Jump to content

Talk:Billy Mitchell

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

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Billy Mitchell. 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) 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billy Mitchell. 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) 05:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military Naming claim

[edit]

This claim, "He is also the only individual for whom an American military aircraft design, the North American B-25 Mitchell, is named," in the introduction, seems incomplete, since the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter is also named after an individual. I feel that this should be either changed to "the only United States citizen" or "the only fixed wing aircraft," or some other way to separate the B-25 from the UH-60. 68.49.40.87 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The US Army has named a number of aircraft after Native American individuals, including the CH-54 Tarhe helicopter named for Tarhe, and the T-42 Cochise airplane named for Cochise. - BilCat (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Medal of Honor claim

[edit]

So this one has been disproven many times, but for some reason your page still lists Mitchell as a MoH recipient, and cites the USAF (which is obviously wrong). The Senate Report from the 1970s erroneously confused Mitchell's Congressional Gold Medal as a Medal of Honor, which is the source of the error in the Army's Center of Military History listing, etc. They have since removed the award listing from the DoD's database at https://valor.defense.gov/Recipients/Army-Medal-of-Honor-Recipients/ (it's conspicuously absent under either the Army or AF listing for the MoH). The bill for Mitchell's award was amended to say "a gold medal" in the body instead of the original language, which was "a Medal of Honor." But they forgot to edit the title of the bill, which was passed saying it was a Medal of Honor (which does not control the legislation). When the House committee that made the amendment reported the change, it clarified that "it should be noted that the legislation under consideration does not authorize an award of the Congressional Medal of Honor," which seems very dispositive on this point. See Mears, The Medal of Honor: The Evolution of America's Highest Military Decoration, p. 149. The bill in question was for the Congressional Gold Medal that the AF helped to design, and which is in the possession of the National Museum of the AF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC) So, recommend clarifying that it's a citation for a Congressional Gold Medal, and remove the photo of the AF Medal of Honor, which did not even exist at that time (thus, it would be erroneous even if Mitchell had received a MoH, which he did not) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC) And if you look at the Center of Military History's site (https://history.army.mil/moh/asaoc.html), it has the following explanation of Mitchell's award: "1) There is some debate as to whether William Mitchell was in fact awarded the Medal of Honor or the Congressional Gold Medal. The act cited directs that "a gold medal" be struck and presented in recognition of Mitchell's pioneer service and foresight. It does not, however, specify which medal was to be awarded. In July 1945 the War Department had recommended to Congress that special gold medals be voted by Congress in cases of outstanding leadership and that the Medal of Honor be reserved for awarding only gallantry in action. Colonel William "Billy" Mitchell was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, which was announced using the identical citation and approved date as listed for the award above. It seems apparent that the intention was to award the Gold Medal rather than the Medal of Honor. However, for some unknown reason, when the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs published its report, Medal of Honor Recipients: 1863-1978 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979) compiling all Medal of Honor Recipient citations, William Mitchell and his citation were included. This website takes its Medal of Honor citations from that report, and that is why Mitchell's citation is included here - though it should be noted, the "gold medal" authorized above is most likely the Congressional Gold Medal, rather than the Medal of Honor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous promotion claim

[edit]

