Talk:George S. Patton

Template:FAOL

Name Change

Wikipedia should change the title of the page to "George Patton Jr." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southconfederate (talk • contribs)

because... (John User:Jwy talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrofit topic year headers

23-Sep-2008: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2006" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Also, new topics will more likely be added at the bottom, not top. Afterward, I moved 7 topics into date order, and shortened auto-sign bot comments. When more unsigned entries are dated, they should be moved into date order. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about

You people are all jerks! Don't be talking down to this man! You should all respect him for what he has done for this country! The reason that I say this is because I have personal relations to him. He was my Great Great Grandfather's cousin once removed. I'm not lying. Yes he was gruesome, but come on people! He somewhat saved us and we should all be proud of him.

CitCat101 Denver, Co. -[Username:CitCat101] October 1 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CitCat101 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC) CitCat101 (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia attempts to describe things and people as they are/were. I'm not exactly sure what you are reacting to, but if it is a cited item in the article, then it should remain. Inappropriate comments here on the talk page, well - ignore them. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Was Patton murdered because he refused to de-nazify fast enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.199 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Split off proposal

Anybody object to moving the controversies and criticism section to a separate article? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? (John User:Jwy talk) 07:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it's a long article. See WP:Article size. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a very bad idea. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view, including criticism. Moving criticism to a separate article and deleting it from this article would almost certainly violate that policy. Some of the material in that section should be better integrated with the rest of the article. For example, "After the German surrender" and "Task Force Baum controversy" - there's no reason why those need to be taken out of chronological order. This article now has a little over 10,000 words. That's long but not excessive. Reviewing the artilce, I don't see any sections that are obvious candidates for splitting out, but the "Relations with Eisenhower" section is quite long and thinly sourced. The "Trivia" section mostly involves his guns, and that might be split into a short article, something like "Patton's guns". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates WP:NPOV, since I wasn't asking for the material to be deleted, just summarized and relocated. However, upon reconsideration, the controversies had such a major influence on Patton's life that I now agree they should stay where they are. IMO, Patton's guns aren't in themselves worth an article, but maybe they could be incorporated in something more inclusive, possibly George S. Patton's public image? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No need for any kind of split. This article isn't too long. Binksternet (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pistol shooting contreversy

The article states, "In pistol shooting, Patton placed 20th out of 32 contestants. He used a .38 caliber pistol, while most the other competitors chose .22 caliber firearms. He claimed that the holes in the paper from early shots were so large that some of his later bullets passed through them, but the judges decided he missed the target completely once."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a .38 caliber bullet would leave a bigger hole than a .22 caliber bullet.Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The holes in Patton's target were all the same size; they were all made by his own .38 bullets. Nobody shares target papers at a competition of this caliber (pun intended). I wonder where the proof is that Patton complained about how large his holes were--they all would have been a bit larger than the diameter of his bullets, and he would not have been surprised by this! At any rate, the difference between .38 and .22 would not matter. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mrs. Patton?

Patton had a wife, but I seem to notice that she seems even more obscure than Lady Nelson. Her name isn't in the article, and truthfully, I haven't seen it anywhere. Even if they formally or informally separated, she was still an important part of his life and should mentioned. V. Joe (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Beatrice Banning Ayer. It's in there. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 15:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wilcox

It looks like its worth having a place to discuss the new book. All I know about it is what I have read here, but I am interested in making sure it takes only the "appropriate" amount of space in the article. Several paragraphs seems too much. And to me, no mention at all is NOT too little, but I am uninformed at the moment. But before edit wars start, it looks like the book should be discussed here. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit wars have started already. Sad. Mass deletions without consensus are not the way to get this done. --El Ingles (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But assume good faith and presume they need further evidence that the text belongs here. That's the way to get things done. (John User:Jwy talk) 19:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If the Wilcox section goes back in it must not contain the original research and synthesis conclusion that it first had, the one which refutes Wilcox without referring to an expert opinion of somebody else who refutes Wilcox. Binksternet (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One book, which seems to borrow heavily from an admitted fictional movie is not worth any space here. If there is an article on this book on Wikipedia, and someone wishes to link to it in this article, I have no problem with that. But I still say as long as there is NO other evidence beyond this ONE book, it doesn't belong. Fred8615 (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the book has been reviewed by a RS, the self confessed alleged assassin has impeccable credentials and that no one has so far refuted the claim warrants it's inclusion. This edit gives adequate weight for the claim and should comply with an guidelines for such material. Saying the claim is stupid is not a valid reason for exclusion (and a violation of WP:NPA). Wayne (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the "assassin" died several years ago, and thus can't confirm or deny the story now. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, you can't include every crackpot theory that comes along. Especially one that is so obviously based on a fictional movie. Fred8615 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, it is not the Wilcox book that is being included in Wiki but the rumours emanating from that book. Those rumours are already in the public domain, including an article in the prestigious London Telegraph. You ignore those rumours at your peril because they will certainly get picked up by future scholars – just Google Wilcox/Patton. Therefore I submit it is beholden on Wiki to include a refutation to set the record straight for the great upcoming future. My own humble offering you edited out. It needs tidying but it does set up strong counters to Wilcox’s shooting and conspiracy arguments.BillMaddock (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Fred, we are not including all crackpot ideas just one, and including it in order to refute it and set the record straight for future scholars. I don’t think Wiki will be taken any less seriously by the inclusion of one crackpot idea in the service of demolishing the said crackpot idea. In fact it could be argued that Wiki is being remiss if it did not deal with the Wilcox conjecture, which is becoming an established rumour, however much you dislike that rumour.BillMaddock (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe including it just to refute it "gives" it at least some credability. I know ignoring it won't make it go away, but that doesn't mean it should be acknowledged either. As I've said, a mention of the book, with a link to an article on it I have no problem with. Something like what's done with the 9/11 conspiracy theories, where they're presented in a separate article. But including the theory in the article itself, even to refute it, is not right I feel. Fred8615 (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favour of restoring the theory, without giving it undue weight. I'm a bit baffled by the "just because it's in a book doesn't make it a fact" argument. Why doesn't this apply equally to the hundreds of thousands of other books referenced by wikipedia? --El Ingles (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not so much that as it's in ONE book. No one has ever proposed this before now that I've heard. If there is more evidence than just some alleged assassin's diary, which could be nothing more than the ravings of a delusional mind, or even fake, then maybe it deserves some mention. I'm also extremely bothered by how this whole thing matches the film "Brass Target," with only a change in motive for Patton's death. Or does this author believe that movie WAS an attempt to tell the "real story" the same way people who think the Moon landings were faked believe Capricorn One was really about that, not the faked Mars mission portrayed? Fred8615 (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, now I see your point: You don’t want the Wilcox conjecture given too much prominence. Give me a few days and I’ll précis down what I wrote. I’ll include it in the main Patton article and see if you are OK with it. In the meantime, a Merry Christmas. It is three hours into Christmas day here in Sydney, Australia and Santa has been and gone and delivered, yo ho, ho.BillMaddock (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, done. Hope you like and approve. Until someone else "out there" pens a rebuttal to Wilcox then this will have to be it. All the best.BillMaddock (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the Wilcox book debunked as much as anyone else, but how in the hell can a book from 1978 debunk a book from 2008? The new book Target Patton is going to need a new debunking expert quote, not a synthesis from facts presented in 1978 in Patton's Third Army At War. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Birksternet, Firstly the 1978 book is not debunking Wilcox: it is quoted as the source from which I quote the details between 9 December and 19 December 1945. Secondly there is no expert quote available, as of yet. This is it. Find something better by all means, but until then, my expertise it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMaddock (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Birksternet, I have undone your minor edit of the Forty reference. It would be a courtesy to me and save time if in future you would first discuss with me and reach agreement before editing my piece. At the very least I will learn something and thereby benefit. Thanks.BillMaddock (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I would still prefer a link to a separate article than going through it here. But in the absence of such an article, I guess I can live with this. I still personally believe this theory is too stupid to even be worth mentioning at all. Fred8615 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thx FredBillMaddock (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This story isn't coming out of the blue. I heard it more than 30 years ago when it was thought possible the OSS or Russians may have done it. It is known that Pattons wife believed he was assassinated because he asked her to get him out of the hospital because he thought some one was trying to kill him. The new book is only an new take on an old theory. As for the "rebuttal" it goes too far, saying no one noticed is OR. How could Patton tell anyone he was shot? People who dont know shooting is going on often dont realise they have been shot until told. That no one noticed is not uncommon either. I've heard of cases where people were shot and even the doctors overlooked it until autopsy and Patton was not autopsied. I recall a very recent case where I live. A man was shot in the leg by a neighbor and reported it to police. The doctors decided he had not been shot so the police didn't investigate and the neighbor again shot but this time killed the man several weeks later. Turns out he had not only been shot the first time but the bullet was still lodged in his leg. That investigation is still ongoing. The rebuttal should confine itself to stating there is no evidence to support it. Wayne (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"The rebuttal should confine itself to stating there is no evidence to support it." No, that's an impossible position to hold. The rebuttal should confine itself to an expert opinion baldly stating that the Wilcox theory is bunk. Bringing together odd elements that together must be made to add up to a rebuttal is sheer WP:SYNTHESIS. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Binksternet,

