Talk:Alan G. Rogers

A personal letter is not a source

The information about a same sex marriage can only be included if it is properly sourced. Wikipedia is clear on this and we do not need to use this man's death as a battering ram to further an agenda. I am a member of several Wiki projects and this article is very badly sourced for obvious political reasons.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"A personal letter is not a source." Under that reasoning, much of what we use to document and determine history is not valid. Let's, for example, completely dismiss the letters written by Abigail Adams to her husband (and founding) father John. Obviously they are biased, right? Did she not have a personal agenda because of her relationship to him?

One has to ask who it is that is expressing a personal agenda when commenting and editing this entry?

Alan's life was impacted by laws and policies that prevented him from speaking as openly and honestly as he wanted to due to the risk of losing the career he loved, not to mention the pension and other retirement benefits he worked so hard to earn. The intersection of his sexual orientation and his military career is a vital component of what makes his biography so interesting and worthy of documentation in this historical record.

A photo has been added to further document Alan's presence at this same-sex wedding ceremony. Right now, there is more verifiable evidence that Alan participated in the ceremony than there is about the cause of his death. --Stagedoorjohnny (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for this biography

This page is rough right now, but I wanted to get things started from raw, factual materials and work up to a proper biography. Also, this allows others to collaborate and advance the ball when I'm not able to contribute. I'm in the process of requesting materials including Alan's thesis while at Georgetown on DADT. I'm close to Alan, so I might be biased. Please share your thoughts on whether this biography should be included in Wikipedia. I think it should. --Robapalooza (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant overhaul complete. I believe the article is Class-B now.--Robapalooza (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt by Army Information Systems Command-Pentagon to redact gay-related information from article

Alan's life was not about his sexual orientation but rather about the body of work he performed ministering to others and helping the defense of the country. Quit trying to press an agenda that Alan wouldn't have wanted made public just to suit your own ends. 141.116.168.135 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about Rogers' life, but I have no knowledge what Rogers would or would not have wanted mentioned in this article. Additionally, Rogers' own wishes about what should appear in this article are not the standard by which wikipedia editors decide to include information. Instead, we try to include all well-sourced and notable information about a subject in a subject's article. I intend to leave the article as it is until more editors can come and help monitor this issue. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this practice or have any other concerns regarding the information in this article. Best regards, Remember (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so people know what we were discussing,141.116.168.135 removed the following:

Alan G. Rogers was a United States Army Major that died in Iraq in late January 2008.

Rogers funeral gained publicity, initially, due to the grim coincidence that the US military has reached the “sad Iraq milestone” of 4,000 dead. His death gained further media attention when it was revealed that he was gay and worked to end the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) policy.

Alan was an officer in the D.C. Chapter of the American Veterans for Equal Rights and supported the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. Alan's thesis at Georgetown University was on the negative impact of DADT on the military.

Alan was an ordained pastor.

Alan worked with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which works to end the “Don't Ask Don't Tell” (DADT) policy, and American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER).

The Post Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, stated that the Post made a decision not to include information relating to Alan's sexual orientation.

The Army asked that Alan's sexual orientation not be disclosed, and the Army presented it as a concern of the family. As reported by the Blade, although the Army message didn’t mention sexual orientation, and the Post says they had already made a decision, the article ran without the detail we thought completed the picture.

Deborah Howell, Washington Post Ombudsman, says she is in the process of writing an article on the general subject of how to deal with information regarding sexual orientation, particularly in the case of a soldier.

