Talk:John J. Pershing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nickname

Extensive discussions about Pershing's nickname can be found in the archives, especially here and here. Please do not change the nickname in the article without first reading that discussion, then presenting new information not previusly considered, in order to get a consensus for your proposed change. Changes made without consensus will most probably be reverted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Executive Order?

It is my understanding that Washington's posthomous promotion, mentioned in this article, was through an executive order by Gerald Ford, and that the act of congress simply authorized Ford to do this. 2tuntony (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Where an Act of Congress "authorizes" an act by the President, it is generally considered to be done "by Act of Congress." Congress can not "force" any promotion - this is a "term of art" as a result. Collect (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I just think that precision is important in an encyclopedia, and the article should reflect the fact that Washington's promotion came from Ford. 2tuntony (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Title

I removed the title "General of the Armies", preceding Pershing's name, in the opening sentence of the article. (I, of course, left it everywhere else.) WP:CREDENTIAL states that, "Academic and professional titles are not to be used, before the name, in the initial sentence of an article. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles, should be included in the article instead." The phrase "professional titles", links to the page "title", where military titles, such as General, are included. My apologies if this is incorrect. 2tuntony (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are generally correct (forgive the pun), but unlike "Doctor" or "Professor" or just plain "General", "General of the Armies" is such a rare title -- only two people, Pershing and Washington, have held it -- it might be better if an exception to the rule were made in this case. On the other hand, the lede does almost immediately go into that, so... After thinking about it for a bit, I agree with you. Thanks for restoring it, I'll take it out again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

America's First Engagement

I've removed this section from the article because it's wholly incorrect: the first American engagement occurred in late May, not June, and was at Cantigny.

The result was an American victory, but the battle is interesting for how it was remembered - Pershing's memoirs account German anti-American prejudice for their serious fighting, wanting to 'demonstrate to the world that the American soldier was of poorer stuff than the German'. In reality, German strength was explained by the need to defend the important communications center at Montdidier. See Alan Millett, Donald Smythe etc. (leading American historians) for verification of this and the battle's status as 'America's first engagement'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.158.27 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You say that the section is "wholly incorrect", but from your description, what you're saying is incorrect is the title of the section, "America's first engagement". I've therefore restored the section and changed the title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

An explanation

I removed the wiki link from "Nigger Jack" because it is not a literal representation. We wouldn't write "N****" Jack" (in addition, of course to NOTCENSORED) because "****" is not pronouncable speech, and therefore, it is not a literal representation of the name. In that same vein, "Nigger Jack" is not a literal representation because the first word of this nickname wasn't written in blue letters. Now, the argument has been made that not linking it this way would require the word to be printed a second time, so that it can be linked. I must ask: "Why"? Wiki links should be useful tools that help readers to learn about related subjects. But too often it seems that there is the necessity to link just about anything that can be linked. Wiki linking "Nigger Jack" seems IMHO, as silly as linking "Black Jack". This is a MilHist article. A link to a racial epithet is simply overlinking. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Joe: I don't think I actually understand your explanation - could you re-state it for me?

In the meantime, here's why I believe it's appropriate to wikilink the word "Nigger" in "Nigger Jack": To give a white man a nickname like "Nigger Jack" at the beginning of the 20th century, is a very different thing from giving a white man a similar nickname now, or any time since, say, the 1960s. Things have changed significantly, and the semiotics of the word are not the same now as they were then. Yes, certainly, both then and now the word was a disparaging and insulting term for African-Americans, but it was considerably more acceptable to use that word at the time, then it is now. There is, I am saying, an historical gradient which makes the name generally much worse now than it was at the time. In part, that's because black Americans are more included in mainstream society than they were then, and there are myriad other factors that are not necessary to go into here -- nor should we go into them in the article, since it would take us off-track much-too-much. One way to get that historical perspective there, then -- and by far the easiest way -- is to wikilink the word, so that our article on the word can do the heavy lifting.

