Talk:David Petraeus/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sub-Pages

Each of the following topics has been moved to its own subpage. Each is a current topic and is being moved due to its great length.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 03:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose moving the topics from this talk page into their own subpages. It's completely unecessary. Revolutionaryluddite 04:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Archives are normally created from the oldest material on a page. Creating "sub pages" from recent discussion may unintentionally make selected information harder to see, and the context of discussions is disrupted. POV is allowed on talk pages, and hiding it in "sub pages" is not conducive to an open exchange of ideas. --- Taroaldo 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to undo it, but WikiPedia wouldn't let me. You're welcome to try. Sorry for the trouble.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 05:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I was aghast and frankly, rendered speechless, I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in my opinion about this action. Dlabtot 22:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it seems like a consensus. I will try to make time to manually reverse it in the coming days. This was a good faith effort to respond to complaints about the length of the page and comments. I appreciate that those who complained about the length and those who complained about the move do not nearly overlap. To do so, would smack of trollery.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 02:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as one that has had (and prolly will) have political disagreements with JoeFriday, I believe that he made a good faith attempt to decrease the length and complexity of this talk page, so please lets all assume good faith here. Thank you. (Trollery? LOL) — Becksguy 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The intro seems to contain nothing but praise, while the section on 2007 seems to contain very little of the criticism that has been recently leveled against him. I don't think this article presents a neutral point of view. --The Wild Falcon 18:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The intro contains nothing but statments of fact. Facts do not require "neutrality"; They are neither positive nor negative.67.167.103.230 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the below. People don't like the results he reported on and feel that since they indicated progress, he was a "betrayer." As for the praise that cites the medals he's received, nothing about really needs to be changed either. The insight to his accomplishments and valor are part of what any profile of a military commander is about.

The problem there is that there hasn't been a whole lot of factual dispute, just shallow name-calling (e.g., the "General Betray-Us" ad) and the like.

I would note the LA Times article linked to here contains a facutal error, confusing the report on the surge that the administration agreed to deliver to Congress (which they wrote) with Petraeus' testimony; the two are completely different entities. Jdb1972 20:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If the criticism were to be included, then it stands to reason that the motivations of those criticizing him be mentioned also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.13.148 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

And the motivations of the General and his boss on Pennsylvania Avenue as well? Or is this sort of analysis of motivation only for people of certain political persuasions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.37.6 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is facts versus accusations. People's motivations can only be presumed from their own statements, their job description, or common knowledge. It can be presumed that both presidents and generals want a military campaign to succeed and to be perceived as succeeding. It can be presumed that anti-war activists want a military campaign to be cut short and/or perceived as unsuccessful. Whether either side has additional nefarious motives or is knowingly dishonest necessitates additional evidence. For most, additional motives are unnecessary to form a strong feeling for one and against the other. JoeFriday 03:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

First ever wiki post by me, so tell me if I do something wrong, but it's not fair to say anti-war activists want a military campaign to be cut short or perceived as unsuccessful. Moreover, it is not just anti-war activists that are criticizing him. His rift with CENTCOM commander Adm. Fallon is well known. According to IPS, Fallon considers Petraeus to be "an a**-kissing little chickensh*t" (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39235). If you include the quote from Gen. Barry McCaffrey in the intro, you should include the one from Fallon, Petraeus' superior. Bbrown8370 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Any impartial observer can easily qualify moveon as an anti-war organization simply from the behavior it has exhibited with regards to the military. You dream if you think otherwise. I could post source after source after source for the next week to back that up. McCaffrey's comments are in regards to Petraeus ability as a general, not to his personality, so Fallon's comment would be a violation of NPOV. This is an article to inform of the facts about Petraeus, not a bash fast or a glorification. A.S. Williams 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

MoveOn is againt US involvement in the current Iraq war, not all war. Opposition to the Iraq war is also not their defining characteristic. There are plenty of other progressive causes for which they advocate. The second paragraph was added back in with both glorifying and bashing comments. Neither seem like they should be included in the article (and I first brought up the bashing comments in the talk page). They are points of view from people in the military. Also, the "widely regarded" sounds like weasel words (it is sourced by a News Corp. publication as well). I think this paragraph is beyond salvaging, and should be removed. Nothing significant is added to the article as a whole by this paragraph. Bbrown8370 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, the first comment is from a military authority on military science, not a comment on Petraeus as a person. I am sorry you cannot see the difference. I will continue to undo your revisions until you can come up with a legitimate reasoning. Also sign your comments.A.S. Williams 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The source you list just has McCaffrey using the adjective "brilliant" to describe Petraeus once. That was clearly not the focus of the source. It was a miniscule detail of the source. Furthermore, the context of the source is a testimony to a senate committee. Later in the one paragraph that Petraeus is mentioned (one time out of 6 pages), McCaffrey is advocating for more time and space (and money!) from the committee. This puts him in the bias position of needing Petraeus to look good in order to secure said money. It is laughable that this source is being portrayed as a military authority rating Petraeus' knowledge of military science as brilliant. Furthermore, if you don't like the Fallon quote because it is about his personality, there are plenty of quotes in the article that show Fallon criticizing Petraeus' military knowledge. Keep in mind that Fallon's position in the chain of command in relation to Petraeus. Here are some non-personality quotes you might want to use. "Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus's style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq" "Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia" I'd that that his commanding officer thinking he puts his own interests ahead of sound military posture should be included if you're going to include the McCaffrey comment. Bbrown8370 03:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The quote you continually reinsert is not suitable for a biography and is more your personal political opinion about Petraeus. Use a different one that properly disagrees with his military abilities or don't use anything at all. I don't know how much clearer I can make this for you.A.S. Williams 03:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the 'chickenshit' comment is the most significant insight we have into Fallon's view of Petraeus, but if you object to its inclusion why don you try re-write, including both viewpoints but a different quote. Let's work towards consensus. Dlabtot 03:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fallon's view is not the proper counterweight to McCaffrey's view. It is like Person A saying "Barry Bonds has brilliant baseball acumen" and Person B saying "Barry Bonds is an asshole." One does not follow the other. I am not going to say, let's keep both because both are not two sides of the same coin. If you can find someone (a military source would be advisable) saying that Petraeus is not brilliant then please insert it. Until that point, I will continually remove the "chickenshit" comment every time I log on to this page.A.S. Williams 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I acknowledge your stated refusal to try to work towards consensus. I'll go ahead and re-write myself, using a different quote. Dlabtot 03:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a smartaleck. Read my response to Bbrown8370 below.A.S. Williams 03:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not inserted the line in the article. I think the whole paragraph should be removed. The quote is not my personal political opinion. It is his commanding officer's (Adm Fallon's) opinion. I think Dlabtot is doing the inserting. I only sourced the article on this talk page. I also removed the whole paragraph once. Please don't accuse me of adding things to the article that I didn't add. This article has a disputed neutrality because, among other reasons, it includes an obscure positive quote by McCaffrey, but ignores an entire negative article concerning Fallon's view of him. The whole paragraph does not add to the article. If you want to include positive representations of him by military figures, please source something that actually talks about how/why the source thinks Petraeus should be considered "brilliant." Bbrown8370 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for confusing you with someone else. Here you make a valid point. I will remove the section in light of this argument but I stand by my statement about Fallon. Fallon's view of Petraeus' personality is not relevant as a result of Fallon being his superior officer because Fallon isn't the one that put Petraeus in charge in Iraq. You can thank the United States' Senate for that.A.S. Williams 03:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say the quote is 'not suitable for a biography'? I direct you towards: WP:CENSOR. I think what you really mean is that it is not suitable for a hagiography. Dlabtot 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree.

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 23:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the second paragraph that says Petraeus is widely regarded as one of the brightest soldiers in his generation and that Ret. Gen. McCaffrey thinks he's brilliant. What a retired general says about him doesn't belong in his bio. Again, I'm new to this but "widely regarded" sounds like weasel words... Bbrown8370 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

McCaffrey is an authority on military ability so it does matter what he thinks. His comments are in regards to Petraeus ability as a general, not to his personality.A.S. Williams 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

His commanding officer's opinion is certainly relevant and notable. Dlabtot 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A.S. Williams, I don't want to get in an edit war with you; so I've taken the praise of Petraeus out of the article. NPOV requires that All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). Both points of view belong in the article, but it is better for neither to be represented than only one. Dlabtot 02:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the "opposing" view is not a legitimate assessment of the general's military ability but more a personal opinion of his personality. I don't want an editing war either and I have no problem with including an opposing view of his military ability if you can find one but "ass-kissing chickenshit" is not professional and below the standards of wikipedia. A.S. Williams 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Fallon and Petraeus have a professional, not a personal relationship. His personality and style of command are certainly part of who is as a person, and as a general. Dlabtot 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that an intellectual article would not include that sort of language, if someone put a quote saying that Petraeus was a really sweet man and awesome and brought chocolate and love to the free peoples of Mars, then the appropriate counterpoint would be the Fallon quote. I am not a Petraeus fan, nor am I a Petraeus detractor, I seek facts in balance with each other in the article.A.S. Williams 03:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of General Petraeus is obviously irrelevant. However, his commanding officer's opinion of him is significant, even if he expresses it in the 'sort of language' that you disapprove of. Please read WP:CENSOR Dlabtot 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the views of his previous commanding officer are quite significant. Much more significant than those of an Admiral who thinks he's a chickensh*t.TBSchemer 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well clearly if his previous commanding officer's view is significant, then his current commanding officer's view is significant. The fact that you disagree with one of those viewpoints is irrelevant. Dlabtot 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree, entirely. Bbrown8370 03:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to be more specific. His previous commander's professional opinion about his professional qualities are significant, whereas his current commander's personal views about his personality qualities are not. If you include the quotes about policy differences, then to respect NPOV you also have to include Petraeus' most recent response to the concerns about his policy difference with Fallon: "Admiral Fallon fully supports the recommendations that I have made, as do the Joints Chiefs of Staff. In fact, I also talked to the chief of staff of the Army most recently this morning [Sept. 10, 2007]. We had discussions about the pace of the mission transition, but there has been no recommendation I am aware of that would have laid out by any of those individuals a more rapid withdrawal." TBSchemer 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Petraeus' wikipedia article is supposed to be a transcript of his feuds. It should be enough to just note that Fallon, his current commander, disagrees with his professional qualities. We can make a Fallon_Petraeus_Feud page if we want to fully document the feud. The paragraph I had a problem with has been removed, so I have no problem with the intro as it stands. Still, if something were to be included from all of this in a future edit, I think it should be that "Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia." Fallon is in a position to observe this happening. He is also in a position to know that Petraeus' military strategy would jeapordize the greater military picture in that region of the world. IMO, this is the most revealing piece of information in the article I initially quoted. Bbrown8370 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Except there's evidence in the quote I listed above that Fallon does not still disagree with Petraeus' policy. So that means it may not be a factual, NPOV representation of Fallon's professional opinion to include the derogatory quotes without Petraeus' refutation. However, McCaffrey's professional praise of Petraeus remains both significant and undisputed. TBSchemer 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that with the paragraph removed entirely the inclusion of Fallon's alternate view is less urgent. It is a current news item. This is an encyclopedia. With time and as more details and context emerge it should be easier to include a NPOV version. TBSchemer, Inter Press Service certainly qualifies as a WP:reliable source - the fact that you consider Fallon's viewpoint to be 'derogatory' is completely irrelevant. As far as the idea that nothing negative about Petraeus should be included in Wikipedia unless Petraeus has a chance to 'refute' it - you're not serious are you? Dlabtot 04:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Petraeus' disagreement with Fallon is old news, and has evidently since been resolved, as characterized by the quote I provided. I'm not saying that quote shouldn't be included because it's derogatory. I'm saying that evidence of a dispute that has been resolved should not be included without also providing the evidence that it has been resolved. TBSchemer 05:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Old news? More like a developing story. The Washington Post story was published 3 days ago. The Inter Press Service, today. That's old news? Just because Fallon issued a public statement that "no, really, I'm on board" ? I guess if you accept everything everyone says at face value. Dlabtot 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, notice the part where it says, "In an interview Friday, Fallon said he and Petraeus have reached accommodation about tomorrow's testimony. 'The most important thing is I'm very happy with what Dave has recommended,' he said. As for the earlier discussions, he begged off. 'It's too politically charged right now.'" See, now you're trying to selectively include only those quotes from Fallon that support your point of view. What you're trying to do is not NPOV. TBSchemer 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be true if I had called for that not to be included, which, of course, I have not done. Dlabtot 06:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact if you look through the comments you'll see that I asked someone who disagreed with me to rewrite, using what quotes they chose. Please, let's keep the discussion about the article and leave off the accusations. Dlabtot 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I apologize. I thought you were defending Bbrown8370's comment that only the one quote should be included TBSchemer 06:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Pax. With the paragraph excised as it is now, I don't see the NPOV problem, unless there is a different one as well that I'm not aware of. Perhaps some of this stuff can be put in later when hindsight gives a more encyclopedic perspective. Dlabtot 06:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that I thought only the one quote should be included. I think all of this should be left out, for now. I think the Fallon quote is the only thing salvagable that I've seen so far. The reason I said that had more to do with the McCaffrey comment being vague and obscure, and the "widely regarded as the brightest..." comment sounding like weasel words. Show me an article where McCaffrey talking about Petraeus' brilliance on specific military matters, then it can be included. Show me a study/list of the brightest military people in his generation, then we can include it. As for Fallon saying he's on board now, it may be my POV, but the quotes sound very weak. It seems like Fallon is just going along with something he doesn't like that much, because he's not in the decision-making role. He voiced his criticism, and now he's going to do what those above him decide. Essentially, he could tacticly support the surge, he could be happy with Petraeus' recommendations because Fallon thinks they're going to expose Petraeus as incompetent in running a war. I just don't see how a couple of quotes is an equal counterweight to a long standing rift between the two men. Regardless, for now, either make a feud page, or leave it out entirely is my position. Things will most likely continue to develop. Bbrown8370 14:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fallon quote is from an article from the Inter Press Service a media organization with a stated POV. Fallon is not quoted directly but unnamed sources are cited for the quote. The article cites a Washington Post article regarding the alleged animosity between Petraeus and Fallon which itself cites unnamed sources. The author is Gareth Porter is an ardent opponent of U.S. military policy. He sought to debunk claims of massacres by the VC during Vietnam. He argued strongly that U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam would not lead to a bloodbath. He was initially skeptical of accounts of the killing in Cambodia. His articles have appeared in the Guardian and the Nation. He is the author of a book that maintains the cause of Vietnam was not superpower competition but U.S. arrogance. Clearly this is not a Reliable Source.--JoeFriday 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know that you think your opinions are 'clearly' true. lol However, your opinions -- such as the notion that being published in the Guardian disqualify someone as a reliable source - don't seem to be referenced in Wikipedia's standards for WP:reliable sources. There is also nothing in the policy that says that the source may not have a POV - sensible considering that all human beings have a POV. At any rate, the Washington Post certainly is without question a WP:reliable source - or do you dispute that as well? Dlabtot 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a totality. You do not address both articles reliance on unnamed sources quoting a person with whom the quote if true can be confirmed or the author's history of biased reporting. Do you think that the Vietnam war was caused by too much U.S. power and that Communism was irrelevant?--JoeFriday 01:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. My opinions about the Vietnam War - and yours - are completely irrelevant to any discussion on Wikipedia. As are your or my opinions about the reliability of a particular reporter. I suggest you review WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CITE. Dlabtot 01:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

A few comments. The article seems to adhere to NPOV. NPOV does not mean you have to balance positive with negative. It means the article is accurate and not biased. The article certainly seems balanced including some criticism of Petraeus. As General Officers are not public politicians, they do not tend to create a trail of controversy. Also, the claimed comments by Admiral Fallon came from a leftist web news site, is not sourced, and seems unlikely. Claims of friction between Fallon and Petraeus do exist in the mainstream press, but such friction is normal in war (read some of the books on WWII or Desert Storm for examples). -- 14 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.33.62 (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding my point. It is not whether you or I believe this reporter's theses but rather that they are fringe theories.

