Talk:Sergeant York (film)

Gun
The trivia section mentions "gun x was used in the film, but it was really gun y" twice and gives two different sets of firearms. Anyone know which is correct? &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC) When the fight began York was lying on the ground. But as the entire line of German guns came into the fight, he raised himself to a sitting position so that his gun would have the sweep of all of them. When the Germans found they could not "get him" with bullets, they tried other tactics. Off to his left, seven Germans, led by a lieutenant, crept through the bushes. When about twenty yards away, they broke for him with lowered bayonets. The clip of York's rifle was nearly empty. He dropped it and took his automatic pistol. So calmly was he master of himself and so complete his vision of the situation that he selected as his first mark among the oncoming Germans the one farthest away. He knew he would not miss the form of a man at that distance. He wanted the rear men to fall first so the others would keep coming at him and not stop in panic when they saw their companions falling, and fire a volley at him. He felt that in such a volley his only danger lay. They kept coming, and fell as he shot. The foremost man, and the last to topple, did not get ten yards from where he started. Their bodies formed a line down the hillside.
 * I haven't seen the film, but the article says that Gun x was used to shoot 7 Germans, and gun y was used to capture Germans. Since shooting and capturing are different, I'm removing the self-contradiction notice. --Fakeisthenewreal —Preceding undated comment added 16:42, 20 February 2007.
 * The film shows him using a Luger? Because the 1911 .45 "wouldn't fire blanks"??? Both are hand guns, and horrible at range. If he were that close (less than 40 yards), the enemy would have dispatched him in the first 30 seconds. I have always read that he was using a rifle. Don't recall ever hearing the make and model. He most assuredly did NOT pick off multiple enemy, and march out 132 prisoners, after subdueing them with a .45 pistol. It was a good weapon, and he was a good shot, but that canNOT be the weapon he used in his exploit. --68.228.81.58 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously makes more sense if you saw the movie, which I have years ago. The scene referred to is when several Germans charge him at close range and try to bayonet him, but he shoots them all down with a pistol.  I recall reading about this something along the lines of he shot them in order from the ones at the rear first, so the ones in front didn't realize that they were in danger until it was too late, although this isn't mentioned in the Alvin York article. It is mentioned here:
 * from Sergeant York And His People, which is linked to in the York article.
 * The movie shows York picking off the machine gun crews with a rifle, which is "just like shooting turkeys", a reference to a turkey hunt he is shown participating in before the war, even using a turkey call to get one German to show himself, the same way he got a turkey to do so. -- Broken Sphere Msg me 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

References in popular media
I undid the edit that removed this section. I think sections like these add to the article and demonstrate how 'well known' the referenced person or media is. If you have a good argument against this, then let's talk it out before we resort to edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.123.114 (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ''The following contrib is reformatted from a single 'graph into its contr'r's implicit outline structure. The bolding of "First" and "Second"
 * I deleted the two entries in the "In Popular Media" section for several reasons, which are expanded here on what was written in the deletion's summary statement.
 * First issue involves WP:Verifiability. Although the movies have linked Wikipedia pages, the specific statements cannot be verified by ordinary means—without renting the DVD and watching the movie.  The Inglourious Basterds entry was pretty neutral, but the Me, Myself & Irene entry appeared at first to be a vandal's attempt to insert an obscene weasel word.  It could well be a true quote; it just could be verified, by me at least using ordinary means.  And since no reference was provided so that the quote could be checked out (like IMDb), I considered it unsourced information.  If  the community of editors allows unsourced material on this or other sites, the vandals will have a field day—In Donald Duck's 1942 Donald Gets Drafted, Donald tells the recruitment sergeant: "I wanta kill freaking rabbits just like Sergeant York did back in WWI." (Hey, this is kinda fun!)
 * Second, there is the issue of WP:Notability; just the mention of Sergeant York's name does not render an entry as notable, to me at least. Ges, if that were the case, an industrious contributor could come up with a thousand referenced referrals to Sergeant York's name just by searching Google Books.  There is simply not enough room for trivial entries.  So I still stand by my January 7 deletion of the section with its current contents.  I do feel that a "In Popular Media" section could provide valuable information and insight if properly handled regarding notability and verifiability.
 * Enough said; I'll leave it to others to decide to keep the section as is or not. I will, however, continue to delete any Donald Duck entries. Pinethicket (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You bring up good points. Although the Me, Myself & Irene quote IS on IMDB - that's where I was able to find the word for word quote. You can delete the section or whatever. I'm cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.123.114 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, 99.154.123.114, for providing that info. I was just reading up on WP:Profanity, which provides a good example on how to handle the unnecessary profanity in a quotation--essentially by paraphrasing.  So a reference and paraphrasing would alleviate most of my concerns.  I have seen some articles that imbed guidelines for inclusion for items under peripheral sections like this, but with only two currently existing, maybe that will not be a problem.  Let's see what other editors say, and "if no snakes come outa the woodpile" in a respectable period of time, I'll do the paraphrase and add the reference.  Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The snake in the wood pile is that the quote does not currently exist on the official quotes list of IMDb. This trivia stuff is just not worth the effort and I am deleting the entries.  If the entries are restore, make sure they follow the WP guidelines cited above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinethicket (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 January 2010

