Talk:George S. Patton/Archive 1

message: The listing for the US Army does not follow the order of precedence: The Mexican Service Medal is out of place, as is the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal. Please refer to the HQDA order of precedence   for the correct order of precedence. Needless to say that the JPG is also wrong. Thanks.
Why nothing on the gap after Sicily?
As is well known, Patton was not given a combat command between the Sicily campaign and the campaign after the Normandy landings (of couse he was not involved in the landings themselves).
There is mention in the article of the use that "fear of Patton" was to the allies in keeping the Germans concerned about where he might appear - but he would have been rather more use in the field.
For example, the American commanders in the mainland Italian campaign were not close to being the equals of Patton.
Was it really the slap that caused Patton to be denied an operational command in this period? If so who was behind all the press attention this got?
I admit that I am British and, therefore, may find it hard to understand the American view of the matter (after all in the First World War Britsh troops with shell shock were sometimes shot - so a slap would have been getting off rather light) even today (sixty one years after World War II) a certain amount of physical abuse, although by N.C.O.s not commanding Generals, is the norm in the British army (although the public's attitude to this may be changing).
The lack of Patton cost thousands of allied troops their lives in the Italian campaign. A commander of Patton's type may be unpopular with some troops - but fewer will die under him. Men die of delays and incompetance more than they die of aggression.
Paul Marks.
:Paul - Welcome.  With your enthusiasm, I suggest you get a logon id (not necessary to edit, but useful for communications), be bold and start editing.  But also we aware of the wikipedia goal of neutral point of view.  I suspect there will be some healthy dialog with some of the other editors. John (Jwy) 18:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and decorations 

message: By November 23, however, Metz had finally fallen to the Americans, the first time the city had fallen in nearly 1,500 years.
Corrected this in the article. During the Franco-Prussian War, Metz was surrendered to the Prussians by Marshal Bazaine on October 27 1870. --Kudz75 06:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Should there be mention of his son, also George S. Patton, also a Major General of armor?
- Maybe: George S. Patton III? -Husnock 14:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The son of George S. Patton, Jr. was actually George S. Patton, IV.  The first G. S. Patton (1833-1864) was the Civil War officer, the second George William Patton (1856-1927)(changed his name in 1868 to George S. Patton in honor of his late father), the third is G. S. Patton, Jr. (1885-1945) (old Blood and Guts himself) and the fourth (1923-2004) was a decorated Korea and Vietnam veteran. G. S. Patton V carries on the family name. MikeMullins 19:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son 

message: "George S. Patton" actually generates more hits than "George Patton" on Google, and a lot of people actually do know his middle initial. -Joseph 14:34, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
:I'm going to move it back.  Currently, George Patton is generating more hits (about 10% more) and, AFAIK, we only include the middle initial if it's for disambiguation or the person is generally always known by it. Oberiko 23:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for move 

message: On 01 Nov 2004, this article was cited in a SecurityFocus article on phishing. Securiger 06:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  SecurityFocus cite 

