Talk:Alvin York/Archive 1

Replace Photo?
Can the photo be replaced with the one on the National Archives page (listed in the External Links section)? As it is originally from the records of the Selective Service System, I do not believe there is any copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.192.107 (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sergeant York and the Great War (book)
I have the book Sergeant York and the Great War. (above text from title page)
 * His own life story and war diary.
 * Originally Edited by Tom Skeyhill 1930.
 * Edited by Richard "Little Bear" Wheeler.
 * Enhanced with Pictures and the history of World War I.
 * Republished in 1998.

ISBN 1889128465.

I read the book a few years ago. I will attempt to find time to re-read it and edit this article. I do remember something about his pastor being the same person that took care of the draft registration in that area. --Midnightcomm 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Christian or Quaker?
Christian? I thought he was a quaker? How come there arent' any quaker term in his biography? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.23.64.153 (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Alvin York was a Christian. Your source of information is wrong. --72.154.212.10
 * The question of why "Quaker" isn't mentioned is a good one, but Quakers are Christians. See Religious Society of Friends.  --CliffC 14:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Filing date
"... led him to file as a conscientious objector at the start of WWI ". Surely the USA was not registering conscientious objectors as early as 1914? PML


 * For US citizens, WWI officially began in 1917. The wording could be improved I think. Stan 14:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Post-WWII, the procedure was that 17-year-old males registered for the draft, whether there was a war on or not, and the forms asked "are you a conscientious objector to war in any form?" I'm not sure they mentioned "on the basis of relgious training and belief" at that point; i won't rule out their asking that only if you answered yes.
 * It is likely that the crucial date was either whenever draft registration was revived, or when he turned a specific age, and that the wording has not accurate intepretation.
 * This may at least suggest what to research.
 * In the period i describe, BTW, it was possible to assert a CO claim later, but the only reason to put it off would be if you were initially in doubt; it should be obvious that you'd later be asked "Well, you weren't a CO when you registered; what happened in the meantime that we should believe changed that?" --Jerzy(t) 01:20, 2004 Mar 22 (UTC)

I've seen suggestions he was a marksman/sniper at the time of the event, that true? Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd guess not, if the movie is remotely accurate. He was deployed as regular infantry. Recall, until after WW2, all U.S. infantry were trained to use aimed fire at up to 1000yd. The sniper specialty didn't exist in AFUS (AFAIK) until WW2. Trekphiler 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Alvin York's Registration Card is visible on the website of the National Archives HERE: http://www.archives.gov/southeast/exhibit/popups.php?p=4.1.11. He clearly claimed exemption from the draft. 68.187.192.107 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[[canada|🇨🇦]]Trivial Pursuit[[canada|🇨🇦]]
I deleted "Once after being heckled by an anti-war protester, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld replied, "Good for you, Sergeant York." ". It may be of interest to us now, but it's hardly "legacy". More like trivia. (Speaking of which, did you know Douglas MacArthur was once called "the greatest general since Sergeant York"?) Trekphiler🇨🇦 14:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Passage about Religion
"York’s old friends tried to persuade him to go drinking, but he continually refused. It took a lot of moral courage for York to remain firmly committed to His Lord. But with the strength of the Holy Spirit and his personal resolve, York remained on the Lord’s side. This sharpened York’s character and moral courage, directly contributing to his heroic deeds in the midst of battle only two years later." Whoa. I understand that Christianity was a major influence on York, but this sounds like it reads from a Christian pamphlet about him. However, I can see incorporating something -like- this if someone has a source on York saying something like this. Otherwise, it needs to be rewritten. Any ideas? ninjapocalypse 22:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Strong words about York's faith? Too strong for the times we live in? Perhaps, as many Americans today are squeamish about things of faith. But, your point is well taken and historians must cite sources. Here are the primary sources. This, as the article, is based upon York's own words. Please take the time to review the following sources. Please write back if you wish the complete dose of sources.

Richard Wheeler, ed., Sergeant York and the Great War (Mantle Ministries; Bulverde, TX, 1998). The Diary of Alvin York, 18 October 2001 at http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.Vignettes/The.Diary.of.Alvin.York.html The Diary of SGT York, 18 October 2001 at http://volweb.utk.edu/school/York/diary.html Interview with Colonel Gerald York, grandson of Alvin York, in April 1996. http://volweb.utk.edu/Schools/York/biography.html Alvin C. York by Gladys Williams COL Jeff O'Leary, Brave Hearts under Red Skies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.244.15.107 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From objector to soldier?
The article states he was an objector at the beginning of the war, yet ended up as a decorated soldier. How exactly did he go from one to the other? That seems like a bit of important information. 67.170.178.108 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. The following answer is based upon York's own testimony - and not my opinion. Here is how York went from Objector to Hero:

Alvin’s world turned upside down in June 1917 when he received a draft notice. When he read, “thou shall not kill” in the Bible, he believed a Christian could not kill a human. However, he also believed that God ordained governments as instruments to be obeyed. Alvin York summed up this dilemma when he said;

"I wanted to follow both [the Bible and the US]. But I couldn’t.  I wanted to do what was right…If I went away to war and fought and killed, according to the reading of my Bible, I weren’t a good Christian." (From York's diary)

With the assistance of his pastor and mother, Alvin York applied for exemption from the draft as a conscientious objector. His request and all subsequent appeals (three in total) were turned-down. This put York into doubt and confusion. He trusted God to get him out as what he perceived as doing something contrary to the Bible. He said:

"I was sorter mussed up inside worser’n ever. I thought that the Word of God would prevail against the laws of men…”  	York did not see any way a Christian could serve as a soldier.  Despite his doubts, he reported for duty to Company G, 328th Infantry Regiment, 82nd Infantry Division at Camp Gordon, Georgia.  Providentially, York’s Company Commander, Captain Danforth, and Battalion Commander, Major Buxton, were both committed Christians.

Yes - this was a time when political correctness did not exist and people actually spoke about spiritual things at work wihtout fear of retribution from a Social Progressive.

Alvin shared his concerns with them and both Danforth and Buxton took the time to discuss how am man could not only be a Christian but also serve in the military. Buxton and Danforth knew their Bible and dedicated hours of their time to contend with York’s doubts. They literally walked through the Bible together to debate the issue. For every verse the commanders used to support their position on warfare, York countered. Finally, one night, Captain Danforth read Ezekiel 33.

"But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand." Ezekiel 33:6

With this, York stood up and said, "All right, I'm satisfied." Alvin resolved to serve his country and his God as a soldier. Armed with this assurance, he sought to excel in all that was entrusted to him.

Here are my footnotes: Extracted from York’s Medal of Honor Citation. Richard Wheeler, ed., Sergeant York and the Great War (Mantle Ministries; Bulverde, TX, 1998) 154-155. The Diary of Alvin York, 18 October 2001 at http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.Vignettes/The.Diary.of.Alvin.York.html The Diary of SGT York, 18 October 2001 at http://volweb.utk.edu/school/York/diary.html Alice Trulock, In the Hands of Providence, (University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 340. Interview with Colonel Gerald York, grandson of Alvin York, in April 1996 at the Presidio of Monterey. Richard Wheeler, ed., Sergeant York and the Great War (Mantle Ministries; Bulverde, TX, 1998) 58-60. Above and Beyond: A History of the Medal of Honor from the Civil War to Viet Nam. Boston: Boston Publishing Company, 1985. Andrews, Peter. Sergeant York: Reluctant Hero. New York: G. P. Putnam Sons, 1969. Brandt, Nat. "Sergeant York." American Heritage. August/September, 1981. pp. 56-64.

Castor, Henry. America's First World War. Eau Claire, Wisconsin: E. M. Hale and Company, 1957.

Cowan, Sam K. Sergeant York and His People. reprinted by Fentress County Historical Society.

Crutchfield, James A. Tennesseans At War. Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press, 1987.

Humble, R. G. Sgt. Alvin C. York: A Christian Patriot. Circleville, Ohio: Churches of Christ in Christian Union, 1966.

Lee, David D. Sergeant York: An American Hero. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1985.

McGinty, Brian. "Alvin York: Soldier of the Lord." American History Illustrated. November,1986. Plumb, Beatrice. Lives That Inspire. Minneapolis: T. S. Denison and Company, 1962.