WP reads that "[a]rticles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made."
- The WP article on Mr. Porter notes a controversial reputation.
WP reads that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources."
- The claim that one's supervisor made such remarks is exceptional and should have more than one article written by an activist citing unnamed sources who claimed to have heard a remark.
Additionally, WP reads that "[s]urprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known . . . not covered by reliable news media . . . [r]eports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended" require exceptional sources.
- While the Fallon quote may appear not to be against an interest that he had previously defended, it would go a long way to support the reliability of the source if there was some documentation that Fallon resisted Petraeus's appointment as his subordinate.
WP also reads that "[e]xceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially . . . in material about living people."
- One article, by an activist citing unnamed sources claiming to have heard an apparently offhand remark by someone who is available to confirm the quote but hasn't, certainly is not "multiple high quality reliable sources."
Nothing in my remarks is original research. It is not original to say that the author is controversial. Nor is it original to say that the article cites unnamed sources.
WP also reads that "[m]aterial about living persons must be sourced very carefully."
- Again one article by an activist citing unnamed sources claiming to have heard an apparently offhand remark by someone who is available to confirm the quote but hasn't certainly is not "sourced very carefully."
While the article in the Washington Post also cites unnamed sources, the Post is more reputable and the allegation is less exceptional in that it alleges that a supervisor and subordinate do not get along rather than that the supervisor made an undermining slur against a subordinate.
Perhaps a better way to say it is that hyperbole uttered by unnamed sources is not reliable. Of course, that would apply to the Washington Post article as well. Both articles together, would be reliable sources to say that the men do not have good chemistry. There is too great a possibility that activists would exaggerate disagreements among opponents.--JoeFriday 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:reliable sources and WP:NPOV again. You are totally not getting it. For the purposes of Wikipedia anything that appears in a newspaper such as the Washington Post, or the Chicago Tribune - or any other newspaper with 'an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.' - is considered reliable. The Washington Post is the source, not the reporter or the people quoted in the article. Dlabtot 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fallon quote is

an exceptional claim,
a surprising or apparently important claim that is not widely known,
a report of a statement by someone that seems embarrassing and controversial,
in material about a living person, and
NOT supported by multiple sources.--JoeFriday 11:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So is this article still disputed? What are the specific issues outstanding? How do we resolve them? If none are outstanding I am going to remove the NPOV tag. --Rtrev 20:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely still disputed. Certainly no consensus has emerged, despite the overwhelming volume of text typed on this page by just a few editors. Dlabtot 02:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Right I see that. What I am really asking is what are the specific points. If there are none then this is a resolved conflict despite the verbiage. If there are specific problems then lets hear solutions. --Rtrev 02:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The specific points are the same as they always were. The article is laudatory almost to the point of hagiography. All criticism of Petraeus is presented as partisan sniping from Democrats. The quite substantive disagreement with his commanding officer is not mentioned. See the RfC below. Dlabtot 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The dispute is not whether we should mention the disagreement with his commanding officer. It is (1) whether we should include a specific quote that some feel is inappropriate, (2) whether the one source for that quote is reliable, and (3) whether that quote should require multiple sources. All criticism of Petraeus is not portrayed as partisan sniping from Democrats. One source is alleged to be unreliable because of the great controversy surrounding that source. The alleged bias of the source may be better sourced than the disputed quote.
For a proposed consensus, try this: In a biography of a living person, a quote from another living person which is controversial, degrading, profane, or potentially defaming if not confirmed by the party alleged to have made it or quoted directly from that party should have at least two sources and at least one source should itself not be written by someone whose reliability has been questioned by other reliable sources and should not rely on unnamed sources. I think this reasonably meets the policy on biographies of living persons.
The remark about excess verbiage from two editors is unreasonable. Much of the alleged excess occurred not in the RFC or NPOV setion but in a separate section started by one editor threatening the other editor with being banned from Wikipedia. The excess of verbiage seems to have resulted in a resolution of that conflict. The real difficulty here is that two other editors repeatedly insert a quote in the article which others believe violates the policy on biographies of living persons.--JoeFriday 01:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read the RfC again. It certainly is not as you characterize it. Dlabtot 01:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If the controversy were only as the RFC reads "[s]hould Petraeus'[s] highly public rift with his commanding officer be include[d] in the article," then this would have resolved itself some time ago. The Washington Post article can be cited for that. If one repeatedly includes the IPS quote which violates WP:BLP, others remove it repeatedly, and one responds with an NPOV tag and an RFC tag, then the controversy is not as described in the RFC tag.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 23:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's fine I suggest removing the NPOV tag as there is neither praise nor criticism in the article as of now. Medals are the only thing I can see that someone would think of as praise, but they're merely rewards and don't reflect a POV. Youknowthatoneguy 08:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Returned from sub page per consensus.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Should Petraeus' highly public rift with his commanding officer be include in the article?

Should published criticism of General Patraeus by his commanding officer, Admiral William J. Fallon be included in the article? It seems to me that his commanding officer's viewpoint is certainly a 'significant point of view'. Dlabtot 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a tough call. The Iraq War troop surge of 2007 article might be a better place for Fallon's professional criticism of Petraeus' military strategy. That is really what that's all about. However, Fallon's assertion that Petraeus is more interested in his own interests than a sound military position could be included here without my objection. Still, it might be better to let this play out for a bit, before we try to document. I would like to see Fallon's criticism more heavily sourced than I have supplied if included. Bbrown8370 04:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's true that very reliable source say that Fallon has criticized Petraeus, the answer is "Include-- yes, yes, a thousand times yes." That said, I echo Bbrown's desire to the wait a tad before inclusion, to let mainstream media have a bit of time to chew on in, and sourt out for us whether the claims about Fallon's criticisms are true. --Alecmconroy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecmconroy (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the criticism can be reliably sourced, it should be included. I haven't checked what sources are reporting the claim, but IIRC, the ones I've seen so far seem reliable. Ngchen 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know a couple of people already agreed to this in the NPOV section, and I'm just sticking this here to determine whether there's anyone else who might disagree: If we include Fallon's policy criticism from March, we should also include Fallon's more recent comments about how he's "very happy" with Petraeus' policy. TBSchemer 06:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

When did he say that he's "very happy"? Revolutionaryluddite 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I see from [1] that Petraeus says Fallon "fully supports" him. This must be included if the previous Fallon statements are included. Revolutionaryluddite 02:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here via RFC: I think Bbrown and Alec have it pretty much entirely correct.Orphic 12:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Late to the party... someone above said it was "highly-public"; what has the coverage in the mainstream media been of the criticism. Have newspapers/tv outlets/radio run stories on it? Links? Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: The Washington Post story, Inter Pres Service story -- Dlabtot 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Fallon is criticizing the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 per se and not the General himself, I think that his comments belong on that page. However, Alecmconroy, Orphic, Bbrown8370 have a very good point about waiting to see how this plays out. Revolutionaryluddite 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking at Talk:David_Petraeus#Neutral_Point_of_View, I strongly disagree that "published criticism" should be added if the criticisms will be nothing more than personal insults. Criticisms of something just connected to him- i.e. against the Bush Administration- should not be on the page either. Criticisms listed on this page must be criticisms of Petraeus personally based on his beliefs, conduct, and actions. Revolutionaryluddite 02:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The surge is the main reason Petraeus has a significant article in Wiki. Any criticism of Petraeus related to the surge (especially from his commanding officer), ie some of Fallon's comments, probably do have a place here if they turn out to be accurate and true and Petraeus' moment of fame remains primarily because of Iraq counter-insurgency (the surge). But it's up to you guys. Bbrown8370 08:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post article doesn't quote criticism from Fallon of Petraeus, though, it just mentions that a "schism" and "bad relations" between them existed in the past and has now since changed. Fallon just criticised part of the surge strategy (and the President). The article is the only reliable source I've seen so far that reports on the 'rift', and it doesn't really have specific criticism of Petraeus. Revolutionaryluddite 16:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

umm it seems like maybe you didn't actually read read the referenced news articles or something. Fallon isn't criticizing Petraeus for having halitosis or because he doesn't like his hairstyle. His criticizing him as an officer. Dlabtot 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I've read the articles. I've looked through the one reliable source cited, the Washington Post, and I don't see any quotes by Fallon that crtiticise Petraeus. The article reports that a 'schism' existed in the past and that it does not now-- that's all. Revolutionaryluddite 16:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, what the Washington Post story reports is that behind the public face of unity, a schism exists between Patraeus and Fallon. Further, the very fact that we are having this disagreement shows that there is more than one point of view; rather than deciding which is the correct point of view, the article should present the facts in a NPOV manner and leave it to the reader to make that judgement. Dlabtot 20:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that there are two interpretations of the article: first, that the article means exactly what it says and the two officers had a strong personal disagreement that is now resolved (or is being resolved); second, that there is some kind of a blood feud between them that is kept under wraps by a Bush Administration conspiracy. Occam's razor clearly implies here. We have the right to have our opinions, but not to have our own facts. The fact is that the article does not have a specific quote by Fallon criticising Petraeus. The article has criticism by Fallon of certain parts of the surge and of President Bush as well as statements by Fallon supporting Petraeus. That's it. Revolutionaryluddite 01:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please limit your responses to describing your own point of view. I never said nor implied anything remotely like the viewpoint you ascribed to me. Your characterizations of my comments are inaccurate and unwelcome. Dlabtot 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fallon isn't just another officer. He's important enough in Petraeus's story that his favorable and unfavorable comments should be included. That includes comments that Wikipedia editors think are insufficiently substantive. We aren't to decide whether criticisms are "based on his beliefs, conducts, and actions", or based on some other factors we consider proper, or based on some factors we consider inappropriate. The issue for us is significance. A blogger who writes a cogent critique of the failings of Petraeus's training program doesn't get quoted. A general closely associated with Petraeus who dishes a personal insult does get quoted. JamesMLane t c 05:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

JamesMLane t c 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fallon quote is

an exceptional claim,
a surprising or apparently important claim that is not widely known,
a report of a statement by someone that seems embarrassing and controversial,
in material about a living person, and
not supported by multiple sources.--JoeFriday 11:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

JamesMLane, if Fallon's earlier comments are significant, then why aren't his later comments (in which Fallon is "very happy" and "fully supports" Petraeus)? Revolutionaryluddite 15:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Here for the RFC: I think that Bbrown8370 has it right -- Petraeus' notability comes mainly from his role as the chosen military spokesman for the White House on Iraq policy. It is widely acknowledged that his Report was ghostwritten by the White House. The fact that other military leaders, specifically Fallon, are less than pleased by this should certainly be included. And finally, I would disagree with Joe Friday's assertions that Fallon's views are "surprising" and "not widely known." --Marvin Diode 20:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is widely acknowledged that his Report was ghostwritten by the White House. This is a very strong accusation. You're saying that Petraeus explicitly lied to Congress and the American people. Fallon, are less than pleased by this The Fallon-Petraeus "schism" is not related to this, as the Washington Post article explains; Fallon did not accuse Petraeus of lying in his Report. Revolutionaryluddite 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite, as far as the two apparently contradictory comments from Fallon, WP:NPOV is clear and explicit: "When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner." - in this case that would be the Washington Post. Dlabtot 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a case of two or more reliable sources contradicting each other. This is a case in which one reliable source reports a consistent story-- Fallon and Petraeus had a strong disagreement which is now resolved (or being resolved). Revolutionaryluddite 01:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Marvin Diode, I don't mean that Fallon's critical attitude or personal animosity to Petraeus are "surprising" and "not widely known." I think that the the Wash. Post and IPS articles taken together refute that. My point is

——that the "ass kissing ... chickenshit" quote is "surprising" and "not widely known!!!!!"——

While Fallon's critical attitude or personal animosity to Petraeus are supported by multiple sources and are not exceptional, the "ass kissing ... chickenshit" quote is not supported by multiple sources and is exceptional. To comply with WP guidelines on this point is to make an assertion about the Fallon-Petraeus attitude or relationship that is fully supported by the Wash. Post article as the IPS article would then necessarily be a multiple source for that. The Wash. Post article is not a multiple source for the "chickenshit" quote.--JoeFriday 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

An additional concern I have is the competing meanings of chickenshit. It is military slang for stupid and petty ridiculous bureaucratic regulatory nonsense. In common parlance, it means cowardly. See Urban Dictionary and Free Dictionary. For this reason the quote is especially harmful as it is functionally libel. Even if said with the military connotation, it will be read by most with the more common and more derogatory connotation. Interestingly, its use therefore conforms to a standard practice of antiwar activists of accusing policy makers refusing to surrender of being cowardly.--JoeFriday 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"a standard practice of antiwar activists of accusing policy makers refusing to surrender of being cowardly"? Should I assume that this is your personal take on the matter? What is of some actual relevance to the article is the pattern of military leaders who have either resigned in protest, or been fired for differing with administration policy, and more significantly, former officers who have criticized the Bush administration using surprisingly strong language -- Lawrence Wilkerson comes to mind. In light of this, I don't find Fallon's language to be especially surprising. It is also not libellous. It falls under the category of "criticism." The use of the term "chickenhawk," for example, is typically found among military veterans, who are referring to ostentatiously bellicose individuals who avoided military service themeselves. --Marvin Diode 01:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the President has been denounced using strong language is irrelevant. Fallon's statement in the Press Service is surprising, given that the Washington Post reports that Fallon supports Petraeus, and has not supported by other sources as JoeFriday has noted. Revolutionaryluddite 20:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Civilian anti-war activists have used the term 'chickenhawk' to apply to other civilians as well as pro-surge veterans. But this is beside the point. Revolutionaryluddite 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

outside opinion from **— BQZip01 —** ^talk

I came into this from the RfC page.

I think that the comments seem to be more of a professional assessment of a subordinate within the confines of the military structure. While he said it, I don't think it is very notable. I know of many officers who say things like this and forget them the next day. Additionally, it doesn't appear that Admiral Fallon continues to hold that opinion. Disagreements, even vehement disagreements, are very common when it comes to policy discussions at every level of command in the military. I don't think those should be taken out of context.

I concur that The Fallon quote is an exceptional claim, a surprising or apparently important claim that is not widely known, a report of a statement by someone that seems embarrassing and controversial, in material about a living person, and, most importantly, not supported by multiple sources. If it can be backed up, it should be and then it can be included, but not necessarily should be included, but given the inflammatory nature of these comments and WP:BIO policy/guidelines, this should certainly be balanced with Fallon's comments later that he is "very happy" and "fully supports" Petraeus. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(Shameless self-promotion to follow). If anyone else would like, there is a discussion on the Talk: Fightin' Texas Aggie Band page and your opinions on this RfC would be appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, despite the assertion of one of the editors on this page, the RfC question is not whether that particular quote should be included, but whether the rift between Petraeus and Fallon, reported on by both the Washington Post and the Inter Press Service, should be included in the article. Dlabtot 19:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The RFC and NPOV questions are not the only questions. Include the rift without the quote, and there is no controversy. Include the quote, and you violate WP:BLP. Either way, any reference to the rift will likely be met with the inclusion of evidence of its resolution. No matter how reasonably you phrase your RFC or your NPOV, you cannot treat their resolution as justifying including the quote. There is no way that quote with that source alone does not violate WP:BLP. Accept reporting the rift without the quote, and I no longer have a dispute. Include the IPS article along with the Washington Post article as a reference for the rift, and I have no dispute. Include the quote, and I will continue to report that you are in flagrant violation of WP:BLP. If the WP:BLP question is resolved in your favor, I will withdraw from the debate. Until and unless it is, include it, and you knowingly, willfully, and by now repeatedly violate WP:BLP.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "chickenshit" quote, I never thought it "surprising," and at this juncture, I don't think there can be any validity to the claim that it is "not widely known." See this search of Google News. --Marvin Diode 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Do any cite original sources other than IPS or unnamed? An awful lot of them look like blogs. Several appear to be from Huffington Post. It would be more accurate to say that the IPS story has been widely quoted mostly by partisan outlets with a desire for it to be true.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 21:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless my oount is off, I only see 5 people brought into the discussion by way of the RfC, and I sure don't see any consensus yet. Dlabtot 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Returned from subpage following consensus.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 03:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

POV issues on talk page

Comment to JoeFriday: Please stop POV pushing on this page, or elsewhere. From the contexts used, the phrases and terms "another leftist disinformation front", activist (several times), "anti-war activists", and "fringe theories" (and comments about Gareth Porter) appear to be politically motivated attempts to impugne the integrity and reliability of the sources mentioned in order to skew the discussion toward your own POV. We all have points-of-view (politics being one of the more contentious) but we are all required by the Wikipedia non-negotiable values (including WP:NPOV) to abstain from a POV while working here, including on the talk pages. If you continue pushing your POV, you may be reported and potentially blocked from editing. — Becksguy 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Becksguy, this is an RFC for this article itself. If you have a personal disagreement with JoeFriday's past edits, then please post a seperate RFC. Revolutionaryluddite 03:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I fixed it by creating a separate section. I don't wish to start a RfC as I don't think the issue has risen to that level, however, I felt it needed to be mentioned as it stood out to fresh eyes. As to the personal disagreement: It's neither personal nor a disagreement with JoeFriday. I simply observed what I believe to be POV issues and commented on them as an otherwise uninvolved editor. Reliable sources are those with a structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight, but where a source is positioned on the political spectrum is not one of the criteria. A source from the left or right can be a reliable source, or not, depending. But to use semantically loaded terms for a source has a tendency to create assumptions in the readers mind that may have nothing to do with it's reliability. I understand that it can be hard to lay aside one's POV when editing here, especially in contentious subjects/articles, but we all have to do our best to observe NPOV. And sometimes an independent observation can be helpful in doing that. Thank you. — Becksguy 17:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

However, it is appropriate to note that some comments have veered away from the topic at hand into a more general expression of POV. --Marvin Diode 14:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Becksguy, JoeFriday's comments seem- to me, at least- to be pointing out that the Press Service has a extremely strong ideological bias, a history of sensationalism, and a history of factual issues. Revolutionaryluddite 20:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with him or anything like that- just I think this is what he is saying.)