Anonymous writer from IP address 141.116.168.135, first, I must note that you appear to be with the Army. Your IP information reveals that you are posting your comment from "Army Information Systems Command-Pentagon, The Pentagon, Room BE1018." This begs, the question, 141.116.168.135, whose agenda are you pressing? The Army's? So, here you are, an anonymous Army poster, having the temerity to assert that editors of this article are attempting to "press an agenda that Alan wouldn't have wanted made public just to suit your own ends." I think the body of evidence speaks otherwise. In any event, any user of Wikipedia knows that the pillars of Wikipedia don't allow bias, unsubstantiated or unsupported opinions, etc. Wikipedia is collaborative, so anyone who wants to contribute to this article, and to the story of Alan, may do so. You only removed factual information from the article. As a member of the Army, I sincerely welcome your contributions. Perhaps you can provide some factual information about Alan's Army career.--Robapalooza (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Blade reports that "the IP address attached to the deletion of the details and the posted comments is 141.116.168.135. The address belongs to a computer from the office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G-2) at the Pentagon. The office is headed by Lt. Gen. John Kimmons, who was present at Rogers’ funeral and presented the flag from Rogers’ coffin to his cousin, Cathy Long."--Robapalooza (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The censorship was unfortunate, and hopefully will end. The Washington Post ombudsman has stated on the paper's website that there was more than sufficient evidence that Rogers was gay. That, in itself, is an acceptable source.

It seems preposterous to me that including biographical information--such as the person's master's thesis, or their number of siblings, or sexuality (either explicitly, or implicity, eg, listing a wife or mentioning a boyfriend) would be an agenda. Biographical data is listed routinely, and it's the exclusion of it which constitutes an agenda. And it's quite presumptous for any wiki editor to decide what Rogers' life was "about," and therefore which parts of his life should be excluded.

It's good to see the original material restored. Dave Cullen (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me with this crap! The source used as a reference for the material in question is not acceptable for a wiki article! As a gay man who is involved in Project LBGT and project Biography I am removing this information untill proper reference material can be found. You can be as outraged as you want but Wikipedia is not a battle ground. Find a proper published source and you can put it back.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So, the Washington Blade (described on Wiki as the gay paper of record), is not a good enough source?--Robapalooza (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding the above discussion

1) The editing from IP address 141.116.168.135 is called "censorship".

Editors using IP addresses often remove content from Wikipedia. These changes are judged on their merits and might be referred to as good edits, not-so-good edits, stupid edits, great improvements, vandalism, etc. They are not called "censorship". If every deletion of content by an IP address user is censorship, then Wikipedia is censored many many times every day.

Good point. It wasn't censorship, per se.--Robapalooza (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

2) The physical location of the IP address is given.

As mentioned, edits to Wikipedia are normally judged on their merits, not on the basis of where they come from. And publishing the physical location is extraordinary. Is this in any way defensible?

I think, in this case, it's very interesting that someone using a computer associated with one of the Generals present at Rogers' funeral would attempt to delete information relating to Rogers' being gay, his activities in the GLBT community, etc.--Robapalooza (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

edits to Wikipedia are normally judged on their merits That is true. However, in egregious situations, such as an accusation (by an anon ip editor) of agenda pushing, it begs the question: what agenda is being pushed by the IP - is the IP editor aware of wiki policy regarding reliable sources and NPOV, and, does the removal of sourced information rise to the level of POV. As for the censorship charge, private individual don't enact censorship, however, government employees acting as agents of their government department (you know, using official government information systems, during working hours) who remove information that is sourced, with an allegation that the removed material is an agenda push, are toeing very close to a line that says "the US government doesn't want this information in the article".--Vidkun (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. A few comments, which I'll try to keep brief.

• Egregious? - I suspect agenda pushing by editors (whether IP or signed in) is commonplace on Wikipedia. Egregious makes the matter sound more serious, but I don't see that the word egregious applies here.
• Was the IP editor aware of wiki policy regarding reliable sources and NPOV? - I don't know. What is the relevance please?
• Censorship?? - Whether the material was removed by a private individual, by someone acting in an "official capacity", or by a cat walking on a keyboard, it was not censorship.
• the US government doesn't want.... - To consider this edit, which may have been one person's initiative, as close to being a government-wide concern is reading far more into it than the "evidence" warrants (IMO).