So I looked into this because I saw multiple references to him being promoted to Maj. Gen. decades apart, which cannot possibly be accurate. I've also seen multiple sources saying both that FDR and Truman promoted him, but with no citation. The AF history office says the 1942 bill failed to pass, and the 2003 bill cited in this article also failed to pass. I verified that Mitchell's promotion was included in the FY2005 NDAA (118 Stat. 1918), but the AF history office again says that was never acted on (since the bill merely allows it to happen, which of course doesn't ensure it will). The AF history office claimed that a 1930 law allowed officers from WWI to be retired at the highest rank held (even temporary rank) during WWI. I pulled the law, and it does indeed say this, but Mitchell appears excluded because it only applies to officers advanced to the retired list. Due to Mitchell's resignation, it appears this never occurred--I checked in the Army Register from 1926 to 1928 and he wasn't in it, so evidently he just resigned without retiring. By law that would make him a Colonel at the point of separation, and while he held Brig. Gen. several times, he's not covered under that law, so he is not considered a retired general, or a retiree at all (evidently). I tried to scrub the article while incorporating this new information, but I undoubtedly didn't get everything (someone stuck a picture of major general stars in there that I'm not sure what do with--I guess we can find a picture of colonel rank?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-caption in the Infobox, under "Rank" says "The highest rank achieved by the person." The highest rank that Mitchell achieved, was brigadier general. The template's caption doesn't say "The highest permanent rank achieved by the person," or "The retirement rank of the person." Whether or not the highest rank achieved is temporary or permanent is negligible since the U.S. military still uses temporary ranks to this day. The fact that he retired as a colonel instead of a brigadier general also negligible since there are plenty bios in wiki, i.e. Joe Sestak and a lot more, have their highest temporary rank listed in the Infobox. Neovu79 (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, although I don't see that infobox description. In this context it seems more significant because of the effective demotion, which of course flows from the fact that he didn't serve satisfactorily at that rank (evidenced by his repeated misuse of his office, courts-martial, etc.). Also notable that the 1930 law elevated virtually every WWI temporary general officer to that permanent grade in retirement, other than Mitchell, owing to his resignation. That is a discernable difference and one that isn't captured by just referring him to the highest rank temporarily held. In my opinion, it needs some kind of asterisk, because "highest rank achieved by a person" at least implicitly conveys that he served in that grade satisfactorily, which he objectively did not. Even the USAF agrees at some level, for they were authorized to promote him to Major General in 2004 and chose not to do so. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Foxtrot5151 in order to see the subcaption. you have to be editing the Infobox in normal "Edit" instead of "Edit Source". "Highest rank achieved by a person" doesn't implicitly convey that a person served in grade satisfactorily. Unfortunately, the U.S. military does not use asterisks for ranks, temporary or permanent. You're either retired in your highest rank or you're not; assuming you meet the other requirements for retirement. Officers like General William E. Ward, who served 5 years in the rank of general, was found to have not served satisfactorily in that rank, and was retired as a lieutenant general. As for officers not being promoted, that happens a lot more often than you think, and 99% of the time, never makes the news. A very good recent example is Major General Patrick Matlock. He was confirmed by the Senate for appointment to lieutenant general in April 2021, but he never assumed the rank. This month, he was nominated for appointment to that rank again, but will have to go through the senatorial confirmation process again. Neovu79 (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks for the explanation. I guess I would prefer something more like was used for the Wikipedia page for Samuel Koster (the general demoted after My Lai). If you go to his page, you'll see it has both the highest rank held as well as rank at retirement, which I think is far clearer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_W._Koster Foxtrot5151 (talk) 21:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Foxtrot5151 and Neovu79: On the topic of Matlock, that did make the official Defense.gov new releases, but the page must have been scrubbed away after Matlock's nomination was scuttled. Matlock was initially nominated to succeed James Pasquarette as Deputy Chief of Staff, G8 but despite being confirmed, he indeed did not assume the rank for unexplained reasons (Brian J. Mennes is also a good example here).
We have no idea if it's because the CSA changed his mind last-minute or because Matlock was under investigation (unlikely as investigations at this level are usually publicised after a certain point). Instead, Erik C. Peterson became the nominee and Matlock was left in the dust as a special assistant to the director of the Army Staff until this September, when he got assigned to the plum assignment of Deputy Chief of Staff, G3/5/7. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Mitchell Lead

[edit]

Starting talk page discussion to avoid edit warring.

The lead should remain the same. The claim that Billy Mitchell was the father of the US air force immediately highlights his role in the founding of the branch as an independent organization and his significance/importance. By all metrics and in all histories of the US air force Billy Mitchell is presented as the leading figure in the early years of the air force. It is often claimed that he was the “father” of the air force, including in reliable sources by recent scholars as well as from US military publications. To say that other individuals were more heavily involved in the development of the US air force or that his role is overstated to the detriment of others doesn't contradict the claim and can be elaborated on outside the literal first sentence of the article.