Would you consider, in the same vein as this debate, [2] or [3] or [4] to be reilable sources for the Barbara Boxer or Harry Reid articles? Revolutionaryluddite 20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alas, it is true we all have a POV. A quote using foul and demeaning language should be required to have multiple sources when it is about a living person or the object of the insult is politically controversial and the single source has a track record of partisan reporting. Put the shoe on the other foot. For example, if just as a leading expert was testifying in front of Congress to the danger of Global Warming, WorldNetDaily was the only media outlet to claim that the expert's boss called him an expletive-crackpot and cited only unnamed sources and the boss wouldn't confirm it, then we all would demand a second source. At least, we should.--JoeFriday 01:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To BecksGuy, I am not intending to push a POV. Obviously, mine leaked out while I was expressing frustration in an effort to get others to stop pushing what I see as a POV. I agree that the phrase "another leftist disinformation front" was over the top. Is "activist" impugning someone's character? By implication one would be saying that activism is bad. Has an organization which describes its activities as political action or has a political action committee embraced the term? My objection is to activism which purports to be non-partisan, independent, or neutral when it is not. MoveOn refers to itself as non-partisan. Is the phrase "fringe theories" impugning the integrity of sources? The phrase comes straight from WP:REDFLAG. Admittedly, it warns against the theories rather than using their proponents as reliable sources in another context. Is the epithet "fringe theory" really deserved? I wouldn't put in a regular article because I wouldn't want to do the research to source it. Is the term "antiwar" unfair? The ABC article cited in the caption to the picture of the MoveOn ad refers to MoveOn as an "antiwar group." Is ABC a reliable source? Regarding the author of the article which I believe needs a corroborating source, he says the following, "I believe the antiwar movement and the movement against militarism in this country is the saving remnant of American society. It is what stands between the political elite of this country and the utter ruination, the utter degradation of what is left of decent values in this country as far as its role in the world is concerned." (YouTube) Am I wrong to perceive that statement as evidence of the source's unreliability? That's not my decision. This is after all a talk page. Unlike other editors who have stated their intention to edit the article without consensus, I will reserve my remarks on this point to the talk page. I leave it up to others to decide.--JoeFriday 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To JoeFriday. Thank you for a thoughtful and long response. I'm sorry I came on a bit strong in my initial comment, and yes, it was the phrase about the disinformation front, among other things, that prompted me. Separate from the issue of source reliability, I was concerned that the characterization added an emotional layer that made it even harder to maintain a NPOV mode of discussion. Although I know the Washington Post well, I don't know the reputation of IPS or it's editorial policies/structures, so I can't comment on it's reliability. You have a point about "activists", although I saw it as code for anti-war or left-wing activists, and felt that it was also not neutrally descriptive. However, any one that fights for what they believe in, rather than just sitting on the couch watching TV, is an activist in a sense, regardless of where they are politically. It looked like "fringe theory" was being applied to the chickenshit remark by Adm. Fallon, and that seemed to be an grossly overreaching stretch of the meaning. Describing MoveOn as "anti-war" is incomplete, as that is only one, and a more recent, part of it's operations. But more importantly, I don't see how being anti-war makes a source automatically unreliable. If anti-war sources are unreliable due to being partisan, then so are pro-war sources, and due to the heavy polarization in our society, that might not leave many usable sources. Anyway, I think the air has been cleared somewhat. Some of the comments you made deserve further thought in later responses. And this whole issue of source reliability needs to be discussed in much more depth that we can in one article talk page. I agree with your point that one should not edit a contentious article without discussion first. — Becksguy 22:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I regret that I did not make clear that what I referred to as a "fringe theory" was the assertion that the Vietnam war resulted from the U.S. having too much power. To describe MoveOn as "anti-war" may well be incomplete. They are clearly active on a broad front of issues. Are they also "anti-war"? ABC thinks so, and it is footnoted. If you doubt Wikipedia's description of the controversy surrounding the reliability of the author in question, then try that of Romanticizing the Khmer Revolution an excerpt from a Berkeley Political Science Honors Thesis by Sophal Ear.--JoeFriday 23:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry I misread it. Now I understand the fringe theory reference and thank you for clearing that up. Also, I wasn't denying that MoveOn.org is an anti-war group, I just wanted to clarify that it isn't a single issue group, since they started out doing, and still do, liberal issues advocacy and education, and grassroots political lobbying as a PAC, among other things. And I will check out your citations. This has become a helpful discussion, and it remained civil, which in contentious subjects is harder to maintain. (BTW, I added bullets for readability.) Thank you. — Becksguy 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Becksguy appears to be someone you want up in that lookout tower. Just look at how much verbiage there is on this page from only two users. It is like a smokescreen obscuring the commentary. Dlabtot 02:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Revolutionaryluddite 02:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you are mentioning the page on civility. Do you object to something I said? What do you object to, and why? Thanks in advance. Dlabtot 02:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Pejoratively labeling another user's comments "verbiage" and "a smokescreen" is not civil. Revolutionaryluddite 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The word verbiage is not pejorative; it's about as neutral as a term can get. I do stand by my opinion that it is difficult to get a sense of the RfC consensus because of excessive and repetitive commentary from a couple of editors. I certainly do not mean to inflame passions or hurt feelings by saying so, but simply to work towards a better discussion. Dlabtot 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to assume bad faith on your part. And there's no point in starting a meta-arguement over what the definition of 'civilty' is. Revolutionaryluddite 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think that this whole 'POV issues on talk page' section has gotten off topic. Revolutionaryluddite 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a separate section, and the subject was the talk page per se, not the article. But I can see your point, Dlabtot, why don't you move the entire RfC section to the bottom of the page, bypassing all three sections currently below it? — Becksguy 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that that'll help; and I'm not too comfortable moving stuff around on talk pages. I'd really like to just sit back and see how the RfC turns out. Dlabtot 03:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Returned from subpage per consensus.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

MoveOn Ad Side Bar

The sidebar detailing the MoveOn ad is not objective. It provides a cite to an ABC article with incorrect information about the cost of the ad. And the sidebar states (subjectively) that the the NYT charged MoveOn "36 percent of the average rate." While that may be true, details need to be stated that clarifies WHY the ad was at a lower cost (ie it was on "standby"). A source detailing this can be found here: [5]. Wanderluster 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)wanderluster

If there's a factual dispute about the ad's cost between two or more reliable sources, then the sidebar should report both sides. But I don't think [6] qualifies as a reliable source since it's a blog and not a news article. Revolutionaryluddite 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This [7] reference is a statement by the director of advertising acceptability for the New York Times and is published by the Times. It's not a blog. The caption is POV pushing and inflammatory the way it reads, and the comment about the 36% rate that implies moveon.org received preferential treatment is false. Right wing ads, such as Guilliani's [8] receive reduced ad rates if they are placed on standby also. Just like flying standby, no more, no less. Furthermore, an image caption is not the place for political partisan statements. It should be an extremely short, simple, NPOV, and accurate caption of what is pictured. No more. no less. Most of the caption has to be removed. — Becksguy 08:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The 36% is based on the ABC article and sourced. I chose to express it as a percent because it is more compact than the actual numbers. The New York Times response is titled a blog. Is it official? Is the person writing it the official who would have the answer? If so, I see nothing wrong with including their response. One should note that the New York Times has a history of bias and unreliability but if it is the official position of the New York Times, I don't see a problem with saying that the Times disputed the favoritism claim. The Times produced Walter Duranty and Jason Blair. For an example of the Times's important contributions to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia Scanner and more specifically George W. Bush and again George W. Bush. We should probably counter the Times explanation of the pricing with an elucidation of their history of bias.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wanderluster's reference may be a blog, but mine isn't (and there is news story reference following). It, as I said, was published in The New York Times (NYT). However, there are still several objections to the caption as it is. First, the 36% is misleading and implies something not true, that a preferential rate was given to this ad not given to other ads due to it's political message. That's POV. A spokesperson for NYT said that Moveon paid a standard “standby” rate as reported in a NYT news story here. Second, the caption states that Moveon.org is a anti-war, liberal, interest group. None of those are established facts. They should be stated with reliable sources as to whom has said that MoveOn.org is anti-war, and/or liberal and/or an interest group. As they stand, they deserve {{fact}} or similar tags. Third, the NYT is biased in what way? Overly conservative in that it supported the invasion of Iraq and the existence of WMD there? The Walter Duranty issue happened before WW2 and has absolutely no relevance to the current NYT (besides he kept his Pulitzer). People born then would be in their late 70s and those from that generation in their late 80s or older. The Jason Blair wikilink points to a TV show. Is that relevant? I have no idea what the scanner reference or the two wikilinks to Bush mean, other than being sophomoric comments totally unrelated to any claimed bias. Fourth, the caption is not the place for partisan comments or complex issues. The caption should identify the image with something like: MoveOn's ad about Gen. Petraeus that appeared in the NYT on [date]. Period. That is squeaky clean neutral, and totally factual, as we need to be in this article. Anything else, such as comments about the political leanings of MoveOn, if any, and comments about who voted for/against, or didn't vote, in Congress, all belong in the article body. Especially as this is a controversial and contentious issue and also complex what with all the pro-war/anti-war coverage appearing in the press about it. It's also a matter of style. It's like showing an image of the Constitution in an article and including the Federalist/Anti-Federalist arguments about it within the caption. And finally, there are two editors here that believe that the caption/sidebar is not objective as it is. — Becksguy 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

What an utterly ridiculous example of blatant POV-pushing. Dlabtot 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing on the sidebar that is factually disputed by reliable sources is the ad's cost. Since two reliable sources disagree, both should be mentioned. The rest of the sidebar's content is factual, notable, and relevant to the picture. Revolutionaryluddite 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me. The one sided nature of the ad cost comment was my main point. — Becksguy 08:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that the NYT has admitted that they made a mistake. Revolutionaryluddite 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If the ad was paid under the reduced "stand-by rate", why did it run on the sxact same day as the General's testimony? [9] Revolutionaryluddite 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to BecksGuy, I'm not nearly as bad faith as you fear. I did not include the anti-war description originally. I put it back in after it was removed with the implication that it was somehow untrue/unproven or the like.
- The caption already cited the ABC article which described MoveOn as an anti-war group. Who inserted the liberal interest group, I don't know. I would not have described MoveOn thus.
- Without a reference, I would hesitate to describe it at all. As far as the NYT blog issue, you are correct. I thought you were disputing the claim that a particular source was a blog.
- I didn't realize you were referring to an additional source. As you'll note in my post, I described an appropriate source which it seems you had used. Thus, we have no dispute.
- The suggestion that the NYT is overly conservative is extreme. I am not pushing a POV. Where I may be less circumspect is on talk pages in my responses to what I see as other's pushing a POV.
- I try to undo the POV I think others are pushing, and in doing so I may occasionally go overboard. You may note that before the quote which I believe has yet to receive any support as not violating WP:BLP, my contributions to the article were primarily I think in formatting the bibliography. Regarding Jason Blair, had I spelled it Jason blair or Jayson Blair it would have landed properly.
- As it was, the link did not point to a TV show but rather was redirected to a TV show when it should have been redirected to a disambiguation page instead. As for Walter Duranty, yes he kept his Pulitzer. Do you mean to suggest that the Pulitzer excuses his work?
- If you read his Wikipedia entry, you'll see that his keeping it is more an indictment on those who didn't take it from him. While he wrote in the thirties, his Pulitzer was reviewed again in the 1990s and later in 2003. The NYT has not chosen to return the prize or call for its revocation or make public its recommendation to the Pulitzer committee.
- Have they unequivocally renounced Duranty as did the historian they hired to review the matter? The scanner found the two links to the Bush article which was vandalized by someone at the Times. Your suggested caption is reasonable though I question the appropriateness of including the ad at all.
- It's sort of like the Times saying it wasn't defamatory because it had a question mark. Who responded to the ad was included because someone kept putting in that some Republicans and a few Democrats were opposed to it. That was clearly an effort to conceal the truth that we can't seem to find any Republicans that didn't condemn it, and there were one or two Democrats that did as of my last edit on the caption if you count Joe Lieberman.
- The remainder of your post seems agreeable though the last sentence is unclear. How is the caption not objective? The statements are true if unflattering and negative and perhaps straying into POV or as you say inappropriate to a photo caption.
- However, the statements have not been refuted with sources. You make some good points, and I have conceded several. That one will have to wait until you can source it.
- Regarding Dlabtot, it seems that his persistent habit of attacking other editors or their comments is becoming tiresome. The RFC and NPOV controversies are clear examples of his violation of WP:GAME. I am quite restrained in all but my response to the use of Wikipedia to attack one's political opponents.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that the Times has changed its story on the StandBy rate defense. New York Times Says It Violated Policies Over MoveOn Ad, By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, September 24, 2007, p. A8. Betraying Its Own Best Interests, By CLARK HOYT, New York Times, September 23, 2007.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 07:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that you are a very good faith editor, JoeFriday. Even when we disagree on points, you have been civil and I have learned from you. And you have taken the time to respond in a thoughtful way to the points raised. I have come to respect you, even if I don't always agree with you. You have made some good points also. So the process of hashing things out has apparently worked here. I hope you feel the same. Responses to follow, but I wanted to get this out up front. — Becksguy 08:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The latest caption now says that "The paper admitted to improperly charging MoveOn.org the standby rate..." That not what NYT said. Both the Washington Post and the NYT article (using the two references in the standby defense comment above) quoted Catherine Mathis, the spokesperson for NYT, as saying "We made a mistake." That's the reliably sourced statement and the more neutral statement. I think the sentence in the caption should read: The paper said "we made a mistake" in charging MoveOn.org the standby rate... Do you agree? — Becksguy 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the wording "improperly charging" differs from "made a mistake in charging". They mean the same thing. If a cashier charged me $15.00 for a $1.50 donut, he or she both "made a mistake" and "improperly charged" me. Revolutionaryluddite 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference. Mistake implies that an unintentional error was made, and that is what the NYT admitted to. Improper includes unethical conduct as a meaning, and does not exclude intentional behavior. This is POV. Using your example: If the cashier over charged intentionally, that's improper. But if the overcharge was unintentional, that's a mistake. Big difference in implication. After reading the caption, readers might walk away thinking NYT admitted that it gave Moveon a reduced rate as a result of agreeing with their message, rather than just making a mistake in not being clear that the run date was not guaranteed. NYT said mistake, not improper. The word improper is unacceptable in this context. — Becksguy 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To BecksGuy, thank you for your kind words. Come Grasshopper, and I will show you the power of the Dark Side. ; )
- You have me on the word improper. That word is mine and not NYT's. However, the word mistake implies good faith which can't be known. Perhaps, the appropriate word would be incorrect/inappropriate or even undercharged. While most will reasonably believe that NYT admitted to impropriety, there is no need for us to give them a shove in that direction.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see Becksguy's point. I think that the word "inproper" should be replaced with 'incorrect' and un-bolded. Revolutionaryluddite 00:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While I still think using the NYT quote is using a reliably sourced quotation, and the most neutral, I will agree in the spirit of building consensus to using incorrect per Revolutionaryluddite and JoeFriday. I have a concern in keeping WP from getting embroiled in the political sandstorm swirling around the ad, and that includes avoiding the perception of editorializing. Thank you. — Becksguy 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is all of this information about MoveOn and this ad included in the Petraeus article? If there's this much discussion about the MoveOn ad, shouldn't a separate page be made for the ad? I also don't think the descriptions of MoveOn (ie anti-war, liberal, interest group...) belong in the caption of the Petraeus ad on Petraeus' page. Shouldn't MoveOn's link be enough for people to figure out what MoveOn is? Not to mention that MoveOn isn't a pacifist organization, and it is not explicitly anti-war. MoveOn is anti-this-Iraq-War. There's a difference. Next is the ad's pricing. Again, it doesn't really belong on this page. If you want to make the accusation that NYT intentionally charged MoveOn less because they're on the left with political views, then add it to the NYT page, not here. It doesn't add to an article about Petraeus. Then we get into what other people think of the ad (presidential candidates, senators, etc). It doesn't add anything to an article on Petraeus. The whole block reads like a slam on MoveOn, NYT and more generally, just a multi-faceted ramble of information very weakly related to Petraeus. Bbrown8370 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be that a lot of this information needs to be cut. First, the adjectives for MoveOn don't need to be included. MoveOn is linked, and people can draw their own conclusions about MoveOn from that page. Move the pricing disputes for the add to the NYT page, or make a new page for the Petraeus ad and include it there. The criticisms of the ad by lawmakers and presidential candidates should be cut from this page. If a new Petraeus ad page is created, they could be included there. Bbrown8370 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why delete the information? Why not move it to the report's page? Revolutionaryluddite 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that. I just think it detracts from a page about Petraeus. The info doesn't belong here, but easily could go elsewhere. Granted, I still don't like liberal and anti-war describing MoveOn, because anti-war is not exactly accurate, and the word liberal has turned into a label since a lot of people have a negative connotation with the word liberal. Progressive would be a better word. Still, that's just semantics. My main point is that the info is superfluous here and is obfuscatory here. Bbrown8370 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of anti-war liberals do not consider "liberal" or "antiwar" to be insulting. What's wrong with those terms? Revolutionaryluddite 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, antiwar is an easy one. My complaint is not that anti-war is insulting, it is that MoveOn isn't antiwar. MoveOn has opposed the current US war with Iraq. That does not make the organization anti-war. Opposition to a particular war does not make an entity anti-war. If that was the standard required for the term anti-war, virtually everyone would be anti-war because there have been a lot of pretty bad wars waged throughout history. I would reserve the use of anti-war for pacifist entities that oppose war in all cases based on the criticism of war itself, not just war's use in a particular conflict. Bbrown8370 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As for liberal, it's really a semantics issue. It's not that liberal people have any problem with the word. The issue is that conservative people use the word as a way to associate past objections to liberal ideas with new ideas (that have yet to be judged on their merits as liberal or conservative or progressive or whatever). The word has turned into a label, and I'd refrain from using it here. Besides, it doesn't add to the Petraeus article to call MoveOn liberal. Bbrown8370 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

But there's a double standard here. Organizations such as focus on the family, Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, Citizens Against Government Waste, and so on are labeled "conservative" or even "ultraconservative". Organizations such as Moveon.org are generally left without adjectives. This kind of slient, uninentional bias is frustrating as a reader. Revolutionaryluddite 02:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Bbrown8370, I disagree regarding the terms anti-war and liberal.