Price, Ed. "The Making of a Legend Alvin Cullum York." Now and Then Magazine. Fall, 1987. pp. 5-8.

Skeyhill, Tom. Sergeant York: Last of the Long Hunters. Chicago: John C. Winston Company, 1930.

Valuska, David L. "Valor in the Trenches--The Sgt. York Story." Valor. December, 1986. pp. 50-55.

Weddle, Ethel H. Alvin C. York: Young Marksman. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1967.

Franke, Anton, General der Artillerie. Die 2. Württemberger im Weltkrieg 1914-1918, (Berlag Berger’s Literarisches, Stuttgart, 1921).

Horne, Charles F. ed., Source Records of the Great War, vol. VI 1918, (National Alumni: USA, 1923).

Erich Ludendorff, My War Memories 1914-1918, Hutchinson & Co., London 1919.

The European War. Vol XVII, October – November – December 1918. New York Times Company, New York, NY: 1919.

Fromm, Ferdinand Oberst. Das Württembergishche Landwehr Infanterie Regiment nr. 120 im Weltkrieg 1914-1918, Band 4. Stuttgart, Belser: 1920.

Kling, Rektor. Das Württembergishche Landwehr Infanterie Regiment nr. 122 im Weltkrieg 1914-1918, Band 27 Stuttgart, Belser: 1923.

Laepple, D. Das Württembergishche Landwehr Infanterie Regiment nr. 125 im Weltkrieg 1914-1918, Band 38 Stuttgart, Belser: 1926.

Lee, David D. Sergeant York: An American Hero. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985.

Offizierverin, Mitglieder Verzeichnis des Offiziervereins, Inf-Regt. Kaiser Wilhelm Konig von Preussen (2. Württ.) Nr. 120. (Stuttgart Augustenstr. 13, 1937).

In the movie "Sergent York", it shows an army officer counter York's phrases from the bible with other phrases in the bible. He also lends him a book called "The History of the United States of America". I'm not sure if that is true to history, but that movie is supposed to be extremely accurate. Can anyone verify? Mattbash 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment
Some very nice work. The citations need some cleaning up, however. WP:CITE contains some suggestions for citation formats. Also please note that is it your use of spaces/indents as opposed to asterisks which generates that hideous box instead of a clean bulletpointed list of sources. Thank you. LordAmeth 19:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

York's Faith
It is refreshing to have an honest and accurate article in Wikipedia about York's faith. This faith is what makes the York story different from the average war story and biography. The article helped to explain to me why there was something different about York and I now understand. Thanks for the excellent article that put everything together in a clear and very well documented manner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Religious
York's religious convictions are central to the story.


 * Yes, York's faith is important to his story, but the article is seriously flawed as it is written evangelically. --Cjs56 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I differ with my social-progressive friend above. There is no flaw with the story. I appreciate the clarity of the story and it is one of those few WIKIPEDIA articles that is factual and yet interesting. Anyone with journalistic background can appreciate this. Thanks for having the courage to break-out the truth! I can't wait for the book! Phillip K. 29 August 2007

I'm sorry, but the problems the user above mentioned have ZERO to do with "social progressivism" and everything to do with the proper way to write an encyclopedia article. There are issues with how this article is written, and not just how it mentions York's faith. It needs work! Will 140.107.0.226 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Explaining rewrite
Someone researching Alvin York added a large amount of text, but is new to Wikipedia and formatted it poorly. I've integrated it into the existing text, fixed some of the formatting issues, and removed some of the more exuberant prose. If anyone can reformat the long list of references to inline citations, that would be cool. I don't have access to the print sources right now. Natalie 05:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Natalie Erin did a good job of summarising some of the bloated bits, and I used her earlier version for inspiration. I don't get why her edits got reverted; I though they were a big step in the right direction.


 * I attempted to fix the awkward, poorly-written, and rambling bits, and to simplify and clean up the article overall. There was a lot of droning on in the post-war section, and some of it looked possibly like original research. I also tried to streamline the discussion of the combat that led to Sgt. York's MOH without taking out anything vital. There was also some really drawn-out discussion of York's faith that devolved into a sort of conversational "question and answer" thing... I tried instead to incorporate info about his faith into the different sections in a more balanced way that should make the whole think flow better while still highlighting his beliefs where relevant.

Actionsquid 19:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is with the revert to the older version without a word of explanation? (And thanks to the user who restored it!) I don't think my attempt at cleanup was perfect, in fact there was still a lot of work to do, but why not discuss it, and why not try to come to some kind of consensus about how we do it.


 * Is the issue that I trimmed some of the really LONG bits on York's faith? They were way long, they didn't flow, and the way much of them were written didn't belong in a Wikipedia article. I kept info about his faith in the "Early Life" section, in a shortened bit on his discussions with his commanders, in what he said about his deeds that earled him his MOH, and there's mention of it in the "Post War section. If we really need more, then please tell me how to add some more and still prevent if from making this article unwieldy.


 * I don't have an agenda; I just stumbled on this article and wanted to try to clean it up a bit. Could we try to cooperate on it? I don't see how anyone can argue that the previous version wasn't poorly written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.107.0.226 (talk) 16:23, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Improvement
Thanks to Mr/Mrs. 82.205 for the hard work! This article is shaping up.

One small thing, though. I don't like the change to the word "conversion", because Sgt York was already raised Christian. Whether he strayed from his faith or not, re-discovering the faith you were raised with can't really be called a "conversion", can it? I agree that "re-awakening" is not perfect, but what, then? 140.107.0.226 18:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Didn't sign in, oops! Actionsquid 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello! On second thought - you are correct. I thought about this over dinner and came to the same conclusion. Your word is much more appropriate. Sorry for the less than accurate change.

Overall, the article has the potential to be quite good. Thanks for your work on it. Whenever I have a few minutes I open it and contemplate as to how to shape the article a bit more.

I see that LTC Mastriano placed an interesting photo in the image section of WIKIPEDIA - that depicts York moving his prisoners from the battlefield. It would be a nice edition to the article. However, it is beyond my current capabilities as to how to place it in the article without it being too big. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.207.5 (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can resize images by piping a pixel size after the image name. So if the image was called image.jpg, and you wanted it to be 250 pixels, you would type image.jpg|250px, and enclose it within straight brackets. If you provide the image name I could add it for you. Natalie 21:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio
The following passage was copied from http://www.autographdomain.com/detail.aspx?ID=4467 (or it appears to have been, copyright date on that page is 2000)
 * "On 8 October 1918, York's battalion was involved in an attack that would earn him a Medal of Honor. The mission was to take the German Decauville rail-line, thus  cutting off lateral support behind the German lines and force the Germans out of the Argonne Forest. This forest was in the German hands for four years and was heavily fortified.  The attack took the 328th into a funnel shaped valley, which became narrower as they advanced. On all three sides of the valley were steep ridges, occupied by German machine gun emplacements and infantry troops. As the Americans advanced, they encountered intense German machine gun fires from the left and right flanks and the front. Soon, German artillery poured in upon them, forcing the American attack to stall. The Americans were caught in a deadly cross-fire."