For these reasons, the link to "nigger" in "Nigger Jack" should be restored. It's certainly an epithet, but its one that we all should know more about.

Also, if you please, to look at this as a "milhist" article, is entirely the wrong perspective. This is not an article on a battleship or machine gun or a battle in the Napoleonic Wars, it's the biography of a major figure in American history who was a military man. It must be viewed in a much broader persepctive than you seem to be employing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point you to this prior discussion which was contentious an sometimes unpleasant. The issue has been put to rest, by broad consensus, and the article has been stable for some time. Re-opening the issue in this manner is therefore unfortunate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware of that discussion. I fail to see how my edit would "re-open the issue", as this "issue" seems to be different. However, if you feel that removing the link will somehow cause contentiousness similar to that, then by all means, restore it. It's certainly nothing that's worth any wiki-drama. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is tangential, but related enough that I believe maintaining the status quo is the way to go. Thanks very much for reverting, I think it's for the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization copying from talk page

this should be here:

“ You reverted this edit despite the clear edit summary and the fact that it was completely in accordance with Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Military_terms. Why? 88.111.6.83 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't get too hung up on WP:MOS, it's not a convenient bludgeon to make things look exactly how you wish they would. A better response here, rather than simply reverting to your preferred version, would have been to open a new thread on the article talk page explaining the rationale behind your edit and (importantly) why the MOS style should override the local style. If a few more regular editors agreed, you could make that reversion without the flaring nostrils. Franamax (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd also point you (the IP) to WP:BRD -- you were Bold, I Reverted, now it's time to Discuss on the article talk page, not to continue to try to enforce your edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you will note on review of his contributions that this IP has made these same changes to many pages over the last few days. I believe that some of his edits are probably correct but others are not (some are proper nouns and titles, for example); further no discussion was started prior to said changes. What do you suggest as to this matter. Kierzek (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

hi, BMK you point us to WP:BRD but in the first paragraph it says "Note that this process must be used with care and diplomacy; some editors will see it as a challenge, so be considerate and patient.". thats what happened here, isn't it? Bouket (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. I was in error in not giving a reason for my reversion, but the article is hardly some quiet backwater, it's a high volume page that's been extensively edited by many editors, including active members of the MilHistory project, so if the titles used were incorrectly formatted, someone would have said so long ago and changed them. In any case, discussion should be on the talk page, not here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

”

it is at User talk:Beyond My Ken Bouket (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks. 88.111.6.83 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Early years

Assuming Pershing's date of birth, as stated in the article, is accurate, the following sentence from "Early life" needs some reworking or should be abandoned outright: "When the Civil War began, John F. Pershing worked as a sutler for the 18th Missouri Volunteer Infantry, but he did not serve in the military." Pershing would have only been a few months old when the US Civil War started and was possibly just old enough to start primary school by the time it ended. Even at a time when children sometimes began working quite young, I can't conceive of any child that young working at any job, including sutler. By the same token, I can't see any need to state that he didn't serve in the military during that war since no child his age would have. (If he HAD served despite his age, that would have been noteworthy enough to include in the article.)

Rhino (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That sentence is referring to Pershing's father, John F. Pershing, not to Pershing himself, who was John J. Pershing. Beyond My Ken 22:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! You are absolutely right. I completely misread that paragraph. My apologies! Rhino (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sisters

The article states that Pershing had three sisters: Ann Elizabeth, Margaret, and May. Under another section it states thet Paddock married his sister Grace. This is also mentioned in the article on Paddock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.8.4 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's something that should be looked into and cleared up. If anyone has sources immediately available, please check it out. I've got a Pershing bio somewhere, but I'll have to dig it up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've corrected the names of his sisters (Mary Elizabeth, Anna May and Grace). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