First of all, the common connotation for anti-war is not pacifists who oppose all war. Most people associate that with the actual term Pacifists. The common connotation for anti-war is in fact accurate for MoveOn if not what you had in mind. That is a leftist movement aimed at weakening the resolve of the U.S. and other Western Nations in their struggles with Communist/Islamist countries/movements that have announced an intent to destroy us or a perception of us as their primary enemy. There were no anti-war demonstrators during the Bosnian affair because the U.S. was defending Islamists and destroying their enemies and permanently alienating Russia all things that the left needs, wants, and works for.
Secondly, Liberal is a confusing term because it meant something entirely different historically and outside the U.S. The present day use of the term Liberal to describe an American political movement/ideology stemmed from the efforts of Socialists to change their image via the use of political framing. The same practice is done when the Soviets referred to themselves as Socialists rather than Communists. The term progressive should be not be used as it properly refers to Teddy Roosevelt's progressives of a century earlier. While it is certainly related to todays Liberals, it is substantiantly different. Those who call themselves Progressive like those we refer to as anti-war are Socialists in a broader sense. The Europeans might refer to them as Social Liberals but their essence is to paraphrase Galbraith "the leftmost viable option." The choice of the word progressive may be an effort to escape the pejorative character that liberal has assumed. However, liberal has only become pejorative after being associated with leftists. The same is true for words like gauche or sinister which simply mean left. In 20 years, we will be debating the pejorative nature of the word Progressive. If you change your name frequently, because you think it is pejorative, the problem is you not the name.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to even respond in a polite way. If I could I would. That being said, the bulk of what you wrote is complete fiction. Okay, so there's a disagreement about the words anti-war and liberal. They are words with different meanings, and I feel that they do not accurately describe MoveOn. What in the world are you talking about when you refer to leftist movement aimed at weakening the resolve of the U.S. and other Western Nations in their struggles with Communist/Islamist countries/movements that have announced an intent to destroy us or a perception of us as their primary enemy? That's one of the biggest POV sentences I've seen in my life. Weaking the resolve? Are you serious? I mean, really, are you serious? This is absolute POV. There were no anti-war demonstrators during the Bosnian affair is also complete fiction. The degree of protests were lower for that war than for the Iraq War, but there were still protests from the left. Veteran anti-war campaigners such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Justin Raimondo, and Tariq Ali were prominent in opposing the campaign [Kosovo_War]. Then you further reach by concluding that because the U.S. was defending Islamists and destroying their enemies and permanently alienating Russia all things that the left needs, wants, and works for. Complete fiction. Complete POV. Are you serious? Again, I'm not joking, are you serious with this kind of POV statement? Do you honestly believe that defending Islamists and alienating Russia is all the left needs, wants and works for? First off, I have to point out the obvious problem that Russia under communism is considered way left. Secondly, I'd say that the political right in America has done a lot to alienate Russia in recent days. Note the anti-ballistic missile shield we're deploying in Europe and Russia's reaction. By the way, check out Wiki's article on Left-Right_politics. I read a lot of things that the left is in favor of on that page, none of which are defending Islamists and destroying their enemies. Should we rework that article, or are you complete incorrect?

*On the liberal issue, how about we take a look at MoveOn's wiki article? MoveOn is a progressive public policy organization is how it starts. Does that page need rework, too? The page contains the word liberal once (talking about contributors). MoveOn's webpage also does not describe the organization as liberal. Their website uses the term progressive. The adjective liberal is POV. We aren't calling MoveOn gauche or sinister. When words evolve into labels, they become less descriptive and more categorizing. Besides that, these adjectives simply are not needed on Petraeus' page. It's a debate about how to describe MoveOn. This belongs on the MoveOn page. Not Petraeus' page. The MoveOn sidebox caption doesn't need to describe MoveOn. It does not add to an article about Petraeus. Bbrown8370 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the claim of a double standard isn't necessarily true. Moveon.org is often labeled liberal or anti-war in the press. For example: in The New York Times as "a liberal antiwar organization" on 9-26, in Editor & Publisher as "the liberal organization" on 9-24, in The Seattle Times as a "overzealous liberal group" on 9-24, and in Fox News as a "liberal antiwar group" on 9-10. — Becksguy 07:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good edit, Bbrown8370... I don't know who decided that the caption for the picture should be turned into a 'sidebar', but a simple caption is more appropriate. Dlabtot 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Moveon.org is often labeled liberal or anti-war in the press. Wait: If the New York Times calls moveon.org a 'liberal anti-war organization', why can't we? Revolutionaryluddite 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

An AP story from today also uses the L word. Revolutionaryluddite 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I am singularly uninterested in whether or not Move On should be labeled as 'liberal'. Such a debate seems more appropriate for Move On's own article. But the unending nature of this debate, as well as the infinite number of similarly pointless ways spin could be introduced through what should be a simple caption, by both sides, shows how every photo caption in a controversial article could be expanded into a 'sidebar' in which endless POV debates are rehashed, if the editors are unable to exercise restraint. FWIW, I would go with an even more neutral wording, changing "A full page political advertisement by Moveon.org in The New York Times accusing the general of cooking the books for the White House." to "A controversial full page political advertisement by Moveon.org in The New York Times."Dlabtot 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you got your edit in before me. I wrote:

Well, it's not on MoveOn's wiki page. I haven't read the discussion over on that page to know why not. That is the appropriate place to have that discussion. If there aren't objections over there, then I guess it would be an available adjective to use here. Still, it's superfluous here. We don't need to include MoveOn's whole wiki article in a sidebox on Petraeus' page. Or any of it. Bbrown8370 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm changing the caption to what you suggested. Bbrown8370 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you and Revolutionaryluddite are in danger of getting in an edit war. I'll just add that mentioning that they are 'liberal', or 'anti-war', in a photo caption is like mentioning 'democratically-elected' in a photo caption under a picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - it's true, but obviously mentioned in order to push a certain POV. Unlike the Ahmadinejad example, though, it's also so well known that it's like reminding people that water is wet. Which is why I don't care one way or the other - the whole article is so hopelessly POV that I don't think many people are gonna take it seriously. With time - let's say after Petraeus has retired for a few years - it will eventually be an encyclopedic article. Dlabtot 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you on the point that the whole article is wayyy POV. It seems that as long as Petraeus remains so closely linked to politics, this article will remain a battleground for political views and will be saturated with political spin. Perhaps after the current administration ends the page can be rewritten. In the mean time, I will try to remove the most blatant POV comments and interject relevant information that I suspect will withstand the test of time. (ie. he was in charge of an operation that lost track of hundreds of thousands of weapons that are likely being used on both sides of a civil war and against us). Bbrown8370 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an "established" user so I can't change this myself. In the main article under 2007-Present, there's a sidebar that contains a picture of the MoveOn ad, and the caption says it was printed September 20th. I believe this date should be September 10th... 24.13.250.171 04:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved back from sub page following consensus.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 03:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

General

Has Petraeus been promoted to General (4-star), upon his Senate confirmation as US forces commander in Iraq? GoodDay 22:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Thaimoss 02:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Then, I'll make the edit at his article. Thanks. GoodDay 02:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you got a source for that promotion? --GrummelJS 20:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Did I read this right, he had no combat time for 29 years; yet bush put him in charge of IRAQ ! father_bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Father bill (talk • contribs) 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Father bill, General Petraeus served in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom as commander of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault). He also served there in a liaison capacity helping train Iraq security personnel. Both jobs are considered combat jobs, and both were completed whilst being a General Officer.--SOCL 06:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody else have a serious problem with the use of the phrase "on the other hand" in the second sentence of the second paragraph in the introduction? The first sentence of said paragraph describes him as brilliant, but "on the other hand" he's also political? Kind of a non-sequitur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.67.109 (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PEOPLE in the know know that a General is a four star and a star above lieutenant general. But to a lay audience a General is also a general title for well, generals. I"d like to see his rank listed as "General(four-star)" so somebody wouldn't have to wade thru the whole article to find it. Petraeus and Fallon have the same rank- that's not good.Godspeed John Glenn! Will 10:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get this. The picture on the right is clearly identifying him as a Genral (4-star). Yet the first words are Lieutenant General. How's that? Dharion (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not yet promoted

Current congressional law states that general officers do not receive their promotion until they have arrived at their command - hence, LTG Petraeus will not receive his 4th star within a week or two when he arrives in Iraq. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cav Tanker (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

It is simply incorrect, factually, to say that Petraeus was too late in 1970 to see combat in Vietnam. There were big battles in 1970! Combat in Vietnam continued until March 31, 1973, the end of combat operations.

I am a Vietnam veteran, but anybody can look this up and confirm that what I am saying is accurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.44.145.246 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

It looks like the only content which is permitted for Petraeus is unqualified praise. I don't have anything against the guy, but it is a fact that he could have served in Vietnam with 2.7 million of the rest of us, but Petraeus elected to remain safe in a military academy. Why must this simple truth be hidden from his biography? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.44.151.35 (talk) 19:40:46, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. A guy who elected in 1970 (before the war was over) to go to West Point, where cadets were guaranteed to go in the army, was shirking his duty, just sitting out the war while others fought? And then he chose to be branched infantry (he must have felt safe doing this because he probably thought Vietnam was the last war America would ever fight). Actually, I guess the entire class of 1974 was nothing but a bunch of cowards, eh? Or for that matter, every West Point class is just trying to avoid the military for 4 more years, hoping whatever war is occuring at the time will end before they get commissioned. Would that sum up your opinion? Quit trolling.--Nobunaga24 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobunaga24 has it right. A person who at 18 enters West Point in 1970 would have probably been eligible to see service in Vietnam in late 1974, early 1975 at the absolute earliest. By the time Petraeus would have graduated in 1974, taken the post-graduation 60 days leave, attended the Infantry Officer Basic Course, Ranger School, Airborne and met what was then a policy of no deployment to a combat zone for a platoon leader before 4 months as a minimum in a troop unit, it easy to see that late winter, early sprng, 1975 would have been the earliest he could have gotten there, without going straight out of High School. Correct me if I am wrong, but by early 1975 we were "out" of Vietnam (a whole different question if that as smart or not). To suggest that he shirked his "duty" in some way because of he instead attended West Point is absurd. The logical assumption one can make from the unsigned earlier comment is that everyone who entered into a degree program leading to commissioning without service in Vietnam before that is someone who was seeking safety. Does that pass any make sense test at all? If it does illuminate us. However, I would offer a view that given the uncertainity of the future and his willingness to serve as an infantryman for his entire career suggests quite the opposite of what it seems to suggest to our unsigned contributor. 67.142.130.41 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Mantuan

nickname?

Need to cite a source about the nickname if it is going to be included. Cav Tanker 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

-Last I checked his nickname was "Eagle Six" off a cited quote that was on this page. Said quote and the story it was a part has edited from the section.

"Eagle 6" is the term of the Division Commander for the 101st Airborne Division, likewise, Petraeus was also "Devil 6" of the 1st Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division. Cav Tanker is refering to his nickname of "Peaches". To my knowledge, the earliest reference of this nickname can be found in the United States Military Academy's 1974 Howitzer (Yearbook) where it mentions it both on his company photograph and individual photo section.

--Signaleer 06:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume the request for sources is for the nickname Peaches. It has multiple sources. General Petraeus Remembers His Hometown, Village of Cornwall-on-Hudson, News, Sep. 21, 2007. In the Company of Soldiers: A Chronicle of Combat, By Rick Atkinson, p. 36, Owl Books. Commander of Multinational Force in Iraq Began to Forge His Leadership Skills in Little League, Little League Online, Feb. 8, 2007. However, the origin of the nickname needs better sourcing. Some sources have it that it had its origins in the difficulty his childhood peers had in pronouncing his name while others cite unnamed sources alleging connotations convenient to the sources' agenda. The nickname while true is used by Petraeus's opponents to imply demeaning connotations which are not yet properly sourced.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Peaches Tightens the Girdle, Maureen Dowd, NYT Columnist, Sep 12, 2007. Godspeed John Glenn! Will 12:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Greek?

I heard he was Greek. His name sure sounds like a Greek nameWillgfass2 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

According to his son--my dear friend--either their grandfather or great grandfather changed the family name from Peterson to Petraeus in order to give it a more "classical" feel.--SOCL 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I read he has a Dutch father but Petraeus does not sound Dutch and the name of his father Sixtus does not sound Dutch either or was his fathers name Sixtus Petraeus ? very confusing V8rik 21:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Mystery solved: his father was called Sixtus Petraeus and this family name does occur in the netherlands : http://www.familienaam.nl/?name=petraeus (based on the telephone directory) V8rik 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ted Westhusing

I think somebody should summarize the story of Colonel Theodore S. Westhusing for the Petraeus article. I'd do it myself but must save my writing energy for something else this week... JDG 16:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Political General?

There are multiple instances of Petraeus being described as political (ex. "the most political general since Douglas MacArthur") in the intro, but absolutly nothing to back this up in the main article. I think this should go if nobody can back it up with fact. At the very least, the quote about him being the most political general since MacArthur should go, as it is simply not true. Anybody else remember Wesley Clark? That guy was posturing politically all the way back in the 90's when he was Supreme Allied Commander (of NATO). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 07:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The "most political" quote was made by Lawrence Korb who writes for the Center for American Progress a left-wing organization run by Hillary Clinton and funded by George Soros and which is campaigning for gays in the military and muslims in europe and which founded Media Matters for America another leftist disinformation front. Such organizations are not reliable sources. JoeFriday 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the WP:NPOV policy, as well as the way the WP:reliable sources policy is applied. WP:NPOV states that: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)". In other words, the viewpoint doesn't have to be articulated by a reliable source - it has to be published by a reliable source. It is the publishing by a reliable source that makes the viewpoint significant. It doesn't matter whether the viewpoint is 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'. What matters is that a reliable source considered that viewpoint significant enough to publish it. So when The Sunday Times - definately a WP:Reliable source, publishes an article that includes a quote from a former Reagan administration Defense official who now works at a Democratic think tank - that is a significant point of view. Dlabtot 06:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Friday. While the article should include criticism, it should represent the form of that criticism fairly and objectively. Revolutionaryluddite 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

David Petraeus family history

The current article says that General Petraeus's father moved to the U.S. after World War II. This is at odds with other another source, the Washington Post, which says Petraeus's father was a Dutch ship captain, who moved to the U.S. before WWII and married a woman from Brooklyn. During WWII, according to that article, his father was the captain of a liberty ship. For further information see http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36843-2004Mar6?language=printer

This seems to be a significant detail that may need to be corrected. 208.242.58.126 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected it. There is a Minneapolis Star Tribune article that says one thing and the above Wash. Post article says the other. I footnoted both. JoeFriday 03:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any place that lists the several hearings of the past year, such as yesterday, today?

Today, regarding whether our nation, United States of America, is safer in relation to the Iraq war [&, by implication, the Afghan war, as well], he said something about:

"I believe this is the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq." So, the best decision; but, not safer,....

I'm wondering whether it is consensus that a military general's duty, or any soldier's duty, to be an automaton, robot. Does the Geneva Convention speak of this??

John William Warner .

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A related quote is now a television commercial:

< http://google.as/search?q=%22best+course+of+action%22+%22i+don%27t+know+actually%22+%22i+have+not+sat+down%22+%22%22 >: •

“I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.”

•

“I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 23:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Four stars on uniform.

What do these signify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.171.109 (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Four stars is the insignia of a full general or admiral in the US Armed Forces. CsikosLo 11:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Newsweek Reference to "leadership is a bit of a confidence game"

I do not believe this should be included because Newsweek is not qualified to make an assessment of a military general and his leadership. This is editorializing the article and should not be there. Furthermore, the Newsweek opinion of what leadership is cannot be considered accurate. If we put this in there, then we should put every other POV comment on Petraeus that there is. The comment by the other military individual is relevant because the source is a military leader and has authority on the subject at hand.A.S. Williams 18:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The POV tag for this article is well deserved. Of course a fellow general is not expected to give an independent assessment of his character. A suitable source would be an independent journal or newspaper. V8rik 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes little sense. You're saying that no military leader can comment on another military leader without it being PoV? Can a busines leader comment on another without that being PoV? Just because they are both generals doesn't make them attached at the hip or anything like that. I agree with A.S. Williams here. His being a military leader should be considered expertise and thus relevant and authoritative. Scharferimage 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

- I'd actually say that's probably about right - business leaders is not a apt comparison. There is a conflict of interest within the military - fellow soldiers and especially officers, and even moreso ones as involved in the politics of the current military situation - most likely can't comment negatively and have it be safe for their careers.Drewson99 01:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Star

Can someone find anything about how General Petraeus received his Bronze Star and V(alor) pin? Chadlupkes 21:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. How does valor come about for a man who's never been in direct combat? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer would be in the text of the award citation that came with the medal. I've tried Googling for it, but that topic is swamped by lame blog rants. Doesn't seem to be on any .mil site. Also, are we sure there is a valor pin? I don't see one in this annotated picture of General P's uniform. But perhaps I'm misreading it... 192.18.43.225 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a curious question. But the "V" pin is pretty clear if you go to full zoom on the picture on his page.... I think you can see it on the picture you put up too, but it's not as clear. JEB90 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that General Petraeus was awarded a Bronze Star with "V" device. Since Iraq was his first combat (he entered as a 2-star general), there's no question he was awarded the medal for service in Iraq. Having looked into it circumstances for some time, I can also tell you that nobody seems to want to discuss it. Information officers at Ft. Campbell didn't know about it. Petraeus friend and chronicler Rick Atkinson doesn't mention in in his book. There was no mention of it in On Point: The United States Army in Operation Iraqi Freedom published by the Center for Army Lessons Learned. Absent someone willing to talk about it, I'm told the only place to find it is with the General's personnel file.--Dlawbailey (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since it's quite obvious that Petraeus hasn't been directly involved in combat in Iraq (the days of Generals personally joining a battle are long past, and if he'd been ambushed by insurgents that would've been huge news) and never fought in a previous war, that would indicate that both the "V" device on his Bronze Star and his Combat Action Badge are awards that he could not possibly have earned. So the question becomes, was he improperly given the awards by the Bush Administration in order to make his uniform look more impressive, or do we have an Admiral Boorda situation here where he's wearing unauthorized awards on his own initiative? 67.222.1.165 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely say he wasn't "improperly given the awards by the Bush Administration in order to make his uniform look more impressive." His uniform is doing pretty good, even without the valor award. That said, I was very surprised myself when I saw the V device during his recent congressional testimony. Unlike the Combat Action Badge, which he almost certainly earned during a mortar attack in Iraq, there's nothing in his official biography that would indicate action or heroism rising to the level of a BSM-V. Having served with the Army for a year in Afghanistan, I can tell you that any -V award undergoes quite a bit of scrutiny, and a BSM-V would require a very high level of approval.