The only difference is that an extra sentence was added to the middle. I've replaced this passage in the article with a short connector to the next part. This needs to be rewritten and put back. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevance?
Under "Early Life" the last sentence reads "He has a relative named Alex Lefebvre" What is the relevance of this? Mullhawk (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was vandalism. It has been deleted. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Mullhawk (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bible Passages
Does anyone know what bible passages York read that convinced him his religion would be accepting of him becoming a soldier? Jgprentice 01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)jgprentice

Earlier in the talk someone quoted Ezekiel 33: ""But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand." Ezekiel 33:6 --Cjs56 02:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, York would have read it in the rather more poetic King James version: "But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned ; if the sword come , and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."12.214.62.215 (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Post War Life
Does anyone have further information on York's postwar life. This section needs serious attention and leaves one with an empty feeling. What happened beyond building a school? This would be a welcome and useful edition to the article far more than word-smithing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.207.5 (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly think the info would be interesting and improve the article. I'd love it if somebody added some... although we would all do well to remember No original research
 * Actionsquid 19:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a fine story, and it wouldn't take original research, indeed this would be a good basis: http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F40E10FC355415738DDDAA0894D1405B848AF1D3 . 12.214.62.215 (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

conflicts
The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture article on York states that York was the oldest of 11 children, not the third. It also states that Early's company accidentally ended up behind enemy lines after misreading a map, rather than intentionally working their way behind enemy lines. Bms4880 (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

World War II Victory Medal?
Are there legitimate sources which confirms he actually recieved this award? Was he even involved in the American military during the Second World War? Repdetect117 (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As another question re medals, the caption the pictures of medals - the Crox de Guerre says it is with palm, but the link the the site of that particular medal has a different picture. Since the proper picture is available on wiki ( this one or the one on the other page) shouldn't the two articles be harmonized? 75.177.47.137 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy: are claims of heroism contested
It appears some people doubt whether Sergeant York actually did the things he claimed. Sergeant Early and his family, as well as a few of the family members of York's other comrades, are vehemently opposed to York's version of events. At least according to this article: and this video. It may just be sour grapes, but it might be worth adding to the article in some way. I found theses sources while looking for information on why Merrithew had an alias, which I still haven't found a satisfactory answer for. I'd try to add this information myself, but it would almost assuredly be deleted, so I thought I'd bring it up and leave it to someone with more editing clout. 67.233.168.96 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is yet another site on the subject of the alternate story  and it explains that Merrithew enlisted under a fake name (William Cutting), so that his mother would not find out he'd done so against her wishes. The video also tells that story. There seems to be surprisingly little scholarship on this alternate view outside of the families. 67.233.168.96 (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Combat description
The details of the fight near the railroad need to be checked. My recollection from reading is that although York's unit was pinned down under heavy fire, it was not subject to MGs from three sides and a simultaneous artillery barrage.

ANSWER: The German records are clear (something lacking in most American research of York). The Germans did engage from ALL three surrounding terrain features. By far the best desciption of this action is by an Army Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Mastriano and it was published in the September 2006 issue of Military History. I recommend you read this for details. It is from the German pont of view.

http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/world_war_1/3717286.html

Cheers

ANSWER part II - Yes! The Germans did defend against the American attack from all three sides! The Southern Ridge where York fought was defended by the German 2nd Machine Gun Company, reinforced by the 7th Bavarian Co. The hills to the west (in front the Americans) was defended by the 120th German Landwehr and a battalion of the 125th German Landwehr. Finally, the hill to the north was defended by the 125 German Landwehr and the German Elizabeth Guards (it was a monarchy at the time - divided between an emporer and three kings). This is an amazing story of divine intervention. Wow!

ANSWER PART 3:

Contrary to the claims of Colonel Mastriano the German records are NOT clear at all. I have personally been to the archives in Stuttgart and Munich Germany and obtained copies of the unit war diaries and regimental histories for the following German units involved in the action west of Chatel Chéhéry on the morning of 8 October 1819. I also have all of the relevant German and American documentation found in the US National Archives and Records administration in College Park Maryland:

2nd Landwehr Division 45 Reserve Divisions 120 Landwehr Infantry Regiment 1st MG Company, 120 Landwehr Infantry Regiment 2nd MG Company, 120 Landwehr Infantry Regiment 122 Landwehr Infantry Regiment 125 Landwehr Infantry Regiment 7th Bavarian Mineur Company

In addition I have also viewed the personal records of the German officers involved, the most revealing was a 1919 statement given by Bavarian LT Thoma in command of the 7th Mineur describing the circumstances of his capture.

The German war diaries are full of detailed information and maps, but after 26 September 1918 - the start of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive - these entries become abbreviated and scattered. Some entries are only a sentence or two covering several days of activity. The German Army was overwhelmed by this time and most infantry companies that would muster 200 to 250 soldiers in 1916 only numbered 25 to 75 in late 1918 after the AEF and allies launched the Meuse-Argonne offensive.

The specific German units involved in York fight had no idea of what was taking place and it was not until 1928 before the German military had even heard of SGT York. The best war diary entries that describe what took place only mention a surprise attack in their rear and flank and several soldiers who evaded capture reported that the 4th Company 120th Landwehr Infantry along with its battalion commander, LT Vollmer had been captured or destroyed along with elements of the 7th Bavarian Mineur and the 120th Reserve Infantry Regiment. The most detailed information available from the German perspective is a document found in the US National Archives and Records Administration. This document is a rebuttal of the York incident drafted in the late 1920’s by the German Reichsarchiv in Berlin. This document contains statements of the German soldiers and officers involved in the York fight. None of the statements in this document or any of the other German documents found in the German or American archives support anything that the army officer claims. The document does contain a very inaccurate and biased map drawn by the German Reichsarchiv which tries to show that all of these Germans could not have been captured or killed by a 17 man American patrol, they thought they were being attacked by an advance element of a much larger American force. The reality is that there was no large American force attacking into the German rear that day with the exception of this 17 man patrol of which York was a member.

The Colonel will call my comments a personal attack and historical revisionism, but I have been to the same archives he has and I have not only the documents he has, but many others he either failed to find and/or refuses to use. The most revealing as far as the location of the fight are two sets of documents the Colonel does not even mention in his report; the US Army Graves Registration Service records which give the grid coordinates of where the 6 patrol members killed in the fight were buried. Also 1:20,000 French 1918 map with hand drawn location of the fight and patrol route by York’s former commanders: Major Buxton and Captain Danforth. Both men accompanied York to e scene of the fight in 1919 and spent a week there conducting an investigation as part of York’s Medal of Honor award process.

The location of the fight and the way the fight took place as well as the general attack of York’s unit, the 328th US Infantry, is not correct according to the Army Colonel’s interpretation and on-site monument, historic trail and orientation or story board. --MeuseArgonne (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy: battlefield
It seems that there has been an additional work into a new section. I have contacted the editor to have him edit it for prose, format, and possibly WP:OR. If there isn't a bias, I will let it stand, but I have a feeling that, depending on the edits, might eventually be reverted. --Hourick (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am the author of the “additional work” and I can provide an immense amount of contemporary documentation pertaining to this event. My research includes not only publically available historical publications, but archival material from the US National Archives and Records Administration and two archives located in Germany; Stuttgart an Munich. All of the archival documents are with citation of the exact file or record group where they can be found. In addition all of the German material I have has been officially translated by a German court appointed translator.

To not include this research in the recognized Wikipedia summary of this event represents a travesty. So far only one man’s research has been represented here and it is inaccurate. I can prove this by providing accurate translations and excerpts from interviews of key supporters that shed a dark shadow over the research conducted by the army officer lead group.

If not now, in time future generations will continue to be led down a trail that SGT York never walked on and to a monument where SGT York never was. Eventually someone will go to the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland and “find” the documents detailing where the 6 men on the patrol who were killed were originally buried – where they fell. And that person will also find the detailed map drawn by two of York’s former commanders that shows where the fight took place and realize both the Graves Registration Service records and the former commander’s map agree. That same individual will also find that research confirms this through the use of battlefield archaeology, the historical accounts and Geographic Information Science (GIS).

What is important is that scientific research has been over shadowed by religious, nationalistic and personal motivations of one man and his research team and so far represents the current understanding of this event.

