Talk:Stanley A. McChrystal/Archive 1

Archive 1

President Obama Appointed McChrystal to lead the Afghan war

Why is the fact not unbiasedly included in the article that President Obama appointed McChrystal in May 2009 to lead the Afghan war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.120.114 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Link to Rolling Stone article

Here is the link to "The Runaway General -- Stanley McChrystal, Obama's top commander in Afghanistan, has seized control of the war by never taking his eye off the real enemy: The wimps in the White House," by Michael Hastings. This article originally appeared in RS 1108/1109 from July 8-22, 2010. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeylife (talk • contribs) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We're starting to see spurious edits slipping into the copy. Wellspring (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Article 88, UCMJ

In case anyone was wondering, the article in question of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice is Article 88, Contempt toward officials.--TGC55 (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is wondering. It's pure speculation... QueenofBattle (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You are 100% correct -- pure idle speculation as he offered to resigned -- it's a moot point.--TGC55 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I try to Avoid Editing BLP Articles... So here is a Source

Here is a source is Valuable Analyses and one i feel should be included

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/06/22/what_happened_in_paris

Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Here is another source given for the same reason as Weaponbb7.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-22/mcchrystal-offers-resignation-after-disparaging-remarks-on-afghanistan-war.html Bloomberg.com article

--TGC55 (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

You may have noticed the short-term semi-protection. I did this to prevent further vandalism in light of the rumors about him the past 24 hours. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Does not seem to stop people from adding his rumored replacement without any kind of citation. --Joffeloff (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of date of promotion to Brigadier General

In the article it states he was promoted to Brigadier General on 1 January, 2001. However the accompanying picture states he was promoted in 1999. MikeFTM (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be the date the picture was taken, so it may only be the caption that is incorrect.

Runaway General

What kind of criticism was given in the Rolling Stone article? I feel like a little more specificity in the article would help understand what led to the resignation. WesUGAdawg (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there have been any reliable source statements on "why" he resigned. Many people have speculated on reasons but presumably only direct quotes from McChrystal, and possibly president Obamba, would be reliable sources for why he resigned. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WesUGAdawg, here's something that seems to answer your question plus answers "why." Speaking in the Rose Garden to reporters, Mr. Obama said he did not fire General McChrystal for critical comments about him and his staff in Rolling Stone magazine, nor “out of any sense of personal insult.” Rather, the president cited the need for his team to unite in pressing the war effort.^[1] --Marc Kupper|talk 04:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

NY Times says "According to one aide, the general apologized, offered his resignation and did not lobby for his job." I don't think this unnamed source is good enough to go in the article, but it is starting to sound like he wanted to quit. He had been previously warned about talking to the press, and then he does it on a grand scale. WTF?

The Rolling Stone alleges other problems with McChrystal, blaming him for driving away allies in the Afghanistan war, saying he didn't want to deal with civilians (US State Dept, French, etc.). Thundermaker (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Matbe he's just had enough of the CIC and other "losers" running the war from Washington? Maybe, he is running for congress? Maybe, he just wanted a vacation? Either way, the fact is that he resigned, so that's what the article should say. QueenofBattle (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there may be some confusion about resignation (perhaps on my part, or perhaps on the part of the press and others). My understanding is that a military officer may resign his commission, but he may not simply resign his command. AFAIK, McChrystal is still an active-duty General, which means his resignation was not accepted. He has been relieved of command by his superiors and is currently between duties. Thundermaker (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

We are dealing with collequialism here. True, a commissioned officer can "resign his/her commission" at any time. What GEN McChrystal did was offer to resign from his post (as ISAF commander) if the CIC has lost confidence in him, an offer that the CIC accepted by relieving him of his command. He is still on active duty and is still an Army general. It is not known, as some reliable sources have stated, whether he will be given another assignment. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Brigadier General image

The image showing General McChrystal after promotion to Brigadier General is dated October 29, 1999, but McChrystal was not promoted to BG until January 1, 2001, so either the caption and information in the article about his promotion to BG is incorrect, or the image date is incorrect, presumably the latter. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 13:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Image date seems to be correct, he was nominated for promotion in 1999 ([2]), and effectively promoted later, when he was in his new position. --Fernrohr (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I simply removed the reference to a date in the caption, given the conflicting information on this. The phot0 can't be as of his nomination, because his is wearing a star and there is the flag of a brigadier general displayed behind him. So, the photo must be of his as a BG, but the date affixed to the photo is wrong. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Main image