Long story short, even though no one seems to know how he got the device, it would be not only extremely difficult to fraudulently award it, but extremely risky as well. Severnjc (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Promotion From Two to Four Star General

Also, I'd like to find out if anyone knows his promotion dates. A picture dating to 2003 in the article has him ranked Major General. In 2007, he's a full General. Was he promoted to Lieutenant General for a short time (i.e. a few months) before or did he jump rank, and when? Thanks? 125.175.99.136 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have exact promotion dates (they seem hard to find) but he was promoted to LTG (Lieutenant General, three stars) in June 2004 and to full 4 star general in January/February 2007. So he didn't jump from 2 to 4 stars. — Becksguy 08:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the Department of the Army's General Officer Management Office (DA GOMO) https://dagomo.us.army.mil/ (this website requires an AKO account http://www.us.army.mil). Please forward requests for information on Active Component General Officers to:

gomo@us.army.mil or call (703) 697-7994.

Dates of rank for Petraeus:

Second Lieutenant - 5 June 1974

First Lieutenant - 5 June 1976

Captain - 8 August 1978

Major - 1 August 1985

Lieutenant Colonel - 1 April 1991

Colonel - 1 September 1995

Brigadier General - 1 January 2000

Major General - 1 January 2003

Lieutenant General - 18 May 2004

General - 10 February 2007

-TabooTikiGod 06:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Reid "argument"

The sentance "Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has argued Petraeus' 'plan is just more of the same' and 'is neither a drawdown or a change in mission that we need.'" caught my eye. It should be removed, because it really says nothing other than that Sen. Reid's assertion is that "a drawdown or change is mission" is what "we need", and that Gen. Petraeus' testimony was something else. I'm not sure whether this is begging the question or a straw man argument, however. Lowellt 22:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The word "argued" should probably be changed to "said". Revolutionaryluddite 23:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Disgraces like Harry Reid do not even deserve to have their name in an article about an American hero and military genius like Petraeus. 9/12/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.92.132 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BLPDispute & BLPSources

Does the "ass kissing ... chickenshit" quote violate WP:BLP or not?--JoeFriday ^(talk) 02:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it does since there are not multiple reliable sources for the quote. Revolutionaryluddite 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to his Report

See Report_to_Congress_on_the_Situation_in_Iraq#Response. I'm not sure how much (if any) of the information on there should be referred to in this article. It is a response to Petreaus himself as well as his report. Revolutionaryluddite 05:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think polls taken before the report measuring the public's anticipation of the report's truthfulness may be a bit confusing or irrelevant now that the report has been made and there are polls measuring the public's perception after hearing what is in the actual report. Other than that, the section seems fine.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 10:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Revolutionaryluddite 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

General Betray Us

Currently, typing in the above ('General Betray Us') it redirects here. I think that this redirect is inappropriate as it is not a common nickname for the General, it is simply a name used in a bitter attack on him and his character. Shouldn't General Betray Us be a redirect to a page on the Petraeus ad controversy? Would anyone like to try to break off that page? TaylorSAllen 10:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The nickname may be pejorative, but it's a common one. I don't think that having it as a redirect to this page means anything editorally. 'Pro-abortion' redirects to 'pro-choice'. Revolutionaryluddite 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a page on the Petraeus ad controversy? If so, it's reasonable to send the link there. If not, where else would it go but here? Besides, like many pejoratives, it seems to have backfired. I expect that it will be remarked upon by the GOP, and not by the DNC, in the coming election.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Its commonly noted, but not commonly used. Basically, I'm saying that we ought to have a seperate page for the GEN Betray Us controversy. Like I said, I'm only aware of a single actual usage of that nickname (the now-infamous advert in the NYT) and I think that having it redirect here does imply something about him distinct. Pro-abortion is not necessarily offensive to someone who is pro-choice. Calling the man GEN Betray Us in person would probably result in swift and painful action by him (assuming he doesn't mind losing his job, of course). TaylorSAllen 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I defy you to find anyone who would not be offended to be labeled pro-abortion. Dlabtot 00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the creation of a new page. There's nothing about the controversy that is really unique. Any notable criticism and/or response to Petreaus' report should be mentioned in the report's own article. Revolutionaryluddite 01:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion is an artifice of political framing as shown in Pro-choice vs. Pro-life.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that being 'pro-choice' is the same thing as being 'pro-abortion'. The Chinese government wouldn't mind being called 'pro-abortion'; see [10] and [11] and [12]. Revolutionaryluddite 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Revolutionaryluddite. There is no reason to have a separate article at this time (and one doesn't exist). However, considering all the political and press coverage (Congressional resolution, votes, call for investigation, White House statement, and all the rest), I think it's reasonable to have a separate section within the David Petraeus article about the controversial Moveon.org advertisement. Do we agree? If that section gets too big or complex in relationship to the rest of the article at some point in the future, then it can be split off, assuming consensus. But, interesting as it is, why is abortion being discussed here (it was just an analogy)? — Becksguy 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the infromation about the ad's controversy should be on the report's page instead of this one. I don't feel strongly about it, though, since it's a developing story. Revolutionaryluddite 18:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to create a small page with some of this information. I'm suggesting it based on the fact that it is a major political issue. I'll copy over the picture from this article, some relevant text, and link to this page of course. TaylorSAllen 00:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Created article here. 2007 General Betray Us Controversy. Wikipedia doesn't create articles based on the amount of information ability (remember what a stub is?) but on what is important. This is important. TaylorSAllen 00:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I moved it more in line with the naming conventions. The article is now located at General Betray Us controversy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The epithet should also be mentioned here, because it was a notable (it received widespread coverage) if very immature criticism. Superm401 - Talk 21:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Weapons

I see no mention of the large quantity of weapons that went missing in Iraq in this article. The weapons were originally given to Iraqi security forces at a time when General Petraeus was overseeing the creation/reconstitution of the Iraqi security forces. I think this should be included. [13][14] What do others think? Bbrown8370 17:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the information is important and notable, but it belongs in the Timeline_of_the_Iraq_War#2004:_The_insurgency_expands page or another page generally about the coalition operations. Revolutionaryluddite 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The timeframe that these missing weapons were distributed was 2004-2005, well before the 2007 troop surge. Furthermore, these weapons had nothing to do with the troops surge of 2007. These weapons were used to arm Iraqi security forces, not the 30,000 additional US troops sent in the surge. I think it belongs in the 2003-2004 section of this article where there is some discussion of Iraqi security forces. Granted, the weapons weren't recognized as missing until 2007, but it seems to me like this is really more an issue of 2004-2005 than the 2007 troop surge. Bbrown8370 18:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My inital reference to the troop surge article was accidental. Sorry about that. Revolutionaryluddite 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A page like Timeline_of_the_Iraq_War#2004:_The_insurgency_expands makes more sense to me. Revolutionaryluddite 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I had re-edited my first comment to include the proper link after you had read it; sorry. Revolutionaryluddite 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, no problem. Yes, that page does make more sense. I still think a smaller comment belongs on this page, though. The last paragraph in the 2003-2004 section on this page talks about criticism of Petraeus' role in overseeing/creating Iraqi security forces. The paragraph has a bunch of citation needed links without citing anything. Even more surprisingly, it has direct quotes that aren't cited by anything. The info about the missing weapons is a much more detailed and documented criticism of his role in training and arming Iraqi security forces. As for the other stuff in that paragraph, it needs citation or needs removal. I don't care which. Bbrown8370 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the unsourced statements should be removed. Revolutionaryluddite 20:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced statements. I have added the tidbit about missing weapons. Bbrown8370 16:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the 'missing weapons' section. It might be too long now, though. Revolutionaryluddite 04:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, the information should definitely be cross-posted onto another (other) Iraq war page (or page[s]). Revolutionaryluddite 04:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup Issues

I am removing the Pew Research poll results about Petraeus' report to congress. The poll is misleading. The question asked which yeilded the 57% favorable response characterized Petraeus' recommendations as a withdrawl, which is why it received a majority favorable response. In the same poll, 54% of Americans said that America should bring troops home. Petraeus' recommendation was not a withdrawal, but more of a slight decrease in troops over the next 10 months. It's plain to see (considering the 75% of respondents to knew "a little" or less about Petraeus' report) that the results of a question characterizing Petraeus' recommendations as a withdrawal would match closely with more general questions about withdrawal. Furthermore, other polls, one taken just before Petraeus' report [15] show that 54% of respondents want the US out of Iraq in less than a year and 24% more want the US out of Iraq in 1-2 years. These are not the recommendations of Petraeus. The poll's results don't make sense. I'm removing the poll results because the results of these polls seem to differ greatly based on questions are phrased. Bbrown8370 17:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because the Pew Research poll disagrees with the pre-report polls doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. Please read those polls and the polls on the report's page in their entirety. Revolutionaryluddite 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See [16] and (blacklisted link) and [17] and [18] and [19]. It's an exaggeration to say that the American people support an immediate, John Murtha-style 100% removal of troops from Iraq. While most Americans favor 'withdrawl'- define withdrawl. Some Americans accept the reccomendations of the Iraq Study Group, some favor the "partial redeployment" plans advocated by Barack Obama and John Kerry, and some Americans support the surge. My point is that the American people are mixed and divided on the Iraq War and most polls reflect this. Revolutionaryluddite 20:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree entirely that just because the Pew Research poll disagrees with the pre-report polls doesn't imply that it is incorrect. It may be that Petraeus' presentation to Congress swayed the American public to look favorably on the notion that in July of 2008 there will still be ~130,000 US troops in Iraq. Counter to this though, is the quote from the Pew research poll most people say that the general's testimony had no impact on their overall view of the situation in Iraq. Moreover, a detailed question about troop levels was not the question that was asked. The question in the poll is flawed because it characterized Petraeus' recommendations as a withdrawal. This may seems like independent research on my part or me just not agreeing with a reliable source, but that isn't what I'm trying to do. Perhaps it would be better to wait until more polls come out that can validate that the public views Petraeus' recommendations favorably when not described as "withdrawal" and instead described in more detail. Bbrown8370 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your second comment, I agree that it's well documented that the majority of the US public does not want an immediate 100% withdrawal. I'm certainly not trying to say that. There is some ambiguity about the term withdrawal. My point is that that ambiguity in the word withdrawal is why Petraeus' recommendations polled so favorably in the Pew poll. The NYT poll I cited doesn't use the term withdrawal and instead asks about how much longer should the US have large numbers of US troops in Iraq. Granted "large numbers" isn't much less ambiguous, but I'd say 75% of current troop levels is still large numbers. If that assumption is true, it shows that the public is definitely in favor of some form of withdrawal that is more of a withdrawal than Petraeus' recommendations. Bbrown8370 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Still though, solving the question of exactly what the frustratingly ambiguous terms "large numbers" or "withdrawl" means is OR on our part. Revolutionaryluddite 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I changed my mind about the poll's inclusion. The information, like the information about the Moveon.org controversy, really doesn't belong on this page. Revolutionaryluddite 21:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Strangely Long

I love how the GOP hacks have beefed up Petraeus' page to gargantuan lengths in order to somehow help create more credibility for General Petraeus. Compare it to the articles for Sanchez or Tommy Franks, this one is simply huge in comparison. It is a sad commentary on the state of affairs that the GOP and the White House have to totally pimp an honorable career military man in order to try and ram their desired outcomes down the throats of Americans. It is absolutely shameful. Bluefield 21:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be interesting to come back to this page in five years and see how much of this is still considered notable. Dlabtot 21:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

-I don't really see what this has to do with the article, but since we're commenting, I'll join in.

-First, I doubt that the White House nor the actual GOP care at all about Wikipedia. I do think that Wikipedia has some liberal bias, of course, not that I mind that much as I mostly edit historical articles. Looking at todays featured article ( Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery ), their will always be strange people willing to expand articles on minor issues, much less actually important ones, to ungodly length. Noting that her husband's article is shorter ( Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery ) by over 35,000 words (see http://www.wikigroaning.com/index.php?value1=Hannah%20Primrose,%20Countess%20of%20Rosebery&value2=Archibald%20Primrose,%205th%20Earl%20of%20Rosebery ) I'd say that this article isn't that ridiculous by our own standards. Also, I should note that Primrose is basically a minor figure in history, especially in terms of recent history, and that his wife is not really a major figure at all, she died young.

-Also, I'm quite sure most of it will still be considered notable. The situation in the Middle East isn't just going to end, of course, and I'm quite sure that Petraeus will be rememberd as one of the heroes or the failures (in my preference, the former so far) of the War in Iraq.

-I'm going to make a comparison here. See http://www.wikigroaning.com/index.php?value1=David%20Petraeus&value2=War%20in%20Iraq . Now see http://www.wikigroaning.com/index.php?value1=Adolf%20Hitler&value2=WWII . Seems to me like Petraeus, as the top man in Iraq, while far from comparable to Hitler as a person, is still pretty danmed important.

-Considering the fact that Iraq will be seen in future years as the defining element in US foreign policy of this era, unless China's next, of course, I think that the lenght of this article is completely appropriate. As of now, Petraeus is the military cheif in Iraq. I can't imagine a more appropriate article to expand upon.

-Then again, considering that all politically-related talk pages these days become all to quickly political rants: may I suggest we expand Criticism of Wikipedia? TaylorSAllen 00:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery - that is funny. I don't know what 'our' standards are, but that article is truly ridiculous. And Hannah seems to have been a human being without notable failings. Dlabtot 00:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

-----------
The horror of non-Marxist non-Islamist self-promotion stalks the earth.
-----------

Article	Characters (Nerd Points)	Footnotes	Talk Page Headings	Talk Archive Pages	Talk Page Warnings	To Do's	Portals	Categories	Projects
Britney Spears	179,551	123	25	6	5	3	2	26	4
Alexander Hamilton	159,279	75	27	3	0	0	0	25	6

Britney Spears vs. Alexander Hamilton--JoeFriday ^(talk) 02:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Published Works", "Notes and References" and "Badges" subparts take up well over a quarter of the page, why are you complaining about some non-existent GOP scheme? Get real. Thismightbezach (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Conservative Criticism

After all the talk about anti-war, liberal, interest group, leftist, jihad supporting, terrorist, hate-group (sarcasm) MoveOn criticizing Petraeus, it might be relevant to show that criticism of him does not just come from liberal sources. The American Conservative has a new article focusing on him [20].--Bbrown8370 (2007-09-28T21:35:16)

The American Conservative is not a mainstream conservative voice. It is published by Pat Buchanan who been denounced by conservatives as allowing his views on the Middle East to be driven by anti-semitism.

Ponnuru, Ramesh.A Conservative No More. National Review, Oct 11, 1999.
Buckley, William F. Jr.

Removed unsigned and anti-semitic comment.