Wanderer57 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• but I don't see that the word egregious applies here. First discussion issue by the IP was an accusation. Not an assumption of good faith but an accusation. First discussion issue ... yeah, egregious.
• Was the IP editor aware of wiki policy regarding reliable sources and NPOV? - I don't know. What is the relevance please? Relevance is that the first act by that IP editor was to remove sourced material. If the editor WAS aware of policy, it's intentional policy violation. If not, edit should be directed to familiarize themselves with policy, before levelling accusation of agenda pushing.
• Whether the material was removed by a private individual, by someone acting in an "official capacity", or by a cat walking on a keyboard, it was not censorship. "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor." So, if the person, acting as a government agent (which is a presumption, admittedly, but is based on the DoD required logon warnings stating that the DoD information systems are for official use only, which warnings require an affirmative action before allowing access to the system) removed what they found objectionable, then yes, it was censorship.
• To consider this edit, which may have been one person's initiative, as close to being a government-wide concern is reading far more into it than the "evidence" warrants (IMO). Except that use of a DoD computer requires that the user acknowledge all activities are subject to monitoring, and for official use only. To suggest that the military, as a corporate entity, doesn't wish to acknowledge the service of homosexuals within its ranks is not reading to much into it, it is backed up by public law colloquially known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell:.--Vidkun (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

3) The issue of how Major Rogers' family felt about this is raised as a debating point, then apparently ignored.

If (hypothetically) it was clearly made known to Wikipedia that Major Rogers' family did not want his sexual orientation published, would it be removed from the article?

Wanderer57 (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Although not in the public record, his friends interactions with Rogers, Rogers' participation in AVER and SLDN, marching in gay Pride parades, boyfriend at one time, etc. speaks volumes. Deborah Howell's article addresses the family a bit. The hypothetical question, admittedly, raises the possibility for a tension between a religiously conservative community in Florida that might not want to discuss or are embarrassed by Rogers' homosexuality, versus Rogers' well-documented participation in AVER, SLDN, his scholarly work at Georgetown, etc. Fortunately, it seems everyone loves Rogers, regardless of whether they are gay or straight, military or civilian, conservative or liberal. He is missed.--Robapalooza (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside Opinion: If, in fact, it can be shown through reliable sources that he worked towards ending DADT, then his homosexuality would absolutely be relevant to his biography, and should be included. Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree but right now there is only a personal letter that was printed at an oline community magazine and is not a proper source.--69.62.180.166 (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup, RS

I've done some cleanup on the article, mostly combining references together to get rid of the dreade "Ibid" =)

There's some question, though, on several of them. Specifically,

1. March 30, 2008, Ralls, Steve, The Bilerico Project, “Remembering Alan Rogers” [14]
2. Flickr [15]
3. “An American Hero, Alan Rogers, One of the 4,000” [16]
4. Pam's House Blend, Id., Jason Cianciotto, comments [17]
5. Evite: Alan Rogers is leaving DC [18]

Evite, Flickr, and blogs are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's guidelines. Luckily, the award from AVER doesn't really need a cite, and the send-off party isn't particularly encyclopedic.

An important note about the use of evite, flickr and blogs. The blog cites are not relied upon for their reliability. Rather, the blog cites are part of the conversation and subject of the present article, i.e. the question of what to include or not to include in a news article after a soldier dies and it is revealed that the soldier was gay. Evite is used to confirm a date of an event. The evite cite marks an event in time, though the gathering was mentioned in the Howell Washington Post and NPR articles. flickr is only used to source the photo. Rogers' participation in AVER is well documented.

That does leave three things that probably ought to stay in the article, but need better refs. These are the "first known gay combat fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom" claim and the participation in SLDN both need some ref. But I'm not certain about his preaching at a same-sex wedding ceremony - is that encyclopedic? I'm not convinced.