message: The reason I said Western Europe is because that includes Italy, France, and Germany, so saying "Italy and Western Europe" is wrong. It probably should be Sicily rather than Italy to avoid confusion and actually Western Europe doesn't include Czechoslovakia. But anyway, I think it's a mistake to include a detailed list of commands in the first paragraph. Mentioning his paper army but not his World War I service is an example of imbalance that this leads to. Hal Jespersen 17:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isnt Italy in Southern Europe??  Most folks in the US associate West Europe as England and France, Central Europe as Germany, Austria, Switz, etc, Eastern Europe as former Soviet Bloc and Southern Europe as Italy, Sardina, Sicily, etc.  Also, in WWII Italy and France were two very different campaigns and should be mentioned separately.  Thats why I wrote it that way but it is certianly open to a rewrite. -Husnock 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't forget the link to Southern Italy!  But, yes, conpress the opener would not hurt. -Husnock 20:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Since I know that there's a lot of editing going on with this page, I'll defer to the more active editors, but note that there are currently three different places where his death is mentioned. Some cleanup is warranted. Here are some factoids: accident was on 12/9. Two-vehicle convoy left Bad Nauheim at 9am. Driver PFC Horace Woodring in 1939 Cadillac Model 75 with Patton and Hap Gay. Accident happened at 11:45 in the Mannheim suburb of Käfertal, hit by 2.5-ton truck driven by T/5 Robert L. Thompson. As Patton lay paralyzed and bleeding from his forehead, he said "This is a helluva way to die." Gay and Woodring uninjured because they saw the accident coming and braced themselves; Patton looking out the window was oblivious. Died in Heidelberg with wife present, 17:55 12/21. Source Carlo D'Este, Patton, A Genius for War. Harper Collins, 1995. Hal Jespersen 17:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I uploaded an image for General Patton's tombstone which is being utilized here Luxembourg American Cemetery and Memorial.  Feel free to edit the file to fit the needs of the wiki.  Also, if anyone would like to support this wiki I created, I'd appreciate that too!TchussBitc 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Is it really "coming soon"? If not, that section should be removed. Al 12:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Assignments 

message: Reading the quotes, I am unsure as to whether this is out and out racism. I have changed the wording to "attitude", as in using this word, the reader can make up his own mind. We always have to be careful when using the word racism/racist with respect to an individual, as it is rather a charged word. Naturally, if a person is a racist, the word should be used. However, in Patton's case, I think he would be trying to get them to perform well by any means, for him and for their people as a whole. (Note that the word negro was definitely not racist in the 1940s) He was also not one to mince words. Wallie 14:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: George Patton wasn't any more Racist than any other persons in his era. For example, His family founded the community of San Marino, California, and they established Racial Covenants in all of the land deeds. George wasn't happy about it, but his partners insisted that he conform with wnat was considered normal in rural/suburban California.
CORNELIUSSEON 16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: There is a long quote that is almost identical on another website.  I will try to clean it up soon, but I would like to know who copied whom?
www.reference.com/browse/wiki/George_S._Patton
Wayne
check the bottom of that reference.com page. It says:
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia © 2001-2006 Wikipedia contributors - Ray Barker  03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ardennes Offensive 

message: What happened in that fatal car accident.
:Regarding that, I'm surprised there hasn't been any mention of the conspiracy theories surrounding his death, as it rife in the internet and some among some historians.141.157.220.233 01:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There isn't much basis for them. There was a car accident.....what else do you want? DMorpheus 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Accident. 

message: C'on, lets not hite the truth, we know all nations in WW2(and WW1 for that matter) commented War Crimes, lets not be bias, im an american and i know my own country comented war crimes(like every other country), i know 2 war crimes that this general allowed to happen!
::: Nothing is stopping you from adding this content if you have the facts. DMorpheus 15:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isnt War Crimes that happenned Under him, listed on his Page! 

message: I never heard that one before. Anyone have a source? What's Congress got to do with what types of units the Army organizes? I admit I am a bit skeptical of this statement. DMorpheus 16:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congress gets involved the same way as it does with most any military purchase, they control the money which is appropriated.  Granted back then the various service secretaries had more lattitude than now but Congress often got involved.  Needless to say that organizing and maintaining an armored division is expensive enough Congress would have to be involved.  AM2783 )0:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patton convinced Congress to organize Armored Divisions? 

