Talk:Flying Tigers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Roosevelt's secret exec order

On April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising personnel on active duty to resign from the military services in order to sign up for the AVG.

I found information stating that this happened in US Army: A Complete History published by the Army Historical Foundation. What's your source for saying that it didn't happen? Drogo Underburrow 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

FDR allowed the resignation of military personnel, but the disputed part, was the claim by recruiters that they could return to active duty with the time served in AVG counting toward their time on Active Duty. Similar to the sheep dipping on U-2 pilots going to work for the CIA. PPGMD 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement says nothing about returning to active duty. All it says is that Roosevelt signed a secret executive order. Drogo Underburrow 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has ever found such a document, and most Roosevelt scholars I've spoken to point out that issuing one would have been against FDR's style. I spent two days combing through the FDR Library at Hyde Park looking for that supposed order. Except for one instance (not in April, and not referring to the 1st AVG} did Roosevelt sign his name to a memo (not a "secret executive order") to the military dealing with the Special Air Unit for China. Otherwise everything was handled by Lauchlin Currie. If the AHF book gives a file locator for the order, I'll look again, but I'll bet it doesn't. There's a new book coming out in June that might shed some light on this. --Cubdriver 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still the fact remains that the Army Historical Foundation says that Roosevelt did this. You still have given no other source that says he didn't do this. Here at Wikipedia, its our job to report what sources say, not what our original research tells us. Wikipedia is not about reporting "the truth", but simply about reporting what sources say, so even if you find a source that contradicts this source, you shouldn't delete this statement, but should modify it to add the newer source not as the truth, but impartially as an alternate view. In fact, even if you called and spoke with the Army Historical Foundation, and they told you that they had made a mistake in their book, and you were right, you still could not put that information into Wikipedia, see the policy page. So discussing what "really" happened, and the scholars you have spoken with on this talk page is a waste of time, and not what talk pages are for. Drogo Underburrow 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's not unheard of that e-mails to scholars on the subject being used as a source on Wikipedia, so if he does contact the AHF and they report that they were wrong it's not unheard of, that the e-mail being used as proof to verify other sources. That is counter productive, and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. PPGMD 03:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy page specifically states that information be published. It does not say that private e-mails are acceptable sources. So if you have heard of people using e-mails, please refer them to the policy page. I don't know what you are refering to when you say "that is counterproductive". Drogo Underburrow 03:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's counter productive because it isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia. Using policy to silence others isn't in the spirit of wikipedia and sharing information. There are alot of cases where published sources are wrong, and certain sources aren't mentioned because they are wrong, or based on incorrect information particular when they come from broad reference sources. Your source is an example of such a broad source, and it's more likely that more focused sources are more correct. PPGMD 04:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The policy page on original research SPECIFICALLY gives an example of how even if the source itself admits it is in error, that Wikipedia must not use that information. The policy pages define the "spirit of Wikipedia". The "spirit of Wikipedia" says that Wikipedia is for reporting published sources that are verifiable. It is not for presenting the "ultimate truth". Your idea of what Wikipedia is about is wrong. Your argument is with the policy pages, not with me. Finally, Wikipedia, as the policy pages explain, is not about picking and choosing which sources are right and wrong. Its not about using "more focused sources are more correct". I am pretty much not going to say anything more on this issue. I ask you to carefully read the policy pages and attempt to adhere to them, rather than using your own ideas about what Wikipedia is and isn't. Abiding by the policy pages helps to prevent edit wars, and prevent wasting a lot of time, by making sure editors are all trying to do the same thing, and not some editors trying to write one sort of reference work, while others try to make it another sort. Drogo Underburrow 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I had time to look up your source at a local bookstore, that book is the historical equivalent of a Farmer's Almanac, no citations, doesn't go into very much depth on any of it's subjects, but it makes a good coffee table book (I own two of the series's myself, I wouldn't rely on them as sources). I agree with Cubdriver I believe it should be stated "It's widely believed that FDR issued an executive order allowing pilots to resign for AVG service, however there is no evidence that such a order was ever published, the State department in fact blocked the issuing of passports of a number of pilots that had a history of volunteering for such service." Flying Tigers by Daniel Ford is the citation for that last part. PPGMD 14:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, gosh, I didn't mean to start a policy war! I don't mind at all if the text says something like "It's widely believed that FDR signed a secret executive order on Apr 15" etc, because that appears in most of the Flying Tigers histories, though never with a citation. And FDR did know all about the project. It's just that his style was to govern by a wink and a nod, and the Secret Executive Order is not only unavailable to us, if it ever existed, but was unlike him. --Cubdriver 10:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

there is no evidence that such a order was ever published, - What is your source for this? Drogo Underburrow 16:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that there is no evidence, so therefore there must be evidence? I have no evidence that aliens didn't land at Rosewell, but still I think it's safe to say that they didn't. As for FDR, see for example www.warbirdforum.com/fdrnote.htm

I put it in for four reasons, first in Black Sheep One (forget the author, it's in the Boyington article), the author mentions that most of the official recognition never came (official probably means the promised Executive order), second the State Department denied the passport of at least one member of the AVG on the grounds that they though he was going to fight for China (this is mentioned in Flying Tigers by Ford), third is the lack of evidence of such order in the FDR library (this is not classified original research, it's called verifying sources), and fourth there is no citation of where your "source" got the information.

