Jump to content

Talk:Rodger Young

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

Rank?

[edit]

The current article infobox lists him as a Private, but he was a Sergeant when he was KIA. Is there something I'm missing here?

59.182.143.37 (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article. He voluntarily requested a rank reduction to private from sergeant when his eyesight and hearing degenerated so he wouldn't risk the lives of others. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions of him.

[edit]

Hello. Not so long time ago I got to this page and readed it. I never know before, who Roger Young was, but name seems familiar to me. I recall that I already saw name of Roger Young in different computer games /2 or 3/ and those ARE NOT connected to WW2. AFAIR "Roger Young" is a name of fictionale space shuttle in System Shock 2 game. That is barely a coincidence. --Oleg Str (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Roger Young" was the name of a fictional spaceship in the book Starship Troopers, the video game you remember was probably paying homage to the book. — jwillbur 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I came across this article while reviewing a request at DYK relating to the Ballard of Rodger Young. That article will appear on the main page soon (possibly on 31 July, the anniversary of Young's death), so I decided to try to add some references to this article. I've added what I could find from the internet, but there are still quite a few sentences/paragraphs that need references. If anyone can help, that would be greatly appreciated. Some paper sources would be great to balance out the bias on internet sources that currently exists. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation line?

[edit]

Would be nice if Roger Wilton Young showed up on searches for "Roger Young".  :) 161114 daihbhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.235.81 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rodger Wilton Young. 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) 09:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Discussion, April 2020

[edit]

Hello any watchers, I am working on getting this article to WP:GA status. As part of my work, I'd like to move this page to "Rodger Young", which, per WP:COMMONNAME, would be the correct place. Thoughts? If there aren't any constructive comments by April 11, 2020 UTC, I'll go ahead and move it per WP:SILENCE. Cheers, --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 02:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY moved. --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 14:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rodger Young/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zawed; I'm new to this, if love a day or two to address these comments. Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I will put the review on hold. Ping me if you have any questions about my comments and/or when you are ready for me to look at this again. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this one, comments to follow. Zawed (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On an initial pass, I see a few issues although none that would be insurmountable.

  • There is a cite in the lead. Since the lead should be a summary of the body of the article, which should already be full cited, there is no need for anything in the lead to be cited. I also note that the citation should be for page 111, not 117, otherwise it doesn't support what is in the lead.
  • Also, in relation to the lead, it should also be made clear that Starship Troopers is fictional - TBH, I think it is borderline trivia for the lead anyway.
  • Suggest breaking the military service section by adding a subsection for World War II (suggest at the point In 1942,... Then, rather than having an awards section, combine it with the World War II section. The mention of his burial can then follow the discussion of the Medal of Honor.
  • Young ignored the lieutenant's order...: suggest rephrasing to "Young ignored his commander's order..." as it is not been established that the lieutenant is the patrol commander.
  • Because of his actions,... suggest combining this sentence with the preceding paragraph.
  • There are a few things that aren't cited. I have added tags in the affected places. You will also need to cite a source for the purple heart.
  • Do we know if the MoH was ever presented to his family and when?
  • In 1949, Young's remains... Where was he buried initially?
  • Suggest reordering the legacy section and doing away with the bulletpoints. I think it is better to discuss the tangible/physical memorials first and then have the cultural stuff (song/Starship troopers) close out this section. According to the Ohio history cite, there is a park named for him as well.
  • The Home of Heroes cite doesn't work for me nor does the United States Army Center of Military History cite
  • List all the book sources in the references section, e.g. Heinlein, Leff