message: The last paragraph in this section is just oozing cynicism.  Is there a source that someone can quote?  Otherwise it seems pretty non-NPOV.
Secretagentwang 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patton's problems with humor, his image, and the press 

message: I made a few edits to the Education section - to the Olympic entry.  I reshaped the basic entry for clarity and brevity.  Some of the language was a bit effusive & I toned it down a bit.  I made an additional change to the section dealing with Humor re the 2 pistols.  Patton did not carry a pair of .45's.  For most of the war he carried a single Colt .45 and then later a Colt .45 and a S&W .357 magnum revolver.  Both were chromed and had Ivory handles.--Lepeu1999 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education & Humor 

message: no info about them !?!?
--Joe dude 22:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this odd as well - I was trying to find info on his son, who was a troop leader in Vietnam and retired as a general  - hopefully someone can mention that he at least had children...Michael DoroshTalk 22:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  children 

message: Did Patton really say "Lead me, follow me, or get the hell out of my way"?
:: I doubt it; he wasn't much of a follower. It is a variant of a common saying in the US Army and elsewhere - "Lead, Follow, or get out of the way". DMorpheus 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote attribution 

message: Patton had Dyslexia and ADD. It was never attributed to him because they were not "discovered" until after his death. (DUHH) (Patton: Man behind the legend)?
Steve Delrogs
:: If they were not diagnosed it seems a bit much to claim he had these conditions. DMorpheus 17:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fucking hate it when people post humanously diagnose diseases to people. In this era, we're expected to believe that everyone from Abraham Lincoln to Winston Churchill had some form of phyciatric illness...:rolleyes:. It's speculation at best, outright bullshit at the worst. 141.157.220.233 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Stanley Hirshson wrote a book on Patton called General Patton: A Soldier's Life.  In this book he addresses the topic of Patton's supposed dyslexia and ADD.  He discounts the argument the he had dyslexia on the basis that Patton was read to and never saw a printed page until the age of twelve.  His only symptom throughout his life was poor spelling.  MikeMullins 20:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you a physician or psychiatrist? Did you examine Gen Patton? If not, are you aware of any such diagnoses? If not, shouldn't we forget about this speculation? DMorpheus 15:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Patton's dyslexia symptoms are a matter of public record and deserve to be mentioned. There is speculation, and then there is speculation...in this case, Patton himself admitted to the symptoms "I have problems with letters..."Michael DoroshTalk 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patton's "diseases" 

message: It seems to me that to historians and other Wikipedia readers that Patton is remembered far more for his design of the now-famous U.S. Army Model 1913 cavalry saber than he is for once holding the title Master of the Sword. While important to his biography and notable as a personal achievement, this academic title should not overshadow his much more historically significant contribution to saber design, an effort that resulted in a saber that bears Patton's own name today. For that reason, I suggest that the subtitle of this section retain its focus on Patton's saber contribution, and secondarily on his less-important academic award. Jack Bethune 12:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted the spelling back to "saber". Saber is the more common US usage, and we are after all referring to a US weapon, designed by a US officer. Google gives 1,740 hits for "Patton saber" and 370 for "Patton sabre". In US Army nomenclature it was a 'Sword' so that is no help. DMorpheus 16:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for correctly editing my terminology. I do agree with your reasoning and, being American, I automatically wrote "saber" initially but felt the need to defer to Wikipedia's apparent slant towards British usage. My mistake. Regarding actual U.S. Army terminology, however, it's interesting to note that, soon after its adoption, the Model 1913 cavalry "sword" was renamed a "saber," a designation that became official U.S. Army terminology thereafter. Thanks again for your thoughtful addition.  Jack Bethune 20:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just came across the manual for the weapon, where it is referred to as a "saber" throughout. I agree, wikip[edia has a strong British slant - not sure why. But this should settle it. DMorpheus 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Patton saber 

message: I was wondering whether there was a reason to list General Leclerc as Marshal Philippe de Hauteclocque ("Leclerc") in this article. Of course de Hauteclocque is his real name, but he was known as Leclerc during the war and is named so in most histories I've ever read. In 1944, the year concerned with this entry he was a general, the title of marshal being awarded posthumously after WWII (I hadn't even known he became a marshal). Generally the habit is to list a person with the rank relevant to the date talked about. Anyhow, if no one objects I will change the name to General Leclerc (linked to his bio of course) in a few days.--Caranorn 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Leclerc 

message: "The first African American tank unit ... was assigned to Patton ... at his reluctant request.". What does a reluctant request mean?   If he asked for it we can assume he wanted it. If not then it's much simpler to say "...was assigned to Patton.". DJ Clayworth 20:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh? 