In search of anti-semitism, National Review, Dec 30, 1991.--JoeFriday ^(talk) 08:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The American Conservative is not published by Buchanan anymore [21], as far as I can tell. Although apparently he still writes for them. According to the masthead in the current print issue (October 8, 2007), Ron Unz is the publisher (at the top of the masthead), Scott McConnell is the editor, and Kara Hopkins is the executive editor, listed in that order. Pat Buchanan and Taki Theodoracopulos are listed as founding editors toward the bottom. Interestingly, on the website, Scott McConnell is listed as the founder, together with Buchanan and Theodoracopulos playing second fiddle, based on position and typography. Buchanan was the editor, or publisher, before McConnell, apparently because of his greater fame. Apart from the magazine, my understanding is that Buchanan is seen as one of the major spokesman of American conservatism. Also, I don't get the antisemitism context or reference. What does that have to do with Petraeus? It would seem that the right is less than completely monolithic, although still way more than the left is, which shows how un-helpful any one dimensional political continuum really is (the old Left-Right political seating arrangement from the French assemblies). In any case, the reference provided by ~~Bbrown~~ Bbrown8370 belongs in the article for balance and neutrality. — Becksguy 15:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Bbrown8370 and User:Bbrown are two different users. Revolutionaryluddite 18:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you are absolutely correct. Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed. — Becksguy 06:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The American Conservative is paleoconservative and neo-isolationist in the vein of Ron Paul, whom it strongly supports. In 2004, it published articles supporting Kerry and Nader. The magazine is not 'conservative' in the sense National Review is. Anyways, [22] criticizes Petraeus' report and, if cited, should be included in the report's page rather than here. Revolutionaryluddite 18:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan was never a "major spokesman of American conservatism." He was involved in the Nixon White House as a speech writer I believe. Whether he was in the Reagan White House, I don't remember. Since that time, he has increasingly distanced himself from American Conservatism, and it has distanced itself from him. The reference to antisemitism is to point out that Pat Buchanan opposes any policy that might be advantageous to Israel or deleterious to her enemies. As this is completely and totally at odds with the American Conservatism, he cannot represent it. I leave it to others to discern the ideological position of the magazine though I challenge anyone to find any thing that might be misconstrued as insufficiently anti-Israel for Pat. —joeFriday— ^{talk} 17:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pat Buchanan actually has his own political party. He's commonly described as paleoconservative, which is as different from conservatism as American liberalism is from neoliberalism. Revolutionaryluddite 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed unsigned comment.
Warning POV leakage ahead. This is a talk page after all. It is important to remember why Pat Buchanan's remarks would be included. Not to create the impression that associates of his like Lenora Fulani oppose the President. But rather to create the impression that self-identified conservative voters oppose the Iraq war which they don't. They're mad because Bush is fighting like a Democrat, but they don't think the war was morally wrong nor do they think winning is morally wrong nor do they object to shoring up Israel's security. Face it, the Left opposes the war not because people get killed but because the U.S. might win. The left supports the insurgents—not because they're Moslems, victims, or anything but thugs—but because they hate America and are willing to commit any atrocity no matter how evil to thwart America's goals no matter how noble. Pat Buchanan simply opposes anything that could possibly benefit Israel. —joeFriday— ^{talk} 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just absolutely ridiculous. It's not a POV comment, it's just a wrong comment. You aren't on the left, so how can you, with any authority whatsoever, claim to explain why the left opposes the war. As someone who is on the left, I oppose the war because a whole hell of a lot of people are dying and suffering because of it that wouldn't have been otherwise. I AM NOT LYING ABOUT THIS. I originally opposed the war because people like Scott Ritter were saying that Iraq had no significant WMD. Furthermore, the alluminum tubes piece of intel was completely bogus, and known to be bogus, but the administration kept bringing these debunked arguments out. "If they're using bad arguments, they probably don't have good ones" was my logic. Then the logic of why the US was involved in Iraq started shifting (which in my mind is reason enough to oppose a war - you can't achieve victory if the definition of victory keeps changing), but each new rationale was flawed. "Sadaam had to go because his people were suffering." Well, not as much as they are with us there, it seems. "We have to stop a civil war." Hello, there's civil war going on there right now. We're just in the cross-fire. "We have to stop a regional war." We started this mess that has fighters spilling into Iraq from all over to fight us. We're the reason for the current regional war. "We have to bring them democracy." The sectarian nature of the Iraqi population makes that unlikely. A house divided can not stand. In my opinion, the cost in American taxpayer money and American lives is not worth the small chance of bringing Iraq democracy (and even if it was, democracy hasn't been the end all solution to our problems in the middle east - see Hamas).

There are plenty of reasons for opposition. The one reason you list is just simply not true. It's not really even POV. It's a lie about other people's POV. Anyway, the reason I brought up the American Conservative article is because it is clearly not liberal. They have very little in common with MoveOn. It is a balancing piece to show that opposition to Petraeus is not just from liberal sources which have been villified by the POV pushers that have helped to author this page. Significant opposition to Petraeus does come from self-identified conservatives, though probably not too many self-identified neoconservatives. Bbrown8370 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Also see Conservatism_in_the_United_States#Conservative_thinkers_and_leaders_in_the_United_States. Pat Buchanan is listed. It appears that again (Talk:David_Petraeus#MoveOn_Ad_Side_Bar), other wiki articles need cleanup if your viewpoint is valid. Bbrown8370 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

   I should probably just give up because it seems I can't fight POV without becoming POV. The MoveOn crowd has taken over WP just like every other main stream institution.
   My statement may be wrong but it is not a lie as it is sincere. I am as stupified by its apparent truthfulness as I am outraged by it. I don't doubt that you are sincere in describing what you perceive to be your reasons for opposing the war.
   What people say they think or believe or what their motives are is less persuasive than patterns deduced from their actions. While I will concede that Pat Buchanan was for a long time a prominent conservative, I believe that the disavowal of him by conservatives and his embrace of leftists like Fulani and his increasing tolerance for islamist terrorsists makes it clear that he no longer can be reasonably classed as a conservative. While a classical conservative would not have approved of the war, once it was begun they would not ever approve of surrender which is what MoveOn et al. demand.
   What leftist has ever been proportionate in their opposition to leaders based on the numbers of non-combatants killed by those leaders. When leftists applaud the Iranian president until it appears that his many victims might have included homosexuals, what credibility can be had? When one looks at the history of the twentieth century, one sees that numerically most killing of non-combatants was done by leftists and most self-described pacifists have been leftists as have most who have whitewashed mass murder, most who have committed treason, most who produced fake news, and most who accused others of producing fake news.
   When you are proportionately more moved to opposition to Saddam, Iran, or the honoring of Mao than you are to treating General Petraeus with a respectful assumption of good faith based on a simple mathematical evaluation of the number of non-combatants killed, then I will acknowledge it. For a truly NPOV opposition to killing, see Freedom, Democide, War —joeFriday— ^{talk} 04:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Bbrown8370, The American Conservative is not liberal. The fact that it's neither liberal nor politically neutral does not automatically imply that it's conservative. The magazine is not representive of modern conservatism at all. Not only has it published articles supporting Kerry and Nader for President; it's also published an idealized piece about George McGovern. Look, if a magazine calling itself 'The American Liberal' endorsed President Bush for reelection and wished that Barry Goldwater had been elected president-- would you consider it to represent modern liberalism? Revolutionaryluddite 01:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Since we're all disclosing our POVs here; I ought to disclose mine.

I also opposed the decision to invade Iraq. I oppose a withdrawl because, as Colin Powell put it, "You break it. You own it." Suppose a social worker recieved anyonymous tips that a reclusive single parent was making drugs and sexually abusing her children. The worker busted into the apartment screaming "Don't worry kids, I'm here. I'll take care of you from now on." and shoots the parent dead a second afterward; the worker then discovered that the intelligence was completely untrue. That's bad. Suppose then the worker raises his right hand, says "Okay, my bad", and just leaves without saying another word-- never to return. That's worse.

We broke Iraq. We bought it. Revolutionaryluddite 01:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, call the American Conservative paleoconservative or whatever you want. The main point I was trying to make is that the Petraeus article used to portray criticism of Petraeus as coming from the far left wing of American politics. Edits made around the time I spoke of the American Conservative article and after have balanced the criticism of Petraeus with more mainstream voices (GAO, the Senate majority leader, etc). I never included the American Conservative article in this Petraeus article and mainly mentioned it on the talk page to ensure that the portrayal of Petraeus criticism in the article was not exclusively from the left. Bbrown8370 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Presidential bid?

I saw a news article (perhaps someone here will remember it) accusing Caesar of ambition, and quoting him as saying that "2008 is too soon." Should there be a subsection covering this sort of speculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.125 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's just speculation and has not been reported by reliable sources, then no. Revolutionaryluddite 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the source [23] but look at the motives of the party quoted. He's a Shia former gov't official angry because Petraeus is allying the U.S. with Sunni tribes. Definite COI. —joeFriday— ^{talk} 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the one. Hmmm, the article says he's "open" about it. Well, we'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image shows him wearing a uniform that looks like one for enlisted soldier rather than a general. I changed to a better image with him wearing officer's uniform, but it was reverted. Why? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 17:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You changed to an older image portraing him as Lieutenant General. The first portrait in an article should be actual. And his uniform?! It's a standard Army Combat Uniform. Do you think he's wearing it for fun. --GrummelJS 10:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, most general's popular image is him/her wearing a dress uniform instead of a combat uniform, just personal opinion. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wooyi has a point. I think it's an affectation also. I don't remember seeing photos of General of the Army Eisenhower wearing combat uniforms. And he was a real general, with five stars, in a real war with millions of troops as Supreme Commander during WW2. A photo of Petraeus in a dress uniform with four stars would be more appropriate, I believe. — Becksguy 09:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Macarthur's page also has him in a combat uniform. I don't see a problem with this picture. If you can find a current picture of Petraeus in his dress uniform, fine, but Wooyi's image just wasn't acceptable. Scharferimage 14:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

i don't get the problem too? the actual photo we're talkin about is that of the official [www.mnf-iraq.com MNF-I Website]. --GrummelJS 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's one of the most famous pictures of Petraeus, why not use it? GrummelJS has a good point. Revolutionaryluddite 01:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The wearing of fatigues is not an affectation. It is a trend similar to that of business casual that has overtaken the rest of the country. How many doctors and lawyers wear suits? Is it affectation for them to wear jeans? What is a real war? One that kills more people? One that kills more of our people? Or one that comes to the aid of the Soviet Union as opposed to one that defends U.S. interests? Remember, Saddam attempted the assassination of a former U.S. President. That is an act of war. To say that Iraq is not a real war and Petraeus is not a real general, causes one to wander how there can ever be any more real wars now that we can no longer come to the aid of the soviet union. —joeFriday— ^{talk} 07:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JoeFriday that the fatigues image is fine. It's not a POV thing trying to make him look like he's more of a down-in-the-trenches military guy than he is or something like that. It is also good to point out that the current Iraq was is a real war. A real soverign country was invaded. A real government was virtually destroyed. Real soldiers are dying. Real civilians are dying. Lots of real people have been internally and externally displaced. To refer to the current Iraq war as not a real war isn't accurate. Granted, it's not as big of a war as WWII, but by no means is it not a real war. It's also a mischaracterization to imply that WWII was about coming to the aid of the Soviet Union and opposed to US interests. Also, the truth of the assination plot by Sadaam against George HW Bush is somewhat contested. Anyway, on the issue of the image, a current picture is the best. I think one with his current medals and such would be more encyclopedic, but better to show him in fatigues than in a Lieutenant General uniform. Bbrown8370 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a photo showing three stars (regardless of uniform) is inappropriate as the lead photo. If one can be found of him in a dress uniform with current rank, that would be better. Granted, this general didn't start the combat uniform public relations gig, General Schwarzkopf comes to mind, among others. My point is that flag officers are strategic leaders, they are not supposed to be down in the trenches with the grunts, or looking like they are. That's not leadership, that's PR. My memory of seeing photos of WW2 era general or flag officers is that they wore khakis or service dress uniforms. Gen. Douglas MacArthur in his WP article is wearing khakis, not a battle dress or combat uniform. The grunts wore fatigues or BDUs. Granted people tend to dress more casually now, but affectation is still affectation. Look at some business casual dress that look like they cost as much as a suit, e.g. designer clothes. And senior executives still tend to wear suits. And so do many professionals. Would a lawyer argue a case in court wearing designer jeans? Where did the USSR come from in a discussion about uniforms. I never mentioned them, and I don't like them. The US Congress hasn't declared war since 1942, hence there hasn't been a Constitutionally declared war, or a real war, involving the USA since then, regardless of Korea (a police action), Vietnam (a conflict) and others. Iraq is undergoing a military occupation (and a very real one), but there's a difference between occupation and war, although real people do suffer and die either way. And that's tragic. Calling this a war is, as JoeFriday mentioned the term before, an example of framing. Something that advocates on all sides do, to some degree or more. — Becksguy 16:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As you pointed out, no area of American society is safe from the scourage of business casual-- not even the army. The current picture is the one promoted by MNF-1. Revolutionaryluddite 17:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

When Grant wore a private's uniform people thought it a sign of humility. Had he been fighting against an enemy rather than Americans, you would likely say it was an affectation. Several armies, lots of shooting, discussion in the U.N., protests by the party for anyone but us ... It has all the trappings of a war except Jane Fonda can't find Osama either. —joeFriday— ^{talk} 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The Army Combat Uniform is the standard combat and work uniform of the United States Army. It is also the uniform which is worn by U.S. Army Soldiers, from Private (E-1) up to General (O-10) who are currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan with the exception of a few Army organizations like U.S. Army Special Forces which still wear the Desert Camouflage Uniform (DCU). It is very appropriate for the lead image of General Petraeus to be wearing the ACU versus the Class A uniform since that is the uniform he wears on a daily basis in Iraq as the MNF-I Commander. The evidence and proof is overwhelming on several Army and U.S. military websites. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] -TabooTikiGod 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

If the article still needs more personal criticism of Petraeus, than maybe an article by Tom Engelhardt on alternet calling him "the Paris Hilton of generals" among other things should be cited. Revolutionaryluddite 03:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor of the Nation might be notable. A fellow of a Nation spinoff, writing on a "left-liberal news and opinion site" (via NPR)....not really. --03:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs) 03:59 15 October 2007 UTC

Still though, this article is lacking the kind of intense, rigourous, and deeply personal criticism of the article's subject's character (this sort of thing is Wikipedia's trademark). Then again, this lacking is not necessarly a bad thing. Revolutionaryluddite 05:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

External Links

This section is far too long. Also, what makes those news stories about Petreaus more notable than any of the others? Revolutionaryluddite 05:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Lot of citation needed tags remain in this article. I'm going to look for sources for some of this stuff. Things I can't find reliable citation for will be removed. Bbrown8370 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, some of the already cited information-- such as the fact that "Over a hundred thousand AK-47 assault rifles and pistols were misplaced" under his watch-- should be added to other Iraq war pages. Revolutionaryluddite 03:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll work on that after I do this (probably tomorrow). Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'll put a bullet point here for things I cite or change. I want to discuss some things that are obscurely cited and not very notable, too. I suppose that there could be some opposition to some things I remove, so we can discuss them here edit by edit. Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, in looking through the uncited info, I question the notability of a lot of this stuff. It is really notable that he "came under fire during an ambush by Iraqi paramilitary forces?" He's in the army in an armed conflict. Is it really notable that the 101st was expected to go to Baghdad? Or that it didn't? Are these pieces of information really important to Petraeus' story? The first paragraph in the Iraq (2003-2004) section should be shortened to end after the word "Najaf." It is notable that the Petraeus commanded the 101st during the drive to Baghdad. It is notable that Rick Atkinson wrote a book about it. It's not notable that the 101st participated in an armed feint toward Hilla to cover the 3rd Infantry Division. This is more like information that belongs in a Unabridged History of Battle Plans and Troop Movement During the Iraq War (2003) article. Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the Iraq (2003-2004) is full of even less notable information than the first paragraph. Furthermore, it reads like a book. Indeed, it was during the year after the invasion that Petraeus and the 101st gained fame for their performance in Iraq "Indeed," really? That's not encyclopedic. The same can be said about "The 101st was not, as had been expected, called upon to lead urban combat in Baghdad" in the first paragraph. Rephrase it to "The 101st didn't lead urban combat in Baghdad." After that's done, delete it, because it's not important. "the most competitive man on earth" and "phenomenal at getting people to reach their potential" quotes are also not very notable, considering that the first is an unnamed subordinate, and the other is just unsourced. Source 9 (from opinionjournal, WSJ editorial page) also doesn't seem like an entirely reliable source. Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq (2005-2007) has him spending his time in Kansas overseeing schools and writing a book. It's misleading to say that this timeframe should be in a broader section under Iraq. Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend splitting the Iraq section into three parts: Petraeus Commands the 101st in Iraq, Petraeus Commands MNSTC-I, and Petraeus Commands MNF-I. The 2005-2007 section could be incorporated into the Army Career section. Thoughts? Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate the Peacekeeping section into the Army Career section? I see no reason why this paragraph belongs in a different section. It's only adding another 15-20% to the length of that section. Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know I've overreached what I was intending to address with this round of edits, but up until 2007, this Iraq section is quite long for the amount of notable information it contains. Please comment on these bullet points. I want to work toward a consensus here. Bbrown8370 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

–== Army Career Rework ==

I'm about to complete a reworked version of Petraeus' Army career. 95% of the information I included is taken from this page in it's current form or slightly reworded. I have reorganized the order of much of the text, breaking it into two chronological timelines: Education and Acedemia and Military Operations.