“The rebuttal should confine itself to an expert opinion baldly stating that the Wilcox theory is bunk.” There is no such expert opinion extant at the moment.

“Bringing together odd elements that together must be made to add up to a rebuttal”. This is not what I have done. What I have done is to list facts inconsistent with the Wilcox hypothesis; the Forty reference is simply there to substantiate those facts.

Finally, please come up with something better or I suggest you just accept it. Time might well provide something better.BillMaddock (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperfect though it is, I like to think that my rebuttal has the merit of being the least of all evils. It may just influence the next journalist who “lifts” the original Telegraph article: he’ll at least have something to Wiki on the subject. As I have said before, if you can find something better, then by all means…

However, it is good that we are mostly in agreement for I feel we may soon have to show a united front to one who does not share our distaste of his book.BillMaddock (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Imperfect, indeed! Let's start with the statement that Bazata got a troop truck to plough into Patton's Cadillac. The ploughing was done by the Cadillac, into the troop truck, when the truck turned left abruptly into the Cadillac's path. The road was flat and straight at that point. How the military driver could make such an error and what he was doing out on the road with two civilian passengers has never been adequately explained. According to Wilcox, his own children describe the driver as a man of very low character who would do anything for money. The damage to the front of the Cadillac doesn't look anything to me like the wreck was sufficiently severe for someone in the back seat to have suffered a broken neck and severe head injuries, either. It looks a lot like the front of my pick-up last year when a driver in the stopped lane on my right suddenly decided to get into my slowly-moving lane. My truck and the other driver's car were the only things hurt. Wilcox also writes about two previous suspicious "accidents" involving Patton, Army intelligence reports from Ukrainian partisans that the NKVD had plans to kill Patton, the disappearance of all the relevant investigation records from the archives, the suspicious background and behavior of the driver of the jeep leading Patton's party on its hunting trip, the disappearance of Patton's Cadillac, and much, much more. All of these things would have to be explained away to debunk Wilcox's book. Debunking a paid liar and admitted assassin like Bazata is shooting fish in a barrel. For all we know his purpose may have been to mislead serious researchers by making outlandish and unsupportable claims. His claim that he rigged the rear right window of the Cadillac so that it couldn't be closed when the car was stopped on a detour of some Roman ruins even Wilcox finds hard to believe. It's almost as hard to believe as the official story. FloydSmif (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Floyd, I am not sure what you are trying to prove. What I have written is that the shooting theory does not stand examination and that Robert Wilcox has done this sort of thing before (Japan bomb claim). You seem to be constructing a conspiracy built on other matters while ignoring the reasons I have given that indicate the shooting did not take place. If you can, please explain how the shooting took place in the light of reasons I give that it did not. Thx. (PS, Patton broke his neck by being thrown forward and hitting his head on something metal protruding from the ceiling or car partition – I’d need to look up which.)BillMaddock (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill, you would have to look for a very long time to find out what Patton hit his head on, because no one up to now seems to know. Isn't that odd? Get back to us when you find any account of an investigation that determined just what it was. It shouldn't have been too hard to match its outline with the damage to Patton's head. This is hardly a small matter when you consider the fact that it was a low-speed collision and no one else in the vehicle was hurt, apparently not even the dog that was riding in the front seat ahead of Patton. Furthermore, the collision was to the right front of the Cadillac. Patton would have been thrown forward and to the right, hitting a glancing blow against the door and window. I can't picture that inflicting such greivous injuries. There's nothing over there to stop his momentum so abruptly. As for no one noticing an assassin jumping out from the right side of the road and timing his shot probably just before the low-speed collision, there's no surprise in that at all. Your injection of your opinion that any of those people in the car, whose attention would have been riveted upon the impending crash, would have to have noticed a shooter from the side simply has no place in a Wikipedia article. You also misrepresent Bazata and Wilcox by calling the projectile that Bazata says he fired as a "bullet." Bazata describes it as a large object propelled from the muzzle of a specially-made assassin's weapon that would not be readily identified as the cause of the wound. The fact that apparently none of the surviving photographs of the damaged Cadillac show the right rear window is also curious. And I notice that you have not yet corrected your erroneous statement about the troop truck plowing into Patton's car. It's not good for one's credibility when he is apparently comfortable with falsehoods. As for the Wilcox track record, what about the track record of the Roosevelt-Truman administrations and the degree of its infiltration by and sellout to the Communists, which Wilcox describes. On that point, if I would fault Wilcox it is that he did not go far enough. He reports that Roosevelt blew off his top security adviser, Adolf Berle, when Berle presented him with evidence of a high level Soviet spy ring in his government in 1939, but he fails to indicate how strong the evidence was and how large was the spy ring. Just a couple of pages later, apparently forgetting what he had said before, he writes that in 1943 FDR must not have known how Communist-infiltrated his government was. He also talks about the the suspicions of General George E. Stratemeyer that both Patton's death and the death of the fiercly anti-Communist Defense Secretary James Forrestal were assassinations. He fails to mention the revelations of the official investigation of Forrestal's death, made public for the first time in 2004, that strongly suggest that Stratemeyer's suspicions about Forrestal's death, at least, were correct. FloydSmif (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since "exceptional claims require high-quality sources," I'd be interested in seeing more sources, including academic ones - rather than just putting in the single source and rebutting it. (John User:Jwy talk) 06:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of interesting notes: First, there is not one single mention of any of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories in the FDR article, despite the fact they are older and more prevalent, and just as stupid. So there is a Wiki precedent for ignoring these kind of things in a bio article. Second, I see someone added a link to the article about Japan's WWII a-bomb program which includes Wilcox's earlier book which claims Japan actually detonated its own a-bomb only a few days after Hiroshima and Nagasaki! It includes the debunking of this claim too. It appears to me that Wilcox is nothing more than a sensationalist hack!! Therefore I'm giving serious consideration, based on these two items, to deleting the entire section. And keeping it out permanently. Fred8615 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, it was I who added the Japan bomb reference.