message: In the biography that I read on General Patton (ISBN: 0060009829), it stated an interesting piece of irony during the cavalry charge against the bonus army.  One of the members of the bonus army was the soldier who carried him to a medic (and saving his life) after he was wounded in World War I.  I cannot recall the soldier's name and I do not have the book anymore, maybe someone else does and can help.  Perhaps this should be added to the interwar years.
notyouravgjoe 10:23, 18MAR06
: *****Soldier who saved Patton´s life in WWI was Joseph T. Angelo  —89.103.92.56 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonus Army 

message: some Generals like Patton were totally ignorant of the fact, many forms of battle trauma were not known at the time and described as cowardice
This sentence doesn't make sense... How could he be ignorant of something that wasn't known in those days...
To be ignorant of something you must at least know that it exists... 62.235.149.179 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh?? 

message: Before I add it, is the quote "As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I have no fear, because I am the meanest and biggest US Marine in the entire damn valley" acceptable?CityPride 10:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: It seems to me that these two sections really display the same information in two different formats.  Are both really necessary? Thoughts? MikeMullins 03:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not completely redundant, but it seems likely that they could easily be merged. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 06:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of rank vs. Rank comparison to Eisenhower 

message: Why isn't there an explanation for his name? His grandfather & father are named George Smith Patton. Wouldn't the General be George Smith Patton III. An explanation should be on this article. My guess is he was born after his grandfather's death & his father had a name change (George S. Jr to George S. Sr). GoodDay 20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an explanation in the article but it was removed.  See a quick discussion here on an old talk page.  I'm looking into it and will try to get it back in the article.  MikeMullins 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Smith Patton Jr? 

message: Several California museums historical archives cite the Yorba family of Alta California, and how Ramona Yorba married Benjamin Wilson, who was from Tennessee, became prosperous in early California partially by marring into the Yorba family...who were granted 200,000 acres of land in the 1700's, which is now Orange County Calif.
Benjamin Wilson and Ramona Yorba had a daughter, Ruth Wilson...who was George S. Patton's mother. That means the famous American general was 1/4 Mexican. DonDeigo 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patton's Lineage 

message: I remember hearing something about an instance where patton became frustrated and fired his pistol at a luftwaffe aircraft.  I can't find any information on it anywhere..
Also, this article is really sloppy and needs a rewrite or cleanup or whatever... —4.227.253.198 (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  patton anecdote 

message: I've expanded the family section because I think it is important background to show what influenced him growing up.  He had great military tradition in his family and he spent his career trying to live up to it.  Also, it's reasonable to mention he had kids.  MikeMullins 15:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family expansion 

message: "Patton actually had the utmost respect for the men serving in his command..." (under "Patton's problems with humor, his image, and the press") - This seems slightly speculative. Is there any evidence to prove that Patton had the utmost respect for his men? Not that I doubt Patton's integrity, in fact I greatly admire him, but this doesn't really seem to be backed up by anything. Of course, if I've missed something, please tell me. James JCG Taylor 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember reading that somewhere but I can't put my finger on it.  I've added a  tag to it.  -- Mufka (user) (talk) 
(contribs) 22:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: whilst watching a documentary on the aftermath of WWII. The story goes something like this:
During the Berlin victory parade all the allies were showing off their latest and greatest weapons. The western allies parading their medium tanks (but the models have sliped my mind) the soviets had insisted that their vehicles came last in the procession. At the podium where all the senior officers were observing a british officer became quite alarmed by a rumbling of the earth, as a division of IS-III tanks drove past the British officer turned quite pale and looked very faint. It was at this point Patton apparently leaned in and whispered in his (the officer's) ear: "Dont worry, we're still on your side"
Im not sure how much truth there is to the story but perhaps someone wiser has more information on the subject?
- Tyler
Chalky17 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  another patton anecdote 

message: Is it really appropriate for an encyclopedia article to refer to a former president as "ike". (see: "... But after consulting with George Marshall, Ike decided to keep Patton, but without a major command.")84.152.107.95 12:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ike? 