The sentence "In 1978–1979, he also served as operations officer to the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized)'s 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment (Mechanized) and its 1st Brigade" contains a couple of errors. Instead, it should be in the 1980's section and should read: "In 1988–1989, he also served as operations officer to the 3rd Infantry Division's (Mechanized) 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment (Mechanized) and its 1st Brigade.206.112.75.238 21:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Mel

I have further broken out his military operations section by decade + Iraq. I will list things I have changed/removed below for specific debate. Bbrown8370 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Condensed paragraph 1 in the old Iraq (2003-2004) section. Bbrown8370 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Condensed paragraph 2 in the old Iraq (2003-2004) section. Bbrown8370 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed source of WSJ opinion page. Bbrown8370 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Petraeus' rebuttals to missing weapons charges on the grounds that the article shouldn't be a transcript of an argument. The important fact in this is that lots of weapons went missing during his command. An independent oversight entity (GAO) said distribution did not follow established procedures. That's really enough on that. Petraeus' reason that Iraqis didn't have procedures in place to track the weapons is beside the point, and makes him look kinda silly because he's not in the Iraqi army, he's in the US army. Our army has procedures to follow, and the oversight office said he didn't follow them. Bbrown8370 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed line about His on-joining message to the troops said in part, "It is an honor to soldier again with the members of the Multi-National Force - Iraq" It's just unnecessary and is being used IMHO as a POV comment to show him complimenting the troops. Bbrown8370 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There may be other things that I didn't list (as I'm going back through this now). List them here for discussion, please. Bbrown8370 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I readded Petraeus' statements about the missing weapons. Since there's a factual dispute between reliable sources-- Petraeus and the GAO office-- the article should present both sides. I readded Fred Barnes' defense of Petraeus and his report to balance the paragraph. I also readded the "tell me where it ends", "most competitive man on earth", and "money is ammunition" quotes since they are notable enough to be documented by multiple reliable sources. Otherwise, I think that was a very good rewrite and the sections look good right now. Revolutionaryluddite 02:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the rewrite. It is, by far, the biggest rewrite I have done to date. I do want to address a couple of the changes you made, though. Remember, I'm trying to get a consensus on this stuff, so we can remove the neutrality tag. Bbrown8370 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A factual dispute between reliable sources (Petraeus & GAO). This isn't exactly true if you read the quotes. The GAO says Petraeus failed to follow established procedures (keep in mind that the GAO is the entity mandated to be responsible for oversight of Petraeus on this sort of thing). Petraeus does not dispute what the GAO says with his own quote. His quote says that the Iraqis had no procedure for tracing the weapons. That does not absolve him from not following the established procedures that the GAO is responsible for overseeing. Perhaps one of the GAO's procedures is to create a system of tracking the weapons if one does not exist in the environment to which the weapons are being supplied (ie, Iraq). I don't know. In any case, it's not encyclopedic to have the back and forth on this issue. His rebuttal does not outrightly dispute the initial report (That would have sounded more like "No, actually I did follow established procedure." Furthermore, his rebuttal is just that, his. Sure, he said it on a semi-credible news channel, but nonetheless, it's not an independent source disputing what the GAO said. Wiki articles aren't supposed to be transcripts of what the title characters say about themselves. I'm removing it for now. It might help to get some other voices in on this. Bbrown8370 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reread the WP:BLP article, and correct me if I'm wrong, including these comments from Petraeus is using the subject as a self-published source (note that Fox isn't really publishing this like a news article, they are more accurately giving him a platform to say what he wants). There is a section on that page outlining conditions for which this kind of source can be used. It is not contentious; in this case, it is. It is not unduly self-serving; in this case, it is clearly self-serving, as he is trying to defend himself against an unfavorable oversight report in national media. It does not involve claims about third parties; in this case, he claims that Iraqi security forces (a third party) have no weapons tracking procedures. Am I misreading this? Bbrown8370 18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

'Dispute' really isn't the right word. My point is that the paragraph seems incomplete right now. It does not mention that "The Pentagon did not dispute the GAO findings, saying it has launched its own investigation and indicating it is working to improve tracking"[32] and that some of the GAO report's reccommendations have been criticised-- "Army Col. Brian Baldy, chief of staff for the Defense Department operation in Baghdad training Iraqi forces, told auditors he agreed with most of the report's recommendations to improve weapons accountability. The report calls on the U.S. military to create accurate weapons inventories, fill maintenance positions and tell how to get spare parts. But he said one recommendation for registering all the weapons' serial numbers was "unattainable" because some of them are foreign-owned."[33] THe larger issue is whether or not it was realistic to expect the Pentagon to record, register, and then track all the serial numbers of all the weapons sent to Iraq. BBC News has noted that "Of course, the Pentagon was under huge pressure from early on to try to achieve quick results in its programme to train and equip the Iraqi forces. These faltered on more than one occasion and tracking what happened to the weaponry may not have been the top priority for limited resources."[34] Revolutionaryluddite 21:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The quotes you list don't make a lot of sense. On the one hand, there's the quote that the Pentagon doesn't dispute the GAO findings, but on the other, Col Baldy (assumedly he'd be under the command of the leaders in the Pentagon) does. He's disputing both the Pentagon and the GAO in, what appears to me, an blatant attempt to cover his own ass. He's certainly not an independent source because he's involved with the program receiving the oversight. Concerning the larger issue of whether or not it was realistic to expect that the Pentagon keep track of the weapons, I think that is answered by the GAO's report and the Pentagon's lack of disputing it. The GAO is, afterall, the legislative oversight office. The BBC article does not make the point that it was unrealistic for the Pentagon to follow established procedure in tracking the weapons. It doesn't even imply that. If you can find a objective source explicitly spelling out (or even stating) the unrealistic nature of the GAO's procedures, then, by all means, add it, but a source saying the Pentagon was under a lot of stress, or might not have the resources (funds, people, time?) perhaps because the overall mission of training was faltering isn't a very good counterpoint, IMO. Bbrown8370 22:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The www.military.com source you provide is from 10/30/2006. That's well before this surfaced. That article also drastically underquotes the figures of the missing weapons. Are you sure Col Baldy was talking about the same report? 4% of weapons missing is a lot different than 30% of weapons missing. Bbrown8370 22:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The www.military.com article was copyrighted and posted in 2007 but the actual article was written the year before, my bad. It's about something else. Revolutionaryluddite 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Pentagon doesn't dispute the findings that the weapons were lost and that gross recording errors were made. Whether or not the GAO reccommended procedures were realistic is controversial (not necessarily 'under dispute' per se, dispute isn't the right word). I see what you mean about reliable sources. The Independent has a good story about it. Revolutionaryluddite 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as Petraeus' personal involvement goes, a September 2007 miliary.com story has stated that "There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by Petraeus, now a four-star general and the top American officer in Iraq." Revolutionaryluddite 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On this, I still disagree. Recently, at my company, a coworker was fired. There was no evidence of any wrongdoing by her; technically, there wasn't any wrongdoing by her. Still, she was incompetent, which is why her employment was terminated. The www.military.com quote leaves the wrong impression that Petraeus' hands look clean. That's not entirely the case. The GAO report says that under his command, there were problems, and the Pentagon is investigating it. That leads me ot believe that more evidence will eventually be revealed by the Pentagon, so it's premature to say there isn't any evidence of wrongdoing. I've got a meeting... more on this later. Bbrown8370 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the military.com quote implies that Petraeus' didn't make mistakes, but I do agree that the quote is ambiguous when taken out of context. Anyways, The Independent has reported that:

There were also "numerous mistakes due to incorrect manual entries". But the military argues that the situation on the ground was so urgent, and the agency responsible for recording the transfers of arms so short staffed, that field commanders had little choice in the matter. "We could have held on to them until every bit of a logistical and property accountability system was in place," one unidentified officer told The Washington Post, which first reported on the missing arms yesterday. Or, he continued, "we could issue them in bulk on some occasions, to the US elements supporting Iraqi units who were needed in the battles."

Also, the article should mention that the Pentagon is starting its own investigation. Revolutionaryluddite 17:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On this, I definitely agree. The article used to contain the line about the Pentagon investigation; I'm not sure if it was one of my edits that removed it. If so, it was unintended. It needs to go back in. Perhaps that could add the balance needed for now...? It would show that this is still an open issue, so conclusions really shouldn't be drawn yet. Bbrown8370 21:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I readded the Pentagon line and also added part of The Independent's quote. Revolutionaryluddite 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Fred Barnes' defense of Petraeus is more of an attack on Democrats than it is a defense of Petraeus. A lot of people questioned and complimented Petraeus without throwing shots at Democrats. Please pick a quote that addresses Petraeus, not attacks Democrats. Removing it. Bbrown8370 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the second quote isn't particularly relevent, but the first quote ("histornic and demogogic") is a specific criticism of Wexler's criticisms. Right now, the paragraph contains nothing but negative responses to Petraeus' report. Revolutionaryluddite 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point about only negative responses to Petraeus' report. I'm busy today, so I don't have a lot of time for editing, but I would like to see a positive quote or two about Petraeus added to the paragraph. I would still stay away from criticism of Democratic ccriticism, though. Bbrown8370 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The report's page also seems a bit slanted twoard criticism. The Baltimore Sun ran an interesting story, Petraeus testimony heartens the troops. I don't see anything particularly quotable in there, though. Presidental Candidate Duncan Hunter and Represenative Lleana Ros-Lehtinen has made supporting statements quoted in a graphic popup to this NYT article-- I'm not sure how to link it. Anti-War Republican Senator Chuck Hagel made an interesting quote, saying that "It's not your fault, general... It's not Ambassador Crocker's fault. It's this administration's fault." Revolutionaryluddite 18:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm fairly busy today, so I can't go researching and adding the stuff in myself, but I'm sure there's a transcript of his testimony out there somewhere. It would be nice to see perhaps one negative quote, one positive quote, then Hagel's somewhat middle-ground quote. Bbrown8370 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I added two positive statements, Hagel's nuanced opinion, and two public opinion findings. The section seems balanced right now. Revolutionaryluddite 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's balanced now, but the amount of text dedicated to the topic of his Sept '07 report (and reaction to it) seems excessive. There is the same amount of text in the article about response to his Sept '07 report as there is about either his command of the 101st or his command of MNSTC-I. Perhaps a new section can be made for his time under intense public scrutiny...? All of this talk about the report and response to it doesn't entirely fall under the headline Petraeus Commands MNF-I. I'm going to have to think about a good way to split it up, since it does sort-of tie in with MNF-I, but some of the relevant info strays from that headline. Perhaps move all but the basic fact that a report was delivered to congress (plus the information about the bills that passed to condemn personal attacks on him, plus the line about the upcoming '08 report, etc) from that section into a new section named, maybe, Petraeus Reports to Congress? Thoughts? Bbrown8370 19:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In keeping with the chronological style, the first block of information could be under the subheading Petraeus Commands MNF-I (Spring 2007) and the other block under Petraeus Commands MNF-I (Fall 2007). But if you think creating a new heading following Petraeus Commands MNF-I called Petraeus reports to Congress would look better, go ahead and make the changes; I really don't have much of an opinion on it.Revolutionaryluddite 23:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm still thinking about the best way to implement this. On the one hand, the reporting to Congress is clearly related to his command of MNF-I, but on the other, with all of the publicity and notability, they've sort of taken on a life of their own. I don't want his Army career section, or the subsection about MNF-I to become overshadowed by all the information about the controversy and whatnot surrounding his report to Congress. Bbrown8370 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The MNF-1 subsection is significantly bigger than the other subsections under Involvement in the Iraq War. While I'm not in any sense opposed to splitting up the MNF-1 part, I think the best solution would be to expand the other subsections as well. I've already expanded the 101st part. Revolutionaryluddite 05:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I divided the section chronologically as per my '23:42, 20 October 2007' post. Revolutionaryluddite 03:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The "tell me where it ends" quote is quoted from a WSJ opinion page, and the other source, quotes that source. That is not multiple reliable sources. It is in there to advance the POV that Petraeus had some sort of foresight on the mess that we were getting into. Without good sourcing, I'm skeptical of using it. Bbrown8370 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The WSJ source is removed, but still, the sources provided are from 2007. Since this supposedly happened in 2003, can we get a source from around then? Otherwise, the wiki article is pretending like this was widely known at the time, and Petraeus had foresight. It is misleading without establishing that this quote was brought up only after Iraq turned into a mess. Bbrown8370 04:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The National Review article doesn't quote from the WSJ page; the National Review article says, "After the fall of Baghdad, he is reported to have asked embedded reporters to “Tell me where this ends.” As Peggy Noonan dryly noted, “It was the right question.”". Anyways, the quote is notable enough to have been mentioned by those two sources as well asThe Independent, The Washington Post, CBS News, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronice. The quote has also been frequently mentioned by anti-war activists; see [35] and [36]. The New York Times reported on the quote in April 2004 in their review of the book In the Company of Soldiers. Revolutionaryluddite 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The book mentions the quotes twice; amazon.com has themhere. Revolutionaryluddite 02:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2004 quote is enough for me. That one does show that the notion was out there about him not seeing a good ending before the rosy scenarios didn't pan out. I'm fine with it being included. Bbrown8370 21:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "most competitive man on earth" quote is from a subordinate. It's just some unnamed person in a subordinate role making an off-the-cuff comment about Petraeus. It's not noteworthy, despite that a couple news sources have used it. Aside from it not adding anything important to the article, I think it advances the POV that he's really in the Iraq war to win. This kind of quote would need POV balance (perhaps the Fallon viewpoint that Petraeus has his own interests ahead of a sound military posture). I'm removing it for now. Bbrown8370 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since it's an anonymous source, I agree that it's not that notable. Revolutionaryluddite 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The "money is ammunition" quote is slightly more commonly quoted, but again, I fail to see why it matters. It seems significantly less important than anything else in the section. Why do you want it included? Bbrown8370 03:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Money is ammunition" isn't just a random quote: it's a favorite phrase of Petreaus that reveals his mindset about US miliary/Iraqi Government/Iraqi people relations. This has been documented by multiple reliable sources. Revolutionaryluddite 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You've sold me on this one. It is notable, verifiable, etc. The one thing I would change, though, is that I don't like the wording of "and was eventually added to the U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual." That makes it sound like a third party saw the relevance of that quote and added it to an already established field manual. Actually, Petraeus, himself, incorporated the phrase into the field manual when he rewrote it. Perhaps that line should be swapped out for "and it was incorporated it into the new U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual he coauthored following his command of the 101st." Thoughts? Bbrown8370 14:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; that rewrite would be clearer. Revolutionaryluddite 18:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "Petraeus' often repeated[17][18][19][20] catchphrase[21] was later incorporated into offical military briefings[22][23] and was also eventually incorporated into the U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual coauthored by Petraeus.[24]". Revolutionaryluddite 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking Paul Krugman's criticism of Petraeus' article in the Washington Post should be removed (it's in the Petraeus Commands MNSTC-I section). I don't like having miscellaneous pundits/commentators comments included in their wiki articles. Bush or Clinton would have articles 10 miles long if these kinds of things are included. Thoughts? Bbrown8370 04:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Revolutionaryluddite 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. Revolutionaryluddite 03:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing Weapons side story

A Los Angeles Times editorial has stated that "Consider the case of one particular bad guy, Viktor Bout -- a stout, canny Russian air transporter who also happens to be the world's most notorious arms dealer. When the U.S. government needed to fly four planeloads of seized weapons from an American base in Bosnia to Iraqi security forces in Baghdad in August 2004, they used a Moldovan air cargo firm tied to Bout's aviation empire. The problem is that the planes apparently never arrived. When Amnesty International investigators tried two years later to trace the shipment of more than 99 tons of AK-47s and other weapons, U.S. officials admitted they had no record of the flights landing in Baghdad." The Washington Post ran a similar editorial. Asia Times Online has also reported on the story. Revolutionaryluddite 03:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it again, this information (if mentioned-- I don't have any feelings either way), would probably be more relevant to the Timeline_of_the_Iraq_War#2004:_The_insurgency_expands page. Revolutionaryluddite 03:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it is particularly relevant here. Bbrown8370 04:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the information should be mentioned on the Timeline_of_the_Iraq_War#2004:_The_insurgency_expands page or another general 'Iraq War' page? Revolutionaryluddite 03:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent, really. I'd probably prefer to wait until the Pentagon's investigation releases it's conclusions. It kinda seems like incomplete information right now, but it might be something good to insert elsewhere to ensure that the issue isn't lost. Bbrown8370 21:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Revolutionaryluddite 03:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Part Deux

The original objection was that this aricle contains nothing but praise. The statements of questionable notability and.or sourcing are gone, and relevant criticisms of Petraeus have been added. I think the tag should be removed. Revolutionaryluddite 23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the removal of teh neutrality flag. Still, I'd first recommend trying to get the comments of those that had problems with the page when the flag was originally added. Bbrown8370 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Revolutionaryluddite 06:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC) {Patience is a virtue... that I do not possess)

It seems fine to me after reading the current incarnation. If people still feel it has too much praise then they can fix it or re-add the tag. The tag went up when Petraeus was in the news more and I think everyone has cooled down after that. --Rtrev 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the article right now, I'm somewhat afraid the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction-- there's a slant twoard criticism. Thoughts? Revolutionaryluddite 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC) (I'm not advocating the deletion of anything; the article is very well sourced.)

Peaches

I reinstated the information about Petraeus' childhood nickname. If I was going against consensus, I didn't know- I'm not sure how the dispute was originally resolved. Anyways, I think the information is notable and is well sourced. Thoughts? Revolutionaryluddite 04:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty insignificant information, but whatever... Bbrown8370 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I tried to add the 'peer review=yes' part to the biography catagorization section at the top of this page-- nothing happened. Isn't a link supposed to appear? Revolutionaryluddite 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Taken care of. Revolutionaryluddite 02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/David Petraeus. Revolutionaryluddite 17:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Great News!

This webpage is the number one result on Google for 'David Petraeus'. Ya'll are doing something right. Revolutionaryluddite 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to Report Change

I'm removing this: "The Wall Street Journal has stated the the report decreased public discontent with the war in Iraq, but the changes were modest.[78]" from the article.