I also checked the policy pages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_sources Because your source does not have citations and it's a very broad book, I do not consider it an academic source, thus any claims it makes it dubious, but I included it none the less because it's in the official AVG history (along with it's claimed 1000 kills). PPGMD 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you agree that multiple sources all say that on April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising Army Reservists on active duty to resign from the Army Air Corps in order to sign up for the AVG. Therefore, I'm going to put that in the article, just as stated here. Furthermore, you have no source which claims these sources are mistaken. The only questioning is coming from you and Cubdriver; that makes it original research, and not suitable for inclusion in the article. Finally, I'll attribute your questioning of the Army Historical Foundation's book to a desire on your part to win an argument, and not a serious statement that you have actually investigated. Please go to their website and check out the institution you are criticizing before making rash accusations: www.armyhistory.org Drogo Underburrow 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Checking sources is not considered Original Research, if you read the OR page, you will note that Jimbo says that the policy is in place to prevent original theories to be published on Wikipedia, checking for such Secret Order in the FDR archives, and not finding any citation of a order number, or any evidence that such an order existed is not OR. Your source, and web sources do not provide a citation, and there is no known publication of the order, thus as far as one can tell it doesn't exist.

Your "source" comes from a find foundation, that doesn't mean that the particular source you have chosen isn't junk, with no citations, and covering such a broad topic, it is hardly considered an original source. Based on my checking of multiple sources, I find my citable evidence that such an order was published, thus I will revert any addition that outright claims that there was such an order. PPGMD 19:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a statement into the article and gave the source for that statement. That's all that is required. The book said what it said, that is a fact. The book is a reputable source. Therefore, the material belongs in the article. If you find material from a different source, that makes a different argument, by all means include it as well. But don't make the article POV by deleting what the Army book said or putting unsourced words in the article questioning what it said. It seems to me that you are ignoring the NPOV policy, making wild accusations such as questioning the Army Historical Foundation as a valid source, and simply being obstructive at this point. Drogo Underburrow 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your book is not a reputable source, it lacks one of the keys to be considered an academic source, citations. Just like Wikipedia, if you want a source to be consider reputable, it must have citations so other may check on it's work. PPGMD 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely ridiculous. You could hardly ask for a better source than the Army Historical Society. Furthermore, you already agreed that the fact I attributed to the Army Historical Society is also stated by multiple other sources. Drogo Underburrow 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In web sources yes, a common myth doesn't mean it's right. The book you quoted is not an academic source, personally I expected better from the AHS, but since neither of my two copies of books from the same series has citations either, it seems to be a common theme, find me a source that has citation on this executive, and I will not revert, until then it's uncited, with more evidence (like Boyington having a hard time re-entering the USMC, State Department denying passports to Army pilots, and lack of publication at FDR library) that points that there was no order. PPGMD 20:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets get this straight: You are now objecting to my putting one sentence in the article, that is sourced by a book published by the Army Historical Society, because there is no footnote in the book; but you already agreed that what the sentence is saying, is widely stated by others was well. Meanwhile, the entire rest of the article is completely uncited. Don't you think you are being a bit argumentative and unreasonable? There is only one footnote in the entire article. Its to a website; that website doesn't footnote its information. Yet you are arguing against including material given by the Army Historical Society in its published book. And arguing against a sentence that you already agreed is widely stated in many histories.

Ok, here's the bottom line. I'm going to include the statement, and cite the source. You are welcome to include statements by your sources in the article as well. Just don't stick in POV statements that are unsourced, written by you, saying that the Historical Society's statement is untrue. Drogo Underburrow 20:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You are the one that brough Policy into it, I was going to take a more laid back approach and contact the editor looking for his source (a process that I have already begun). But according to the Reliable Sources Policy, US Army: A Complete History is not considered a reliable secondary source, it lacks both footnotes, and an extensive bibliography so you can check up on it's sources. No primary source is available from the main publishing source, and there are a number of issues that said document would have come in handy when dealing with the State Department and the USMC (according to Black Sheep One, and Flying Tigers both extensively cited books that qualify as reliable secondary sources). I have started an attempt to find the primary source, until then I will revert any changes made to the article based on that book.