What I offer is everything concerning this event. I can provide scans of all of the documentation that I have spent a wealth of time and money to acquire. I am willing to share all of it with everyone and they can make up their own mind. I do not think you will find this transparency with the Army officer led team. --MeuseArgonne (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying and pasting a talk from MeuseArgonne (talk) for further discussion and input from other members:
 * I have no problem with alternate views on topics, but my only concern is the accuracy and the independent verification and access to information provided. If you're not certain on how the structure in Wikipedia is, then I highly recommend you peruse various articles to see the format and methods used.  While I have no problem with your research in this area, it does have to be independently published; preferably by a new source, a well known research website, or a trusted website of some sort.  As an FYI, I'm going to copy and paste this convo onto the Sgt. York article so other people can chime in. --Hourick (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that wikipedia is not a suitable location for a debate. (1) Sources need to be third-part sources, not your own research. You'll see this referred to as WP:OR. And comments on blogs are certainly not suitable. (2) Wikipedia seeks to maintain a neutral point of view -- you'll see this called WP:NPOV. You have a point of view. Both WP:OR and WP:NPOV are worth reading.
 * I appreciate your frustration and I certainly agree that the York entry needs to avoid taking sides in this dispute. In order to be fair and neutral, I removed much of the material on both sides of the discussion. If you still believe the account favors one side inappropriately, we can work on that. I see many entries in the "External links" section that are contentious. Normally that section just lists sites, with minimal description as needed. It's not proper to use it to disguise an argument, which is what I think is going on. I'll review that soon. I also think that under "Honors" the entry for Sergeant York Historic Trail is disputatious. It should state fact and probably note once more that the location is disputed. Someone could create a wikipedia entry for Sergeant York Historic Trail, too, if so inclined.
 * As it stands, the entry very briefly announces that the location is in dispute. That's fact. An interested user could follow a link to either Sergeant York Project or Sergeant York Discovery Expedition (or each project's web site) to learn more. I'd be happy to help you build such an entry for the Sergeant York Project. It could then describe the enterprise -- who, when, source of funding, purpose, dates of expeditions -- and present the current state of its research. You'll find that people will respect information that is presented without bashing anyone else ("well calculated media press releases", "premature erecting of a monument", etc.). Admitting that the matter is the subject of dispute will earn you credibility as well. But we need some third-party sources. You have some things that can be cited, like Legg's article, but it's not really third-party. Citations about a grant awarded or something even in a college newspaper would work. Anything that documents this statement "with the authorization and under the supervision of the French archaeological authorities in the Champagne-Ardennes region" would be useful. (I can manage French.) I think third-party sources are the problem you face.
 * Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand Wikipedia’s objectivity and third party documentation position on this matter and I very much appreciate the advice and offer for assistance you provided.

If you look at the current information on the Alvin C. York page you will see that a lot of the information here is cited directly to the army officer’s writing as references and this is far from being “third-part” sources.

A lot of the current material on the Alvin C. York page is backed up be references by the army officer’s publications;

References:

(1.) Colonel Douglas Mastriano, U.S. Army, "Trust Amidst Doubt and Adversity", accessed April 14, 2010, (3.) "Trust amidst doubt and adversity: The Testimony of Alvin C York"., (15.) "The SYDE Story", The Sergeant York Discovery Expedition. (18.) Mastriano, Douglas, Colonel, U.S. Army Brave Hearts under Red Skies., (27.) Sergeant York Discovery Expedition: site, accessed June 13, 2010, (35.) "York trail-work begins! SYDE honors York, soldiers and preserves a piece of history". SYDE News. Sergeant York Discovery Expedition. http://www.sgtyorkdiscovery.com/SYDE_NEWS.php. Retrieved October 23, 2007, (36.) Historic Trail". Sergeant York Project. http://www.sgtyorkdiscovery.com/SYDE_NEWS.php. Retrieved October 23, 2007

Sources:

"Trust amidst doubt and adversity: The Testimony of Alvin C York". The Sergeant York Discovery Expedition. http://www.sgtyorkdiscovery.com/Home_Page.php. Retrieved July 8, 2009., "The SYDE Story". The Sergeant York Discovery Expedition. http://www.sgtyorkdiscovery.com/The_SYDE_Story.php. Retrieved March 6, 2006.,

External links:

(1) "Pictures of Sergeant York Trail inauguration". http://good-times.webshots.com/album/567679466YMHvhf. Retrieved October 4, 2008., (2) Video news coverage of Sergeant York Trail and dedication of monuments where York fought". http://www.afneurope.net/Home/ArticleDisplayDD/tabid/649/Default.aspx?aid=5035. Retrieved January 4, 2009. (3) "90th anniversary commemoration of SGT York in the Argonne Forest, France". http://www.billrudge.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=307&Itemid=114. Retrieved December 12, 2008. (4)

And at least 20 other articles directly related to Colonel Mastriano’s research can be found in the “External Links” section. All of these articles are NOT third-part and only represent his personal research.

So I am having difficulty understanding why it is such a painful process to present contrary findings to that of the army officer.

Please help me find the best way to present the information I have concerning this most important historical event. The documentation is there; in the US National Archives and Records Administration as well as in the Stuttgart and Munich Military Archives. --MeuseArgonne (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It may seem harsh, usually edits on such long standing articles such as this are generally done in piecemeal fashion that people can easily look over, check the references, and either accept or discuss about with little notice. However, what you're proposing is a substantial change to an article with references and agenda that have to pass a certain sniff test. Don't take this personal at all, we're simply trying to make sure that the information is truly legitimate. Believe it or not, this is merely a small blip on Wiki's radar compared to other more controversial topics that can be a literary gunfight.  Please be patient, this is how Wikipedia works.  --Hourick (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Your criticism is well taken. DR. Nolan’s research was not about making the headlines, which cannot be said about the other group. His research was for a doctoral dissertation which went through the scrutiny of the doctoral review board and resulted in the awarding of his doctorate.

I am a researcher who is interested in the truth, as best as we can understand it, using all of the available primary resources. I agree with the site Dr. Nolan has identified as the correct location of the York action; however I may disagree with certain aspects of how the fight transpired- not where it took place. These are small differences considering that there is a monument ad trail erected by the other group that is 500 meters north of where Sergeant York’s heroics actually occurred.

Important or not, I think it is, especially since the other group has expended a huge amount of effort in creating this fictitious setting for this historic event, which seem to be motivated for personal and religious reasons, rather than depicting historic events as they actually occurred and/or based on historical or archival documentation.

Whether Dr. Nolan actively pursued an active campaign of press releases and online coverage of his research, as the other group did, should not give reason to doubt the validity of his research. A comparison of each groups archival research, field methodology and interpretations will demonstrate that Dr. Nolan’s research was conducted, not only with approval of the relevant French cultural and archeological authorities, but in a professional and scientific manner. The other group can make no such claim since it was conducted illegally without the proper permits required by French cultural and archaeological laws. Local mayoral approval of a small village does not legally authorize “relic hunts” like those carried out by the other group. You can read more about this here: http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/legacy/legacy_v14n1.pdf

In response to other interested individuals inquiries I prepared the following statement:

One of the most valuable set of documents is the US Army Graves Registration Service records for the six patrol members killed in this action. They were buried where they fell and the grid coordinates for their burials are found in the individual soldier’s disinterment records. These records are found in Records Group 92 at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland.

Another revealing source is the correspondence between Captain Harry Swindler of the US Army War College and York’s former battalion and company commanders; Major Buxton and Captain Danforth. Both Buxton and Danforth were present during the 1919 investigation into York’s feat and in their letters they describe the action and answer Captain Swindler’s questions concerning particular parts of the action. The most revealing document concerning the exact location is a copy of the 1918 French 1:20,000 map sheet where Buxton and Danforth annotated the route the patrol took and where the York action occurred. These documents can be found in Record Group 165 Entry 310c “Thomas File” at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland.

During the 1919 investigation a series of photographs were taken by the US Army Signal Corps at the scene of the action. These photos show the terrain where the action took place as well as a photograph of the grave of Corporal Savage and another of the four-man grave of Corporal Swanson and Privates Dymowski, Wareing and Weiler. In both photographs background terrain can be seen that clearly does not match the site of the current monument and the Sergeant York Discovery Expedition (SYDE) “York Spot”. However, these photographs do match remarkably well with the terrain where the US Army Graves Registration Service burial records and the Buxton and Danforth map indicate the action took place. These photographs can be found in Record Group 120 at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland.

All of the other American documentation concerning this action, including the History of the Eighty-Second Division, unanimously state that the action occurred in the ravine behind the hill located directly southwest of Hill 223 and not on Hill 167, where the current moment is located.

The German archival documentation regarding this event is scattered, at best, since the Germans did not understand what was really taking place that day. All of the German contemporary unit war diaries and unit histories indicate that a breakthrough had occurred in their rear of their position southwest of Chatel Chéhéry and that many men from the 1st Battalion 120th Landwehr Regiment, the 7th Bavarian Mineur Company and the 210th Reserve Infantry Regiment had been killed or captured. It was not until 1928 that the German military authorities became aware of Sergeant York’s heroics and being that this was a major embarrassment to the officers involved and the German Army as a whole the German Reichsarchiv in Berlin sent a rebuttal to the US Army War College. This document is the only German document that specifically addresses the York action in any detail. It is a statement of denial and therefore must be viewed with some scrutiny; however the general location of the fight and description of the terrain matches the American account remarkably well. The Reichsarchiv report contains a map depicting an “X” where they believe the fight took place, but this is extremely inaccurate and represents an attempt on behalf of the Reichsarchiv to demonstrate that a larger American force had penetrated their lines and not a 17 man American patrol. The site the Reichsarchiv identifies as where the York action took place is at a point where none of the American assault waves had reached by the time the York action occurred, including the 17 man American patrol, of which York was a member. This document can be found in Record Group 165 Entry 310b “Thomas File” at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland.

