Talk:Theodore S. Westhusing

Why is this even here?

USIS murdered Col. Westhusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.92.4 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is this posted on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it incredible that Westhusing's notability would be questioned. There are dozens of articles about him in all the leading newspapers, and just the drama of his story, as well as its historical setting, itself is enough to command interest. I'm deleting the non-notability tag you placed in the article since the mere volume of published material on Westhusing is enough to establish notability. JDG 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove the tag - simply because you disagree? I disagree with you, so I say the tag stays until more people vote. The volume of published material isn't sufficient to establish notability, especially when it's the same material replicated across multiple sites - mostly conspiracy theories anyway (thankfully you didn't include that BS in here). I don't doubt that COL Westhusing was a hero - all military personnel who serve honorably are - but I don't see the significance of putting his story on Wikipedia. He killed himself and that's tragic, but it's not noteworthy regardless of his rank. Besides, the article's format leaves much to be desired. It goes from his writings at Emory University to allegations of corruption by USIS to his suicide. I don't see the linkage. Perhaps a better structure and actual bio would be more suitable if you insist that he's notable enough to dedicate an article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a poorly-written article to me (e.g., how is it relevant that he was left-handed?) - but being the highest-ranking soldier to be killed in Iraq is arguably grounds for notability. (Especially if he remains that way.) We don't have pages on every soldier killed in Iraq, and nor should we, but we do for those who are particularly notable for some reason: see Category:American military personnel killed in the Iraq War. Terraxos 14:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm not a supporter of the War in Iraq, nor of militarism generally, but this discussion brings dishonour to a good man. Notability: 1) Highest ranking military death in a controversial war. 2) Col Ted held a doctorate in philosophy, focusing on honour in military operations- he died famously (notability may be established by published 3rd party texts- there are books which include him too, not just news articles and various partisan bloggers), during a controversial war, conducted controversially at many levels of planning operations and tactics, and it is quite clear from all the documents available, and still steering clear of conspiracy-theories, that Col. Ted reckoned that something important has gone rotten in Iraq. Finally, Ted's heroism (hero comes from ancient greek 'warrior') stems from his courage to volunteer for his country- his suicide doesn't take that away from him. This isn't to say that other noteworthy heroes and other countries' heroes deserve any less space in this great collection of knowledge (see also entries for Pat Tillman and Jason D Cunningham, which are- at the moment anyway- undisputedly notable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.163.72.145 (talk) 15:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll reluntantly agree that perhaps the story is "noteworthy" enough to include in Wikipedia simply because of the publicity about it. #1 above - yes. #2 - doctorate in philosophy - so what. If you feel that COL Westhusing deserves to be honored, then I suggest restructuring the article. One thing though, I don't see how this discussion brings discredit upon him. "A good man" - you must have known him personally? Just curious, if he wouldn't have died, would you have still considered him notable enough for his own article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.254 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to answer a few of the objections here (I'm the primary author of this article to date): 1) Notability isn't even a question. That the highest ranking U.S. death in Iraq was a suicide is alone notable, and the many articles, book-sections, Television reports, blog pieces, etc., all testify to that point and others; 2) Despite this established notability, a fullblown "famous person" treatment complete with detailed biography is probably not warranted; 3) It is relevant that he was left-handed because the fatal shot entered below his left ear (in case you, Terraxos, are unaware-- many feel Westhusing was murdered, so the location of the shot matching his handedness is significant); 4) Although I don't feel the article should be greatly expanded, some building up of finer detail would be welcome. I basically threw a stub up there and gave it one significant edit since. I'm afraid my time as a very active contributor is over, so I hope someone reading this can take up the task. JDG 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indisputable that this article deserves to be on Wiki, and that COL Westhusing deserves an article here. I also think that the article requires an editor to widely review the available data and to expand the article. I edited the article in an effort to improve readability and to fix several grammatical errors and grammatical violations of Wiki conventions, but I lack the time to devote to the article that it deserves. Nonetheless, I believe that the entry definitely deserves to remain until these improvements can be made. Estéban (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should stay, and also that it should be fixed and slightly expanded. I don't have the time to do so right now, but will try to take a whack at it later. Meanwhile, I've removed the POV tag, since whoever posted it didn't bother to explain what the problem was, and since there has been no discussion of neutrality since the article was tagged. Steambadger (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As has been the case with NUMEROUS articles concerning the Global War on Terror, this one lacks objectivity, neutrality, and thus, credibility. I will not point out specific instances, since the entire article is affected by what reads as hack "journalism" heavily laced with opinion. This might make an excellent op-ed piece in a college paper, but encyclopedic, it ain't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipiterbellum (talk • contribs) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)