Talk:Lucien Young

message: This article states: "Young's Navy personnel records reveal an instance of apparent anti-Semitism. Young failed to pay a small [$7] tailoring bill. The tailor, one Frank Copper of Vallejo, California, wrote to the Secretary of the Navy complaining after several years of non-payment. The SecNav forwarded the letter to Young for a response. In his written response Young wrote that he had made inquiry in "Vallejo as to who this man [Copper] was, and was informed he was a weak and cranky Jew and that he ran a small hat store in town; that upon two occasions his shop was burned down under suspicious circumstances." Young further went on, in response to the SecNav's request that his response be furnished to Copper wrote for "me now to furnish him with a compulsory copy of this official endorsement, as directed in the 1st endorsement, for him to flaunt about his Hebrew friends, would be to him an excellent advertisement, and a decided humiliation to me."" What's the reference for this? Looks like original research. While it is certainly possible that this otherwise fine officer who saved people on several occasions, did relief work in the aftermath of the San Francico earthquake, etc. may have been anti-semitic, one would like to see some better evidence before accepting some anonymous editing by a wiki-ite (and yes, i am anti-wiki-ite).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: original research?

message: This article also states: "For this accident, he was court-martialed, convicted and censured for "remissness in performance". More than 60 died in the blast.[1] He was later reprimanded by the Secretary of the Navy for verbally abusing a fellow officer who testified in the matter. Young’s Navy personnel records reveal that the Secretary of the Navy reprimanded Young for a public verbal dispute with a Lt. Commander Bartlett who had testified in the proceeding. Young, on a public pier, called Bartlett a "liar and a perjurer". The Secretary of the Navy labeled Young’s actions as "grossly insulting to a brother officer" and that to Young there was "only one course available" a "full, frank, and manly apology for a display of temper." Which, after a delay of several days, Young did. His Naval records show another censure for "misleading and inaccurate reporting" regarding the boilers of the Vicksburg in 1909. No explosion resulted simply several days of delay." What is the reference for most of this? It again looks like original research. It also apppears to contradict in part http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/ev-1900s/ev-1905/bengtn.htm: "Despite the awful death toll, which far exceeded that sustained by the Navy in the Spanish-American War, and sometimes lurid rumors of misconduct on the part of some members of Bennington's engineering force, official investigations concluded that the tragedy had not resulted from negligence." One wonders how Young could be convicted for "remissness" by the Navy when the official history site of that Navy states "that the trajedy had not resulted from negligence." Indeed, it would seem unlikely that had such a judgement been made that the officer in question's career would continue upward with progressively more senior assignments and his ultimate promotion to flag rannk. It is also highly unlikely that a general encyclopedia of the period would include court-martial results - the citation is not sufficient (edition? page number?) for anyone to easily verify - besides the most derogatory comments have no citation given for verification purposes - again we are to trust some wiki-ite's private research?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Read though period news accounts and indeed Lucien Young did receive a letter of reprimand for "remissness" for guess what, failing to sign some engineering log. The point was even made that this was done so that he wouldn't get off without some sort of punishment - basically like a cop tailing you for half an hour and finally pulling you over for not wearing a seat beat when he can't find anything else to cite you for. Other reporters pointed out that this had nothing to do with causing the accident itself. There is no readily accessible evidence of the rest of the story presented in this article - even on the "remissness," the reporting here is quite odd - one has to wonder what axe some wiki-ite could have to grind against someone who's been dead for a century?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.66.32 (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: more original research?