Talk:John J. Pershing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Outanked

a little note: for almost 60 years Pershing out ranked Washington, till the 70's when congress passed an act stating that no present, past, or future general could out rank Washington, which led to his premotion to G.A. -unsigned anon comment

Moved from article

According to an urban legend, Pershing ordered rifle rounds to be dipped in pig fat. These rounds would be used on Islamic insurgents in the Philippines, and the corpses would be buried alongside a pig. Whether or not these rumors are true is up for debate, but after Pershing's service, the United States did not experience a guerrilla problem for the next half century.

• An "urban legend" indeed, told about numerous other military men other than Pershing as well. Without some source, IMO this doesn't belong in the article. -- Infrogmation 23:16, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From another source:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_black_jack_pershing.htm

Comments: I consulted Dr. Frank E. Vandiver, professor of history at Texas A&M University and author of "Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J. Pershing," to find out if there's any truth to the above, and he responded via email that in his opinion the story is apocryphal. "I never found any indication that it was true in extensive research on his Moro experiences," he wrote. "This kind of thing would have run completely against his character."

Similarly, I been unable to find any evidence corroborating the claim that Muslims believe that "eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell." It is true that Islamic dietary restrictions, like those of Judaism, forbid the eating or handling of pork because pigs are considered unclean. But according to Raeed Tayeh of the American Muslim Association in North America, the notion that a Muslim would be denied entrance to heaven for touching a pig is "ridiculous." A statement from the Anti-Defamation League characterized the claim as an "offensive caricature of Muslim beliefs."

In other words, it's just an urban myth, though probably we might want to put it on as an Urban Myth Pueblonative 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Agreed.

On a different subject, wouldn't "Black Jack" still have been a slightly disparaging sobriquet in itself? "Black" didn't come into general usage as a the preferred generic racial term until the 60s - the polite phrase at the time would be "colored", subsequently replaced by "Negro"? Or am I off base here. Ellsworth 12:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

IMO, "BLack Jack" just has a better ring to it than "Colored Jack" or "Negro Jack." Incidentally, Pershing wasn't the first American general to earn that nickname -- John A. Logan was called that during and after the Civil War, mostly due to his complexion and his grumpy personality. Cranston Lamont 18:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is a stub

I think this qualifies as a stub. It's pretty short and only talks about his military career- nothing before then is even mentioned. A lot more could be added, I think. So I think it's a stub. What do you all think. Cookiecaper 01:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A lot more has been added!

To the comment above, I just finished a MAJOR expansion of the article. I hope everyone likes it. -Husnock 04:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

In 1919

Rewrote this sentence:

"In 1919, Pershing was commissioned as a full General and led the United States forces to final victory over the Germans"

Hostilities ended in 1918. Ellsworth 20:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I must a mental problem. For some reason, EVERY time I write about WWI, I think it ended in 1919. And I call myself a historian... -Husnock 22:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So? We liked beating up the Germans, so we did it some more. :p--Kross 10:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

10 years with no promotion?

It took him 10 years to get promoted and later down the road he skips several ranks? That is very odd and should be discussed in some form in this article. --Ebralph 13:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Its discussed rather well, I think. And back in those days slow promotions were the norm. Most officers held Regular Army rank in the O-2 and O-3 grades for 10-15 years and advanced through brevet commissions. See Regular Army for further details. -Husnock 14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but I didn't feel that it was explained well enough in the article - of course that's my personal impression. Maybe adding a reference to the Regular Army link with a sentence that that was the norm might be a good idea. --Ebralph 15:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Regular Army liks are pretty well scattered throughout the article, including in the Dates of Rank section. Of course, we can add more. -Husnock 15:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe just a sentence saying that it wasn't uncommon might be a good thing. For someone who isn't aware of Regular Army practices of the time might stumble over it like I did without seeing the connection. I just took the Regular Army thing as opposed to the "World War 2" related buildup Army. Of course the issue with the two different ranks are also a stumbling block which I chose to ignore but there again pointing a reader more in that direction might not be amiss. As always unless really, really pointed to one tends to ignore it and it is important for understanding the career of Pershing. --Ebralph 15:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Clarity of Orders

Somewhere, I've read that one of Pershing's major innovations, during World War I, was a reform of military writing--to make orders shorter, clearer and less ambiguous. Any truth to that? --bamjd3d

Just a coincidence?

I commute to downtown L.A on the Metro, and the stop I originally was supposed to get off at was Pershing Square. I later found out that Civic Center was much closer to my workplace, but still - was Pershing Squre named after this John J. Pershing, or is it merely coincidental? Hbdragon88 03:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost certainly. Before Eisenhower came along, Pershing was held in largely the same regard. Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Johnpershing.jpg

Anyone know where one could find a print or high-res version of this item? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 03:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

highest rank ever held in the United States military?