The poll the WSJ uses to back up this statement was taken Sept 7-10. The report to Congress was on the 10th. The article never actually says the modest changes in public opinion were attributable to the report. It says the changes were because of heavy news coverage anticipating his report. This is misleading. I know we try to cover both sides of everything on Wiki, but come on, his report didn't affect public opinion about the war. The USA Today article spells this out in a lot more detail, and unambiguously. Bbrown8370 16:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha. And using the USA Today reference right after the WSJ one to say that "attitudes toward the war have solidified" is wayyy misleading. This quote doesn't say anything positive or negative, so it just looks like a second source backing up the positive WSJ quote. I mean, the title of the article is Poll: Public not swayed by Petraeus. I'm reworking the USA Today quote to more accurately reflect what the article was actually reporting. Bbrown8370 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How is the USA Today reference misleading? The quote says just what it said: the report did not change many people's minds since public opinion on the war has solidified. Anyways, some reports show that public opinion did change- see [37]- it just didn't change by very much. Revolutionaryluddite 17:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The contents of the report was well-known before Petraeus delivered it; there's nothing wrong with using a poll made the day of his testimony. The WSJ survey said "The slight improvement in Iraq sentiment followed extensive news coverage anticipating the testimony of Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker." It does not in any way, shape, or form say that the change in public opinion was an artificial creation of the media. Since the sruvey only mentions Petraeus' report in passing, though, including it in this specific article would be infocreep. Revolutionaryluddite 17:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed presidential bid speculation from lead

The two sources cited concerning a possible presidential bid by Petraeus struck me as little but isolated, hopeful speculation. I haven't seen such a claim anywhere else and it definitely does not deserve a place in the lead. Furthermore, there's completely nothing else in the article about such a claim. Herunar (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

What's the justification for it?

Also, the article needs to mention Petreaus' recent statements about how the drawdown in troop levels made this year may be slower than previously expected. See this and this. 129.120.185.186 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Authors of FM 3-24?

The article states that Petraeus coauthored the counterinsurgency field manual with Lt Gen James N Mattis, but the manual is signed by Petraeus and Lt Gen James F Amos. Can anyone clarify who was responsible for the manual? Thanks, Michael Rogers (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattis was Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration until August 2006. Amos succeded him and the manual was published im December 2006. Allthough its signed by Amos as Deputy Commandant its was developed by Mattis and Petraeus. --GrummelJS (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. Michael Rogers (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

An Insult?

I think it is a bit insulting to say that he "Supports the Republican Party on Iraq." Regardless of many Democrats also supporting the war, General Petraeus is a soldier, he goes where he is assigned. I don't think he has ever 'endorsed' the war or the Republican Party, he is doing his job however. It is very possible that he does not agree with it. I am not trying to say I know what he thinks, but I think it is a bit inappropriate to have a passage like that. Travis T. Cleveland (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

time 100 listing

this is a small detail which normally i'd correct myself, but I can't, so I'd like to point it out here: In the intro, it says that Petraeus ranked 33rd on the Time 100 list. Though he did make the list, the list is unranked, so he can't be 33rd. Ornen (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Standard

Need to add that he was selected by the Weekly Standard as Man of the Year for 2007, http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/518ffvyn.asp

Sboylan (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)== Newsweek == Need to add significant article from Newsweek concerning the way the Counterinsurgency strategy is working as titled "The Petraeus Generation" http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/03-16-2008/0004774721&EDATE=

The article is actually called Scions of the Surge http://www.newsweek.com/id/123475/page/1 I added this document the article on 21 March 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Petraeus&diff=199841632&oldid=199593079 -Signaleer (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Was named the Static Line Association's "Airborne Man of the Year" for 2008. This is an Airborne Association annual event and was hosted in Atlanta in April 2008.Sboylan (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Typographical Error In First Paragraph

I usually just correct errors when I see them, but this page appears to be protected. I don't know if posting the error here is the right thing to do. Whatever. The first paragraph reads, "As Commander of MNF-I, Petraeus oversay all coalition forces in Iraq." I suspect that "oversay" should be "oversaw".Senojsitruc (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Surge & Lead

I'm not too familiar with this guy, but I take it that he's respected a lot for the succesful troop surge which earned him all those nominations? If so it would probably fit to place this in the lead. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The "surge" and by extension Petraeus are quite controversial. Supporters of the war in Iraq tend to portray him as one of the greatest generals of all time, while opponents of the war tend to question whether the surge has really been as successful as Petraeus claims and to view him as a political shill for Bush. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

http://icasualties.org check the statistics, the surge had a large effect, and is also the reason why he was nominated so much by newspapers and agencies as "person of the year" and stuff like that (it's in every source). It must be worth mentioning in the lead for people who don't know who he is and what he's done (even though he has opponents). - Pieter_v (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Correlation does not imply causation. There's more than just the surge that's gone on in Iraq over the last year. Things like the overall reduced population (both through deaths and through the ever-increasing number of Iraqi refugees who've fled to neighboring countries), Iraqi society being increasingly segregated (there's a lot less Shia vs Sunni violence when Shia and Sunnis rarely see each other), and the so-called "Sunni Awakening" (which predates the surge) are all factors in the relatively lower level of violence. Just because supporters of the war have mythologized the surge as the end-all and be-all of any improvements in Iraq doesn't make it so. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Time Magazine and The Daily Telegraph are "supporters of the war"? No they're not, they are independent observers. Some of your statistics are false, the population of Iraq hasn't reduce, at least not significantly in the past two years. In fact, many Iraqi's are returning to their homes. As for improved Sunni-Shia relations, Petraeus is also credited for having a hand in that. Again, it's simply what Petraeus is credited for by those tabloids. If you don't include that in the lead for readers who want to found out who he is, it's the same as writing an article about a sportsman and crediting him with medals he received, but not stating for which achievements he received those medals. - Pieter_v (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Torygraph isn't a supporter of the war? Since when? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an independent newspaper - Pieter_v (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to having "all-American hero" redirect to this page?"Bdell555 (talk) 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't knw if you guys got this yet

But the General has a new job by the next month [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Article on Keane's role in Petraeus' selection

This article gives insight into Jack Keane's role in Petaeus' selection to lead CentCom [39]. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Petraeus on Iraq war: No victory in sight

Should we have a section dealing with Petraeus's views on the war against Iraq?

For example, the BBC today features an interview in which Petraeus says there is NO victory in sight in Iraq:

2008-09-11
No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.

In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".

[Petraeus] said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."

-- NonZionist (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean views on the war against Iraq? Is that a typo?

Anyways, this article basically means nothing. His position is exactly the same as before he talked to the BBC. I know that the left-wing blogosphere is trying to push this as a "See! EVEN Petraeus knows we failed! All is lost. We lost." admission. But it obviously is no such thing. He was asked about the specific term "victory", and he gave a reasoned answer that there's a long struggle in Iraq with no clear way to define 'victory'.

Suppose former Prime Minster Tony Blair was asked if there would ever be a 'victory' in The Troubles and he said that, given the nature of the asymmetric conflict and the threat still posed by militants there, it would be inappropriate to use the term 'victory' (I believe that he did actually say something like this). Would it be okay to put on the Tony Blair page something like "Blair admits defeat to the IRA. NO VICTORY IN IRELAND IN SIGHT"? Of course not. The Squicks (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the context that's missing--->

The Telegraph: He will take this cautious wisdom to his next job as head of Central Command, where he will have responsibility for all the many fronts of the “war on terrorism”, ranging from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Iraq and Somalia. And unlike Eisenhower, you can be sure that Gen Petraeus will be careful never to declare victory.

The Guardian: Petraeus adopted a cautious tone in his interview with BBC's Newsnight, saying he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory". "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade," he said. "It's not war with a simple slogan."

NPR News: In a discussion on the future of the country with Alex Chadwick, he defines victory as "an Iraq that is at peace with itself, at peace with its neighbors, that has a government that is representative of — and responsive to — its citizenry and is a contributing member of the global community." Prospects for such an Iraq are better than they were a year ago, during the height of sectarian violence, he says.

Newsweek: In so many ways, it sounds like Al Qaeda in Iraq has been defeated, but the U.S. military is reluctant to say so. You won't find a single military leader in this theater who will say that. You could be the first. Yeah, I could, but I won't be. But at least can't we say "strategically defeated"? There's no military leader who will but yeah, you can. We'll leave that to the academics. I mean, they no longer can … What we assess is that Al Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly diminished; their capabilities substantially degraded. But we assess that they remain lethal, they remain dangerous. They continue to be, in our view, again, what we call the wolf closest to the sled. Public Enemy No. 1. Now, there have been periods where we focus more on the [Shia] militia, frankly. But after the very significant operations against the militia in Basra, Maydan, Sadr City, elsewhere in Baghdad and so forth, there was the militia ceasefire; there's now the transformation of the militia by Moqtada al-Sadr into an organization that focuses on social services and cultural issues. And there's a wait-and-see about what happens to what used to be called the special group leaders and elements because, as you know, they went back to Iran or a couple went to Lebanon and Syria. And so right now the most significant source of violence in Iraq is Al Qaeda in Iraq and those [handful of] Sunni extremist allies that remain. But they are the ones who are carrying out the suicide-vest attacks, the car bomb attacks and so forth.

As you can see, saying in this article that Petraeus thinks that the Americans will never win in Iraq is a blatant Orwellian falsehood. Still, I am loling at the fact that the man the blogosphere once called an "lying ass-kissing chickenshit" is now suddenly someone who they quote against the Republicans! The Squicks (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Bush has repeatedly stated that the aim is "victory". That Petraeus now states that victory is unattainable is obviously notable and relevant. Your comment about the "left-wing blogosphere" cuts both ways: When Petraeus deviates from the neo-con party-line, it is the neo-cons who try to spin, twist, or cover up his words, as we see here.

The Petraeus statement comes from a WP:RS and is obviously WP:NOTABLE. When I created a separate article for Petraeus satements about Iraq, you are one of the ones who called for deletion, and User:Strikeout_Sister advised me to put the quote here. Since I find your argument above unpersuasive, I have taken User:Strikeout_Sister's advice. -- NonZionist (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read a single one of the Reliable Sources that I quoted?

Bush has repeatedly stated that the aim is "victory". Yes, and so has Petreaus as well. See Gen. Petraeus Defines Victory in Iraq.

Your comment about the "left-wing blogosphere" cuts both ways: When Petraeus deviates from the neo-con party-line, it is the neo-cons who try to spin, twist, or cover up his words, as we see here. No, I have provided context for your cherry picking of one quote to protray Petreaus as a liar. Again, the context is that Petraeus believes that the situtation in Iraq will improve to a successful degree but that he would not call it 'victory'.

I suppose if the internet existed in the 1950s, you would be trying to put in the Dwight Eisenhour article quotes from him saying that the term "victory" in the Cold War is an inappropriate thing to say to boost your arguement that the Russians are invincible :-) The Squicks (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Well now, when you said that you had added the quote I had assumed that you had actually added the quote. You did not do that. In fact, you added a whole section attacking President Bush and the surge (you even used a liberal blog as an RS!). I deleted it.

I see you have a valid complaint here. The Guardian article that addressed Bush's continuing quest for "victory" also included information about the causes of the reduced level of violence in Iraq. Since you mention that reduction in the previous paragraph and wrongly suggest that it is solely the result of "The Surge", I took the liberty of addressing the real cause of that reduction, in passing. If your point is that I should have discussed this aspect of my edit first, you're correct. I'm sorry about that oversight. -- NonZionist (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If I insist on adding the quote, I will do it with the appropriate context. But please keep your POV about Bush out of this article. This is an article about Petraeus, not about Bush. The Squicks (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It kills me to mention this phony controversy, but I did. I typed out a fair and balanced report of what all sides say along with the context. I'd like other user's thoughts on it. The Squicks (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from other users too. The "controversy" is due to the direct contradiction between Petraeus and Bush. That's more than WP:NOTABLE: that's sensational. That's the context I sought to establish in my version. This contradiction is as much about Petraeus as it is about Bush. If Gen. Douglas MacArthur, say, contradicted Harry Truman, would you say that is about Truman, or MacArthur? Petraeus's refusal to parrot the Bush/Cheney party line is to Petraeus's credit.

You mis-characterize antiwar.com as liberal". In fact, it is libertarian and paleo-conservative. -- NonZionist (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to respond to your earlier statement also: "that Petraeus thinks that the Americans will never win in Iraq is a blatant Orwellian falsehood" -- User:The Squicks. Military occupation is, by its very nature, unwinnable. The U.S. cannot stay in Iraq forever. As soon as the U.S. leaves, Iraqis will take over, and the "victory" will fall apart. Over a million Iraqis have been killed as a result of Bush's war, this in addition to the million who were killed by Clinton's sanctions and the four million who were turned into refugees, this in a peaceable country a tenth the size of America. If a foreign power, acting on lies and delusions, created such a catastrophe here in America, with numbers ten times larger, how long would it take American survivors to come over to the side of the invader? Even if it took a hundred years, we would insure that the invader is denied "victory". Why should Iraqis be any different? This is why "victory" is a mirage. This is not a "blatant Orwellian falsehood": It's the common sense truth. Petraeus understands this, even if the chickenhawk neo-con armchair warriors do not. -- NonZionist (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's 'your opinion' that's it sensational. We at Wikipedia cannot report ideas that we ourselves think of. That violates WP:OR, which is the bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is NOT A SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not a source of original information.

When you edited this page, you inserted your own opinions in the article. I reverted that to preserve WP:NPOV. I then added a synopsis that fairly reported the claims of both sides in the controversy.

As for your own political views, I could not care less about it. I respect your right to be a "I would turn my back on God Himself for Mother Russia" ideologically hardline nationalist. But this is not your personal blog. This is Wikipedia. If you do not like the rules that this website is built on, than you cannot just ignore it. You must follow those rules. The Squicks (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you've already made up your mind, but don't you think it's odd for you to say that Petreaus thinks the war is "unwinnable" since: Gen. Petraeus Defines Victory in Iraq? Read that. Then explain to me why you think it's not relevant. The Squicks (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The 2008-03-18 NPR article you cite pre-dates the 2008-09-11 BBC interview. This tells us that Petraeus has changed either his definition of "victory" or his assessment of its attainability. Petraeus, in addition, is contradicting the neo-con propaganda apparatus and contradicting his Commander in Chief. That is certainly WP:NOTABLE and possibly sensational. It is your attempt to suppress that information that violates WP:NPOV.

Frankly, it may be that NPOV is no more attainable than victory in Iraq: Your POV is no more neutral than mine. In that case, about all we can do is discuss our differences here in Talk, till common ground emerges. My mind is not made up on all issues, and if you can say the same, then we may eventually reach partial agreement here.

Agreement will be easier once we move beyond a one-dimensional Left-Right view of things. If you look at U.S. history, you will find that opposition to ruinous war-making was once a Republican position. Look up Robert Taft, for example: "A staunch non-interventionist, Taft believed that America should avoid any involvement in European or Asian wars and concentrate instead on solving its domestic problems." -- NonZionist (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In your "synopsis", I see that you have subsituted Sean Hannity, a neo-con propagandist, in place of Juan Cole, a leading historian on the Middle East. This is rich! -- NonZionist (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on the other page. The Squicks (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have tagged the 'Conservative blog reference as unreliable. I'm removing that. For Petes sake, all blogs are by definition not reliable sources for anything except their own opinions.

I've really had enough. I really have. I refuse to let you pass off liberal and libertarian blogs as reliable sources. You've already made it clear that you oppose the fundamental tenent of Wikipedia and that you want to morph these articles to suit your POV. This is unacceptable. The Squicks (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Badges listed on David Petraeus Entry

On the Badges Section, it shows a picture of the Master Parachutist badge, but it's only labeled Parachutist Badge. I just think it should be changed, because there is a difference. When you click on the link, it shows pictures and explains the difference.

It's "minor" to someone reading it, but there's a pretty big difference to the people wearing it.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.25.211.147 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For sources on those medals, could we use [40]? The Squicks (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that missing in the badges section is General Petraeus' Multinational Force in Iraq patch. Since the section is headed with "U.S. badges, patches and tabs", does this patch qualify? He can be seen wearing it in this photo [41] with Senator's Obama and Hagel.

2006 command in Anbar?

Whatever happened to the section on Petraeus' role in Anbar province in 2006? It seems to have been chopped out and replaced by a discussion of lost weapons. TBSchemer (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

French Légion d'honneur

The chief of french army decore Petraeus the 09/26/2008; Officier de la légion d'honneur :

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/ema/decouverte/le_chef_d_etat_major/actualites/26_09_08_le_cema_recoit_le_general_petraeus

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:L%27amateur_d%27aéroplanes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.0.147.18 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New economist article

Interesting article on the future career of Petraeus as well as his involvement with cease-fire arrangements that had strengthened the surge.[42] Grey Fox (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevance and/or neccesity of huge picture gallery?

Can somebody explain to me the necessity of having a gallery with so many pictures that have little to no relevance within the article? E.g. General Petraeus joking with an Iraqi.

As far as I’m concerned, most other articles about important individuals do not have a picture gallery. Why would this one be any different? Likeminas (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the reason to remove every image, a few is fine. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why someone created a photo gallery and did not leave the photographs immersed in the article. -Signaleer (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea someone should put them back. Grey Fox (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good luck trying to go through the article history and finding which user(s) removed the photographs, since there's a poor use of the edit bar which explains what users have done specifically to edit. -Signaleer (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Multi-National Force - Iraq tenure

The correct dates for his command of MNF-I are from Feb 10, 2007 when he took command from General George Casey and then reliquished command to General Ray Odierno on Sep 16, 2008.

Feb 10, 2007 Change of Command Remarks: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/CGs_Messages/070210_petraeus%20change_command_remarks_new.pdf

Sep 16, 2008 http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1273 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sboylan (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

archive?

Can anybody archive this talk page? It's getting quite bulky.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure someone can, why not yourself? -Signaleer (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how. I red the the page on how to archive a page but I saw that you needed to delete every section manually, and not to come off as lazy but I really don't feel like reading every single section just to see if the discussion is finished.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)