Jump to content

Talk:Eugene Sledge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Today I deleted the link to the Anders M Kinney Alabama Review book review on China Marine. I could not find other professional reviews except those blocked by commercial "library services". If anyone can find an open link to a good professional review of this book it would be a great asset to the article. China Marine, while eclipsed by With the Old Breed, is probably the better of his two books as it deals with the depth of his despair and profundity of his healing. One cannot begin to understand Sledge without reading China Marine.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a notable biologist? I think so.

[edit]

Not too long ago I included Dr. Sledge in List of biologists however one of the regular editors of that article reverted the edit. So I'm asking the question about his notability and whether he could be considered a notable biologist. One way of looking at it is that he is notable and he is a biologist; his identity for the latter half of his life was that of a biologist. (By way of illustration an Irish concert pianist or software engineer would be included in a list of notable Irishmen, as their Irishness is their identity.) So should he be reinstated in the list or not? Can any of the local Sledge scholars establish independent notability based on his work with nematodes or as an ornithologist or other biologic publication?Trilobitealive (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help formatting citation please

[edit]

I posted this reference, but I don't know how to do nested citations so this is what it looks like: <ref name="China2>{{Cite book| last = Sledge| first = Eugene| authorlink = | coauthors = | title = China Marine| publisher = University of Alabama Press| date = May, 2002| location = | pages = copyright page: "Incident at Lang Fang, by EB Sledge in ''MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History'', vol. 7, no. 4, (summer 1995), Primedia, Inc.| url = | doi = | id = | isbn10 = 0-8173-1161-0 }}</ref>

any help reformatting would be appreciated.Trilobitealive (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

marinervburgin.com

[edit]

Someone keeps adding links to this vanity book advertisement. As spam, it isn't appropriate per WP:EL. This problem isn't isolated to this one article. The publisher (presumably) is adding links to a few of these vanity books to related articles as one would expect with linkspam. The website domain name, web format, and video interview formats are all the same for these websites. Oh, another clue is that when I tried replacing the spam link to a direct link to the YouTube hosted advertisement, the publisher switched it back to the book's page. Rklawton (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I'm the user who posted the links to the video interviews found on MarineRVBurgin.com as well as MarineSidPhillips.com. Let me explain the videos for people who may not have had a chance to visit them before they were taken down.

The first video was that of Dr. Sidney Phillips describing the childhood antics that he and his best friend Eugene B. Sledge would carry out during their youth.

The second video was that of Dr. Sidney Phillips describing the boot camp experience of Eugene B. Sledge as well as describing what it was like to meet up with Eugene on the island of Pavuvu during World War II.

The third video was that of Cpl. R.V. Burgin, who was Eugene's squad leader on Pavuvu, Peleliu, and Okinawa, describing what kind of Marine and person Eugene Sledge was.

Now, some of the links to these videos were removed by user RKLawton since he deemed them "vanity book advertisements" and claims that they are "spam" and that they are not appropriate "per WP:EL." The first two accusations are radical at best, but what of the third? Well, I looked into that and found Wiki's definition of an appropriate link:

"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy . . ."

Do the videos contain further research that is accurate and on-topic to the life & person that was Eugene B. Sledge? Absolutely. They contain anecdotes from primary sources that expand upon the wiki article about Eugene B. Sledge.

Do the videos contain information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail? Once again, yes. The video interviews are too long to be transcribed and included in the wiki page.

Given the above evidence I feel that the links to the videos are 100% appropriate and permissible given the very standards that wiki uses to judge links.