A fan of military history, and quickly becoming addicted to Wikipedia, I have come across an apparent disjoint in the information in Wiki; this article states that Pershing attained the "highest rank ever held in the United States military, equivalent only to the posthumous rank of George Washington"

In the article List of U.S. military leaders by rank clearly shows George Dewey as the second-most senior ranking military leader and John J. Pershing as number 3.

If I may draw a parallel argument; George Dewey had the rank of Admiral of the Navy (U.S.), that is, he would be in command of all the fleets of the Navy, outranking a Fleet Admiral (had that rank had existed). His date of rank is 1899, 20 years before Pershing was promoted to General of the Armies of the United States.

Pershing, of course, was General of the Armies, plural, who would evidently outrank a General of the Army, Admiral of the Navy, therefore would be an equivalent rank for Dewey.

Furthermore, Pershing, on his own accord, never wore a rank above 4 stars. Dewey actually wore the rank of Admiral of the Navy.

Finally, Wiki also states:

In the United States Army, the equivalent of Admiral of the Navy is known as General of the Armies.

Thoughts?

Look at this article for correct information on the General of The Army/General of The Armies issue: General of the Army (United States)

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Dewey and Pershing were the same rank, but the list is by rank and then seniority, and Dewey was senior, being promoted decades before Pershings (that list used to have a numbering system nex to the names) - 06:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Grant, Sherman and Sheridan held the same grade as Pershing. When their grade was established, it was as a revival of the grade created for Washington in 1798. Despite the change in plural (armies) to singluar (army), it is clear it was the same grade. PL 45, which established authority to promote Pershing, also clearly states it was a revival of the earlier grade, despite another switch from singluar to plural. The subsequent WWII grade with the similar title was clearly specified to be lower than that awarded to Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and Pershing. See http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Rank_page/HistoryofGenofArmy.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.98.232 (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pershing was the highest ranking "General." Under the first paragraph of the Wiki acticle, it states: "Nevertheless, he did not outrank George Washington who held the highest rank in the Army during his lifetime." The wording, I believe, is pretty misleading. Washington was a Major General before being promoted by the Continental Congress to the rank of Commander in Chief. That being said, could we not also say the same thing about Eisenhower, who was also a "Commander in Chief?" Though posthumously promoted, Washington did not "outrank" Pershing while he was a "general." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okinawaguy66 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence fragment removed

I removed the following sentence, which is not only missing a verb, but leaves the reader perplexed.

During the funeral, the most famous riderless horse, Black Jack, named with Pershing's nickname.

Was the horse born during the funeral? Named during the funeral? Unless the article on Black Jack is missing something vital, he was not the horse used during Pershing's funeral. If someone can clarify, please do so. 208.20.251.27 23:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article seems to be in a strange order. We jump to his "Later Years" then back to his actions in the Mexican Revolution. Shouldn't this article be in chronological order, or am I missing something? Great article however. OrangeMarlin 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Patton Connection

According to Carlo D'Este's biography of George Patton, the young Patton's career went into high gear at about the time Pershing became romantically involved with Patton's sister. Would this citable item be a bona-fide trivia item for this article, or does it seem too gossipy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranston lamont (talk • contribs)

It seems too gossipy with only one source claiming that. However, if there were multiple, independent sources claiming that, then it should be included. --Bark 13:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of references to this issue in the two-volume The Patton Papers, much of it in the voice of George Patton himself. However, what really got George in solid with Pershing was Patton's service on the Mexican Border prior to the Punitive Expedition; his performance while with Pershing in the Punitive Expedition; and the gumption he showed to get to go with Pershing to both the Punitive Expedtion AND World War I. The final thing that stood George in good stead was how he jumped at the chance to head the Tank Brigade - when no one else wanted the job. -- SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 23:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't the elderly Pershing refuse to have further dealings with Patton after the slapping incidents in Sicily, as he regarded this as conduct unbecoming an officer? I'm sure that was in some biography - might have been the Carlo d'Este one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.192.0.10 (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry

One of the pieces of trivia I know about Pershing is that while a resident of Lincoln, Nebraska he joined a Masonic Lodge (Lincoln Lodge, #19). Given the focus of the article on Pershing's military career, I am unsure of how this fact should be introduced. Is it appropriate for the Trivia section? --User:phkenyon 16:10, 23 Nov 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if that piece of trivia cannot be verified by an independent source, like a biographical book, it should not be included here. Wikipedia has policies of citing sources and no "original research". However, if it can be cited, I would say it's interesting enough to be included wherever it chronologically fits. --Bark 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 08:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't "history" record what a terrible commander he was?

I mean look at his actions in world war one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.145.73.175 (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name?