In summation; all of the American documentation concerning this action indicate that Sergeant York’s heroic action occurred on the western facing slope, in a remote ravine located behind (south of) the hill directly southwest of Hill 223. The action did not occur on the eastern facing slope of Hill 167, which is located west of Hill 223, where the current Sergeant York Discovery Expedition monument is located. The German accounts, scattered and abbreviated as they are, do agree that the fight occurred on a western facing slope in a ravine located southwest of Hill 223 and not where the current monument is on Hill 167. I may add that the German documents I have can be found in the Stuttgart Archives and the Bavarian Military Archives in Munich. All of the German documents were translated by a German court appointed translator and are therefore considered official translations that will withstand the scrutiny of any German court of law, thus considered accurate translations.--MeuseArgonne (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read the PDF, I would have to acknowledge that, while it does fall into WP:OR, the fact that it is published at which is the domain of The University of South Carolina's website does give it a bit of credibility.  Unless there are other editors that would object to this, perhaps we should allow this to be used as a reference. While I don't think an entire section should be devoted to this "controversy", I figure a paragraph mentioning the dispute of the location should suffice.--Hourick (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to use that PDF at (pp. 18-22) as well as the story authored in the school newspaper (for which I have repaired the URL) to expand the 2-sentence paragraph. Thanks to that newspaper article, I now understand better what Legg's position relative to the project is. It will take me a day to digest some of this. External links are rather different from the rest of an entry. For example, the entry for an advocacy organization like [National Rifle Association} has an external link to the org's official web site. So we can have links to SYP and SYDE under that heading.  I have, as promised, reviewed the external links and deleted a great deal.

Thank you for your time in considering this important matter. Here is a letter I recieved today from a retired US Army officer and doctorate who, I think, summarizes this very well and demonstrates why it is important to take a close look at both group's research. Dr. Nolan's research is open and available for all to see,m which cannot be said for the SYDE because they have removed thier online report, which is the only way to verify thier research, methodolgy and conclusions.

Here is the letter:

''"It needs to be brought to their attention that Dr. Nolan’s work was performed under the oversight of a doctoral dissertation committee and he successfully defended his findings to the committee. His work was done with utmost intellectual and unbiased research methodology.  Dr. Nolan’s info would lend more credibility to Wikipedia's narrative than that of Colonel Mastriano." "Peer reviews will start accepting Dr. Nolan’s findings since Colonel Mastriano’s writings did not meet rigorous research standards. In order to maintain their credibility, Wikipedia should emphasize Dr. Nolan’s work and treat Colonel Mastriano’s conclusion as a competing layman view of the York account." "The importance of this is representatives of the French government are trying to promote the Argonne as a tourist WWI destination and have been "forced" to accept Colonel Mastriano. If Mastriano is accepted over Tom, then world wide visitors to the site are going to go away with a skewed historical account of what happened there.  The French are caught in a dilemma as to finding a historically accurate solution to this issue without damaging French relations with the US Military." "Wikipedia needs to understand that this is not a personality battle between Dr. Nolan and Colonel Mastriano and their respective supporters. And they need to understand that Mastriano, although first to publish, should not preempt Nolan.  He could not rush his dissertation to be first.  Mastriano, however, must have known about Dr. Nolan’s research and rushed his in order to get name recognition."

Again, a word of thanks to the editors for considering the information I have been providing.--MeuseArgonne (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Say what?
A geographer at the R.O. Fullerton Laboratory for Spatial Technology at Middle Tennessee State University who heads the Sergeant York Project,[25][26][27] and US Army Col. Douglas Mastriano, who heads the Sergeant York Discovery Expedition (SYDE)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.183.145 (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Trulock and Wheeler citations
I've removed these two entries from "References" since they are specific page citations and should be set inside ref tags at the appropriate points in the narrative. I hope someone can place them properly.
 * Trulock, Alice (1992). In the Hands of Providence. University of North Carolina Press. p. 340.
 * Wheeler, Richard (editor) (1998). Sergeant York and the Great War. Bulverde, TX: Mantle Ministries. pp. 58–60.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links and references
I read the threads and can not see why someone would remove the references and links.

This has been a stable page for some years, and see no justification for the series of edits designed to take this from a good academic / resourced page to a place where an agenda is being pushed. Seems a bit outside the intent of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.143.83 (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the links because they aren't clearly referenced in the article. If they are being used as references, they need WP:FOOTNOTES.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 00:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A big blob of links isn't attractive, also WP:EL.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 00:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Illustrations and/or map location(s)
What would help out tremendously with this article would an map (with markings) illustrating the paths and location of his actions. Given that the location is under dispute, this would be a perfectly good time to show the different areas and perhaps have a good argument for this.--Hourick (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me how and I can provide the site with JPEG/PDF scans of the archival documents I cite that are found in the National Archives and Records Administration, the Baden Wuerttemberg state archives in Stuttgart Germany and the Bavarian Military archives in Munich, Germany.

The most revealing document is the 1918 French 1:20,000 map sheet that Major Buxton and Captain Danforth drew the route the patrol took and where the fight occurred.

The next most important documents are the US Army Graves Registration Records with the grid coordinates for the graves of the soldiers killed in the fight at the time of disinterment. The coordinates must be plotted on the 1918 French map and then superimposed onto the modern French topographical map – all of which I have.

The US Army Signal Corps photographs taken at the scene in 1919 depicting not only York, but the graves of 5 of his comrades in addition to current photographs f the same area today are also in my possession. The US Army Signal Corps photos can be found in the National Archives and Records Administration.

There is a huge amount of primary sources available and I have well over 1GBs of information I would be more than happy to send on CDs anyone interested in this at no cost – not even postage. I spent a huge amount of time and funds to acquire this collection of documents, but this subject is about preserving an accurate historical record and I am therefore grateful to share it with anyone who has the same interest I do.

With the exception of the Stuttgart and Munich German documentation and the high resolution scans of the American burials at the scene of the fight. Most of what I mentioned above can be found in Dr. Nolan’s doctoral dissertation, particularly the Buxton/Danforth map and a detailed explanation of the Graves Registration Service burial records and how the maps and GRS records overlay onto the modern landscape.

All of the primary sources I have are with archival citation of exactly where they can be found in the archives or contemporary publications.

Please let me know what I need to do in order to provide the editors with these documents. I can also provide these historical accounts overlayed onto the modern French toporaphical map as well as show where the other group claims the action occured.--MeuseArgonne (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The images have to be Free content and pass muster as well. While you are free to upload the images, please follow the rules to do so.  Please make sure the any images or photos you wish to attach to this article are easily read and interpreted by most people who would have an interest. Again, please go through the various articles and images as a guide.--Hourick (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is extremely frustrating. I have uploaded the Buxton/Danforth map to the commons, but can find no way of getting it into this article. What do I do now?--MeuseArgonne (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are the images I uploaded to the Commons. Please see photo descriptions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buxton_Map.c.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan_Dissertation_Page_82_-_Graves_Registration_Service_Map.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan_Dissertation_Page_113_-_Artifact_Distribution_Map.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nolan_Dissertation_Page_115_-_Overview_Map.jpg

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SYDE_Report_Page_29_-_Patrol_Route.jpg

--MeuseArgonne (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added the artifact distribution map to the article. -- Diannaa (Talk) 20:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Parts of this article are now unreadable
It looks like it is time for an administrator to step in and sort out the anonymous IP edits which have added loads of unneeded links, poor writing and incorrect formatting. The battlefield dispute is interesting and can be presented fairly and efficiently, but not with continual reversions and masses of links. Wilson44691 (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I already fixed a few things but there is a lot more to fix. I downgraded the article to Start from B also because even after reviewing the article prior to these edits it still wasn't really a B class. --Kumioko (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kumioko! Wilson44691 (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just done a lot more to restore the article to its old state. I agree that a somewhat longer statement about the location controversy might be in order, but it needs to be written NPOV and in encyclopedic style with citations. Editors should also be alert to the way in which many edits that appear to be additional references are attempts to overwhelm the reader with references to just one side in this dispute, including in the sections Sources, External links, and Honors.