I'm re-posting the links and would ask that user RKLawton reconsider his/her position and realizes that the videos contribute to the world's knowledge of Eugene B. Sledge. MRB1942 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the videos and they do look like they could provide valid biographical information. In particular, Phillips book is not a 'vanity book', rather it is documentation of his role as an oral history resource for the war. Both it and his interviews were integral to the development of The Pacific (miniseries). When I first visited the sites I chose to not delete the links for this reason.
My best advice on how to deal with the video links in the long term would be for you to consider putting them into footnotes to support biographical information which would otherwise be unreferenced. Both of these men played significant roles in Sledge's life but their work is best used to add to the body of the article rather than the link list. Trilobitealive (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The brief videos contain little information and a big promotion for the book. The links are to a commercial website dedicated to selling the book. When I changed the link to access YouTube directly (thereby somewhat reducing the commercial nature of these links), the poster changed the links back to the commercial website. As a result, it's clear these links are not here for the reader's benefit but rather to promote a commercial interest. I should also add that the user posting these links has set up a special purpose account and has an obvious conflict of interest. Rklawton (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rklawton’s opinion that the videos contain “little information and a big promotion” for the book is just plain wrong. The facts speak for themselves:
2:53 minutes of video content with 13 second dedicated to referencing Dr. Sidney Phillips’ book
4:14 minutes of video content with 13 second dedicated to referencing Dr. Sidney Phillips’ book
2:41 minutes of video content with 11 seconds dedicated to promoting R.V. Burgin’s book
Rklawton’s notion that these links are “not here for the reader’s benefit” is also wrong. How are three videos of World War II veterans who knew Eugene Sledge intimately, discussing his wartime adventures not to “the reader’s benefit?” Therefore, with these undisputable facts in mind, I’ve reinstated the links to these first hand accounts about Eugene B. Sledge. MRB1942 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the few seconds referencing the actual subject of this article are also trivial and of no use to the reader. The website and the video clearly exist to promote the book, and the editor posting these links has a clear conflict of interest, edits only to promote these books, and went so far as to replace the link to the YouTube video with the link to the commercial website. Post these links again and you will be blocked from editing per our policy against repeatedly spamming our articles. Furthermore, I will nominate these websites for blacklisting so the system will automatically block all links to these websites. Rklawton (talk) 22:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since no amicable solution has been reached between myself and user RKLawton in regards to the Sid Phillips & R.V. Burgin videos discussing Eugene Sledge, I propose a compromise: link the videos to a neutral, non-commercial source such as YouTube.
User RKLawton already did this several weeks ago, so by his own actions he deemed the content appropriate as long as the website is non-commercial.
I had switched the links back to the veterans’ websites since I felt they were a more relevant information source (not because of a "conflict of interest" as suggested above) since they also contained excellent videos discussing other events pertinent to Eugene Sledge.
Regardless, I’m willing to compromise in the name of information dissemination and hope that RKLawton will do the same.MRB1942 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spam is spam - and it doesn't belong here. I switched the video to YouTube not as a compromise or as an endorsement but to see if your interest was in the video content (which is still a blatant advertisement) or in promoting your book. You proved your interest was in promoting this recently published book by switching it back because the page contained nothing of use except advertising for the book. Look, I just helped ban another account from editing Wikipedia for pretty much the same thing you are doing here, and I will no hesitate to do the same in your case, too. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your book (or your publishers book or your friend's book). Rklawton (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RKLawton's claim that these rare, primary-source videos that remember Eugene Sledge, are SPAM has already been disproven not only by myself but by another Wiki editor (Trilobitealive) who felt the videos were permissible and allowed them to remain.
I've already explained why I switched the links back to the websites of the veterans who knew Eugene Sledge after RKLawton tampered with them and pointed them to a less relevant source (YouTube) in his attempted sting operation.
His accusations above are nonsense since I'm simply a history buff who found the videos worth sharing and will not stand by while he attempts to censor historically relevant opinion to fit his whims and bias.
So, in the spirit of World War II history, I invite RKLawton to actually view the Eugene Sledge videos that he deems "SPAM" and containing "nothing of use." He might just learn something about Eugene Sledge in the process.
When Sid Phillips and RV Burgin talk about Eugene Sledge in his videos, they did it to honor him, and anyone without a personal vendetta who views the content will readily agree.
www.marinesidphillips.com/eugene-sledge-trouble.htm
www.marinervburgin.com/eugene-sledge.htm
www.marinesidphillips.com/eugene-sledge-pavuvu.htm
Since this dispute has been ongoing between RKLawton and me, I've requested a third party opinion to settle this as per Wiki standards/rules. MRB1942 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:23, May 2, 2010.

Third opinion: Sorry, but Rklawton is right on this. The links don't belong on the page, as they're really just for promotional purposes. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the links should not be on the article. I can see your side, User:MRB1942and sympathize with your frustration. My interpretation of your reasons for posting is less harsh than User:Rklawton's (see WP:BITE). From my study before posting the Sidney Phillips article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama I have learned that he is an honorable man, he and Sledge were close friends and that he is an internationally notable oral history resource for the makers of both movies which highlighted Sledge's unfortunate war experience. But Wikipedia isn't a link farm and we try to not post promotional links if they can be avoided. Sorry.Trilobitealive (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sorry if I sounded bitey. I have very little patience with the SPA/COI/SPAM combination. MRB1942 isn't "just a history buff" as he/she claims, but I can't demonstrate this without violating our policy against revealing personal information about our editors. I can say that it didn't take much work to find his/her identity and relationship to the subject. Rklawton (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alabama reassessment

[edit]

I have reassessed the article as a C Class article for WikiProject Alabama. I realize that a number of projects no longer use this class, however I find it to be a helpful way of showing progress. Trilobitealive (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family

[edit]

Anyone know more about his family life? There's one passing reference to his wife, but no mention of when they met, who she was, or if they had any children. -- Chupon (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if there is enough notable material to warrant writing a small section. Much of the information about Sledge's family is not widely published so to post it might violate WP:OR. The entire state of Alabama is a smaller community than metropolitan San Francisco so I for one consider that locally published material, especially as regards to biographies of his living family members, might not meet WP:NOTE. If a widely published family history comes out I would think that to be the time to write a family section. In such things it is better to write too little than to write hastily and poorly.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I see this problem quite a bit in Alabama biographies. I've been writing on several and have been following more. Our lives here are just not as notable as our cousins out on the west coast.)Trilobitealive (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns would be along the lines of WP:NOTE and the related concern for privacy for folks who really aren't in the public eye. Rklawton (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and decorations

[edit]

Two quick questions: It looks to me that his presidential unit citation on his photo has two rather than 1 star. Is the text correct? Should his sharpshooter badge and shoulder braid also be mentioned? Thanks Trilobitealive (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Combat action ribbon didn't exist until the 1960s, so I suggest this be removed from the text and images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.116.160 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eugene Sledge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eugene_Sledge&oldid=1195441558"