I would argue that the main image for Stanley A. McChrystal is not a neutral one. It appears all to similar to those found in newspaper articles, that are selected based on current populace opinion of the person involved. I suggest a newer image be found that would avoid the painting of this man as grumpy, disgruntled, etc. An example of a neutral image would be a more formal one, such as the one seen of General David Petraeus, [[3]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powderbearjeff (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no official DoD headshot similar to that of Patraeus. If you can find one, please do so. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Claim that McChrystal sleeps four hours a night, eats one meal a day, and runs 7 to 8 miles per day

This claim seems quite dubious to me. My revisions to remove this claim or at least put it into some context have been undone repeatedly. I won't continue to try to change it because I don't want to troll here, but I'd at least like to make it clear that I dissent.

It seems likely to me that these claims are made to make McChrystal seem larger than life and are probably not based in reality. Can it be expected that anyone could be competent and effective at any task while sleeping four hours a night, eating one meal and running 7 to 8 miles?

Eating one meal a day rather than the more typical three increases blood pressure and cholesterol as well as significant variations in blood sugar and fatigue. Chronic sleep deprivation from sleeping just four hours a night would led to severe cognitive and physical impairment.

Sleeping just fours a night isn't that unusual. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Our job is not to decide what may appear to us to be "dubious." It is to include in Wikipedia information that comes directly from reliable sources, which in this case the current text clearly does. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with QoB plus: I know several Operators (and some contemplatives - monks, nuns) who sleep that little and seem to do fine, and while I do snack a couple of times a day, I only eat 1 real meal a day. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I, also. Ceoil (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Needs an Early Life Section

Where did he grow up? Any early life experiences of note? Who were his parents? Who is he as a person? 70.209.159.102 (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, did he come flat packed from a factory or something? We should be told. I'd also be fascinated to hear the origins of such a ridiculous surname. Mu2 (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

MacCrìsdein? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_Gaelic_surnames СЛУЖБА (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The Rolling Stone article has some information about his early life and also his years at West Point. One story is that when playing baseball in Little League he would loudly announce to the crowd that he was going to pitch a strike -- and then do it. Considering that the information comes from Rolling Stone it might be a good idea to seek a second source to confirm it but at least there is more information about his early life than Wikipedia has as of this date. It is at least a place to start. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

Decorations

The pictures of his decorations, while nice, mean little unless you already know what they stand for. Can we get some links or explanations of what each ribbon is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah: I've always wondered why the images of military decorations don't wikilink to the articles on them, but rather default to the image page. I know the standard for images is to link to their page when they're clicked on, but it just seems intuitive that based on the "Wikipeida" setup, they'd link to articles explaining them. Has this ever been considered for military pages?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday (25 JUN 10) I noticed that the decorations section of GEN McChrystal's bio omitted his DDSM and DSSM, so I added them, then QueenofBattle undid my edits; I was just curious why? Patrickwooldridge (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the edits looked to be vandalism. The images were removed and the table didn't look right after the edits. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Wikitables, but I certainly didn't remove anything; just added the two (highest precedence) awards that were missing. Actually, his rack has several other ribbons not listed, but I had a hard enough time just adding the DDSM and DSSM. Sorry I couldn't get it to look right. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that perhaps someone could reorganize the section more like the treatment in GEN Petraeus' bio; easier to edit and clearer links. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Patrick, if you can discuss here what you want to have added, along with sources, I'll help get it into the table. QueenofBattle (talk)

Well from the photo of him in the article you can see quite a few more ribbons than the decorations section lists. Flag officers generally do not wear ribbons they are not entitled to while giving press briefings, so I think the source is good. Visible in the picture, from least precedence to greatest (starting in the observer's bottom right of his awards):

Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait), Kuwait Liberation Medal (Saudi Arabia), Army Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Humanitarian Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal with what appear to be two bronze stars, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, National Defense Service Medal with one bronze star, Army Achievement Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with two bronze oak leaves, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Legion of Merit with three bronze oak leaves, Defence Superior Service Medal with one bronze oak leaf and the Defense Distinguished Service Medal. I can't see the Bronze Star listed in the decorations page - it would fit between the Defense Meritorious Service Medal and the Legion of Merit, so it would be hidden by his lapel. However you can see it here [4] where he is a Major General. His lapel also hides any devices that might be present on his Army Commendation Medal ribbon, but given that he didn't have any devices as a Major General I sincerely doubt he has any now as an ARCOM isn't something you give a General. He is also wearing a Master Parachutist Badge, an Expert Infantryman Badge (on his left), a British Army Parachute Badge (on his right side) and a Joint Chiefs of Staff ID badge on his left pocket.

For a unit award he is wearing a Joint Meritorious Unit Award. You can just make out the Special Forces tab and Ranger tab on his left shoulder, but to be honest you have to know what they are based on their color and the fact that nothing else would be there.

Note that these are not all "decorations" -- campaign and service medals are awards, not decorations so the section would properly be titled "Awards, Decorations and Badges" -- but that's just me being nitpicky.

So that's all visible in the May 13 2010 picture in the article heading. E5z8652 (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks QoB. His DoD (.mil, JCS) bio is not currently available, but his Council on Foreign Relations bio lists all current decorations (but not service ribbons). URL is http://www.cfr.org/publication/19396/biography_of_general_stanley_mcchrystal.html. As to service medals and ribbons, I agree with the list above from E5z8652, except that I think the ribbon he or she identified as the Armed Forces Service Medal is probably actually the Korean Defense Service Medal (McChrystal served in Korea 81-82). Patrickwooldridge (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I added what I think is the complete rack using his CFR bio and the list from above. I think I have them all and I think they are in the right order. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks correct to me. Thanks for your efforts. Should we cite the CFR URL as a reference? Patrickwooldridge (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

See David Petraeus's section for decorations for an example of how this article's table could be improved. --71.110.90.242 (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Petraeus's decorations are in infoboxes in list form. McChrystal's layout seems to be how they would appear on a uniform. The layout difference is a matter of taste, I sort of like this, as a hat tip to military tradition.

But it would be nice if the links pointed to the pages which describe the citation, rather than to the image pages. Maybe even mouseover text descriptions (is that even possible?). Thundermaker (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

McChrystal Retires

I will add retired to the first sentence: McChrystal Ends Service -- And Rew 01:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanley A. McChrystal → Stanley McChrystal — General McChrystal does not appear to be known by his middle name or initial. Please see various sources: Independent, Time, ABC, BBC, Huffington Post, White House, and, yes, Rolling Stone. City of Destruction 22:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

oppose The New York Times uses the initial when it prints his name. See [5] and [6]. Also the Los Angeles Times at [7], and ISAF. The current redirect works fine, and it's better to use the more specific name in case somebody named Stanley B. McChrystal becomes notable in the future. Thundermaker (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi - even though I am a fellow opposer to this move, I have to point out that your last reason is not really valid... if we followed that logic then George Clooney would have to be moved to George T. Clooney, just in case an equally famous George S. Clooney comes along in future :-)  — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an overriding concern, just a minor benefit to keeping the title as-is. In Clooney's case I would use whatever variant he registered with SAG, which most likely matches his movie credits. Disambiguation is part of SAG's purpose. Thundermaker (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons cited above. Also, a redirect from Stanley... to Stanlet A. should avoid any confusion. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons cited by Thundermaker and QueenofBattle. Note to proposer, newspapers often leave out middle initials even when they are regularly used by the individuals in question. Newspaper analysis is not adequate justification for removing an initial from the title of an article about a person. --Bejnar (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per above - the common name does appear to include the "A"  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pat Tillman "Controversy"

I went and investigated the "citation" for the assertion that McChrystal was "Critized for his role in the Tillman cover" but that is not in the cited material. The cited material also does not meet the level necessary to be reputable. The Wikipedia article is one of the first results when a google search is done on McChrystal Tillman Controversy, and the other sources are either highly ideological or unreliable. I recommend its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.30.58 (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be enough supporting material for inclusion of this in the article. Having said that, however, I don't think its relative weight supports inclusion in the lede. It is one of several aspects of his life, and not one that many people would think about. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the citations support the statement.