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the cleanup, particularly the consolidation of references. However, I'm quite concerned about the large chunks of content that were removed. Use this link to compare a more complete version of the article with the version after your edits: [19]. Specifically, you removed the following:

• The heading "Death and afterward"
• According to an Army report, Rogers was killed by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol in Baghdad, on January 27, 2008.
• A funeral service was held for Rogers at Ebenezer Baptist Church on February 8, 2008. In honor of Rogers, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist ordered the Florida and U.S. flags be flown at half-staff at the Bradford County Courthouse, Hampton City Hall and the Florida State Capitol. Family members later expressed that "we really didn't know about [Rogers being gay] until after his death." Rogers' beneficiary from Florida later stated that he knew Rogers was gay, but felt it had "no more relevance than I'm straight."
• Rogers was buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery on March 14, 2008, in Section 50, at Gravesite 8558. About 200 people attended the service, including active duty military and civilians, enlisted ranks and officers including Army Lt. Gen. John F. Kimmons, Rogers' friends from Florida, northern Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and a dozen or more gay active duty military personnel, as estimated by Tony Smith, US Air Force veteran, and founder and executive director of the Military Community Services Network (MCSN).
• The heading "National media coverage of Rogers' funeral"
• Rogers funeral gained national media publicity, initially on MSNBC, in the Washington Post and on National Public Radio's Morning Edition.; however, initial reports omitted Rogers' sexual orientation or anything related to the subject.
• The Post and NPR reports coincided with the “grim milestone” that the US military death toll reached 4,000 dead. Rogers' death and funeral gained further media attention when it was revealed that he was gay and worked to end the military's DADT policy.
• Initially, members of the national media were well aware of Rogers' sexual orientation, yet it was widely reported that Rogers was not married and left no children. While technically accurate, the statement was viewed as an intentional distortion and dodge of Rogers' sexual orientation by some members of the GLBT community.
• The Washington Post Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, stated that the editors of the Post deliberated the question of whether to disclose his sexual orientation and ultimately made a decision not to include such information.
• The Army asked that Rogers' sexual orientation not be disclosed, and the Army presented it as a concern of the family.
• The Washington Blade reported on the Post's decision to change the story and included more details about Rogers' activities and friends in the GLBT community. Subsequently, Howell of the Washington Post, citing Rogers' apparent feelings on DADT, wrote a column admitting that the Post's article “would have been richer” had it disclosed his sexual orientation and activities in the GLBT community.
• The heading "Scholarship fund"
• On January 30, 2008, friends of Rogers established the Alan G. Rogers Scholarship Fund.
• The heading "Published works"
• Master's thesis, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, how the US military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy affects recruitment and retention for military officers.

What is your justification for removing this information? Should this be included in a separate article on media coverage of Rogers' death? I vote for putting this verifiable information back into the article (along with your improved citation style). I've restored this information at this time, because I think the information is clearly encyclopedic, neutral and verifiable. As this is a biography, if a separate article is warranted, please suggest such idea to this board. Wholesale deletion without an explanation is excessive in this case, particularly when the article is relatively new and under development.--Robapalooza (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The article about Alan Rogers has been on Wikipedia for five days. It is about a man whose life, death, and subsequent events were being discussed in major newspapers as recently as last weekend. The article has thirty-five (35) references.

I compared this with another bio article on my watchlist. That article has been on Wikipedia for 400 times as long as the Rogers article has been here. That article is about a man who died over twenty years ago, at the age of 69, after a long, distinguished, and very public career. That article has one (1) reference.

Wanderer57 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So, this article is well-researched and the other one isn't.  :-) Seriously, I don't see how the length of time or number of citations has anything to do with the question of whether or not one chooses to include the information that the previous editor deleted. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.--Robapalooza (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to be more specific. My observations were partly in response to the comments about references that started this section, and partly in response to the deletions that were made from the article

Even if half the references were thrown out, this article is still far better referenced than one that has been here for nearly six years (and far better than many other articles).

More generally, my point is that articles should improve over time. Considering the amount of time involved, this is a very good article. I think it was incredibly premature for anyone to start making wholesale deletions. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you agree with me! Thanks for your support and agreement that wholesale deletions are premature at this point. Do you think the media coverage of Rogers' life and funeral should be separated from the actual biography? (On a related note, see the next comment.) I want to keep all the biographical and national news media coverage together for simplicity's sake, but I also don't want to get into edit wars over whether a first-hand experience in a blog is worthy of citation in Wikipedia.