General Pershing's ribbons as they would appear today

The picture of General Pershing's ribbons as they would appear today is not correct as far as Belgian decorations are concerned. The second ribbon of the sixth row (supposed to be the Belgian Croix de Guerre for WWI) is in fact the WWII ribbon, and the third ribbon of the sixth row (supposed to be Grand Cross of the Order of Leopold) is in fact the Officer's ribbon. I would suggest to follow the links to each medal's page and use the correct ribbons. In addition, the Order of Leopold should be to the left of the Croix de Guerre (the second and third ribbons of the sixth row should be switched). Bheuninckx (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The second bullet under "Other honors and miscellany" states that the United States Postal Serviced released an 8c Liberty Issue postage stamp honoring Pershing. The 8c Pershing stamp has been deleted from the Liberty Issue in September, 2012, and has been reassigned to the 1961-66 definitive (regular-issue) series. The stamp originally carried the Scott Stamp Number 1042A, but due to the reassignment, the Scott Number changed to 1214. Please see Linn's Stamp News, Volume 85, Number 4379, dated October 1, 2012, Page 1. Mkoskan (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Later years

It is stated that Pershing wore 4 gold stars as his rank insignia when General of the Armies (after 1919). This is unsubstantiated, although it is repeated, without citation, on Wikipedia in every article that mentions Pershing . As far as I know there is no historical record that Pershing ever wore anything but silver stars and the myth comes from one painting (the equestrian portrait displayed in the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venqax (talk • contribs) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Pershing Copies Grant on Outfit for Coronation: Gold Saber to be Worn with $600 uniform. Chicago Tribune. April 28, 1937. Quote: "The knee length, high collared coat carries gold embroidered oak leaves along the collar and cuffs, four gold stars on each sleeve, and gold epaulets on the shoulders."

This is the earliest reference I've found so far to the gold stars and that Pershing actually wore them. I'll add citations to the article once I've found the earliest and most reliable.

Billmckern (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I added several citations which I believe make clear that Pershing did use the gold four star insignia. I found a couple of references from the 1920s, when he was still in uniform, and several more from the 1920s and 1930s, when he wore ceremonial uniforms for special occasions. I think these are sufficient to demonstrate that Pershing did wear and display the four gold stars.

Billmckern (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Only Person Promoted to Highest Rank

Hate to open a can of worms here, but it should at least be discussed. Four US Army officers have in fact held the same - and highest - grade while living. It's a bit convoluted, so bear with me.

First of all, we should be talking grade.

The grade of general, with the title of General of the Armies was established for Washington, but he died before being promoted. Following the US Civil War, Congress revived that grade, but used the singular Army in the title. The law specifically stated it was reviving the earlier grade, but no explanation was given why they chose the singular instead of plural. The law gave absolutely no indication that either title was superior to the other; in all respects it treated them as synonymous and the grade being one. Three officers were successively promoted to the revived grade: Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. By law, only one officer could hold that grade at any given time; upon retirement they were appointed to the grade of "General of the Army on the Retired List". During Sheridan's tenure, the grades of Lieutenant General and General of the Army were consolidated, with the latter title continuing in use. When Sheridan retired, the grade of General of the Army was disestablished.

When it came Pershing's time, Congress revived the same grade held by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan, and created originally for Washington. In fact, the Congressional law reviving the grade for Pershing specifically cited the 1870 law governing Sherman’s grade (as well as pegging Pershing's pay to that of Sherman and later Sheridan).

To quote the Army's discussion of the point: "As will be seen from the above, the office of general was first created in 1799 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States" - that it was revived in 1866 as "General of the Army of the United States," and that it was again revived in 1919 by the title of "General of the Armies of the United States." That it is one and the same office, that of general, is unquestioned. Whether the plural was used in 1799 because of the prospects of war with armies operating in several theatres, the singular in 1866 after the close of the Civil War and with a view to a small regular army operating in time of peace in the continental limits of the United States, and the plural in 1919 because of the technical state of war, the expansion of the Regular Army and the existence of units thereof at far distant stations beyond the limits of the United States, would be fruitless to inquire."