Where "sergeant york" searches go
I searched for sergeant york expecting information on him, not this film. I think "sergeant york" should redirect to Alvin C. York and this page should be titled "sergeant york (film)". It is probable that the vast majority of "sergeant york" searches are, like mine, looking for the man and not the movie. Thoughts?

In.Lumine.Tuo.Videbimus.Lumen (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a link to Alvin C. York in the first sentence, so I don't see this as a large inconvenience. Also, what about those people who search for "Sergeant York" and want the film? HairyWombat 21:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute on Rifle
I question whether Middle Tennessee State University has the ACTUAL rifle used by York in WWI. That rifle was undoubtly turned in when he was discharged from the Army. Allthough issued a Model 1917, York was adament that on the day in question he was using an '03 Springfield as he preferred the front sight on that model as being easier with which to obtain a sight picture. This was confirmed by his sons in an interview with the American Rifleman, a monthly publication of the National Rifle Association. The article appeared in 2010 or 2011. The article stated that some soldiers "traded" their 1917's for '03's by going up to a bunch of 'stacked rifles' while the soldiers who had stacked them were in the mess tent or otherwise occupied and "trading" rifles. It is not known if this was the means by which York could have obtained his '03, but it is one explaination. He may have simply actually traded whth another soldier who wanted a 1917. 70.246.233.111 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In 2006, Professor Tom Nolan of Middle Tennessee State University (Alvin York Project 2006) Phone #615-898-2375, fired the M1917 rifle held by MTSU, examined and saved the empty shell casings. He then went to the battle site and found empty shell casing matching those that he fired from the M1917 rifle held by MTSU. While I have no doubt that York used an M1903 at some point during the war, the archaeological evidence proves that he not only used an M1917 on October 8th, 1918, but the actual M1917 held by MTSU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved and not moved, respectively. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

– The Academy-award-winning 1941 film is based on the life of Alvin C. York, who was the actual Sergeant York. The biography page about Alvin C. York actually has higher page view counts than the film that was based on his life! (The page counts are 34 thousand for the biography article versus 22 thousand for the film in the last 90 days.) There was also an anti-aircraft tank called the Sergeant York, which was named after Alvin York, and the article on that topic also has substantial page view counts (14 thousand in the last 90 days). Moreover, there is York the explorer, who was posthumously granted the rank of honorary sergeant in the United States Army by Bill Clinton. If there is a primary topic here, it is the man, not the film. BarrelProof (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) *Oppose. The readers who are not satisfied with our article on the film can be handled with a hatnote. None of them are looking for a DAB. Warum? (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sergeant York → Sergeant York (film)
 * Sergeant York (disambiguation) → Sergeant York
 * Yes and no. The first part is fine, but Sergeant York should redirect to Alvin C., with a hatnote to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Support redirect of Sergeant York to Alvin C. York and moving current page to Sergeant York (film). Definitely the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any justification that you could provide for saying that the film should be considered the primary topic rather than the man? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. When I googled, I got seven results for the film and three for the soldier. Warum? (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well of course, lots of companies are flogging the DVD. That's a flawed measuring stick. If you ignore the commercial links and concentrate on the significant hits, the man prevails. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Production notes
none whatsoever; research, comments. Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Ernest Borgnine
...appears in film (uncredited) at 1:58 as one of the soldiers gossiping about York (he's the one with the mustache; the face is impossible to miss.) Ajpajpajp1 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)