OMG - I'm terribly sorry! I did want to take out a couple little sections - the "Legacy" section can be incorporated elsewhere, and the "Published works" section is already elsewhere. But I totally did not mean to delete the "Death and afterward" and "National media..." - I messed up there! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Glad we're in agreement.--Robapalooza (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To my point above, though, there are some issues with some of the references in the article. To take an example, you are using the Flickr photo to support your statement "On 2005 January 16, Rogers received an award from the organization for his service at a ceremony held at Dupont Grill." If that were a controversial statement (and it's probably not), we could not use a photo posted on Flickr as a citation. And if it's not a controversial statement, it doesn't need the citation to the photo on Flickr. So either way, that isn't really a necessary reference for the article.

That makes sense. We can include the link on the photo page, if need be.

A more difficult statement is the one from "The Billerico Project". The claim there is that Rogers is the first gay combat fatality in the Iraq War, and we're using a blog to back it up. What we need is to find out where the blog writer got their information - who says Rogers is the first? I'm actually highly suspicious that he is - 4,000 soldiers dead and he's the first? So if we can find a better source to back up that statement, that one needs to be replaced. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The claim is that Rogers is the first known gay combat fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom. I agree that it's highly unlikely that Rogers was the first outright. Assuming only 1% of the military is gay (conservative), at least 40 servicemembers who have died in Iraq are gay. However, due to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), I think it is actually quite possible that Rogers is the first known gay combat fatality of the Operation. DADT means the Army won't know. The only way the general public would know that a fallen soldier was gay is if someone says so afterwards. Rogers was a very unusual officer in that he publicly served AVER. As reported by Howell in the Post, "Austin Rooke, Rogers's friend and a former Army captain, said, 'He was among the most open active-duty military people I've ever met. I can't imagine him not wanting people to know'" (emphasis added). I'm working on verifying the claim with SLDN and friends.

Please do - whatever the wording, a blog is not a reliable source to use in an article. They really shouldn't be used at all.

BTW, this article is looking simply awesome! I appreciate all the work that you've done - simply awesome! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's work as well. I'd like to keep the Bilerico Project blog cite in as a "placeholder" until I can find citation from a more reliable source. I have some friends looking into it. They've said via email that there have been no reports of a known gay combat fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Obviously, that's original research and can't be incorporated yet. I'm hoping The Blade or another media outlet can verify this. Since the Army would never admit to such a thing, any verification would have to come from a news organization or a GLBT organization such as SLDN (which provides legal representation to gay military personnel who are being prosecuted for violation of the DADT policy). Would a SLDN news release constitute a reliable source?

SLDN would be my first choice for a source - though The Advocate or the Blade would be totally acceptable as well =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There are now three sources for this claim as follows:

1. ^ Meyer, Denny (April 7, 2008), "American Veterans for Equal Rights mourns loss of true soldier and LGBT advocate in Iraq", Forward Observer, <http://www.aver.us/index.php>. Retrieved on 26 April 2008
2. ^ Johnson, Aidan (April 11, 2008), "Being gay's compatible with being 'A'", The Globe and Mail, <http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080411/wcoalpha12.html>. Retrieved on 23 April 2008
3. ^ Ralls, Steve (March 30, 2008), "Remembering Alan Rogers", The Bilerico Project, <http://www.bilerico.com/2008/03/remembering_alan_rogers.php>. Retrieved on 3 April 2008

--Robapalooza (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Source that the Major was Gay?

Is there a direct source that states this major self-identified as gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.87.251 (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How should a news article discussing Wikipedia edits to the subject page be handled?