The 1919 law is a source of further confusion for those unfamiliar with how the Army works. The passage causing the problem is this: " . . . and any provisions of the existing law that would enable any other officer of the Army to take rank and precedence over said officer is hereby repealed." This does not place Pershing above Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. It only addresses his precedence relative to other officers on the active list. It in no way affects his precedence relative to officers who served 40-50 years earlier who had been retired, transferred to the retired list and, by the way, were dead.

So, it would be fair to state that Pershing was given the honor of being promoted to a grade originally created for Washington, but previously held only by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan. Further, while holding this grade, he took precedence over all other officers in the Army. 98.255.85.245 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Clarify, please

'During the 1930s, Pershing maintained a private life but was made famous by his memoirs...'

Don't understand this. Do you mean that he was trying to protect his privacy, but his memoirs inevitably brought him to public attention? Valetude (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that's what it means. You have to understand the extremely high esteem Pershing was held in by the general public after WW1 -- he was a celebrity as well-known as any pop star today. Maintaining himself as a private person was not an easy task which was made more difficult once his memoirs were published. BMK (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-senile vs. early stage senile dementia

Senility is "weaknesses or diseases of old age" and senile dementia is "severe mental deterioration in old age, characterized by loss of memory and control of bodily functions." "Senile dementia" clearly involves deterioration of mentation, while "senility" can mean mentation or locomotion. It is a matter of precision not whether the term is offensive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe we are in agreement. "Semi-senile" is a colloquial observation, not a medical diagnosis. The person observed may be suffering from Alzheimers, alcohol-related dementia, senile dementia, or a number of other conditions, it's practically impossible for the casual observer to tell the difference. Thus we should stick with what's descriptive, and not presume to make a medical diagnosis. BMK (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess we aren't in agreement, since you reverted. However, WP:BRD calls for the article to stay in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, so I've restored the original. I'm also looking for a citation for either one or the other expression. BMK (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, someone who has access to the source used to support that paragraph, Roy Jenkins' Churchill: A Biography, should check it to see if the author uses "semi-senile". If so, the phrase can be quoted to show that it's a direct quotation from the book.

So far, the bio of Pershing I have immediately available to me, the two-volume Black Jack: The Life and Times of John J, Pershing by Frank E. Vandiver, doesn't mention senility at all. BMK (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed "semi-senile" until someone can verify its usuage int he source provided. BMK (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I added that little anecdote, anonymously, back in January 2007, but I didn't use the phrase "semi-senile" - that is somebody's later addition. I agree it's probably overegging the pudding a bit - just because an elderly person gets a bit confused sometimes and no longer follows politics very closely doesn't make him medically senile. The US Government had been quite friendly to Vichy for quite a while, in the hope that the regime could be persuaded to rejoin the Allies, whereas it's possible that Pershing didn't have a clue who de Gaulle was.Paulturtle (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What's interesting is that in researching "semi-senile" in relation to Pershing, Idid come across one usage about this very incident, but it described Petain as "semi-senile", not Pershing. Maybe someone misread it. BMK (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Just flicking through the Roy Jenkins biog of Churchill to which this is cited, it does indeed describe Pershing as "semi-senile", but that may well be Jenkins getting a bit carried away and writing sloppily. My comments above still stand, and the phrase shouldn't really be added unless verified by a biography of Pershing. The Pershing biogs have some sad stories about him being humiliated by incontinence after a stroke - lying in his soiled bedsheets, bawling out the nurses, until the matron came in and told him that he must let the girls clean him up the same as they would any other geriatric patient - but no specific mention of senility.Paulturtle (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And from memory, Pershing was compos mentis enough to be aware of, and dismayed by, the behaviour of his former protégé Patton in slapping two enlisted men in 1943. He thought it Conduct Unbecoming. But it's over twenty years since I read the Carlo d'Este biography of Patton, in which I think that is discussed.Paulturtle (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