At one time, the Tillman scandal was the only reason a lot of us had heard of McChrystal. Now he has grown to be a much more public figure. I think the scandal might be worthy of inclusion in the lead because it's the event that brought him his first notability. Thundermaker (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. I can support either leaving it in the lede or removing it. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he deserves a separate Controversy section. There is the recent Rolling Stone "scandal", the alleged prisoner abuse in Iraq, and the Tillman problems too. The page seems to be cleaned of anything that makes a point of these, despite them being major stories and well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.228.145 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All three are covered in appropriate detail in the article. Wiki's MoS frowns on separate "controvery" sections. The article, and coverage of these three events, is fine the way it is. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the word "fratracide" be deleted and the term "friendly fire" be used instead. "Fratracide" literally means to murder a brother. Pat Tillman's brother was in the unit serving with him. Use of the word "fratracide" implies he was killed by his brother, which adds a note of confusion and is insulting to his brother who served with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.69.144 (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally like the term "friendly fire", but it is more commonly understood than fratricide, which redirects to the same page. So I changed it. Thundermaker (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested on resignation

What has McChrystal resigned from? Is he simply no longer Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (while still being active military)? Or is he a civilian now? --JHP (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

He just resigned from commanding the forces in Afghanistan, which was more than just the U.S. forces, it was all the forces. He did not retire from the Army. Djklein (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, which is why the word "present" should remain in the dates of service in the infobox. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

However, does that not mean he is no longer a General (i.e. four star)? The General rank (four star) is temporary based on assignment. So if he resigned his post as the Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, then would he not revert to a Major General (two star)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.111.197 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if his permanent grade has increased during all this time he's had temporary ranks. Even if it hasn't, according to [8], Gates can keep him at general for up to 60 days between duties, so I would assume he's still wearing 4 stars at the moment. Thundermaker (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A Four Star General is a permanent rank. He will probably be assigned to another command position or be asked to retire. Djklein (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it is a temporary rank, not permanent as I had stated before, but it is viewed as permanent because the generals are expected to retire after they step down from a post if they are not assigned to another high command position. Djklein (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming he does not retire, which he likely will(It's generally expected that after losing an appointment, Generals will step down so as to not obstruct the flow of promotions), he will remain a 4-star General for 60 days, at which point he will become a Lt. General again. 3 and 4 star general is an appointed rank, and you can only become one if the position you are appointed to requires it. 24.176.51.94 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. The rank of lieutenant general is also temporary. In order for him to be a three-star, he would need to be assigned to a position that would require him to hold the three-star rank. All three-star positions require senatorial approval before an officer can assume office, just like a four-star. Since the Senate will most likely not confirm him for a three-star assignment after what has happened, if he were to have remained on active duty, by law, he would have been reverted back to his permanent rank of major general (two-star). Neovu79 (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Place of birth

I wonder why his place of birth seems to be kept secret. Is that a usual thing? Does someone want to avoid horoscopes to be cast that may help enemies in obstructing secret operations? Or are there "official" reasons that would appear more rational to the average citizen? -- Sophophiloteros (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to second this. If anyone could provide insight on his early life or reasons as to why it appears to be unpublished, I think it would merit inclusion in the article. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I may know the reason why it hasn't been done yet (both the lack of birthplace and the lack of an 'Early Life' section). McChrystal was a military kid (his Dad was career military). That means that McChrystal grew up all over the place: He may have grown up in anywhere from 8 to 25 different locations depending on his father's military assignments. I have noticed that Wikipedia writers tend to skip over the childhoods of military kids maybe because its harder to piece all the details together, or because they may just be unaware of that life. As a former military kid myself I would like to see the logistical details of military childhoods more accurately reflected in biographical article writing, despite the added work involved. Sean7phil (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Stanley A. McChrystal.... What may the A. be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.207.125 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can locate reliable sources for Major General Herbert J. McChrystal, Jr., then we can start to piece together the childhood part of Stanley's life. A two star meets notability requirements on Wikipedia, so anyone up to the challenge could start an article on the Herbert and we can add relevant info to the Stanley article. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Detailing all his travels as a tot, aside --- which may be unnecessary --- someone can at least list his place of birth and his location upon attending (or at least graduating) high school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.44.19 (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, his father served in Korea (probably around the time he was born, or before) and then in Vietnam; afterwards he worked at the Pentagon. The family certainly wouldn't have been relocated to Korea, nor Vietnam, both active theaters when the patriarch served. This leaves pretty much only the possibilities that McChrystal was moved around as a very young child (post Korea and pre Vietnam) and as a pre-high-school adolescent (between post Vietnam, pre Pentagon). Though by this time his father was fairly senior, and his family would have undoubtably been located in one spot while he served in a theater of active combat and then transitioned to a decision-making leadership position.