I have previously suggested without success (and will try now again) that those engaged in this dispute should try creating entries on Wikipedia for their enterprises, Sergeant York Discovery Expedition and Sergeant York Project and possibly for the Trail. Then populate those entries with as much material from 3rd party sources as possible. Most of all: trust the reader to evaluate the 2 projects. It seems to me that the location controversy is of minimal interest in the context of York's life, while it would be of greater interest to people interest in battlefield exploration or WWI-related tourism.

We are supposed to assume good faith, but I think we are way past that point. One of the recent edits actually changed a URL so that the link that said Project A was actually taking the user to Project B's web site. That's about as out of bounds as anything I've seen (and demonstrates little faith in one's own case).

Glad to see a bunch of fellow editors watching this!

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, Bmclaughlin9! Wilson44691 (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to let everyone know that a request to add this article to pending changes has been requested. This will allow the anon IP to still make contributions but they will be vetted so that they are done properly, which will also give the new editor a chance to learn the rules and process of WP. --Kumioko (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation question
The citation associated with this text:

"One of York’s prisoners, German First Lieutenant Vollmer (who spoke fluent English) of 1st Battalion, 120th Württemberg Landwehr Regiment"

appears to be a news group. Is that appropriate? Here's the link: http://gs19.inmotionhosting.com/~milita8/cmh/member/member.cgi/read/5570

I was wondering why we need to know his linguistic capability.

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not an adequate citation. It is useful to know he spoke English, but "fluent" does not seem necessary. Wilson44691 (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that fluent is not necessary. Vollmer spent several years in the USA before the war and perfected his language while working on a train. Drhistory1918 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
The recent edits by an IP did quite a bit of damage to the article. The sources were incorrectly formatted and a large block of material had been inserted twice. I reverted the article to the state it was on August 24. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is also the encyclopedia that we all edit together. 142.166.197.12, please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page before insterting them in the article again, and ask the other users to format the refs for you. I have posted some helpful links on your talk page. Thank you. -- Diannaa (Talk) 18:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate all the work the editors have put in on this subject. It takes diligence to distinguish the opinions from the facts and there seems to be an abundance of both. I would like to just add that in the area of "Site of Sergeant York's Heroics" there are missing facts. The main fact I see missing here is this: The findings of the Sergeant York Discovery Expedition are, in fact, accepted by several noteworthy individuals and agencies, namely The Center for Military History, MG David T. Zabecki, PhD (US Army Historian), and The French Military Mission to NATO, whose signed letters can be seen on the Sergeant York Discovery Expedition website. To omit this fact and only state that the location is contested is to present an incomplete message. I propose that at lease the fact that the findings have been accepted by these third party individuals AND disputed by others is a more complete assessment. In the same spirit, if the opposition has endorsements from third party sources of their findings, they should also be mentioned. YorkAdvocate (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In a separate issue; The map that is posted near the Site of Sergeant York's Heroics section of the page marks the location of where Dr. Nolan did his research and is therefore his opinion as to where the events took place. In order to post WP:NPOV information, both a map from Dr. Nolan’s location and that of COL. Mastriano’s location should be posted, or neither should be posted. Giving only one side of the story is not what Wikipedia is all about. YorkAdvocate (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me, sorta. Addressing the map issue first, is there a map of the Mastriano location? In regards to the other, in my opinion, we don't need to say its accepted or not accepted by whom in the Alvin York article. I believe we need only mention the expedition, its findings and the basics about what the disagreements are. It would be more appropriate to create a whole new article related to just the expedition and there when can discuss in much greater detail the who, what, when, where, why and hows of the expedition. Since there seems to be plenty of info on it there should be plenty of info to include. --Kumioko (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Yes, there are maps of the Mastriano location, what is the proper method for posting such an item? Secondly, I would like you opinion on this second article about the expedition idea, do you think there would be even more vandalism to the expedition page being its whole purpose would be to present just their side of the story? It seems this would invite the same individuals who are constantly changing this site to focus their attention on that one only to try and disrupt its message. From your experience what do you think? (YorkAdvocate (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC))


 * YorkAdvocate: It's hard to know how much vandalism might occur. But if each side had their own entry, they might focus on their own material and spend less time beating on each other. At least we can hope. Of course each of those entries would have a "See also" to the other in the interest of full disclosure! It would help if the entry created for a Project did more than just "present their side of the story." There should be a lot of factual info about the Project itself: who initiated the Project, funded it, dates of expedition(s), etc. Of course it will answer the question "why locate the action here?", but it should also answer the broader question: tell me about the Project? Think journalism: who what when where why. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Kumioko, I just noticed your latest edit was to add "one of" the most decorated and you site Audie Murphy by comparison. Please note the article says the most decorated in WW1, which is arguably true, Audie Muphy was in WWII. Perhaps you can change that one back or at least change the sentence to read " ... one of the mosted decorated soldier(s) in WW1." adding the needed "s" on soldier to be grammatically correct. (YorkAdvocate (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Good Eye, I fixed that issue. --Kumioko (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * @York Advocate, a Wikipedia article about the expedition could not include only one side of the story as it would not then meet the Wikipedia guidelines for WP:neutral point of view. It would have to present both sides of the story and use only material available in reliable third party sources such as newspapers, magazines, and so on or any such new article would not meet guidelines and would likely be speedily deleted. New articles also have to meet WP:notability guidelines. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. I am going to take the map off the article for now as it only represents one side of the story as York Advocate points out. -- Diannaa (Talk) 01:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Some additional work
I wanted to let you all know that with the added visibility of late I am going to try and build this article up to GA in the next couple weeks so any help would be appreciated. I have already gone and cleaned up some references but there are several that still need to be verified or fixed. I also added some citation needed tags for information that looks to be uncited. I am also conernced with the references for his Indian heritage. I don't doubt that its true but I am not sure about the vaolidity of using some of the geneological references that are currently there. Feel free to add comments about any concerns you have and I will attempt to address them. I would also like to get more info on his child hood, his war service and his post war years if anyone has a good source please let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsupported Opinion and Maps
Hello! Kumiko - thank you for the mediation! It was much needed.

I do think that this page has taken a wrong turn. It was stable for some two years, and now a controversy is being introduced, a controversy that is without serious support.

I do not think that the Nolan map is useful and in fact it presents a rather biased view of the discussion. Who has endorsed that map outside of his group? There are five other such maps, and most have not been endorsed by any informed opinion. I recommend that the map be removed.

It is WIKIPEDIA policy to remain neutral and to rely upon third party endorsements, not the opinion of a particular group. I say this as a lot of unsupported opinion is now ending up on the page and think that the page should be restored to where it was last year.

As WIKIPEDIA is neutral, here are the facts: The Mastriano site was endorsed by:

1. Center of Military History, 2. General Zabecki - the US Army's senior historian on WW I 3. The French Federal Senator of the Meuse-Argonne Region - who helped plan the historic trail. 4. The Mayor of Chatel Chehery 5. The French Military Mission

It was only because of these endorsements, that the French worked with the Americans to build both a historic trail and to erect two monuments on the spot designated and approved by all the above as accurate.

Any assertions that the endorsements are specious is sheer speculation. The fact is, that these endorsements are public domain. I recommend that Wikipedia go with facts. The evidence is in the pudding - the trail was built and the monuments were erected with the approval of both US and French authorities.

On any issue of course there are divergent ideas, and opinions. But, what and with whom have informed third parties throw their support? That is the material point.

An interesting tidbit with the New York Times. The reporter, worked with both groups and in June 2006 published a neutral article - not taking a side. However, in October, 2006, he published a second article throwing his undivided support to Mastriano's group. Needless to say, they were surprised by this endorsemeent and rather did not expect it. The link to this article, as well as another twenty links, have been removed and IHO should be restored.