message: The following apparent vandalism was added on 29 April.
Chinese Campaign
George S Patton died heroicly on the battlefield in Northern China after his fearless leader, Ted Kennedy, allowed his army to become encircled by the Nationalists.
Head MMoid 06:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Campaign 

message: Shouldn't we move it to "George Patton"? - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: anyone know where he got the nickname "Old blood and guts", or what it means? thanks. Sahuagin 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about asking that at the WP:RD? - Patricknoddyontheroad 14:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of nickname? 

message: Given his popularity with the American people and the respect in which he was held by his men, it is entirely possible he could have won the same nomination his erstwhile friend accepted.
Not a chance!  Patton would never have lasted on the political scene.  Career politicians and the press would have eaten him alive.  He often had difficulty dealing with the press or anyone else who was not required to obey him.  His opinions were too radical and he was too quick to shoot his mouth off.  I doubt he would have been able to curb his lanquage, and the American public in 1945 would have never stood for him cutting loose with a blue streak on live TV.  I think they would have grown weary of him really quick.  —Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a crock! 

message: Aren't the casualty figures public knowlege now that the war is over?  Surely the Germans kept accurate records and can be researched by someone vigorous enough?  Our own records ought to be accurate enough also.  Jokem 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Third Army battle performance 

message: The Orlando Ward page makes Patton's firing sound unprovoked, while this page says that it was "after repeated warnings." Which is true?  —71.105.162.16 (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firing Ward 

message: Any info on the report mentioned here ? --Stor stark7 Talk 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report that led to his dismissal? 

message: I changed "won" to "received" in front of "Distinguished Service Cross"; it is an award, not the lottery.  —132.159.222.240 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Interwar Years 

message: It is filled with libel of Gen. Patton. 'Didn't have a sense of humor', one of his most famous jokes were "the Germans must run out of armor unless they have reproducing tanks"
Racist? He was the first to integrate colored and white GIs when he needed more manpower, and this before any of the other US generals of WWII.
Anti-semite? Yes, his remarks on Jews are not pretty. They were common at the time though. But, in "Patton a genius for war" he deliberately used a Jewish GI as translator when questioning an SS man and had a famous contempt for the SS because of their crimes. Let's not forget that Truman and Nixon said some pretty nasty things about Jews, but are the two US presidents who saved Israel in its most critical hours. With anti-Semitism, deeds and not words are what really counts. By that count, Patton "the most dangerous enemy general", as rated by the Nazi high command, was one of the Jews greatest friends ever. 
And "Eisenhower greatly liked by the men"...come on!!! I have never heard of a Third Army man who didn't consider himself Patton's, and not "Ike" or FDRs, man. 
Patton anticipated the Ardennes offensive, and, with Operation Cobra (his brainchild, NOT Bradleys) that would place him as perhaps THE greatest field commander of WWII, rivalled only by Zhukov, Manstein and perhaps Rommel, but not by anyother US general. I shall edit this article when I have the time. 
Jan Morup
janmorup2@gmail.com  —87.53.231.109 (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err....basically supplimenting his forces with colored gunfodder isn't rasist? And as for humor...well, that 'joke' was just HILARIOUS. Or not. Noting a book written 40 years after the fact, and noting one single case from that book, does not show any great appreciation of the jewish people. Was Patton a great general? Maybe. Probably, even. Was he a great PERSON. Not so much, perhaps. But, that is not necessarily a bad thing. The time needed a person like Patton. But don't make him out to be more than he was.  —213.113.252.41 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that you used so many theoreticals in your argument lends more credence to the preceding, perhaps more favorable portrait of General Patton, which I am more inclined to believe. As was said this article could use a little cultural relativism... General Patton was a product of his time period, and even at that time remarkably forward thinking and progressive. He was the product of a conservative, wealthy white upbringing, which let's not forget was of the early twentieth century - the fact that he requested the use of African American units (who were hardly gunfodder; I find that comment to be more offensive, relatively speaking, than anything Patton said of them) is significantly worth noting as well as his well-known disgust and outrage during the liberation of Buchenwald. His refusal to remove Nazis from government positions is also widely sensationalized; most Nazi officials were in fact removed, but on the other hand many government workers were retained in order to provide basic services, not to mention the Allied de-Nazification effort was reminiscent of the disastrous de-Baathification of Iraq in the wake of the removal of Hussein. In terms of his strategic capabilities as a commander, I would go even further than the proceeding argument and say that he was definitively THE greatest commander of World War II, and would be remembered more favorably in that aspect had he not been consistently held back by an American effort that was far too pliant to the demands of the British (who constantly preferred Montgomery with disastrous results, a la Op Market Garden) and the clamor of the press.
209.244.30.41 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a disgrace 