Seriously take a look at that book, is it comprehensive (check the Nam section and check for Mi Lay and other embarrassments), is it extensively sourced, would they be considered an expert on the AVG? Do you seriously believe that a book under 1,000 pages can contain accurately 200+ years of Army History? 21:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your objection to the US Army book is bogus. The only reason you are objecting to the book is because its the one I happen to have gotten the information from. You have already acknowledged that any number of sources say the same thing. Furthermore, nowhere in the policy pages does it require that in order to be included in Wikipedia, the original material must contain footnotes. Drogo Underburrow 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I am objecting is from a lack of a primary source (the original document), and I find it suspect that there is no citation in any document I have that states such an order was published. Note "These standards include a format that includes footnotes and bibliographies pointing in great detail to the sources used." thats from the Reliable Sources Policy page under the History Section, US Army: A Complete history wouldn't qualify. If the editor can point me in the direction of a academic secondary source, or the primary source then I will gladly re-write that sentence, but no earlier. PPGMD 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it anywhere. Make a link to what you are talking about. Drogo Underburrow 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Right here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources also if you want a source, here we go http://www.warbirdforum.com/faq.htm#10 that FAQ was written by Daniel Ford, an expert on the AVG, and author of a number of book that would qualify as secondary sources. 21:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The page you linked me to is a guidelines page, not a policy page. So its not binding on Wikipedia. It states: that besides footnoted materials, There are many other sources of historical information, but their authority varies. A recent trend is a proliferation of specialized encyclopedias on historical topics. These are edited by experts who commission scholars to write the articles, and then review each article for quality control. They can be considered authoritative for Wikipedia. This book by the Army Historical Society falls in this category. Its edited by experts and reviewed.

Now, again, neither you, nor the second link you refered me to, dispute that most Flying Tiger histories claim that in April 1941 President Roosevelt issued a "secret executive order" to create the American Volunteer Group. Since that is all that I am quoting from the Army book, I don't want to hear any more objections to it. Its an agreed on fact. It doesn't even need a citation between us.

That is all I am insisting on...that that statement be in the article, only in the form of a direct statement in the following form: Most historians say that on April 15, 1941 President Roosevelt signed a secret executive order authorising Army Reservists on active duty to resign from the Army Air Corps in order to sign up for the AVG. That most historians SAY it, you have to admit that this is fact. That is all I want the article to say, I am not pressing for the article to say that the historians are correct.

I don't mind if you then add to the article the viewpoint expressed on the website you showed me...as long as you attribute it to the author of the site, stated so that its clear that its an alternate view. Neither of the two views will the article claim to be the "correct" one. That is the NPOV way. Can we agree on this? - Drogo Underburrow 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an agreed on fact, the second link is from an author that is widely considered an expert on the AVG, if he can't find such an order, it's unlikely to have existed. Combine that with problems that said executive order may have fixed (such as that State department not granting passports) there is more evidence that suggests that it didn't happen. As is quite often a myth is purported as fact. Without a primary source, I simply can't agree. I also simply don't consider US Army: A Complete History a specialist encyclopedia, particularly on the subject on the AVG. PPGMD 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the way that it's phrased right now is very NPOV, it states that it's a widely held believe that such an order was signed, but it notes that there is no primary source evidence to prove it. PPGMD 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, right now its POV, it implies that one side is right and the other is wrong. The NPOV way is to state both sides views as views, not saying either is the truth. The article has to state "side A believes this and side B belives that isn't true, instead this is true." Drogo Underburrow 22:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it notes that many believe that there was an executive order, but it also states that authors are unable to find evidence (aka primary source, the original document) that such an order exists, and it states that there were issues that said order may have fixed that cropped up, so it's unlikely that such order exists. It covers all sides of the story. PPGMD 22:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

When you say "it states that there were issues that said order may have fixed that cropped up, so it's unlikely that such order exists." this is being POV, its arguing which of the two sides is correct. You can't do that, you can only allow each side to make its own case. Drogo Underburrow 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Such order would apply to the State Department if it was issued, so it's further proof that such an order didn't exist. PPGMD 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That "secret order"

This addition was made by an anonymous editor: However, copies of the order have been found by researchers in private archives and at Stanford University, to which a more responsible citizen added: [citation needed]

Indeed! The claim is so improbable that I have removed it pending such evidence. The reference to Stanford almost certainly means the Chennault Papers, which contain no such document. It is famously impossible to prove a negative proposition ("there was no such order"), but to assert the positive ("there was such an order") absolutely requires documentation. AVGbuff (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4