuss them and see if anyone has any ideas. Here is the paragraph, as it currently exists (citations removed):

Pershing was also criticized by some Historians for his actions on the day of armistice as the Commander of the American Expeditionary Force. Pershing did not approve of the armistice, and he did not tell his commanders to suspend any new offensive actions or assaults in the final few hours of the war, despite knowing that the war would be over within a few hours. In total, there were over 11,000 casualties, dead, missing, or injured during the final day of the war on November 11, which even exceeded famously high D-Day casualty counts saw later in 1944. Of those, 3,500 casualties were American which could be directly attributed to Pershing's actions. Pershing was later questioned by congress as to why there were so many American casualties on the final day of the war.

So, issues:

1. "Pershing was also criticized by some Historians" → "historians" is not conventionally capitalized
2. "his actions on the day of armistice as the Commander of the American Expeditionary Force" → I don't think "Commander" should be capitalized in this context, unless it immediately links to the page on "commander of the AEF". Even then, I don't think him being commander of the AEF should be included here for grammatical reasons. My native speaker intuition screams that "as the commander of the AEF" should immediately follow "his actions", but I understand that that's somewhat misleading if we say "his actions as the commander of the AEF on armistice day" (he was commander for longer than just that one day). I also think that we should say which day the armistice was here (11 Nov 1918).
3. "Pershing did not approve of the armistice, and he did not tell his commanders to suspend any new offensive actions or assaults in the final few hours of the war, despite knowing that the war would be over within a few hours." → There's a repetition issue with "in the final few hours[…] over within a few hours". It's not great writing. I tried to rephrase it as follows: "Despite knowing of the impending end of the war, he did not tell his commanders to suspend any new assaults or attacks in the final hours before the ceasefire, of which he disapproved." There's still an issue here ("of which he disapproved" is somewhat ambiguous), but I do think it constitutes an improvement over the current phrasing. If anyone has any ideas on how to fix it, I'm all ears.
4. "In total, there were over 11,000 casualties, dead, missing, or injured during the final day of the war on November 11th, which even exceeded famously high D-Day casualty counts saw later in 1944." → "dead, missing, or injured" is typically what "casualties" mean; it's unnecessary words. "even exceeded" should be "exceeded even". "famously high" is weasel-words. "saw later in 1944" is ungrammatical (should be "seen later"). I honestly think that saying the casualty count is higher than D-day is unnecessary, especially since the real total of D-day dead is unknown (at least 10,000), and that that part should be nixed.
5. "Of those, 3,500 casualties were American which could be directly attributed to Pershing's actions" → Wait, whaaaaat? 3,500 casualties of the 11,000 casualties were American and actually Pershing's fault? Then why do we even need to know that there were 11,000 casualties on Nov 11? I also think that saying that it's "directly attributed to Pershing's actions" is unverifiable and not super encyclopedic. What if the Germans had attacked? There would still have been casualties. Ideally, this and the last point need to be combined into one sentence—maybe something like this: "In total, there were over 3,500 American casualties during the final day of the war".
6. "Pershing was later questioned by congress as to why there were so many American casualties on the final day of the war." → "congress" is capitalized, and furthermore, because there is more than one congress in the world, and not ever reader of English-language Wikipedia is US-American, we should really specify that we're talking about the United States Congress, or at least link to it. We've also now used the phrase "final day of the war" twice in three sentences, which is stylistically bad. I suggest maybe something like "Pershing was later questioned by the United States Congress over his decision", or, maybe, "Pershing was later questioned in a congressional hearing over this decision". Or something like that, I don't know.

Thanks for reading. JeanLackE (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Ni*ger Jack

His nickname was Ni*ger Jack, not Black Jack. Although the word is percieved as ofensive, it wasn't back then. I think it's wrong to try to change historic facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.26.44.186 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the article? See John_J._Pershing#West_Point_instructor --John (User:Jwy/talk) 22:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(ec) This has been discussed here a number of times, see this. Also, see the section of the article called West Point instructor, which includes facts supported by citations from reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Alleged whitewashing

"On August 7, 1918, the headquarters of the Commanding General of the American Expeditionary Force, John “Black Jack” Pershing, issued the following confidential order on the proper handling of black American troops in France:

'We must prevent the rise of any pronounced degree of intimacy between French officers and black officers. We may be courteous and amiable with the last but we cannot deal with them on the same plane as white American officers without deeply wounding the latter. We must not eat with them, must not shake hands with them, seem to talk to them or to meet with them outside the requirements of military service. We must not commend too highly these troops particularly in front of white Americans. Make a point of keeping the native cantonment from spoiling the Negro. White Americans become very incensed at any particular expression of intimacy between white women and black men.1'

The wording of Pershing Headquarters’ directive is bureaucratically masterful. The authors of the command justify their orders by emphasizing the deep racial animosity existing within the white American Army. Those in Pershing’s headquarters are not racist--the authors of the document suggest--but they must worry about the stability of their authority. It seems that high praise for a black unit--even if warranted--would have disrupted the discipline of white soldiers. Even more explosive was the possibility that black soldiers would have open sexual relations with French women. The document implies that Pershing and his officers were not motivated by prejudice, but had to accommodate themselves to the racism of their white subordinates."