I honestly do not know how to answer you any longer. Time and time again you keep trying to win on this (see rumour regarding his death above). Your latest entry doesn’t make sense to me: it seems to be another of your view-based arguments. Your latest argument seems to be that because Wilcox is a sensationalist hack we should ignore him: well, the rest of the world is not ignoring him. Wiki has a duty to set the record straight yet you wish to abrogate that responsibility, simply it seems to me because you’ve dug your feet in.

I am relatively new to Wiki discussions so I am at a loss to understand why when the two of us have a difference of opinion then you should feel that yours should hold sway and that you should permanently censor my effort, which I have gone to no small trouble over.

In my defence, and I have no defence if you are determined to have your way, I would refer you to what you said earlier: As I've said, a mention of the book, with a link to an article on it I have no problem with. And as I have said there is no such article extant at the moment. If you are determined to have your way then it will mean you are the one who by an act of omission is furthering the Wilcox theory and is thereby indirectly giving it credence; at least until such an article becomes available.

Rather than be destructive, if you wish, why don’t you be constructive and write your own separate article and include my stuff? Until then, why not allow another’s opinion and just leave well enough alone.

This has gone on too long. If I have failed to convince you then please submit this thing to Wiki arbitration. Thank you.BillMaddock (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What should be in Wikipedia is primarily based on what is verifiable via good sources. Arguing the points and evidence among yourselves is original research and is, well, irrelevant. And as I quote above "exceptional claims require high-quality sources" and this is certainly an exceptional claim. I would like to see more than one source (we only have Wilcox and new articles reporting the content of what he says). In my opinion, that is not enough. If a university press book or journal (for example) were to support Wilcox's claims, I would be more open to it. But as it currently stands, I don't think we have enough good sources to include this "exceptional" material. I suspect any mediation or arbitration would focus on that aspect - not on what you have discussed above about the "facts" of the man's death. (John User:Jwy talk) 02:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwy: THERE IS NO ARTICLE, THERE IS NO ARTICLE, THERE IS NO ARTICLE. By your reasoning therefore we say nothing and leave the field to this preposterous Wilcox conspiracy theory, in full knowledge he has done it before. The choice is yours: in twenty years from now, when you're sitting around the fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great Wilcox debate, you won't have to shift him to the other knee, cough, and say, "I shovelled shit in Louisiana." This thing has gone on too long that it has become ridiculous. Please put it to arbitration.BillMaddock (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I must not have made myself clear. Wilcox is the single source and his conspiracy the "exceptional claim" I am talking about. I think the section should be removed. (John User:Jwy talk) 03:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwy Should you wish to censor my article then, out of courtesy to me for the time I have put into all this, please first put in motion the arbitration process. Thank you.BillMaddock (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not "your" article. It is "not censorship." I appreciate your time, but you also need to understand and follow the guidelines that have been established to make this a useful encyclopedia. Its not a place to simply impress grandchildren. There are other fora on the web to discuss things until they become citable here. If they are not verifiable and citable, they do not belong here. (John User:Jwy talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Jwy and Fred, I may have a solution (in about 4 days – New Years Eve must be paid homage). Have a look at the Foxnews story below, in particular the reference to Kevin Hymel (in 2008 a co-author with Blumenson [1]). If either of you wants, I can replace my part of this article with a short mention of the Wilcox theory and a reference to the Foxnews story. Let me know. [2] Foxnews story.BillMaddock (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jwy is right. Verifiability is one of the guidelines for articles. And since the major players in this are all dead, and the physical evidence is missing or destroyed, Wilcox's theory has the convenient (for him) attribute of not being 100% verifiable or disproved. Just like his Japanese a-bomb book, where the alleged test site is in North Korea, where no one can go and test for radioactivity or other evidence. Coincidence, or is he carefully picking and choosing his theories? Whatever the answer, he definitely has a history of extraordinary claims, which CANNOT (note I didn't say "are not") be backed by extraordinary evidence. One diary, possibly written by a delusional man or outright liar is not enough. Missing physical evidence or files is not evidence of a conspiracy. Making claims about people who are not alive to defend themselves is not evidence. News reports or reviews of this book are not acceptance of its theory. It's just reporting. Absent any other outside evidence, and given Wilcox's history, I just don't see why this HAS to be included in the article. Fred8615 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"One diary, possibly written by a delusional man or outright liar is not enough." This is not only OR but contradicts everything known about Bazata. He was not only an officer in the OSS during the war but before he died was a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain which is strong evidence against him being delusional or a liar. The war diary (and letters) are also not totally unsupported. Bazata gave a lecture on it in 1979 and another OSS officer Stephen Skubik has backed elements of his claim. The credibility of Wilcox does not count as the claims were made by Bazata not by Wilcox's interpretation of the diaries, all Wilcox did was look for evidence supporting him. That most major newspapers around the world have carried the story is not "just reporting", it means there are enough RS to include mention. Whether the claim is true or not is irrelevant given the facts we currently have as NO ONE has debunked the claims yet. Until someone does so in a RS, to personally debunk the claim in the article violates WP:OR and is unacceptable. Wayne (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, I agree completely with your conclusion that a Wikipedia article is not the place to debunk a published book, and certainly not when the debunking is based upon little more than opinion. That's hardly how an encyclopedia should read. Some of your "facts" about Bazata are wrong, however, apparently based upon an understandable misreading of the Tim Shipman article in The Telegraph. Bazata worked for John Lehman at one time, and it was Lehman who was later a member of the 9/11 commission and an adviser to John McCain. FloydSmif (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• • • Kind of hard to debunk when all the relavent people involved are dead. It also makes it harder for relatives to sue for libel or slander since they are not personally implicated. As for Bazara's record, it doesn't prove he's not a liar or delusional. And the credibility of Wilcox does count. He's the only person who took Bazata's diary and writings and made a book about it. Why? Fred8615 (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred and Wayne, have you looked at the Foxnews item that I referred to above and its reference to historian Kevin Hymel? Give me a few days and I’ll rewrite The Wilcox Shooting Conjecture segment in a way which will hopefully satisfy everyone. If you are still not happy then the rewritten segment can go to Wiki arbitration.BillMaddock (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilcox dispute summary and resolution