|image_size=225

What makes 225 the magic number and not the default 220px? "This parameter should not normally need to be set." Demanding your approval for a change of 5 pixels from the current value is just silly. With no default value the image size can be set by the user in their preferences. You use as your excuse WP:BRD which is an essay, not a guideline, anyone can write an essay. If you want BRD to be part of the guidelines, you have to lobby for the inclusion. The guideline for infoboxes is: "This parameter should not normally need to be set." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I took out another 225. Looks good without it, and I didn't understand the reason it was there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Somehow when RAM first removed the hard coded size, the image went down to around 200px, which was too small. This may have been some kind of cache problem in my machine, because it looks fine now at the default size. Obviously, if Iprefer 225, 220 isn't going to be much different.) BMK (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

My default is set to 300, I have a 24 inch 1080p monitor. Desktop monitors just keep getting bigger. The image size was useful for images smaller than 200 pixels because the default setting expanded them up to 200px making the pixels bigger. We fixed the expanding problem last year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ranks

An editor changed terminology in the descriptions relating to Pershing's ranks. This is not an area I'm at all conversant with, but I become concerned when an article which has been stable for a long time suddenly gets a fairly major change such as this, so I've revered the editor's contributions and asked them to explain here why they believe the change is an improvement. This way someone much more familiar than I am with the subject can determine if the changes are legitimate or not. BMK (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

World War 1

'not engaging in issues that might distract him from his role of commander'

Does 'issues' mean 'disputes', 'controversies', 'concerns' or 'matters'? (If one of the latter two, a different verb is needed.)

(I hate the vague, weak word 'issue' generally.)

Notreallydavid (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Notreallydavid: Fixed. See if my edits work. If not, please make improvements or suggest edits to me so I can make them.

Billmckern (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

1906 San Francisco earthquake?

Wasn't he in San Francisco right after the 1906 earthquake and had some role in helping keep order in its aftermath? I stayed in a hotel in the Pacific Heights neighborhood which he stayed in during that period. It was one of the areas of town that wasn't damaged by fire. Does anyone know more about this? --RThompson82 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing like that is mentioned in Frank Vandiver's 2-volume biography of Pershing. He apparently didn't even get to San Francisco until late October 1906, six months after the quake, and by early December was in Tokyo. BMK (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In "My Life Before the World War" Pershing references Frederick Funston's leadership in San Francisco at the time of the earthquake, but does not make mention of having been there himself. According to the timeline in "John J. Pershing" by Tim McNeese, Pershing served in the Philippines for most of the period from his January 1905 wedding through 1908, except for several months at the end of 1905 when he was in Japan to observe the Russo-Japanese War.

Billmckern (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Image sizing

No need to set an image size, dynamic sizing is in effect where your settings determine the size. When you put in a number you are setting for your own monitor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Victory in WWI ?

Re :who led the American Expeditionary Forces to victory over Germany in World War I, 1917–18. So AEF won WWI? Whilst I think it is generally accepted that US involvement in WWI, 'broke the deadlock/stalemate' of exhausted European nations, I wasn't aware that the US won WWI, or indeed that anyone did! Pincrete (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The Allies, which included the USA, won World War I. Some have argued the victory was something of a pyrrhic victory, but that's another issue. 12.201.7.201 (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Added information related to Popular Culture Section

I added that Pershing is played by Milburn Stone in the 1955 Film The Long Gray Line, which was based on Martin 'Marty' Maher's autobiography titled Bringing Up The Brass: My 55 Years at West Point2A02:8084:2860:3A80:D524:773B:A10A:B621 (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

conformed?

User:Billmckern, I have to say that your edit reason is clearer than the article text. Is there some better way of phrasing that makes things easier to understand, I don't doubt the usage is correct, but it isn't the most general usage. I'd rephrase myself, based on the logic of your edit reason, but I know almost nothing about US army or congressional procedures.

Edited the passage in question. See if this phrasing is more acceptable.