The above is from The Corrosive Racial Divide, by John Willoughby.

Further, African American troops were stripped from their weapons when arriving in France. They were essentially treated as slaves put on hard labor. The African Americans only accepted it because they wanted to prove themselves to white America.

Pershing is par for the course when we talk racist cowards in American history, going back to Washington and Jefferson. Who, of course, weren't racist themselves, "but had to accommodate themselves to the racism of their white subordinates." It's about time we stop pretending these people were mere hapless victims of circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about General Pershing, not Washington or Jefferson. Judging these men as "racist cowards", based on the values and mores of modern times, is not at all productive, and your post could be considered as nothing more than soapboxing. If you feel that "whitewashing" is occurring in this article, then please provide examples, as in specific quotes, from specific sections, and perhaps even suggest some revisions. Thank you - wolf 18:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the comment directly above this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A "consensus" that "Black Jack" is part of the man's name?

Where would I find this "consensus"? If he was best known as "Black Jack Pershing", and the article was titled so, then John Joseph "Black Jack" Pershing would be appropriate. He isn't and it isn't. Compare Earvin "Magic" Johnson, Wayne "Tree" Rollins, James "Buster" Douglas, etc. "Black Jack Pershing" redirects here, and I have a difficult time believing any serious discussion would result in the article being moved to said redirect. This isn't about "Black Jack" vs. "Nigger Jack". I don't care which name(s) the info box uses; obviously both should be in the article and they are. I don't see how either of them should be part of his name in the first sentence of the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb:, in your edit, you sought to have the nick name removed from the subject's name in the opening sentence of the lead, yet the in the three examples you provided; (Johnson, Rollins & Douglas), all three articles also have the subject's nick name included in their name in the opening sentence of the lead. I don't think anyone is looking to move the page, nor do I believe anyone, like you, is seeking to change the nick name to the more offensive version, so I'm not sure why you're seeking this change. That is his commonly known and accepted nick name, and like many BLPs on WP, more that just those three examples, the subject's name includes a nick name, if they have one that is commonly known and accepted. I think this (specifically what you sought in the above noted edit), is a moot issue. (jmho) Cheers - wolf 06:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Loss of first wife Helen and daughters

- other editor has already thanked me for pointing out two marriages (+ one other engagement) in article - pls read history comments - "death of x and y" not grammatically correct - "deaths of x and y" ok - son survived fire, daughters didn't - Pershing married Helen in 1905 and Micheline in 1946 according to article Facts707 (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Facts707: Not that I doubt you, but it's not really clear where or when this exchange between you and the "other editor" took place. - wolf 14:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Oh sorry, it was just a "thank" so that wouldn't have shown up in the talk page. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

Suggest new section "Personal life" to collect all marriages, engagements, children, etc. as per similar biographical articles (except Pershing's own childhood which is in the usual "Early life"). Currently the loss of Helen and daughters is in the Pancho Villa and Mexico section as is his engagement to Anne Patton and second marriage to Micheline Resco. Would likely help avoid confusion in future. - Cheers and thanks all for your most appreciated good work! Updated, Facts707 (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The only problem I can see with it is making sure that some mention of the death of his family remains in the chronology because of the effect it had on him - but that can be a passing mention with more details in the new section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, sounds like a good idea. - wolf 02:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Trump tweet...

″...about bullets in pigs blood, etc. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Gen. Pershing for discussion. - wolf 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mask of General John J. Pershing by Jo Davidson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Commander of the AEF on Western Front (1917-1918)

But the AEF existed from 1917-1920 - ? --2001:A61:5A6:1501:D482:FA:524B:DA92 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Award of Distinguished Service Cross

Differences in content that require additional research. There are two references that say it was awarded in 1941. But, a text reference says it was awarded in 1940 such that it coincided with his 80th Birthday. https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/16164 lists a U.S. Army General Order dated 1941. A more definitive citation required. St9r9r (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@St9r9r: "Pershing, Fit At 80, Goes on Air to Warn U.S. Is in Danger". This newspaper article from September 14, 1940 causes me to conclude that the presentation in 1940 is correct. It may be that the orders weren't published until 1941, which would account for the discrepancy. Billmckern (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Death of Richard Pershing in Khe Sahn?

This article says that Pershing's grandson Richard Pershing was killed in action in 1968 while serving with the 502nd Infantry. The 502nd Infantry was never at Khe Sanh, which was manned by US Marine Corps units. Sloppy! 174.58.100.83 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. He was killed near Hải Lăng district. Billmckern (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)