Knights of Malta / Opus Dei

According to journalist Seymour Hersh McChrystal is a member, or sympathiser, both of the Knights of Malta and Opus Dei.[9] __meco (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that based on the cite provided, we could conclude that this should be included in the article at this point. Is there another source you can find? Perhaps one that more directly reported on this claim rather than the mere opinion of a journalist? Wikipedia requires exceptional leveles of sourcing for exceptional claims such as this. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

COMISOF's Initial (66 page) assessment

Why is it that the summary of the 66 pg assessment focuses primarily on troop surges while McChrystal explicitly states "[s]uccess is achievable, but it will not be attained by simply trying harder or "doubling down" on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate" (pg 5). He then goes on to discuss the need to change the operational culture in order to facilitate a closer connection to the Afghan people, both physically and psychologically; as well as the need to improve unity of effort and command between ISAF and the international community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.182.245 (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Civilian firearms opinion

I will be tagging the content added here. Does the subject opinion about a present hot topic in the news belong within the artcile about the subject? Is this undue weight within this article, does this belong more within an article about notable individuals opinions on Gun politics in the United States? If the consensus is not for exclusion, should the subject's other stated opinions on other topics be included if they can be verified to reliable source(s)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, this probably qualifies as WP:Recentism. Will he continue to comment on the issue and will others cite his opinion on the subject? That is yet to be seen. So I would vote for exclusion as well for now. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

At the same time though, it was reported throughout the national media[10], and there's only a single sentence devoted to it on the page, so I could really go either way. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless I here a change in consensus I will remove the sentence on 21 January 2013.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Still conflicted. His position was cited all over the media and there's only one sentence on this on the page. Don't think that breaches undue weight. More an issue of recentism. Thoughts? Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, is that given the breadth of the subject's coverage, what the subject's opinion on gun politics is not very important within the context of this article. It may have some weight in the context of gun politics, but not within the context of this article. Otherwise, if verifiable to a reliable source, should we include the subject's opinions on abortion, immigration, favorite pizza toppings, etc.?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Content re: Yale, consulting firm

I have restored some deleted content about Yale and about McChrystal's consulting firm and its relationship to a lobbying firm. The material - which was all amply cited - does not violate any policies or guidelines. Everything stated in the text is published in publications with editorial control. I will take each in turn:

The Yale piece: Prominent criticisms of the Yale seminar policy were made by prominent people (Stephen M. Walt, Col. Gian Gentile) in the pages of two reputable magazines (Foreign Policy, The Atlantic). Then several of McChrystal's students defended him in Foreign Policy. The correct course of action is to cite to all three pieces, which the article now does. Regardless of whether the criticism is justified or not, we would not be well-served by deleting reference to it altogether. Indeed, we would be remiss not to include a mention of this.

The Consulting firm: In this area, I have edited the content down to alleviate some concerns. For example, I have eliminated the Dina Rasor quote. But here, too, the consulting firm and its relationship to a lobbying firm has been reported on, and we would be remiss not to include it. Because criticism of the firms has been made, we should cite that as well. I have edited the text to make this more clear. As to Muckety (though note that Muckety is not the only source on which the article relies), I would say that it is a journalistic source - see here - and there is no reason to think it is unreliable in this context. Likewise, there is no reason to exclude the column by Dina Rasor; it's clearly relevant, made by a notable figure, and given proper weight. Neutrality^talk 04:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is terrible tendentious editing.