Drhistory1918 (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dr History, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that this article is not about the Nolan/Mastriano debate and the typical reader coming to the article is not looking for information on that debate. They are looking for information on Sgt York and his exploits in WWI. The article has one paragraph devoted to the debate, and to include any more would give undue weight to the subject in proportion to the rest of the article. Wikipedia is not the place to hash out the details of that debate or try to convince the reader of the merits of one side or the other. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia or the purpose of this article.  User:Nolelover has posted some useful links on your talk page. -- Diannaa  (Talk) 00:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Thanks, Kumiko! 2. I agree with Drhistory1918 that the map is inappropriate in that it represents just one side's version of the location controversy. We need two maps to compare or none at all. I prefer the latter. 3. I also agree with Diannaa that we need to keep the handling of the location dispute to a minimum. It is simply not integral to the biography and legacy of York. If the location determined the truth of some assertion about what happened in 1918, that would be different, but that is not the case. 4. I remain bewildered that partisans of one view or the other don't create Wikipedia entries for their respective projects. Why not? 5. I read the NY Times articles differently, but I don't even want to argue that here, because that would mean getting sucked into the controversy. 6. Wikipedia does not rely upon 3rd party endorsements. That's just not the case. It's not a question of a show of hands or the rank of those on each side or their academic qualifications. When there has been sufficient discussion in print by third parties, a wikipedia editor will be able to evaluate those discussions and produce a nuanced, non-argumentative account. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dianaa and Kumiko - Thank you for your work on what must be at time rather trying. It does seem that the debate has unjustly taken a emotional turn.

Therefore, please indulge me. May I humbly suggest that the debate about the trail has no place in the article. In that about a half dozen independent - third party sources have endorsed the trail and monuments, the only ones to question the location is the opposition. The article should be about York and not a place for theories that have not been embraced by the broader academic sphere.

Should we not therefore simply have in the honors section that a historic trail, with markers and monuments exist in the Argonne (with a link) and leave it at that?

Something like "The Sergeant York Historic Trail was dedicated in October 2008 in the valley west of Chatel Chehery were York's Battalion fought on 8 October 1918. The trail includes nine interpretive battle descriptions and has two monuments.  The first monument lists all seventeen members of the American patrol who fought in this battle and the other monument describes York's incredible feat."" The link to the trail so that people can walk it if they choose, http://www.sgtyorkdiscovery.com/York_Trail.php

I think that this should work. The trail is rather rightly proper for the Honors section, I believe and is fitting as it is just about York. This deals solely with fact and is devoid of the purely theoretical debate. With fond regards. Drhistory1918 (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Dr Nolan thinks the trail is in the wrong place. If we say the trail is located "where York's Battalion fought" it gives the appearance that Wikipedia is endorsing the location of the trail as correct. We want to avoid doing that, as we do not know that the trail is in the correct place. The matter is still under debate. The sgtyorkdiscovery.com link already appears in the external links. -- Diannaa (Talk) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Diana - Thank you for your assistance.

Having looked at the article again - to have the debate as to who has the correct location seems rather out of place in the article. Do you not think that it is better just to removed this altogether as it really has nothing to do with Alvin York and more to do with Colonel Mastriano and Dr. Nolan? I think that it is common for people to have divergent opinions on just about any subject of import - but the debate just does not fit with the intent of the article. I therefore humbly recommend that the debate potion of the article as to who found what should be deleted. Perhaps a separate trail page should be built - as you suggested earlier.

Drhistory1918 (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Diana, Reference above your comment "Dr Nolan thinks the trail is in the wrong place." I do not think what any one person thinks should prevent facts being listed as such. Had he any endorsements from any reputable sources, I would say that your hesitation is warranted. But there is none. A minority opinion on the trail is understandable, as the eyewitnesses are no longer with us, but the only place where there is a debate is here on Wikipedia as to the trail. I again propose that the paragraph as to the debate on the location of the trail is irrelevant to this page. It does nothing but draws attention away from York and to Nolan. He did seek an endorsement from the TN office of the FBI, who did forensics on his cartridges, but they concluded that what he found was not from the type of weapon York used. I suggest that we remove the debate paragraph. Logically, there is no reason for this. Otherwise, we can have caveats and minority opinions on every historical page, from Pearl Harbor, to the Bombing of Coventry, to the Battle of Midway. As a historian, I am rather troubled that we are allowing this page to reflect opinion that is not supported by history, or credible endorsements. Bon chance;-) Drhistory1918 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is get a consensus from the other editors on the page as to whether or not the paragraph needs to be removed from the article. And you better believe there are disagreements on other Wikipedia articles in the history topics. Case in point: Have a look at Talk:Battle of Kursk. There are other similar debates going on behind the scenes; you have not seen them as you only edit the one article. -- Diannaa (Talk) 21:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The Letters of Endorsement

There has been discussion relating to the 4 letters of endorsement found on the Sergeant York Discovery Expedition (SYDE) web site that is operated by COL Mastriano. I would like to share some information about these letters. In reality these are not letters of endorsement and cannot be considered third party or objective since each was written by persons who either; had no oversight of COL Mastriano’s work or are not qualified to endorse such research or the letter simply is not an endorsement of anything.

US Army Center of Military History – Director Dr. Clarke’s Letter:

The US Army Center of Military History endorsement letter signed by the center’s director, Dr. Clarke, is more of a letter of support for the research than it is an endorsement of COL Mastriano’s finings. Notice that the date has been removed from this letter, so it is uncertain when Dr. Clarke even issued this letter. Dr. Clarke does mention a report, but the English version of this report has been removed from COL Mastriano’s web site for over a year now so I am not sure what it he could be endorsing in the first place. If you look at the Western Front Association’s publication Bulletin - Number 84 – June/July 2009 – Hot on the York Trail Dutch journalist and military historian Stephan van Meulebrouck interviewed Dr. Clarke and Clarke explains why he wrote the letter this way: “He (Mastriano) asked me for official support from the CMH, to demonstrate that he was not some troublemaker, but a person engaged in serious research.” Clarke went on to say this about COL Mastriano’s findings: ''“There's no way to judge if the findings are correct. From the United States, that's not possible either.” When Mr. Meulebrouck asked Clarke if he had even read COL Mastriano’s report his reply was: “Probably not,” and he went on to say: “I'm not interested that much”'' and he explained that as the manager of a large institution he has other things on his mind. When asked why he allowed Mastriano to use this letter on his web site Clarke said that he was unaware of such use and says this: “He (Mastriano) ''did what he wanted to do. Maybe I made a mistake. There's no real way to find the exact spot.”'' Clarke told Mr Meulebrouck that the letter cannot be considered evidence since the CMH was not present during the field research and would never venture to say anything in terms of 100% accuracy.

Major General (retired) Zabecki's Letter

The letter signed by Major General (retired) Zabecki is more of a congratulation letter than an endorsement of Mastriano’s findings. Zabecki states the finding of the .45 casings that “SGT York reportedly fired, all but kills the nagging revisionism that has attempted to discredit the York story in recent years.” I am not sure what Zabecki is referring to here, but it is certainly not Dr. Nolan’s research since Nolan’s research was to locate the site of the action, not discredit York.

Mayor Alain Rickal’s Letter:

The letter issued by the mayor of Châtel Chéhéry, Mr Alain Rickal, was signed on 12 June, 2009. Mr Rickal was not the mayor of Châtel Chéhéry at the time of COL Mastriano’s discoveries or when Mastriano published his findings in the report that is no longer available on his web site. Mr Rickal cannot speak or read English - I know this personally having met the man on several occasions - so I am not sure that Rickal was able to read anything other than the French version of Mastriano’s report that is still available on his web site. That is not a very objective endorsement if it really is an endorsement at all. In 2009 Mr Rickal made a statement to Mr van Meulebrouck in his article found in the Western Front Association’s publication Bulletin - Number 84 – June/July 2009 – Hot on the York Trail: ''“That is strictly between the two teams. I have no idea who is right.”'' This is in stark contrast to the letter of endorsement he issued to Mastriano.