Short of arbitration being asked for above, there are other dispute resolution mechanism that should be tried. I started out trying to help mediate things, but do have my opinion on the matter and it might be better to find someone else. As I understand it, the issues are:

1. Whether the Wilcox theory should be included at all.
2. Whether the refutation of the theory should be included - and if so, in what form and with what citations.

As I mentioned before, discussing the "facts" of the case directly is original research and is not relevant here. Even if I had a time machine and could be sitting on the hood of the truck the whole time and saw it with my own eyes, it could not be used here until appropriately published. So the focus must be on the verifiable sources - which are appropriate to use and which are not.

I think you might want to choose some of the other dispute resolution processes first. In fact, the process requires that they are exhausted before arbitration. You might want to review the options and work through some of them. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, Jwy and Wayne,

I suggest that I replace The Wilcox Shooting Conjecture section with the following. Please OK it or edit it on this discussion page.

The Wilcox Shooting Conjecture

In a 2008 book "Target Patton", military historian Robert Wilcox claimed that OSS head General Wild Bill Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman Douglas Bazata, who died in 1999, to kill Patton because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives.

Military historian Kevin Hymel disagrees strongly with the Wilcox theory: "Yes, he did have enemies. But did he have enemies that were so afraid of him, that they would kill him?”[3]

See also Wilcox in Japanese nuclear weapons program. --- BillMaddock (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the misuse of words in the foregoing statement. What Robert Wilcox has offered in his book with respect to the supposed shooting is not conjecture. He has revealed the claims or the allegations of a rather remarkable man who said that he did the shooting, and who further explains how he did it and under whose orders. These allegations or claims may be contrasted with what, in the absence of evidence, is the conjecture that Patton's injuries were caused by his hitting his head on something or other in the car so strongly that his neck was broken, while the other passengers were virtually uninjured. The claims with respect to the shooting, I reiterate, are not those of Wilcox; they are Bazata's. Wilcox only reveals the claims. Fox News seems to have taken some liberty with the language as well. Could anyone other than a propagandist characterize that very equivocal statement by the miltary historian Hymel as strong disagreement? FloydSmif (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this. Fred8615 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Fred, possibly because of post-editing it is not clear what the “this” is that you like. Floyd I will change the word “conjecture” to claim. (Wilcox is claiming he has read the diaries, etc.) Other than that, if you are not happy and will not accept my draft as written above then the next step has to be that we go towards arbitration. Let me know. Thank you.BillMaddock (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone besides maybe Jwy read this: fringe theories? It was given as a possible reason the PH conspiracy theories are not mentioned in the FDR article. I now believe more than ever that this book can and should be ignored here. Fred8615 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What I have done is delete my original entry and substitute another. I have listened to the discussion here and have responded in a spirit of cooperation and compromise. If you substantially disagree with the new entry, then it would appear we cannot reach agreement. If you wish to make other than a minor edit then please submit my new entry to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Thank you.BillMaddock (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill, I'd still be interested in how you see the Wilcox story in relation to the fringe theory guidelines. Your focus seems to be to refute the Wilcox theory, so why mention it at all and give it more credence? That said, if it remains, doesn't it make more sense to move it down to the George S. Patton#Controversies and criticism section? I've also asked for someone from the Military History Project to take a look at the discussion. (John User:Jwy talk) 00:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Jwy, I don’t know how to say this pleasantly, but I will try. I want third-party appraisal, with full arbitration if it becomes necessary. I think the talk should finish. I cannot be expected to endlessly reply to suggestions like yours that Wilcox should be included in controversies and criticism. For heaven’s sake, you do not seem to even understand that controversies and criticism relates to events in which Patton was involved whereas Wilcox is the one being controversial here; I should not have to explain this.BillMaddock (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so aggravating. What I am trying to do is make sure you understand that Wikipedia is not a place to "right great wrongs," which seems to be your aim as you admit above. There may be reasons consistent with WP guidelines to include it and I encourage you to try to find and articulate those. I don't expect I will argue with you to the extent that it needs to go to arbitration. If I was that contentious about this I would have edited or deleted the text already. I don't plan to unless I there is more support from third-parties for such a move. (I also think I have more faith than you do that future historians and wikipedia editors will recognize fringe as fringe.)

And we can leave the move suggestion alone for now as secondary. I was only suggesting it as a way to get this item less prominence, even if it meant slightly repurposing that section.

In any event, DO have a Happy New Year! (John User:Jwy talk) 03:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet, Thank you for tidying it up. However, I do not understand why you removed the See also Wilcox in Japanese nuclear weapons program. An explanation would be appreciated.BillMaddock (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's easy. This is an article about Patton, not about Wilcox. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Binsternet, Thx for the reply. I think you are mistaken, and here is why:

In the Wiki Guideline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#.22See_also.22_section]] it states: These (the see alsos) may be useful for readers looking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. Peripherally is the operative word here.