First, we need to respect WP:BLP. As the Foreign Policy piece by McChrystal's students show, the claims by Walt and Gentile were patently false: "General McChrystal's students do not sign a non-disclosure form. Nor is it the case, as the New York Times recently reported, that the course is 'off the record.' Rather, the course follows the usual, voluntary conventions of non-attribution that allow Yale's frequent guest speakers to speak candidly to an academic audience. Colonel Gentile and Professor Walt are simply wrong to assert that any special arrangement was made for General McChrystal. Non-attribution is the standard practice when sensitive topics are going to be discussed by responsible officials." Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting defamatory information. Secondly, it is questionable whether these sources qualify as WP:RS as opinion pieces. Walt's piece is written in his personal blog, without much editorial oversight I imagine. Therefore, I believe this information does not have a place in the article, which I will be removing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the consulting firm allegations, Truthout and Muckety do not qualify as WP:RS. Using a link from the Sunlight Foundation violates WP:SYNTH. Without these sources, the allegations do not stand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you think Gentile and Walt were "wrong," they made a critique of the "conventions of non-attribution" (and no party disputes that such a convention exists) and the Yale students responded to this critique. The article doesn't mention non-disclosure agreements at all, so that is irrelevant and a red herring. We are not going to excise it from the article simply because some people criticism is unfair. There was a public debate, in the pages of reputable magazines, on an issue of public concern. Period.

As to whether something is a "reliable source," I think the invocation of the policy is misplaced here. The Atlantic and Foreign Affairs are unquestionable sources with some editorial control, and an article under a person's byline in such a publication is ample evidence that such a critique has been made. We are citing to these pieces not to support that the opinions within them are valid, but to support the fact that "W made criticism X, and Y responded to Z." When X and Z are prominent actors, and X and Z are published in prominent publications, it is unquestionable inappropriate to excise it.

Re the Dina Rasor piece in Truthout - again, there is no reason to doubt that Rasor did in fact write the article posted, and the citation to the piece is not to support that the opinions within them are valid, but to support the fact that a significant criticism. Rasor is undoubtedly significant: see her biography from MacMillan, which confirms that she is a well-known "investigative journalist who founded and ran the Project on Government Oversight, the organization that was responsible for exposing much of the weapons fraud in the 1980s and 1990s." She has some expertise in the area; she is not some sort of random blogger.

The complete removal of the citation to the Center for Responsive Politics was likewise totally without explanation.

As to Muckety, the conclusory assertion that it is "not RS" is not well-reasoned. As I previously linked to, it is a nonpartisan journalistic source, founded and run journalists. Indeed, it won an Online Journalism Award in 2009. The website was relied upon by the Washington Post in a recent article. Is it as well known as, say, the New York Times or ProPublica? No. But sources do not need to be famous to be worthy of mention.

In an effort to compromise with you, I have eliminated the list of defense contractors that the associated lobbying firm works for, since it is not directly relevant. But we are not going to whitewash the article of sourced content. Neutrality^talk 23:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the arguments of Walt and Gentile. The arguments they made were patently false as the Foreign Policy article by McChrystal's students demonstrate - there was no non-disclosure form to sign nor was the class "off the record". Additionally, McChrystal did not use "class time to promote his views on counterinsurgency doctrine." Given that both these opinion pieces lacked even the most basic fact-checking and therefore including false and defamatory information, we must respect WP:BLP and remove them. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tactical directive in Afghanistan

Something needs to be added about McChrystal's tactical directive of 2009, a response to Karzai's complaints about civilian casualties, which changed the Rules of Engagement in such a way as to badly hobble Coalition efforts in any circumstances. He then announced all this openly to the media (entirely against security doctrine), and the Taliban immediately adopted the counter-tactic of surrounding its assault units with visible women and children, which allowed them to operate against Coalition forces without fear of being fired on themselves. This was a major blunder by McChrystal which caused numerous Coalition casualties. See Daniel Bolger's new book, Why We Lost for details and documentation. --Michael K Smith^Talk 13:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)