@Newtack101 @Binksternet Originalcola (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the title is generally used more to refer to Hap Arnold it doesn't seem unreasonable to replace the line with something else that summarizes his role with perhaps less biased language, but to question his significance in the lead would give disproportionate focus to a relatively minor critique. Originalcola (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen far more references to Billy as "father of" the US Air Force than Hap. Marshall has also been called the same thing,[1] but Billy Mitchell receives the title a lot more often. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There two issues here:
  1. Whether Mitchell is The Father of the US Air Force: He is certainly a father, but the fact that other individuals have been given the same epithet means that there is disagreement. It's not uncommon that a person is given superlative acclamation during his life and for a number of years thereafter, but later scholarly examination leads to a reconsideration. For that reason we need to look at recent secondary sources.
  2. Regardless of that question, the body of the article does not call him the father of the US Air Force. The lead section should not introduce material, especially contentious material, without fuller discussion of it in the body
Indyguy (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. My original line of thought was that the difference between "the" and "a" was trivial.
2. I mentioned this in an edit summary but the mention of a moniker doesn't need to consistently used across an article or even mentioned outside the lead, as it wouldn't seem necessary to restate that frequently. I had a quick look on articles on the wikipedia list of fathers/mothers of subjects and found that there would be a quick mention of it in the lead if it were mentioned. Originalcola (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Originalcola thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The relevant passage I originally cited, in full, is as follows:
"For too long the early history of the predecessors of the United States AIr Force have been lost to the overarching tale of Billy Mitchell. Unequivocally, Mitchell is important. However, this focus obscures so many of Mitchell's contemporaries. Mitchell's persona dominated contemporary media coverage, and since that time, it has dominated histories as well. Nearly lost to all but the most ardent of airpower scholars are the names Mason Patrick, James Fechet, Benjamin Foulois, and Oscar Westover, each of whom was a chief of the Air Corps -- a position never held by Mitchell. It was these men who organized and structured the Air Corps in the interwar years. While it might be true to say that Mitchell's DNA -- a streak of maverickism -- still lives on in the Air Force, it was the work and building of the Air Corps by these leaders that truly brought the organization into existence."
-Laslie, Brian (2024). Fighting From Above (The Ways of War Series) (Volume 1). University of Oklahoma Press. p. 51-52. ISBN 0806193670.
Lasie is the command historian at the United States Air Force Academy. To @Indyguy's points, one would be hard pressed to find a more authoritative or recent source, and Laslie clearly states that the men who "truly brought the [Air Force] into existence" (i.e., who birthed it, i.e., its fathers) are Patrick, Fechet, Foulois, and Westover. He doesn't even put Mitchell into this company (nor Hap, for that matter). So, I would argue that even calling him a father of the Air Force is not without contention. Newtack101 (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Laslie does not say any of the work by other contemporaries explicitly removes Mitchell's title of "father". That's your conclusion from your reading of Laslie.
Norwegian Air Force Colonel John Andreas Olsen published an airpower history through the US Naval Institute in 2023: Airpower Pioneers: From Billy Mitchell to Dave Deptula. He describes how Mitchell's spirit infused the US airmen and provided constant inspiration. Just like Laslie, he does not call Mitchell the "father" of the USAF. But he sets up Mitchell as the front man, the first guy through the door, the "Visionary Firebrand". Olsen says Mitchell is the second-most influential interwar US airman after Lindbergh. He says Mitchell was revered by other airmen who sought to follow his lead. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is groundless. There's no "title" of "father of the air force" to be revoked. It's a subjective epithet. What are you expecting, a court case?