I believe my See also provides important background on Wilcox and on a Wilcox theory and it is Wilcox that the segment is about. Therefore I request that you reinstate my See also.BillMaddock (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like everybody reading this article to click on Pat Boone who was, like Patton, a member of Kappa Alpha Order. It's important background on Boone. Just kidding... but you get the point. ;^) There are a ton of links to click on when reading a wiki article like this one, and it's up to the reader to decide which ones interest him or her. I think the best way to present the reader with a link to more information about Wilcox would be to write an article about him and make his name appear as a link here. The kind of bald connection you made that I removed appears to me to serve Wilcox and not Patton or the reader who came here to learn about the general. Binksternet (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

...And if Wilcox is not explained well enough here such that adequate understanding requires a reader to go elsewhere then the solution is to buttress him here so that he stands on his own or to remove him entirely. Binksternet (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it is simply your opinion against mine and since your opinion seems to be ill-reasoned I therefore intend to reinstate my See also. Before doing anything more, you might wish to consider deleting the See also Eisenhower and German POWs in the main body of the Patton article, on the grounds it contravenes your reasons. If you are still unhappy then before removing mine again, please refer our difference of opinion to an independent third party. BillMaddock (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

When I click on Eisenhower and German POWs, Patton shows up prominently in the third paragraph. When I click on Japanese nuclear weapons program there's nothing about Patton. Zilch. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Took another look at it and I honestly don't believe my reasoning to be awry. I'm taking out this 'See also' which doesn't touch Patton at all. Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You were asked not to delete before referring our dispute to a third party. Since I am not sure how to do this would you please refer our dispute to a third party. I should also like you to give me a good reason why you feel your opinion gives you the right to make a second deletion without going to third-party mediation? And please do not say, just because you think you’re right. We are now at the point where an independent third-party should decide this.BillMaddock (talk) 06:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The process is described here. (John User:Jwy talk) 07:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx. It took me a while to understand it. I think I got it. Our difference of opinion wil have to wait until the deletion matter with Fred is resolved.BillMaddock (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred, would you please stop deleting my Wilcox entry until the dispute is settled by independent person or persons. They can also rule on whether your reliance on WP:FRINGE is a misapplication of the rule in this instance.BillMaddock (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is never going to be settled. I'm interpeting wp:fringe one way, you another. We've discussed this to death with no resolution. And a third party is not official, it's just more opinions. Unless someone from Wikipedia officially tells me to stop, I'm going to keep to keep removing this section. Fred8615 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just to remind everyone - there is ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of ANY of the various "FDR knew beforehand but let it happen to get us into WWII" Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories in the FDR article. This despite the fact they are older and more widely distributed than this book. And you're not going to tell me no one in the history of Wikipedia has never tried to have them in there. So, I think I have precedent on my side. Fred8615 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Berean Hunter, If you wish to leave the article alone then please leave it alone as it originally stood. It is the subject of a third party request. That should be sufficient rather than engage in some other procedure. This should be a simple matter, not some Ben Hur production. Good God!! Is Wikipedia always like this?BillMaddock (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Berean Hunter PS. It is a simple matter: is Fred’s application of WP:FRINGE correct here or not? If the third party resolves it is not appropriate then my entry should stand. Let’s not have World War IV out of this.BillMaddock (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

It appears that a third opinion is desired on three issues: (1) Whether the wilcox theory should be excluded from the article as a fringe theory; (2) if it is included, should dissenting opinions from other historians be included; (3) should a link to the Japanese nuclear weapons program be included in a See Also section. I'll address each in turn:

1. Fringe theory On the face of it, the theory seems less than fringe since Wilcox appears to be a WW2 historian of sorts. However, the key test in 'finge-ness' is whether other historians lend credence to the theory. If there are no other reliable sources for the theory other than the theorizer, I suggest either dropping the theory or keeping it down to one line (without its own heading) in the Accident and death section. Perhaps the latter since the book has received some press. If there are other WP:RS (that may only find the theory credible), then the current content is probably fine.
2. "Dissenting opinions" Dissenting opinions from credible sources should be included while those from non-credible sources should be ignored.
3. See Also While the WP:See also criteria are quite vague, I think that the inclusion of a pointer to Japanese nuclear weapons program is unwarranted. While I agree that material that is peripherally related to the article can be included in the see also section, the japanese nuclear weapons article is not about Patton. Neither is it about Wilcox but, even if it were, I would still hesitate to point to material that was about a source unless that source was crucial to the article.

--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 22:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I thought my 3O was fairly complete (look for other sources that give credence to the wilcox theory) but here goes. A google search reveals few articles about the Wilcox theory. An article in the Telegraph (UK) and a couple of other newspapers. The New York Times doesn't have a review of the book. And, there seem to be no credible historians subscribing to this theory (or, at least, none that are presented here). My opinion is that the material be excluded as a fringe theory. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 18:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Park ;). My opinion is that the news about it has been small and will be short-lived. I was only introduced to the theory here. None of my usual sources reported the story. I am not an avid, constant news junkie, but I pay attention to the news more than the average American (not saying much, I admit). Stories about Patton would perk up my ears for a variety of reasons. If it is true the news coverage is small and short lived, I would suggest that nothing of Wilcox be included (your former, not latter, suggestion). IMHO. (John User:Jwy talk) 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking at this, I am wondering why this Wilcox thing is the subject of an edit war. I don't see any articles for Target Patton, Robert K. Wilcox, or Douglas Bazata in Wikipedia leading me to think that such issues as notability should be dealt with first. A brand new book with such a controversial claim will need to weather more time for academic peer review before it should be used as a credible source and Wikipedia isn't the venue for that to play out. Bill, I suggest you create the aforementioned articles if you think they meet the criteria for inclusion and continue the discussions there as this thing fleshes out with time...but the Wilcox section should not be in this article until more academic acceptance is evident and certainly not during the sales pitch time period. As for the See also for Japanese Nuclear program...it is a tangent, delete it also.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

One point I was going to make today. :-) Fred8615 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Park, you do us all a service.

3 See Also -- I concede.

1 and 2. Wilcox’s is not a Fringe Theory within the WP:FRINGE guidelines (see below). The theory is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, because mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. The Fox news story and Kevin Hymel is the independent mention. Both Wilcox and Hymel are prominent; both have published in excess of 25 historical books, Hymel at least once in co-authorship with Martin Blumenson, the acknowledged authority on Patton, and you don’t come better credentialed than that.

Therefore I submit that the first two paragraphs of my entry be reinstated. A heading or not, I leave to you.

Independent sources. From WP:FRINGE.

While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the notability and prominence of fringe theories are independent sources. For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe idea is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. It can also provide a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint.

BillMaddock (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunter, thank you for your input. Do you really think I want to create another article and thereby become the object of another edit war? The person who unilaterally deleted my entry started this war. In the outside world such unilateral action in the middle of a debate on the merits of the entry would be considered the height of arrogance. My first entry was long, so I changed it to three short referenced paragraphs, then to two and then someone started the edit war.