This just came out. Johnson, Chris (April 3, 2008), "Edits to gay soldier's Wikipedia entry traced to Pentagon", Washington Blade, retrieved 2008-04-03 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

See above =D -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This actually seems to be handled reasonably well. It is mentioned, but only because it is newsworthy. The article's description of the Wikipedia vandalism is not based on original research or solely on Wikipedia's own records; it is based on newspaper coverage that describes the vandalism. This is exactly as it should be. --FOo (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This article should be locked. Why isn't there a soldier KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan thread link on this bio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Lather (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide your input on two recent major deletions

Deletion #1:

In June 2006, Rogers provided the opening prayer for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Rogers reportedly expressed "an intensely deep loneliness that stemmed from his inability to have both a [same-sex] relationship ... and the military career he also loved so much. "

Deletion #2:

On March 31, 2008, an anonymous attempt was made to remove information relating to Rogers' sexual orientation from the present Wikipedia article. The IP address associated with the attempt corresponds with the IP address for the office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G-2) at the Pentagon, currently headed by Lt. Gen. John Kimmons. Kimmons attended Rogers' funeral and presented the US flag from Rogers’ coffin to a family member.

Keep or move to separate article. I say, given the relative youth of this subject, we keep them. If the material is considered to be off point vis a vis Rogers' biography, then, as I've stated before, perhaps, we should do a separate article on the media coverage of Rogers versus the biography of Rogers himself.--Robapalooza (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep; no reason to remove, and they're both relevant to the notability of the subject. --FOo (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Both points extremely relevant. The US government trying to censor free speech also incredibly interesting. Tool2Die4 (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove: The Blade is a gay advocate publication and as a source should always viewed with suspicion. Someone using a computer at the Pentagon is not "the US government". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.87.251 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Source of gay claim is the "Bilerico"? http://www.bilerico.com/2008/03/remembering_alan_rogers.php This is hardly a reliable source. The NPR piece, doesn't mention sexuality at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_G._Rogers&action=edit&section=7

The gay activists unfortunately are using the death of this man to forward their sad quest for some type of legitimacy. How pathetic to smear a man who cannot defend himself. 69.200.87.251 (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove both as they are not needed and the source for the first one is not a valid source. It is just a personal letter.

References

Roger's Relatives says gays are "self-serving"

Rogers's cousin, Cathy Long of Ocala, Fla., said that she was the closest in the family to him. To her, "The Post did a wonderful job. Personally, as far as the family is concerned, we really didn't know about this until after his death. It was in the back of our minds, but we didn't discuss it." She is glad The Post story did not say that he was gay. "I really feel Alan was a lot more than that." She thought the Blade story was "self-serving whatever their cause is and that they're trying to use Alan to do that." Members of the LGBT "project" have decided to omit the comments of Roger's cousin and sole-surviving relative in order to forward their agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032803062.html

Is that from a newspaper article? If so, could you link it? That would be very useful. Thanks! BonnySwan (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Shoddy sources

One of the sources cited is the Gay Military Times, here is the GMT's mission statement

Gay Military Times is a web publication of Military Equality Alliance (MEA),

edited by Denny Meyer

Gay Military Times is dedicated to providing a voice to the movement to achieve equality in America's armed forces so that patriotic American volunteers may serve our nation openly and in pride regardless of sexual orientation.

69.200.87.251 (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pam's House Blend an RS?

Pam’s House Blend: An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community, <http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4898>.

This article is extremely poor sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.87.251 (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Another source: Houston Chronicle:

Closing the door on a hero, April 4, 2008. R. Baley (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is an editorial that just gives another activist opinion. The category Identity Politics should be added to this article, as that is what this controversy is about.

The whole of the Houston Chronicle is an "activist opinion"? It's not signed, which usually indicates it's the position of the paper itself. R. Baley (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia edits and reverts actually a part of someones Biography?

I removed it and it was returned so I will address it with the question and pose to all that the encyclopedia is not a part of the biography. It seems senseless to who he was and self serving to only a few outside people. The controversy may warrant it's own page but is not a part of this man's life. --Amadscientist (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's a part of the media coverage of his death and the gross malfeasance of the US government in trying to cover up part of his activism. --FOo (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The "gross malfeasance" That's just absurd. Why would the government publish the rumors or innuendo of his sexuality? The only people who think like this are homosexual activists. Was the major left-handed or right handed? Republican or Democrat? Did the government attempt to hide that information too? (unsigned comments by 69.200.87.251)

Contrary by nature, I manage to disagree to some extent with all the above posts in this section.