I'm inclined to add "(originally "Nigger Jack", for his command of African-American troops)" in the first line, per convention to include all nicknames at the top. Since it's offensive, let me offer the idea for discussion, first (for a change =]). Trekphiler (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we'd best find a source, the more reliable the better, for this; otherwise people are going to keep reverting it.

On second thought, how long did he have the "Nigger Jack" name? If it was only for a short time, or if it never had wide circulation, then it doesn't belong in the lede. -- Zsero (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it was during his tenure at West Point, and ample sources are available: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22nigger+jack%22+pershing&btnG=Search+Books&um=1 --Father Goose (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I added '(originally "Nigger Jack", for his command of African-American troops)' with an undeniably reliable source (http://www.nps.gov/pwso/honor/pershing.htm) and an edit summary. It was reverted and I was accused of vandalism by Maxim. I clearly did not edit the article in a 'deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia', but to add information as directed by the Manual of Style.

Honors

There is a General Officers quarters on Fort Bliss, TX called the"Pershing House"where is said soldiers could see George Patton on the front porch every morning at dawn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.124.222 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This text reused improperly

Someone w/ a Flickr acct should visit this page and gently prompt dbking to conform to Wikipedia's license for the reuse of the text of this article. Dbking's photo used in the article is properly attributed on its description page. There is no GFDL-satisfying attribution on dbking's Flickr page, tho. This under the assumption that the Wikipedia text itself was not taken from a third party w/ no attribution requirement, such as text in the public domain. 64.218.92.119 (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pershing was a Ballroom Dancer

I added a mere sentence describing how John J. Pershing was an excellent ballroom dancer and it was shot down as vandalism. I am currently finishing my course in AP History (a college level course for high school students) and know for a fact that Pershing was a dancer. I found this interesting and merely wanted to help add to this fountain of knowledge called Wikipedia. Pardon me. Fjordy4 (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2009

Don't be too offended. If you find good sources for this item and can defend its notability, it should be included. That you "know for a fact" something doesn't help us much - any editor could claim that. Unusual and offbeat items, especially, need good sources. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Archived from Previous Thread

One of the chief proponents of keeping it in the infobox has quit Wikipedia over it, making a false claim of censorship: [1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This is wp:POV... I assume good faith and accept that the claim is not false... I simply don't agree with it. I do not think this belongs here, either, under wp:talk page guidelines.- Sinneed 15:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the ANI post had sexual and racial remarks in it; I have formally requested this user be blocked from further editing [2]. -OberRanks (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

This only speaks to the editor's manner, and has nothing to do with the article. I think it does not belong here, under wp:talk page guidelines.- Sinneed 15:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a very important point that one of the MAJOR contributors to the debate has now declared that they are retired from Wikipedia and this is something that all involved should be aware of. I do admit, perhaps we should not dwell on what it was the user said or did on the ANI, but that too was quite detestable and was directed at several editors involved with the above consensus vote. Again, something that people should be aware of. -OberRanks (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And it prejudices, and has nothing to do with the article whatsoever, and does not belong here *at all*. You should redact it.- Sinneed 17:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is one thing this debate has shown, its that Wikipedia isnt censored. The user in question has bigger problems right now, anyway, so there is little more to discuss here. -OberRanks (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree this should be about the page, not an editors actions. This part of the debate should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Kind Journalist's Comments