The mayor of a very small French village is not qualified to endorse such findings in the first place. The regional director of archaeology for the Champagne-Ardennes, Mr Yves Defossés, is qualified to make such an endorsement and not only has he not endorsed Mastriano’s findings he had this to say in the Western Front Association’s publication Bulletin - Number 84 – June/July 2009 – Hot on the York Trail: “His (Mastriano’s) ''methodology appeared not to be particularly accurate. At that point he asked me for a permit for further research, but I turned him down.” Mr Defossés goes on to say: “I met Mastriano only once, and I told him at the time that I did not agree with his methods.” and adds: “Mastriano was already convinced that he had found the exact spot. That's where he looked, and that is also where he found those twenty-one cartridges. Of course, that is much too obvious. Clearly it was not an objective investigation. Nolan took a scientific approach. And at the spots where his team worked, one will still be able to carry out archaeological research in the future, while Mastriano ruined his research site.” Defossés then says: “And if the members of the SYDE fail to see that they have destroyed a part of their own historical heritage, then that, of course, is their problem.”''MeuseArgonne (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

French Military Mission to NATO Letter:

The French military liaison team at NATO did issue a letter to COL Mastriano. This letter does not endorse anything related to Mastriano’s research. Since Mastriano does not supply a translated copy of this letter in English readers who cannot read and understand French do not know the real meaning of this letter. In the Western Front Association’s publication Bulletin - Number 84 – June/July 2009 – Hot on the York Trail Mr van Meulebrouck states the following: ''“True enough, the site does include the copy of a letter in French. But that letter endorses nothing. It is merely an internal memo concerning Mastriano's request to be allowed to build the trail."''MeuseArgonne (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Penn Warren
One or more anonymnous users have now deleted the paragraph about Robert Penn Warren's novels several times. I expect this is due to sloppy editing and not intentional, but that's no excuse. Please explain why you object the the paragraph or edit with care. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Robert Penn Warren used York as the model for characters in two of his novels, both explorations of the burden of fame faced by battlefield heroes in peacetime. In At Heaven's Gate (1943), a Tennessee mountaineer who has won the Congressional Medal of Honor in World War I returns from combat, becomes a state legislator, and then a bank president. Others exploit his decency and fame for their own selfish ends as the novel explores the real-life experience of a old-fashioned hero in a cynical world. In The Cave (1959), a similar hero from a comparable background has aged and become an invalid. He struggles to maintain his identity as his real self diverges from the robust legend of his youth.[85] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drhistory1918 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Site dispute
The section titled "Site of Sergeant York's Medal of Honor action" was written (not by me) after much discussion which can be read above. Changes to it should acknowledge the work required to craft the language that has now been in place for several months. If you ave new information that suggests a serious revision, please share it here first after reading the earlier discussions and most of all this policy: NPOV. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored it yet again. As I read it the information seems IMO to relay the information in an NPOV fashion and I believe it is an important detail in the history of the individual, event and location and should remain. --Kumioko (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Birdie - I have watched this debate for some time and think that you should give a little on this page. Although assuming good attentions - not sure how you find the time to waste going back and forth on this - could use your help over here if you have abundant time on your hands. Honestly, I think it beneath a member of this fine institution to stoop to this level. I saw the change that you object to, and honestly can't see what the problem is. I suggest that you show magnanimity and leave it be. It is a bit obsessive/compulsive to insist on your way otherwise. Let the readers decide. Enough already! See you in the funny pages Birdie.GOMTSU (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Church affiliation
Can someone change the link to 'American members of the Church of Christ'? York was a member of the "CHurches of Christ in Christian Union" which is totally separate from the Churches of Christ. (Yeah, I know... the name is confusing)... Thanks... Etfjr (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. You are absolutely right. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

new link
York's son recalls war hero http://www.murfreesboropost.com/sgt-yorks-son-recalls-humble-hero-of-war-cms-26647 rumjal 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

captured 32 machine guns
32 machine guns are 4 machine gun companies and was the equipment of a whole infantry division, spreaded over a front line of about 1 to 3 kilometers. They never where gathered at one place (why should they?) And what did he do with the guns? bringing home? how? -- Waterthrower (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

citation of mother's religion
According to Doug Mastriano, military historian with the Army, she and Alvin were associated with the Pentecostal church. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igstXxepsMs I'm not too adept at editing or citing this stuff, so I figured I'd just post the reference in here. 71.34.242.178 (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Controversy over "doubt" section
Contributor 74.129.76.107 wants to include the following section. I believe it's biased, and not encyclopedic.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Doubt over York's Claims

Early on doubt and speculation began to surface over whether or not the events York described had actually taken place. The New York Times reported in 2006 that groups of researchers attempted to map out the various points and geographical locations that York's diary had mentioned, and while some locations matched, others did not. Researchers found this lack of consistency in describing locations, along with other self-contradictions found within York's published diary, as cause to debate where exactly the Action Site was, and if the Site and York's acts were even legitimate. In addition, Corporal William Cutting, whom was present with York at the time, had long since claimed that the Germans had surrendered to him and not York, and that the story was falsified. Official German research stated that for a variety of reasons York could not have accomplished what his diary claimed he had single-handedly on that one day.

York himself was bemused by the mythical status attributed to him and rejected his image as a hero. Though he penned a true diary of his actions in the War, his family never allowed it to be published; instead, Tom Skeyhill, an Australian soldier, author, and friend of York, assisted him in writing up another version of his diary meant for publication and sale, which today makes up most available knowledge of York and his exploits. Skeyhill was later accused of embellishing the published work with exaggerations and Appalachian-esque dialogue in order to create a more exciting book and Americana hero image of York. Whereas York had surviving soldiers under his command, Skeyhill's work and the later film portrayed York acting alone with no assistance.

After extensive research and a geological survey of the area in which York's feats were supposedly accomplished, a group known as "The Sergeant York Discovery Expedition" found 46 American rifle rounds at or around the position York claimed to have fired from, and later identified 23 .45 ACP rounds fired from a Colt 1911 handgun, where York claimed to have repelled a German bayonet charge of six soldiers with his pistol. The rounds were linked back to York's own firearms, and pieces of German ammunition and weaponry were found where the men York claimed to have captured laid down their arms. While it remained unknown whether or not York had done all he claimed in exact detail, it was determined that his location and reported firearm discharges were truthful, as was a German surrender.


 * User in question chiming in here. Sorry, but it's from the NY Times, and it even sources a group biased IN FAVOR of York. Just because you yourself think it's biased doesn't make it so.


 * 74.129.76.107 (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have serious problems with the edits, and I have serious problems with the Times article. As one example of my concerns, Craig S. Smith claims in the Times article that York's diary was never published, and that the York/Skeyhill book is really Skeyhill's embellished account.  I found numerous references which state explicitly that York showed Skeyhill York's diary, and that Skeyhill used it as the core of the York/Skeyhill work.  Examples: Sgt. York: His Life, Legend & Legacy  Sergeant York: An American Hero


 * After the Times article was published, Mastriano's expedition found all 21 .45 shell casings from the pistol rounds York fired were found right where he said he was, as were numerous other artifacts which corroborate York: The York Gallery. In addition, the Mastriano expedition found artifacts which can be identified by unit designation or soldier name as belonging to Germans who were in the fight against the unit to which York belonged, and who subsequently surrendered: Wilhelm Härer artifacts


 * In addition to that, the claims of York's main detractors, Early and Cutting/Merrithew, have also been pretty well discredited.


 * All in all, I think there's much to argue against Craig Smith's New York Times article, and little to commend it.


 * Billmckern (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the desire to question the historical record unless and until evidence which contradicts that record comes to light. The documentation confirming York's exploits has been presented here and needs no further defense. John F Jamele (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the only source supporting the doubt of York's claims is a New York Times article from 2006, while there is significant evidence supporting the history as currently written in this article. Until and unless there is a more authoritative source supporting doubts of York's actions, the article should not reference them. User:Gobodge (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited the sections on the controversy and the effort to locate the Medal of Honor site, and added references. I hope this is more accurate, precise, and concise.
 * Billmckern (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Alvin C. York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061021060444/http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/misc/alvinyork.html to http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/histprof/misc/alvinyork.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121020062145/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/arotc/_files/pdf/Cadets/cadet_ribbons.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/arotc/_files/pdf/Cadets/cadet_ribbons.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lead is too long
The lead of this article needs to be seriously trimmed. Most featured articles have 4 paragraphs or less for a lead, while this articles has 13. Kaldari (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * -- See if you like the edits I just made. I removed some material, re-worded some, and reorganized the paragraphs.


 * Billmckern (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alvin York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071115223101/http://www.matadorrecords.com/laura_cantrell/biography.html to http://www.matadorrecords.com/laura_cantrell/biography.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614215333/http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/legacy/legacy_v14n1.pdf to http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/legacy/legacy_v14n1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)