I’ve asked for a third opinion. Park is giving one. Can we leave it at that, please? BillMaddock (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I have no problem with an article on the book by itself nor a link to said article in the Patton article, and have said so many times. Second, reports or reviews of the book by the media are just that. If the only requirement for some crackpot theory to get into an article is for the media to mention it, that's a pretty low standard. Fred8615 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Appeal To Reason

Fred,

“If the only requirement for some crackpot theory to get into an article is for the media to mention it.” This is false and is not the case with the Wilcox claim, as you well know. The Wilcox book just highlights an assassination claim which has been around for years and is the subject of a film, and which tens, if not hundreds of thousands now know about and either believe it or believe that Wilcox, with a score of historical books written, does believe his theory.

You have relied on WP:FRINGE to strike out my entry even though WP:FRINGE supports my entry because (the eminently credentialed) military historian Hyems establishes the theory’s relevance. Except to say you disagree, you have not answered this point, which I repeat:

For example, when trying to decide whether a fringe idea is prominent enough for inclusion in a particular article on a mainstream subject, mention of the fringe theory in an independent source firmly establishes its relevance. It can also provide a guide for describing the relationship of the fringe idea to the mainstream viewpoint.

Thirdly, you don’t mind a whole article on the Wilcox claim but you do mind two short paragraphs on it elsewhere. At best this just doesn’t make sense and is a self-defeating non sequitur: at worst it is plainly disingenuous because you know that a separate whole article would itself become a matter of contention and lead to an editing dispute.

I have just seen something else you wrote:

"The issue is never going to be settled. I'm interpeting wp:fringe one way, you another. We've discussed this to death with no resolution. And a third party is not official, it's just more opinions. Unless someone from Wikipedia officially tells me to stop, I'm going to keep to keep removing this section. Fred8615 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)"

So, Fred, it doesn’t matter what others say, it has to be your way. Good faith or just plain my way at all costs stubbornness?

Mr Park, notwithstanding Fred’s refusal to accept your opinion, would you please indicate when you will give your third party decision on whether my two paragraphs should stand or whether Fred should edit it out. I am sorry you have to be put to so much trouble (only partly suck up, that, lol). You have, after all, given an interim opinion. I should add that this is the second time Fred has (I don’t like the phrase) done an edit war on someone else’s Wilcox entry (see late 2008 archives).

And finally Fred, in a spirit of multiculturalism, you will no doubt want to cross to Polish Wiki ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Patton ) and edit out: Odnaleziono dzienniki Roberta Wilcox'a zabójcy działającego na zlecenie Office of Strategic Services (OSS), poprzednika CIA. Według odnalezionych materiałów szefowie wywiadu amerykańskiego chcieli zabić Pattona, ponieważ groził on wyjawieniem porozumienia aliantów z Rosjanami. Kiedy generał dochodził do siebie po wypadku samochodowym amerykańscy oficjele mieli zezwolić radzieckim agentom NKWD na otrucie Pattona. BillMaddock (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That can be arranged. Be careful what you ask for...I see you have asked several times on this talk page for arbitration but you really don't want that (never been there have you?). With quotes like this.."At best this just doesn’t make sense and is a self-defeating non sequitur: at worst it is plainly disingenuous because you know that a separate whole article would itself become a matter of contention and lead to an editing dispute.", I don't believe things would go over very well. I would suggest that you should really rethink creating those articles...they might not make it past WP:CSD but that would in itself be revealing. Do you not think they are notable enough for articles? If you aren't willing to try, it reflects that they might not be notable enough for mention here...what is the sales of that book so far? And let's use the opportunity to focus on the edits and not other editors...better for everyone.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunter,

You are not making things any easier. I have already made my position plain about a separate article, but you insist on raising it again and again.

What does the That in your That can be arranged refer to?

I do want arbitration or a third party opinion or an official direction, which Fred has said is the only thing he will accept. Do it please. Let them decide whether Fred is correct and this is fringe or whether he is mistaken and this is not fringe: it is as simple as that.

Please explain exactly what the following refers to, otherwise it remains an innuendo: And let's use the opportunity to focus on the edits and not other editors...better for everyone.

It means *this*...(i.e. stop critiquing Fred and simply stick to discussing the subject at hand).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

My previous entry on this page exceeded five hundred words. It is disputes like this that will bring Wikipedia into disrepute far more than any errors, of which the Patton article contains at least one to my knowledge. Set that major error right? What, and risk having again to write thousands of words in an edit war? Not for the moment, thank you.

My God, the Wilcox claim is already in Polish Wikipedia: I just want Kevin Hymel’s denial in Wikipedia too.

BillMaddock (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the Polish Wiki. Inclusion there is inconsequential to the English Wiki. Other stuff exists. The That in my previous post means it might not be there much longer; the outcome here may have bearing there. I believe WP:FRINGE is properly applied by Fred.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunter,

Do everybody a favour, send this to arbitration. It is a simple matter: my two paragraphs are either fringe or they are not fringe. Your opinion doesn’t matter because Fred has stated he will accept only an official direction. Please send this to arbitration now. You have the expertise in arbitration that I don’t have. I have already shown I can handle it, having changed my original entry down to three paragraphs and then to two.

BillMaddock (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunter,

Sorry, when I say arbitration I in fact mean send this dispute to where we can get an official direction, which Fred has said is all he will accept. Thank you.

04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMaddock (talk • contribs)

<== That does help clarify things...I was just about to leave you a link to something that is being discussed by our Arbcom so that you could see just what that involves..you should probably read it anyway as they are currently discussing fringe issues (but do not enter that discussion). WP:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science and see the evidence page. Have some tea and understand that this is but one fringe case playing out. Arbcom are quite busy...and you would have a lot of typing to do if that was the venue in which you found yourself. Btw, I'm not an Admin and do not have expertise with arbitration (unless it is trying to be an expert at staying out of it...☻). I believe the venue that you are actually wanting would be filing at WP:RFC/BIO (see WP:RFC/HOW first). Have some more tea or something stronger and then decide if you want to proceed that way. Hope that helps..
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunter,

Thx. That’s more helpful.