I will have a closer review of the actual text once the above has been addressed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: ok, I've finished it up, with only one or two minor questions. I had more time than I foresaw. Thanks! -- puddleglum2.0 15:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: not sure the ping went through. Cheers -- puddleglum2.0 14:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at this again. There are still some issues:
  • Earwig copyvio tool shows a high level of copyright violations due to the similarities to the togetherweserved.com and militaryhallofhonor.com websites. The MoH citation is OK to stay as it is as there will be no copyright in that but some of the article text will need to be rejigged quite considerably.
  • The Shadowbox website that you cite doesn't seem to add anything that the military hall of honor website doesn't. As the Shadowbox website seems a little flaky in terms of credibility I suggest losing it. If you keep it, the refs can be consolidated as currently refs 4, 7, 10, 11 and 16 all point to it.
  • What I meant by my comment in relation to the the Home of Heroes cite, it just goes to the homepage - it doesn't go to the Rodger Young page
  • This is the text I get for the United States Army Center of Military History cite: "The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable."
  • The Leff cite is recited in full in the notes section, it doesn't need to be as it is listed with the other books; just author name,year and pg no needs to be in the notes. Also, add the isbn.
  • The book references need to be consistent in presentation; both Heinlein and Lef lack location. The Heinlein seems to double up on title and it is not clear who Anson is or why the year range is there.
Still a bit of work to do here unfortunately. I will check back in a few days. Zawed (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zawed: I believe I've addressed these - what do you think? -- puddleglum2.0 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Puddleglum2.0 I may not have been clear in relation to the presentation of Leff so I have tweaked this and also consolidated some refs and date formats. Running Earwig again, I'm still seeing a high probability of copyright issues. See here, you can see clearly the overlap in text in red. Certain phrases are quite common e.g. he was born in but others can be rephrased or use alternative wording to articulate the same point. For example, the text "He was not selected initially, but during practice Young's enthusiasm convinced the coach to let him play occasionally" is flagged as major section of text with issues. This could be rejigged along the lines of "In the early stages of the season he was not part of the playing team, but Young's efforts in practice saw the coach select him for the occasional game". Once this copyvio issue is sorted, I think this should be good for GA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zawed,  Done I believe I've addressed that now; Earwig only shows me small snippets in the article where I couldn't replace the commonly-used clauses and words. Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 22:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Puddleglum2.0, I was still uncomfortable with the extent of the overlap so I've had a further go at reducing it. I got it down to 73% and the overlap that remains is primarily due to the MoH citation and the names of units and facilities. I think this is ready to go GA now. I hope this wasn't too painful a process for you. I hope to see more of your military history articles and if you haven't already, I encourage you to check out and get involved in the Milhist project. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I am satisfied this article meets the GA criteria, passing as GA now. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Rodger Young
Rodger Young
  • Reviewed: Second dyk nom.

Improved to Good Article status by Puddleglum2.0 (talk). Nominated by Puddleglum2.0 (talk) at 14:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]


  • Approved without image Article is new enough (GA on May 22), long enough (7,000 chars), neutral, cites sources. Earwig of course kicks up the MoH citation but that's not an issue. Both hooks are short enough, interesting, and cited. No preference for either, though you might want to combine them (proposed hook below). QPQ not required. Image should be free, but the source link is dead, and I can't be 100% sure that it's public domain without a valid source (though it's heavily implied because he became a sergeant after moving to the Army, so if this is an Army photo, it's public domain).
ALT2 ... that despite being nearly deaf and blind, Rodger Young (pictured) was able to save his platoon from an enemy ambush, for which he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor?
Please ping me if you have found another source for the image, or replaced it, and want me to re-review to approve the image. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Thanks for the review. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with image-related policy to fix anything - I guess the regular hook without the picture would be just fine. Your proposed alternate hook looks great, thanks! Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 17:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Squirrel Conspiracy, just to clarify, this is approved without the image? I think this has gone stale. Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 04:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Puddleglum2.0: Yes. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is anybody home? I hate to be a nuisance but @Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth:, I know you two are active at DYK, does it generally take this long here? My other nomination got reviewed and added much faster than this. All the best and thanks for your work, -- puddleglum2.0 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Puddleglum2.0 I am in the process of building a queue right now. Right now most of the hooks I'm using were submitted in mid-May. I can't make any promises - I can't promote a nomination that I reviewed - but I'd say that based on what's in the pipes, this will likely be promoted some time in the next two weeks. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the phrase "nearly blind" is pretty subjective, but I would interpret not being able to see lackboard notations well (referenced by the Home of Heroes cite) as being nearly blind. If this is not readily apparent though, I guess we could change it to "Despite having many physical disadvantages..." or something like that. Cheers, -- puddleglum2.0 21:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: forgot to ping, apologies. -- puddleglum2.0 21:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Puddleglum2.0: would you like to start: ... that despite being shortsighted and nearly deaf...? Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballad of Rodger Young

[edit]

Country recording artist, the late Mr. Jim Reeves (D. 1963) recorded a far superior cover of this ballad, with spoken intro and excellent music and closing. Mr. Reeves' music is still available online and such sites as YouTube. Truly a tribute to Private Rodger Young and his heroism. Vjwheeler1 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rodger_Young&oldid=1208671492"