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but I find it VERY strange that a brand new user with no previous contributions would begin their Wikipedia career editing on this highly controversial topic and, in edition, possess knowledge of Wikipedia policies such as the "Not Censored", "Highest Ideals" and further know how to in-link references to these pages. I have to ask Kind Journalist the very direct question - are you another editor who has established this new account? If so please admit it because right now this seems very fishy. Deepest apologies if I am mistaken here, but this looks like another editor with past experience establishing a new account to bolster support on this issue. -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You're mistaken, but it's good to know that I seem like I know what I'm doing. I've just lurked talk pages in the past and made edits without an account. I decided that since I had the desire to make a real fleshed out post on a talk page, I would make an account first. If I had the suspicions you have, while I would definitely want to voice them, I would have given them a mention in my reply rather than making a new section on the talk page - the talk pages are, after all, for the discussion of changes to the associated articles and not for the discussion of user conduct.Kind Journalist (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the intense nature this article has had, I don't think it was too out-of-line to voice this concern. It was certainly not a personal attack, as you so eloquently in-linked above. One has to admit you appear to know quite a bit for a user with two edits. But, as you said, I could be mistaken. -OberRanks (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's out-of-line at all, I would have been eager to voice a suspicion like that if I had it. I wouldn't have called it a personal attack either, I was just saying that I wouldn't have been confident creating a whole sub-section on an article talk page for the purpose of discussing user conduct. I don't mean to seem like that kid in school who would tattle on other kids for doing things against the rules, nor do I mean to seem like some Keyser Söze-esque character winking at the protagonist between cleverly worded sentences. I'm really genuine, I just come across that way. For the record, I'm not angered or offended at all by your suspicion.Kind Journalist (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's all remember to AGF here. Without rehashing any old debates, OberRanks, you seemed to think the same thing about me. Remember that it is most likely quite rare that someone comes to Wikipedia for the first time, and begins editing. As I have said, in my case, I was around here for quite a while; years, in fact, before touching an article. Whilst can't speak for Kind Journalist, the same scenario is very possible. Some of us have been involved with this particular article for qutie some time. However, all are welcome here, and we should remember not to bite the newcomers. We should, in fact, go out of our way to make them feel welcome. I'm glad to see a new user here. (The fact that this user seems to have sided with some of my opinions is purely coincidental.) And whilst I don't wish to discourage anyone, I'm glad that some of the folks who seemed to be more interested in the drama than in improving the article, have moved on. I have taken some time off from this article, as was probably the best thing to do. Now, I'd like to see what we can do here if we all put our heads together. Regardless of anyone's opinions about whether the name should be retained in the info box, I think that we can agree that it doesn't look right the way it is now. Let's see what we can do here.Mk5384 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Matter seems resolved; with everyone's permission, I suggest this thread be copied to a user talk page since it is detracting to the article. I would recommend KJ's talk page since a thread about this is already there. I could go on about why I brought up this up in the first place (I do think it was justified) but since there's been no evidence of disruption or sockpuppet activity, there isn't even a problem to address. If everyone is okay with the cut and paste to the user page, we can consider this closed. -OberRanks (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Racism

There were unsourced statements in the article stating or implying that Pershing was racist (against native americans and blacks). Per WP:V (particularly WP:REDFLAG) these types of statements in particular must be verifiable. I removed the statements, if someone wants to provide a verifiable source please do so before replacing them. Seanfranklin (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The source for the statement is the article by Ron Daniels, reproduced here: http://www.northstarnews.com/columns/dr_ron_daniels/article/1214/. "Confined to segregated units and fighting under the command of General Foch of France (American General “Black Jack” Pershing despised Blacks and wanted nothing to do with them as soldiers), Black soldiers, most notably the 369th Infantry, also known as the Harlem Hell Fighters, fought with great valor in a number of battles." Still, I'm not ready to put this material back in the article. Daniels produces no source for his claim. He refers solely to black soldiers' service in World War I, and it's not clear if he's even aware that Pershing had previously commanded black soldiers in America. And the statement that American blacks served directly under Foch contradicts just about every other source I've read, which says that Pershing insisted on keeping all American forces under his personal command. Ergo, I'm not ready to say that Daniels' article is a reliable source. Pirate Dan (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am especially doubtful about the claim that Pershing relinquished command of black soldiers; as I understand it, part of the point was insuring that Americans fought as cohesive units instead of being committed piecemeal to the front as replacements for French casualties, which belies the reference's claims about black units. --CAVincent (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Error?

I noticed that Pershing's sisters are listed as Ann Elizabeth, Margaret, and May, but later the article states that "Pershing's sister Grace married Paddock in 1890." Does someone have the resources to clarify this apparent discrepancy? 70.169.173.253 (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems true: [3]. Apparently the list of his siblings in the overview is incomplete.--Father Goose (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

References

The "Other honors" section has maybe thirty statements, and one reference between them! That is extreme even by Wikipedia's usually lax standards of referencing, and I propose that they are removed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, tag them as uncited and if after an amount of time, say a week, they are still uncited, they could be trimmed, anything that is uncited and controversial could perhaps be removed quicker. Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Facts Matter, Not Your Feelings

Beyond My Ken, you are reverting changes wholesale without discussion again. I don't know why you did it before but you were called down for it and admonished to not do it again. I'm willing to discuss my reason for the changes I made and will make again. If you revert again without discussion I will go to the powers that be.Shellus Maximus 23:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daddyman1962 (talk • contribs)

Per WP:BRD, I don't need to have a discussion to revert edits which I dispute, you need to get a consensus to change the wording of the long-standing WP:STATUSQUO version of this article.

This is your chance to convince the people who watch this article that you are correct, and that I am wrong. Don't waste it with personal attacks and irrelevancies, make your case, and if you get a consensus, so be it. But until then the article stays in the status quo ante per Wikipedia policy. Please, do not change it back to your preferred version again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion the Trump episode is important And should be included. One reason we have this long article, is because Pershing was seen as important by millions of Americans (and Europeans). If this misinformation about Pershing is so serious that it gets repeated at the presidential level, then Wikipedia is a natural source that many people will refer to to get the actual facts. So I support Beyond My Ken here. Atrocity stories are very serious matter – in recent years statues in the United States have been torn down because the person they represented behaved badly 150 years ago. Rjensen (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)