Let me see if I’ve got this right. I have to do loads and loads of reading, loads and loads of writing and all Fred has to do is click delete, delete, delete… Yup, that seems fair, lol.BillMaddock (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Analogy: You just clamored to have your case heard by the highest court in the land as it is of utmost importance but then when someone asks you "okay, who is your attorney?", you answer "WHAT! I have to get one of those and pay real money?!"
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 06:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunter,

No, I do not want the highest court in the land. I want to apply for an official direction on a dispute between Fred and me, because that is all Fred will accept. Tell me how to do that please (if you have not already done so). Until then all Fred has to do is delete, delete, delete, whereas I have to put in hours and hours, and that is both unfair and an abuse of process and, in my opinion, is grounds for holding Wikipedia in ridicule. BillMaddock (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The way to prevent the delete, delete, delete is to not touch the article itself until some form of conclusion may be reached. That is why the talk page is used for discussion without touching the article...that helps everyone by maintaining a calm. What would it matter if the article does have (or doesn't have) a certain section for say 7 to 14 days while discussion is going on? It isn't lost; it's in the page history and can be retrieved again. Did you notice yesterday that when you reverted me that I never reverted back? I was content (satisfied) whether the content was there or not because I knew that the discussion here was what mattered. It certainly saves emotional energy...no need for anyone to get upset. The RfC that I mentioned above (WP:RFC/BIO) will bring more editors/admins here to comment, discuss, and lend guidance...possibly leading towards a consensus. Just have some patience after filing..they have a lot of catching up to do. :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 07:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hunter,

Do you understand how ridiculous this whole thing has become? You want me to go through more hours and hours, thousands and thousands more words, just so Fred can continue to say he won’t stop deleting until officially told to. Wikipedia has a simple third-opinion resolution procedure but Fred will not go through it. His intransigence has blown out of all proportion what is in effect a minor dispute over a couple of insignificant paragraphs, one of which is essentially in Polish Wikipedia. “Magda, look what it says here in PolishWiki about Patton’s assassination.” “Well, Lech, let us see what English Wiki says.” “My goodness, Magda, it says nothing, so it must be right, the NKWD (Polish for NKVD) assassinated poor Georgie.”

However, having compromised twice already, I can see yet another compromise. How about I put my two paragraphs back, Fred deletes them, I put them back, Fred deletes them, ad infinitum. This has the merit that Fred and I get roughly equal time. Of course, Fred agreeing to a binding third party decision would put a stop to such nonsense.

“Lech, Lech, look there is an entry in English Wiki.” “Well, it wasn’t there an hour ago, Magda.” Or three hours ago, or five hours ago, but it was there two hours ago, four hours ago…BillMaddock (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't read Polish, so why would I try to edit it? I can read english, but should not edit just because it's in the Polish version?? Is it a Wiki law that something which is in one language version has to be in every version? If the Iranian article on the Holocaust says the whole thing is a hoax, does the english version have to say so too?

BTW, I found another precedent for leaving conspiracy theories out of a main article. In the Attack on Pearl Harbor article there is no mention of any of the various theories there. Only two links in a "See Also" section at the bottom. One goes to the article about those theories, the other to a specific book article.

Finally, I am not going to accept full blame for this "war." At least two other people have said they don't think the book should be in this article, but YOU insist it must be. So it's not just me being "intransigent." Fred8615 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No Fred, YOU are the one who insists my two paragraphs will be not be in the Patton article. I was always happy for a dialogue and, as I have done, for compromise. You are the one who has said he will put a permanent block on it. You are the one who has said you will not accept third party opinion, only an official direction. Yet you are happy to parade the opinions of at least two other people when those opinions agree with you.

But no one can have a dialogue with someone who refuses to listen to the opinion of a third party and who insists on having his way until officially instructed not to. There is no point in trying to reason with someone who takes such a unilateral stance.

YOU began this edit war, Fred, when you went from dialogue to censorship.

I won’t allow myself to be bullied, just like you bullied someone else last year over this exact same matter. His opinion doesn’t matter, of course Fred, just yours, or other peoples’ when they agree with you. Oh, have I gone too far? Have I broken some Wiki shibboleth which commands thou shalt not speak honestly of the actions of another because Wikipedia can’t handle such honesty?

You refuse to act reasonably, Fred. I cannot spend hours and hours on reading and writing in pursuit of a solution you have said you will refuse to accept unless it is an official direction. You leave me no alternative but to put my two paragraphs back, two paragraphs which you have said, time and time again, you would not object to if they were elsewhere in Wikipedia. Kindly have the good grace to leave them alone.

One book, which seems to borrow heavily from an admitted fictional movie is not worth any space here. If there is an article on this book on Wikipedia, and someone wishes to link to it in this article, I have no problem with that. But I still say as long as there is NO other evidence beyond this ONE book, it doesn't belong. Fred8615 (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BillMaddock (talk • contribs)

One paragraph now. BillMaddock (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred,

I think I may just have found a compromise solution to our problem. You gave me the idea when you wrote:

BTW, I found another precedent for leaving conspiracy theories out of a main article. In the Attack on Pearl Harbor article there is no mention of any of the various theories there. Only two links in a "See Also" section at the bottom. One goes to the article about those theories, the other to a specific book article.

How about I write a See Also which will have references to the two articles and mentions Wilcox Assignation Claim and nothing more? Since Patton does not have a separate See Also section at the end, do you mind the See Also going into the main body of the article, as was done with (See also Eisenhower and German POWs).?

You get your way, I get mine and Lech and Magda have something to look up to set the Polish record straight.BillMaddock (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, nor a link to any Wiki article on the book if someone ever creates it. And FTR, I did not edit the Polish article. :-) Fred8615 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred,

It is a relief that it was not you who edited PolishWilcox, for I would not want to think I was the cause of you having hurriedly undertaken a forty-eight-hour crash course in Polish. (I attempted a smiley there, but without success.)BillMaddock (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Mytwocents,

As you can see there has been a great deal of discussion on the Wilcox claim. Perhaps you could do us all the courtesy of joining in that discussion?BillMaddock (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Panic over. We no longer need to worry about Lech and Magda. Someone has removed Wilcox from PolishWiki. I think we can all feel relieved about that.BillMaddock (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Would whoever set off the editing bot please identify yourself. Not to do so would be cowardly. Well, it seems I must try the See Also compromise I suggested to Fred above. BillMaddock (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that your "See also" solution was what anybody here imagined. Typically, a "See also" is a complete article unto itself which is listed and linked at the bottom of the article text under the heading See also. Your reference to the Fixed News article I found to inappropriate where it stood at the death paragraph. It's a teaser that doesn't help the reader understand Wikipedia's position on the subject. I don't like that reference sitting there unexplained but I moved it down to "External links" as a compromise to see if other editors feel that it adds value and suits the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I enjoyed the talk page for the most part but I wanted to know are any of you really trying for arbitration? If so I would be willing to support them in that effort (if it takes more than 1 person or something like that). I really enjoyed the article and I haven't been able to decide on this issue for myself :). Wikiiscool123 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You Tube

Dear Alex Jones,

Congratulations, the field now belongs to you and Robert Wilcox. Wikipedia is abrogating any responsibility and allowing you to win “the war for your mind”. So far only 5000 have heard you and Wilcox on YouTube, which is itself a small mercy.

