Talk:Doughboy

Military history: North America / United States / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War I task force

Untitled

I'm looking for the composers of "Johnny Doughboy Found A Rose In Ireland" , a song from 1942

When you find the name, please include the information in this article; thanks! - DavidWBrooks 21:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Twomey. See 1942 in music. Kafziel 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 2

It seems highly unlikely that the doughboy pictured in the image on the left is receiving the Victoria Cross, given that the only US serviceman upon whom the decoration was bestowed (as best as I can discern) was The Unknown Solider, who is unlikely to have attained the upright posture depicted for His Majesty's convenience. The image's caption itself descibes only the conferral of "an award" and makes no reference to the VC. DublinDilettante 22:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Good point. Change made. - DavidWBrooks 23:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology section removed?

Is there any particular reason why the etymology section was removed on February 25th? Sure, it could use some sources, but other than that it seems pretty good. --Kevin 14:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"G.I." was indeed applied generally to American forces in WWII, in place of what was by then the anachronistic term "doughboy." Yet, as to the infantry in particular, "dogface" became the common usage in WWII. This seems apt to mention in that "doughboy" was originally also a term specific to the infantry. 70.57.201.99 11:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Quentin 0527, 27 April 2007.[reply]

sources

Does anybody else think that there need to be more sources cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.37.135 (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tale

We were always told that they were called Doughboys because upon arriving at the front new soldiers would rough dough on their uniforms to make them look dirty, as though they weren't fng's or equivalent. No source though. - Serving Soldier

I was told by a current solider that WWI soldiers were so named because they were sent across the ocean in flour ships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.170.124 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good story but not true--they went in ocean liners (like the '"Titanic", though it had already sunk). Rjensen (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

remove "motivation" setion

I have removed a section titled Motivation, since it was entirely about World War I soldiers, and as the article makes clear, the term "Doughboy" was used in other conflicts. (Also, it was terribly written, but that wouldn't be a reason to remove it). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

let's keep a fully sourced highly relevant section on what people who called themselves "doughboys" thought about their roles. This in no way detracts from the point that the term was occasionally used for other small groups of soldiers--they deserve coverage too. Rjensen (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origins and Purpose of Euphemism

While I don't have a source handy, it was my understanding that the term Doughboy, at least during WWI, was a reference to the apparent wealth of the U.S. soldiers freshly entering the war; dough, being a euphemism for money. While I see that my knowledge of when the term first came into use was wrong, I'm still confident that the purpose of the term is still accurate, and I feel it needs to be clarified, both in this article, and in the second-to-last sentence of the National Doughnut Day article (because the National Doughnut Day article directly references this topic). Is there someone who can clarify this, or provide the necessary source to end this discussion?
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to mention, the National Doughnut Day article simarly links to the Mexican-American War, however, nowhere in the Mexican-American War article does it even briefly touch on the subject. If it is confirmed that the term Doughboy originated from this era, then I feel that it maybe significate enough for inclusion in the Mexican-American War article.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the term referred to their youth and inexperience, especially if coming from veterans who'd already been in battle. Dough is soft and fresh, whereas after baking, it becomes hard. Pointless speculation without a source, but I think it makes sense. Jonjames1986 (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary photo

There is disagreement whether we need the second photo currently in the article, showing King George pinning a medal on an American soldier. I say it adds nothing, since you can't even see the Doughboy very well, and since we've already got a very good picture showing a WWI American soldier.

There are a zillion photos on wikipedia showing Doughboys in action, and there's nothing about this one which reflects anything in the article. It's a redundancy, and not a very good one.

By contrast, it serves a purpose in the other article that hosts it: United Kingdom–United States relations, where it reflects an aspect of the two countries interacting.

I would like to remove it, partly because its shape harms the text flow. Any thoughts? What are the arguments for keeping it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree with almost all your points. One, you question whteher it's a "doughboy". It's an American soldier being decorated in World War I, therefore, it's a doughboy, by definition. Twop, we can see him quite clearly, although it would hurt to clean up the photo a bit, which I'll take a stab at. Three, if you've got a better picture, put it here and let's talk about it. Four, flow of text - bahm humbug, I'm the king of flow of text and it's not really a problem, but I'll look at adjusting it's position. BMK (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a better picture, that's the point. This photo tells the reader nothing new, and as an experienced editor, you know that less is more when it comes to photos on wikipedia articles.

A good second photo would be a shot of the sheet music with Johnny Doughboy in the title - now that would add something for the reader. Lots of them exist online, but I can't find one that's clearly free of copyright; perhaps you can? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of the value of the photo, and have made the adjustments I mentioned above. BMK (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree, and judging from some of the comments on your talk page you don't give an inch in edit disputes, so I think I'll head elsewhere. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You certainly did improve the photo. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I'm wrong, I freely admit it and act accordingly. BMK (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Incorrect Medal Referenced in Photo

The caption for the photo says that a British Distinguished Conduct Medal is being awarded to Pvt. Harry Shelly, Co A, US 132nd Infantry, 33rd Division, but the Eligibility Section of the Distinguished Service Medal seems to indicate that you would have to be in the British military, or the military of one of its Commonwealth Dominions or Colonies, and an American soldier would therefore not be eligible. Either the caption is incorrect, or Distinguished Service Medal page is missing some information on potential eligibility. In the Recipients section of the Medal's page, it also indicates recipients from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and, South Africa, but no mention of Americans, French, or any other non-commonwealth, yet allied forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegage646 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Renegage646: I did some research on the picture and on Private Shelly a while ago. It is the British Distinguished Conduct Medal. It followed the Battle of Hamel on 4th July 1918 in which American troops fought under Australian command, and very successfully (Pershing was furious about it). Nineteen Americans were decorated by Britain - twelve, including Shelly, by the King himself. It had been very hard to get Pershing to allow Americans to do much fighting, least of all under Allied command, so for them to do so well on such an important date for America while integrated with Australian troops was far more important for Allied morale than any minor quibble about rules of eligibility. There's an interesting article about the events here. Shelly's citation said the medal was "for extraordinary heroism in action near Hamel, Belgium, July 4, 1918. With an Australian soldier, Private Shelly went out and silenced an enemy sniping post and brought back eight prisoners". DuncanHill (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]