This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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. [1] [2] |
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
I prefer the one I can actually read, thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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):
So, issues:
Thanks for reading. JeanLackE ( talk) 00:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
- 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)
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)
″...about bullets in pigs blood, etc. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Gen. Pershing for discussion. - wolf 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
But the AEF existed from 1917-1920 - ? -- 2001:A61:5A6:1501:D482:FA:524B:DA92 ( talk) 20:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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. [1] [2] |
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |subscription=
ignored (|url-access=
suggested) (
help)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
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)
I prefer the one I can actually read, thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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):
So, issues:
Thanks for reading. JeanLackE ( talk) 00:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
- 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)
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)
″...about bullets in pigs blood, etc. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Gen. Pershing for discussion. - wolf 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 02:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
But the AEF existed from 1917-1920 - ? -- 2001:A61:5A6:1501:D482:FA:524B:DA92 ( talk) 20:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
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)