message: I recently heard a rumor from someone I have no reason to doubt that the circumstances around Patton's death were suspicious. In particular that he may have been murdered because he intended to prosecute certain officers under his command for looting. I'm curious if there has ever been any scholarship on this topic? Ronnotel (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was even a film about the conspiracy theory made in 1978 called Brass Target --rogerd (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A movie and scholarship are two different things. . . (John User:Jwy talk) 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, absolutely.  I wasn't trying to imply that this work of fiction was a reliable source about his cause of death.  I was just letting Ronnotel know that there had been so much talk about this conspiracy theory that they even made a film about it.  The only place where this film should possibly be mentioned is on the "Legacy" section or perhaps a "Other films" section after the section about the 1969 film.  He was asking why the other two Hollywood productions weren't mentioned in the article, and perhaps they should.  I am sure there is no reliable source that backs up this theory. --rogerd (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. How come no mention on the article then? Seems like the movie itself would be notable enough to merit a sentence or two. Ronnotel (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The film wasn't very well received by the critics or the box office.  There was another film about Patton, called The Last Days of Patton, a made for TV film with George C. Scott reprising his role.  If you want to add them to the article, then go ahead.  --rogerd (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I went to IMDB.com, went to the search page and entered "George S. Patton".  Patton, The Last Days of Patton and Brass Target seem to be the only films where Patton was more than a minor character.  It might be a good idea to add the other two films to article.  --rogerd (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Fred8615 summarily deleted a correctly-cited reference to a new published account of Patton's death which theorised that it was an assassination attempt. Is there consensus for this deletion? --El Ingles (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any serious analysis or discussion of this theory, outside of the book referenced? If not, then I think the removal was appropriate per WP:UNDUE. ArakunemTalk 19:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand by my statement that it's nothing more than a stupid conspiracy theory. Just because he found someone to publish it doesn't make it true. I think the author saw Brass Target waaaay too many times. Fred8615 (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several major newspapers are now covering the book. The alleged assassin, Douglas Bazata has a rather impressive bio. He was a member of the Jedburghs. He earned four purple hearts, a Distinguished Service Cross and the French Croix de Guerre three times. He was also aide to President Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign. Wayne (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that newspaper accounts are calling the author Robert Wilcox a military historian but he does not include "historian" in his list of occupations on the bio page on his own website. He says "author/journalist/screenwriter/editor". http://www.robertkwilcox.com/bio.htm Nurg (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumor regarding his death 