• The events after Major Rogers' death seems to relate pretty directly to the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy that he was (so I understand) working to change. Thus they relate closely to his biography

• "Gross malfeasance" seems to me to be over-the-top rhetoric. And attributing an action that may well have only been known to a few people to "the US government" as a whole suggests a degree of organization and singleness of purpose that seems unlikely, even in a well-run organization.

• "The only people who think like this are homosexual activists." Do you really believe that?.

Edits to remove material from Wikipedia happen frequently. Wikipedia editors may disagree with some of these edits, but they are a normal part of how Wikipedia operates. Calling such edits censorship or malfeasance or illegal is stretching the meaning of those words, IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's gross malfeasance for a government official to attempt to manipulate Wikipedia's (or anyone's) biography of a person who criticized the government. But I have ridiculously high standards of transparency and honesty for government officials. :) --FOo (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If the edit in question had been made by someone who was not "known" to be a "government official", would you still characterize it as an attempt to manipulate Wikipedia, or would it then be a run-of-the-mill edit?

Re your standards for government officials, I much admire your optimism.[20]

;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What made the edit in question newsworthy was that it was sourced to a computer belonging to the Department of Defense, which can only be used by someone with an official login on DoD business, within the Pentagon - in fact, within the office of the general who had attended Rogers funeral and would have been aware (from descriptions of the funeral) that Rogers was gay. While the edit may well have been done by one individual acting without any official authority and who is right now on the carpet for letting the official IP address appear on Wikipedia, still: an attempted Department of Defense censorship of the biography of a gay American soldier, is newsworthy, was reported, and is now part of Rogers' history: it is not a "run-of-the-mill edit".

The biography is in fact very well sourced for a short, recent biography. It is possible that six months down the line new information or new references may surface. Possibly we'll find out the story behind attempted DoD edit of Rogers on wikipedia. Perhaps someone will publish a memoir of his earlier life and flesh out earlier details. But I think that right now, tweaking with it would be editing for the sake of it. 92.235.215.28 (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think the DoD edit could be called ill-advised. I don't agree that it is censorship. (There is some discussion on this point much earlier on this talk page. I don't know if you saw it. You might be interested.)

I totally agree with you that the article is well sourced. In fact I mentioned this in earlier discussion 10 or so days ago. (Again I don't know if you read the earlier discussion. I apologize if I'm telling you about stuff you are already aware of.) Wanderer57 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This article will never gain a higher rating as long as information unrelated to his life are included. I believe we do a great disservice to this man by adding Wikipedia controversies.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I see a few problems with this nomination. By no means exhaustive, the immediate problems that strike me are;

• There are almost zero details about his death, "Rogers was killed by an improvised explosive device while on foot patrol in Baghdad". What neighbourhood of Baghdad? Was he in a Humvee? Patrolling a corner? Kicking down a door? With a partner who dragged his body around the corner while shooting the man with the detonator? Did he die instantly? Survive for a few hours? days?

Details are limited, because we rely on Army reports for details. There are few. There might be some more details. As I recall, some reports cite "foot patrol" or "dismounted" patrol, but I need to double-check that.--Robapalooza (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• similarly, he's apparently an ordained pastor? what happened to that? needs more than a throwaway mention.

I agree. I will try to get to this, but if others have more to contribute, it would be welcome.--Robapalooza (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lack of citations, things like "Friends organized a send-off party in his honor on July 14, 2007, held at the Fabulous Bed & Breakfast in Northwest Washington, D.C." need a citation. (In that particular instance, a city/town more specific than "Northwest" would also be helpful)

The NPR interview was conducted at the bed and breakfast in question. Evite is also a source for this information, but was removed out of a concern over RS. I'll try to work on getting RS for this.--Robapalooza (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, regarding the wording Northwest Washington DC. that does not mean a city that is northwest of Washington DC, but the locale of Washington DC which is called Northwest. DC is divided into quadrants, NW, NE, SE, and, albeit tiny, SW.--Vidkun (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Some nuanced POV problems, like "Initially, members of the national media were well aware of Rogers' sexual orientation, yet it was widely reported that Rogers was not married and left no children." - those two statements are not contradictory, needn't make it sound like a conspiracy. Other examples as well.