Billmckern (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Admirably clear, I was thinking of something similar myself, but backed off because I don't know US procedures or terminology.Pincrete (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Armistice

Germany surrendered due to the revolution and the naval mutinies, not because of the Allied offensive. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:85F1:8BD2:8AEF:3552 (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

If you point out a good source for that point of view, we could perhaps represent it in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Germany surrendered due to the complete collapse of the government, public morale, and the armed forces which refused to continue fighting. The Allied offensive had little effect on the Home Front. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:85F1:8BD2:8AEF:3552 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC))

Your simplistic statement of a complex situation is not the view generally held by historians, so I have reverted. Do not re-add without a citation from a reliable source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The article says Germany's surrender had much more to do with the naval mutinies and civil unrest than the Hundred Days' Offensive, so the lede needs to be reworded accordingly. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:A8D9:2E5C:5B04:7621 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC))

This all happened because Germany was losing the war. Does anyone think this would have happened if the Germans had captured Paris in Spring 1918?? Let's stop this silliness. 12.201.7.201 (talk) 03:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Addition to lede

The point is that the article is about Pershing, not about the internal conflicts on the German side. You might want to add this to a page about WW I.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Origins of General Pershing

I'm quite surprised that you present Pershing being of German origins because even his obituary in NYT described him as the grand-son of a French emigrant from the Alsace ragion

«The first Pershing in America was Frederick Pfoerschin, who emigrated to the United States from his home near the Rhine in Alsace in 1724. The family name in time changed to Pershin, the to Pershing». (Le premier Pershing venu s’installer en Amérique était Frederick Pfoerschin, venu des bords du Rhin, en Alsace, en 1724. Le nom de famille s’est alors modifié en Pershin puis est devenu Pershing). Pour ceux qui se sont penchés sur sa généalogie, 1724 est l’année de naissance de Friedrich Pförsching qui ne seait arrivé aux Etats Unis qu'en 1749 : «Frederick Pfoerschin migrated to the United States from the French province of Alsace, landing in Philadelphia on October 2, 1749. Frederick Pershing, a Lutheran who spoke both French and German, came over as a “redemptioner” on the sailing ship Jacob, indentured to the ship’s captain until he had worked out his passage over. «Service in redemption,» as his great-grandson wrote after research into the family history, «was based upon a contract or indenture entered into between the captain of the ship and the passenger by which the latter agreed for a certain period after his arrival in America to render whatever lawful service or employment the captain or his assigns might exact.» Once that obligation was settled, Frederick Pershing moved to Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, married Maria Elizabeth Weygandt and worked a farm to the end of his days.»

http://drelsassblogfumernest-emile.hautetfort.com/archive/2013/09/13/john-pershing-petit-fils-d-alsacien-5144387.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.253.38.69 (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

(1) A blog is not a reliable source. (2) This is not the place to determine whether Alsace should be described as French or German; it has been both, and entire wars have been fought over who would control that territory. (3) Pershing's original name is Germanic, not French. (4) However, if I have my dates right, Alsace was part of France when Pershing's father was born.

For all these reasons, I have chosen to revert your edit, but to change the description of the place the father emigrated from as simply "Alsace". Let others argue about whether Alsace is French or German, we cannot, and should not, attempt to take a position on that here, as it is entirely irrelevant to this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Rumour About Burying Terrorists With Pigs / Trump Tweet

Not sure if we need to refer to the tweet but the rumor that Pershing successfully discouraged Islamic terrorism by burying terrorists with pigs should surely be set straight somewhere? -- toblu [?!] 19:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel that it should be included somewhere, perhaps in it's own "urban legend" section. JDDJS (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

In the Tweet, he does not mention details. It was earlier on. But according to the Washington Post, [1] Trump was not talking about burying them: "during the presidential campaign, he told a widely discredited story that Pershing had halted Muslim attacks in the Philippines by shooting rebels with bullets dipped in pigs’ blood." --Hofhof (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

shooting prisoners of war is now and was then a major war crime (with or without pigs blood). Rjensen (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