message: Prominent in Carlo D'Este's biography of Patton are his struggles with dyslexia. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Patton?
Gouveia2 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew it was in there, so I did some looking.  It appears that it was trimmed out as "useless detail" here in February 2007.  More on the subject was removed here in September 2007 with no explanation.  No discussion ever took place about removing mention of dyslexia and I think it should be worked back in.  Whatever is added back in should be balanced between the arguments from D'Este and Hirshon.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Dyslexia was an important part of Patton's life. Overcoming this handicap, however severe, further proves his dedication and talent; hardly a "useless detail". Maybe others with opposing views can chime in. Gouveia2 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexia 

message: This quotation may be misleading and is factually erroneous:
First of all, this quotation makes it appear that Patton was the author of the book listed, which as can be seen by the footnote is apparently not correct.  Someone who is familiar with this book should correct the attribution of this quote, or barring that, the quote should be deleted as unverified.
Second, this quote attempts to equate "Displaced Person" with "Jew", a logical leap that is not supported by the quote mentioned.  The location in a synagogue, of which there were many throughout Europe, does not confirm that the people mentioned were Jews.  As the Jewish population had been deported from and/or exterminated in most areas of Europe at that time, many empty synagogue buildings were available, and, as empty buildings without caretakers, would seem to be logical places where homeless individuals might seek shelter.  Literally millions of people were Displaced Persons by the end of the war, and the vast majority of them were not Jews.  This quote may indeed be referring to Jews, or Patton may have considered them to be Jews,  but the author of this section does not provide enough of a quote to allow the reader to conclusively come to that conclusion.  As such, this quote may have been erroneously taken out-of-context.  This quote should either be expanded to strengthen it, or else deleted.
Keeping this first quotation in mind, and especially given the redaction of significant portions of the original quotation, the subsequent quote also requires verification and clarification:
Given the controversial nature of these quotes, and the sloppy way in which they are presented, these references (drawn from secondary or tertiary sources) are not, in my opinion, adequate here without specific reference to their primary source material.  Although these quotations may ultimately prove to indeed be truthful and accurate, the way they are presented represents, at the very least, poor scholarship, and leads one to question the Neutral Point of View of the author(s) of this section.
NDM (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes Regarding Anti-Semitism 

message: This is wholey incorrect, as the last mounted charge conducted by a US Cavalry unit was conducted on the Bataan Peninsula by an element of the 26th Cavalry Regiment.  This unit, all be it, a part of the US Army Philippine Scouts, was still a US Army unit, and thus diserves the credit of this statement.  Can someone please correct this eroneous statement.
: I have added a "Citation Needed" tag, although I do not believe this claim is verifiable. [Edwin Ramsey]'s charge clearly deserves the title as written. If Patton's is a "last" of some sort, it should at least be written more specifically. --Jnik (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't vouch for its accuracy, but here's an online statement detailing the Philippine Scouts cavalry charge of 1942:  Jack Bethune (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Last Mounted Charge" 

message: The family background section is too long, contains extraneous detail, and is poorly structured.  In particular, the first thing mentioned about Patton's father is that he was friends with some Confederate solider, then we're treated to an overlong discussion of great grandparents, etc., then we come back to the father again.  Unless there is strong objection, this section should be reduced by at least 50-60%.  —207.237.53.226 (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family background section way too long, repetitive, poorly organized 

message: Patton's attitudes on race are both unremarkable for his time and irrelevant to his significance as a historical figure.  The fact that the "race" section is as long as the sections describing his actual accomplishments and failures as a solider is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia project.  Just because Patton was outspoken on a variety of issues does not mean that his views on all of those issues are notable, especially when there is no evidence -- NONE -- that he was more anti-black or anti-semitic or whatever than the typical Anglo-Saxon American of his generation.  —207.237.53.226 (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial section should be eliminated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Retrofit topic year headers 

message: Anybody object to moving the controversies and criticism section to a separate article? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? (John User:Jwy talk) 07:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a long article. See WP:Article size. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No need for any kind of split. This article isn't too long. Binksternet (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Pistol shooting contreversy