Please suggest better sentences or go ahead and edit.--Robapalooza (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Even the term "gay" is a bit "casual", wouldn't "homosexual" be more encyclopaedic?

Hmmm, "gay," to me, is not a casual term. I think gay is encyclopedic. The term "homosexual," to me, seems antequated.--Robapalooza (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary: It's a "good" article, but not a "Good Article". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 08:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Participation in same-sex marriage OK? Is Jason Cianciotto's article an RS?

The material in question is as follows:

In June 2006, Rogers provided the opening prayer for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Rogers reportedly expressed "an intensely deep loneliness that stemmed from his inability to have both a [same-sex] relationship ... and the military career he also loved so much. "

A user with the IP address 69.62.180.166 (Amadscientist) left these comments with the edit: "Not an acceptable source. Find something better and I wont continue to remove this.)" I think, the first sentence is more encyclopedic than the second. I'd appreciate the thoughts of others. Keep? Edit? Remove entirely?--Robapalooza (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see picture of Alan at the wedding ceremony in question below. His desire and joy in providing the opening prayer is an example of how he integrated his sexual orientation with his faith and identity as an ordained minister.

• 
  Photo of Major Alan G. Rogers (top left) holding hands with his date to a same-sex wedding ceremony on June 28, 2006.

--Stagedoorjohnny (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

References

Iraqi Freedom 2003 and thesis

There is no mention that he served with CFLCC in 2003, and that he died on his second tour. For an encyclopedia entry of Alan's biography this short some details. I also don't see a link to his actual paper on DADT, which when I recall discussing it with him and reading it was very thoroughly researched and balanced in the pros and cons of removing the policy. The entry here doesn't reflect that. If I find my copy of his thesis I'll post it. --(16:59, July 17, 2008 141.248.189.158 (talk) (50,905 bytes))[21][22]

Broken link fixed. --Robapalooza (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Be Smart!

Dear user 141.116.168.135,

next time use your home computer dude. Stanleywinthrop (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alan G. Rogers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090211120303/http://www.washingtonblade.com:80/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17762 to http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17762

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Alan G. Rogers. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070731123316/http://www.aver.us/index.php to http://www.aver.us/index.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ago.mobile.globeandmail.com/generated/archive/RTGAM/html/20080411/wcoalpha12.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408163049/http://washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17404 to http://www.washingtonblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=17404
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pamshouseblend.com/viewRating.do?rateCommentId=53535
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411025648/http://www.brightcove.tv:80/title.jsp?title=1407924331&channel=294434710 to http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1407924331&channel=294434710
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080322082901/http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com:80/archive/2008/03/14/770008.aspx?p=1 to http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/14/770008.aspx?p=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412021209/http://www.pamshouseblend.com:80/showDiary.do?diaryId=4898 to http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4898
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080412021215/http://www.pamshouseblend.com:80/showDiary.do?diaryId=4928 to http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4928

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Alan G. Rogers. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025202305/http://home.comcast.net/~rpilaud/DADT%20Policy%20Analysis%20Alan%20Rogers.pdf to http://home.comcast.net/~rpilaud/DADT%20Policy%20Analysis%20Alan%20Rogers.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1407924331&channel=294434710
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/14/770008.aspx?p=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4898
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4928
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411060324/http://www.thealangrogersfund.org/ to http://www.thealangrogersfund.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025202305/http://home.comcast.net/~rpilaud/DADT%20Policy%20Analysis%20Alan%20Rogers.pdf to http://home.comcast.net/~rpilaud/DADT%20Policy%20Analysis%20Alan%20Rogers.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)