As you say, Olsen does not call Mitchell the "father" of USAF, either. And, again, no one is arguing that Mitchell wasn't important. That doesn't make him a father of the air force (let alone THE father). Newtack101 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a mistake in the edit summary by claiming that the book called Mitchell the father of the air force but it does say in the introduction the following:"The Air Force’s second epoch, the age of bombardment, traces its lineage directly from Italian theorist Douhet to Mitchell to the “father of the Air Force” Henry “Hap” Arnold to World War II bomber and later SAC general Curtis LeMay. In each of these persons, there was a reliance on and belief in the efficacy of strategic bombardment as the best means to achieve victory. The leaders of the Air Force relied on bombardment, and the American people were overwhelmingly presented this concept in such films as Victory through Air Power (1943)." I know that there are other sources that refer to both of them as such, and looking at Google Scholar it seems much more commonly used to described Arnold.
Since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought I didn't mention my opinion on whether he was a or the father of the air force. You could reasonably come to that conclusion but the book does not explicitly call him that or contradict that. The debate isn't whether we think he is a/the father of the air force but whether sources directly state that he is or isn't.
Even if it were a publisher of original thought, your interpretation of who would receive the title isn't the only one a reasonable mind could draw. The passage introduces the post-Mitchell era after he is dismissed and when the air force is being formed, with the author lamenting how histories focus on Mitchell and not on those who were involved in physically building up the air force as an organization after it's founding. You can reasonably assert from this passage alone that he is implicitly acknowledging him as the father of the air force in the sense that he came before the Air Corps chiefs and has his DNA in the organization. But editing on Wikipedia is not based on individuals' interpretations of secondary sources, but on the secondary sources and what they directly state.
In any case, my primary issue was not with calling him the father of the air force but adding criticism of him to the first paragraph of the lead when he is not really viewed as a controversial or overrated figure today. Since the inclusion of the epithet is trivial information and seems contentious I propose we just remove any mention of this title and just add a sentence or two to the lead mentioning that he played a key role in the formation of the air force. Originalcola (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with some of the things you've stated here. I don't think I'm making any grand interpretive leap when Laslie says 'person A, B, C, and D truly brought the Air Force into existence,' that I conclude if person E isn't on that list, then Laslie doesn't consider person E to be among those who brought the Air Force into existence. I mean, my dog isn't on that list. Am I to withhold judgement on whether my dog brought the Air Force into existence until Laslie weighs in?
Regarding the 'post-Mitchell era' you refer to, The Laslie passage I cited starts at the interwar period, before the creation of the Air Corps in 1926. Patrick is generally recognized as the major player in bringing about the Air Corps, but Mitchell was still very much in the picture at that time. He was Patrick's second in command.
Here's an excerpt from the flap of the most recent Patrick biography by Robert White: "While Mitchell played the role of the attention grabbing publicist, Patrick skillfully functioned as the true leader of the Air Service, expertly maneuvering behind the scenes and in selected public forums to ultimately ensure the creation of the Air Corps."
This conclusion is obviously very similar to Laslie's.
Getting back to the point, I'm fine with describing Mitchell as having made important contributions to the bringing about of the Air Force, or as playing a key role in bringing about the Air Force, etc. My issue is with presenting him as THE major or THE primary figure in it's creation, whether with the "father" epithet or otherwise. Newtack101 (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the first point, I just wanted to highlight the issue with interpreting sources rather than taking what is stated from them directly.
Mitchell resigned February 1st 1926, months before the act establishing the air force was passed. There is a brief description of the events leading up to his dismissal but Laslie by in large focuses on the time period after the formation of the independent air force(after his dismissal). The heading before the passage is the 1926 act itself so to say that he was in the picture seems to a be a bit of a stretch.
It seems we're in agreement on the main point of presenting him as a major figure instead of the major/leading figure. Originalcola (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are in agreement :) Newtack101 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and gave it a go at updating the lead. Newtack101 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, but I feel kind of bad that there was so much discussion over one sentence. Originalcola (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, it's all good with me. I enjoyed the discussion. Plus, it's the most important sentence in the article! Newtack101 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Billy_Mitchell&oldid=1242896822"