Listen to Wilcox live coast to coast on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show right here. I managed seventeen minutes before I just had to stop. But it's O K, it's just a fringe theory that nobody knows about.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RVuozc37Xqk

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2_urEX5iSHQ&watch_responseBillMaddock (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

External Link Solution

Binksternet,

All I know is that the Wilcox theory is out there. It is growing. It is wrong and it needs to be strenuously refuted. I know that the generations to come will have been let down and misinformed by a Wikipedia that doesn’t tell them Wilcox is considered in error.

From what I have red, it seems to me that Fred may well be right in his interpretation and application of WP:FRINGE, even though his and others’ arguments often seemed flawed and misapplied: it often happens that you can get your arguments wrong but still be right – it is just your arguments that are wrong. (If you don’t believe me, then let me tell you that once I was winning all the arguments, all the debate and only later did I realize he was right and I was wrong. It happens.)

I think that this discussion has shown that Wikipedia may well have a systemic problem in its inability to handle something like Wilcox and offer the world a choice of views. Having said that, however, your External Link does seem at least a good workable solution. However, because people will Google Wilcox I have taken the liberty of including the name in the External Link. If you don’t like it, please take it out – I can live with it.

It remains for me to thank you for coming up with a fine solution. I feel a little more comfortable now so that perhaps I might just get around to making a correction without fearing another fight: in WWI Samuel Rockenbach commanded the Tank Corps of the AEF, Patton commanded the 304th Tank Brigade (1st Tank Brigade), part of Rockenbach’s Tank Corps.BillMaddock (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet,

I notice you have removed mention of Robert Wilcox and Kevin Hymel from the External link. It is a pity because when people Google Patton/Wilcox they won’t get to us. Can you suggest an addition to the External Link which mentions Wilcox and Hymel? Once again, I leave the decision to you.BillMaddock (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I just formatted the online news reference according to standard practice. If you want the public to have access to a fair and neutral account of Wilcox and Hymel, write articles for them. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A reference to Wilcox was just added. If we are uncomfortable of it as a source we should probably find another source for the quotes included. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I would greatly prefer another source too. But until it comes along, I think this one can stay. Fred8615 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

WWI: Cambrai

JNW,

Would you please discuss before you delete my Cambrai entry. Perhaps we can reach a consensus. ty.BillMaddock (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That was me. These are details whose significance eludes me. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx for getting back

Let me give some significance. The article as it stood stated that Patton may have taken part in the Battle of Cambrai. Surely it is correct for the clarification to that neither Patton nor Blumenson puts Patton closer than the town of Albert and where he was.

As for the valet reference, it gives insight into Patton’s ready appreciation of the ridiculousness of life. The whole article gives very little insight into the character, the human side of the man.

Finally, it is interesting for a man who was in France quite a few times, that his spelling of French names left something to be desired. Once again it goes to the nature of the person.

If you want, then please rewrite what I’ve written, post it here and I’m sure we can reach accord. thx.BillMaddock (talk) 05:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Cambrai section fails in developing a sense of Patton the man--it doesn't make clear Patton's sense of irony that his valet is a minor blue blood and it doesn't show the misspellings of French towns to be anything other than general American Army methods. The book by Blumenson should not be called Blumenson in the article... this is indicative of chatty talk between historians over brandy and cigars, not encyclopedic precision. The part about this town was that far from this other town and the battle was at such and such time period is entirely synthesis which is described and discouraged here: WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx for your help. I like what you've done. I have added two sentences re his first tanks and tidied up the first sentence of the next para. All the best, now back to online poker for me.BillMaddock (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Or should I have been thanking Clarityfiend? I just can't the hang of edit comparisoning.BillMaddock (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Awards and decorations

I have a small problem with the "awards as they would appear today” image in the awards and decorations section. Due to changing regulations over time, this doesn't necessarily reflect the truth and requires infrequent updates by people attuned to changing military regulations.

If it is decided to be kept, I reference AR 670-1, the Army regulation governing wear and appearance of uniforms, paragraph 29-6 g, which states that the order of wear of the foreign decorations is to be the order in which they were received. Whomever made the image of the “rack” of all the ribbons must have put some thought into it and it is possible they are in date order. However, the order on the combined image differs from the order the awards are listed to the left. To eliminate confusion, I recommend placing those awards on the left in date order or at least appending the date awarded to them. I’m not personally familiar with whether any of those foreign awards are “unit” awards vs. personal awards, but if so they fall under different rules and must be worn on the opposite side of the coat, if they are even permitted under paragraph 29-6 h.

Preferably, I think it would be more historically significant to display the ribbons as they actually appeared on his uniform at the time of his death (or as in the picture at the top of the article). Not only would this be a more accurate version of how General Patton wore his uniform, but would not require updates as regulations governing wear of foreign awards are changed in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.145.193.123 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

)

Self Promotion

Even though congress approved his promotion to Lt. General he prematurely added his third star before congress' vote was in stating they approved of his promotion. Even in his arrogance his self promotion helped to rally his men (Anthony Stolarski--209.66.200.43 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Disproving Province and MacDonald with KIA numbers

Why do we have a section on disproving one author's performance analysis of the Third Army under Patton in WWII? This section drags attention away from Patton and gives it to Province, MacDonald vs. Wikipedia editor. Whatever is felt necessary to rebut Province should be done a) very, very briefly or b) in footnotes. This whole section looks like original research to me. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

...or synthesis. I agree with you. I'd recommend that you go ahead with the changes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Binksternet (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted once again, after it was re-added by new user YosemiteSav. I would like to see an argument why we should have this section; otherwise I will continue to delete it. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Patton 360

Added an entry for the upcoming History Channel series Patton 360 right after the "Patton, the film" entry. Firstlensman (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally like to see it removed - it's far too POV - 'Greatest General of WWII' isn't exactly NPOV. Skinny87 (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it for its promotional slant, its POV and because it was an announcement of something in the future. If the show for some reason makes waves in the media after it is shown then we can consider it notable. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

MARGARETT HEREFORD

did she had family with the General ? that's a member of my family i just wonder,,,

juan hereford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latint81 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge

I think that a short sentence stating the 101st "did not need" Patton's rescue should be added. I do not have a citation; however, I have heard this from very reliable sources. If you could at least look into it. Thanks.

Hitler's comments

it says hitler called Patton "that crazy cowboy" however, there are no sources. Source or delete?