But hanging criminals was not. Pershing referred to these people as "would-be assassins." Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• There are two issues at stake here. One is the unfounded rumor that Pershing dipped bullets in pigs blood. That seems to be the rumor that Trump has picked up on. (Although his latest tweet did not specifically refer to the pigs blood issue.) The second issue is about Pershing having Moros buried with pigs. That material is documented by reliable sources (Pershing himself and secondary writers published by respected houses). As this second bit of material is RS and WP:NOTEWORTHY it should be included. Recent changes (before reverts by BMK) laid out this info (on both issues) quite nicely. – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed material

The following was removed without explanation:

[Pershing wrote in] his autobiography that "The bodies [of the Moro outlaws] were publicly buried in the same grave with a dead pig." He inflicted this treatment upon captured juramentado because he wanted the Moro to believe they were buried in hell.‪‬ Pershing added that it was not pleasant to take such measures against the "would-be assassins".

References

Any particular reason for the removal? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

See my comment above. I'll add that user:toblu makes a good point. Adding that Trump had picked up on the rumor in the campaign is WP:SYN. But Pershing's tactic (nice or not nice) is noteworthy. – S. Rich (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay by me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't have anything against this content. One could perhaps add some context by reliable news sources about the content of the memoir and what we can take away from it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: your thoughts? – S. Rich (talk)

After thinking about it overnight, and looking at the referencing, I have no objections, so I've added it to the article as is, except with minor editing to the references (inverting author names, adding ISBNs, publication place, etc.) I'm rather opposed to getting into the Trump thing, as I think that's more about Trump then it is about Pershing. If it needs to be dealt with at all, it should be done so primarily in the Trump article. Here, the most I'd be in agreement with is something on the order of "In 2017, President Donald Trump claimed that Pershing had bullets dipped in pig's blood, a rumor that historians do not consider to be credible," with a reference.Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2017

832FL (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 00:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

You have it stated that:

Similarly, the claim made in February 2016 by presidential candidate Donald Trump, and repeated by Trump as President in August 2017, that Pershing executed 49 "Muslim terrorists" with bullets dipped in pig's blood, then let the 50th go free to spread the word about the religious atrocity, has been repeatedly debunked by historians, who find no evidence that such an incident occurred, although there were atrocities committed by U.S. forces during the war.[34][35][36]

And this cites The Washington Post, NY Times, and Snopes.

But Trumps twitter states: "Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years! 11:45 AM - 17 Aug 2017"

It doesn't talk anything about pigs, pigs blood, etc. Is there something or somewhere else he stated something that links to him actually making the pig statement? Because wikipedia should not have false politically motivated information like this on it...it does not cite the quote on Trumps actual account which is readily available for all to read.

Pershing did help reduce Radical Islamic Terrorism though . His subordinates seems to have done some pig related activities in dealing with the dead, though I haven't seen any direct orders or actions from Pershing himself.

Both The Washington Post and NY Times are also already proven in history to constantly print anti-Trump radically incorrect information since they are obvious enemies of Trump throughout recent 2017 history.

This article needs to be reworded to cut out any politically motivated assumptions and post what the actually person speaking, Trump in this case, said...not this political speculation.

Again Trump states on his twitter: "Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years! 11:45 AM - 17 Aug 2017"

I did not vote for Trump, but wikipedia needs to be above this and research what people state directly, not just go off of articles written...especially in this heavy propaganda age.

Please show any direct quotes of Trump actually stating about pigs if there is one. If there is none then the reference to pigs, the pigs comments needs to be removed or edited to represent an accusation but also showing that Trumps Twitter statement did not directly state "pigs".

Thank you for your time. -Mike Scordato 180.47.196.202 (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have changed "repeated by" to "referred to by" in the clause about the August 17th tweet. It is clear that Trump is referring to his earlier claim, since he repeats the part about there being no Muslim terrorism for 35 years (although earlier he had said 25 years -- neither claim is correct). Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)