Jump to content

Talk:Dakota Meyer

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

Clean Up

[edit]

This article is a bit of a hot mess, hardly fitting for a national hero. Will be working on it. 198.137.241.197 (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Handling problems with Dakota Meyer claims of heroism

[edit]

We need to find a way to incorporate recent news revelations surrounding Meyer. It's a rare event that a Medal of Honor is awarded improperly.

Links to the McClatchy reporting on the topic can be found here:

Given the exaggerations of Meyer's account—which appear to discredit much of his alleged heroism—substantial changes to this article may be needed.Raquart (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the above statement. LogicalLarry (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mention, of a brief sentence might meet WP:BALANCE, but more than that might violate WP:BLP or be seen as giving undue weight to the criticism. Furthermore, I think that a consensus of editors from WP:MILHIST should be achieved before adding such content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are hardly revelations, but questions that came up in 2013 and have really never resurfaced. Do they have staying power? I would not be surprised if someone exaggerates in a book, it sells copy. However, questioning the grounds for his receipt of the MoH and his integrity in general would likely butt up against WP:BLP issues. Why is this all coming up again all of a sudden? The thing he has been in the news for most recently is his engagement to Sarah Palin's daughter. EricSerge (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it's "come up" again is that when people hit the media (for whatever reason) other people tend to look them up on sites like WP. You act as if it's ancient history.LogicalLarry (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal

[edit]

I have reverted the re-addition by an IP editor of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. The DoD press release provided as a RS, does not state that the subject of this article was awarded the GWOT-EM, therefore it fails verification. This is similar to what had occurred on the article about Clinton Romesha.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might be due to the rule allowing either the GWOT-EM or the Afghan Campaign Medal but not both simultaneously as with the Iraqi Campain Medal.LogicalLarry (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to add it without a reliable source verifying that the medals and ribbons of the subject has changed specifically can be seen as WP:OR.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, it should not be listed. This whole scenario totally smells as a political move at a time when support for the war was waning and the administration needed something to get support behind the campaign as well as draw attention away from "other" issues at the time.LogicalLarry (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

previous marriage to Cassandra Marie Wain

[edit]

Why isn't this mentioned at all? link to marriage certificate http://www.tcclerk.com/imagesworking/MB/68/150.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.234.201 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pease see WP:BLPSOURCES, specifically WP:BLPPRIMARY. Are there non-primary reliable sources that further verify this claim?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RightCowLeftCoast on this matter. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable, independent secondary sources say about a matter. Until and unless such published sources (not blogs) discuss this, it does not belong in this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it belongs now. heh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.90.233.88 (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb assholes don't even know the rules of wikipedia LOL— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.234.201 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2015

[edit]

A redlink SPA [1], KarenJ503, removed WP:RS cites, removed archive links and restored improperly formatted citations. I reverted these and noted in my edit summary we do not make such edits, which are contrary to Wikipedia policy / guidelines, without talk-page discussion first. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planned marriage postponement or cancelation

[edit]

I have reverted an addition by an IP editor based on WP:NOTNEWS & WP:BRD. While the planned May marriage might have been cancelled, I believe that stating it would give it undue weight, and smacks of recentism. Also it is tabloid like to include it, and flys in the face of WP:BLPGOSSIP. Now if the engagement is ended, I think that would be appropriate to add.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the other editors phrased the information poorly and in a newsy fashion, the fact of the wedding being called off (not saying the engagement, but the wedding) is a pertinent biographical fact. I've tried to find a way to state this simply, neutrally and in very few words, with the extant CNN cite. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Tenebrae, calling the cancellation of the wedding "tabloid" while leaving the mention of the initial engagement is pure hypocrisy as they should both be considered tabloid or neither. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.LogicalLarry (talk) 05
33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Why bold all that LogicalLarry? Also, is this advocacy of removing the engagement and cancellation?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's plain and simple gossip and it's obviously not true any more.

LogicalLarry (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to removal of that content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might not be, but others would. There is no consensus whatsoever for removing the status quo content. By dictionary definition, the cancellation of the wedding is not "gossip" as it was stated plainly and directly to the news media and the general public by both the bride's mother, Sarah Palin, and the bride.
If anyone wants to argue for the whitewash removal of these RS reported facts from direct, named and cited sources including the bride, that clearly is going to take an WP:RfC and I would be extremely surprised if there were WikiProject:Biography support for its removal.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, there is a consensus to remove the content Tenebrae. Consensus is not unanimity. Presently two editors are supportive of removing the content, LogicalLarry and myself. Only one editor appears to be opposed to it. Per dispute resolution and the WP:BRD cycle I am not going to revert the reversion (yet). This disagreement does not need a third opinion as there are more than two editors involved in this discussion. Does Tenebrae seek to open up an RfC?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you're misreading Wikipedia policy. As WP:CON notes, consensus does not mean unanimity but "nor is it the result of a vote." Discussion involves the quality of an argument, and the argument I'm seeing is built on a falsehood: referring to something as "gossip" — casual, unrestrained talk about other people that may be exaggerated or untrue — when it was a formal, publicly issued statement of objective fact by two involved people, the bride and the mother of the bride. Let's start by addressing the misuse of the term "gossip". --Tenebrae (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a weight issue, gossip shouldn't be given undue weight in this article. Just because something is verified doesn't mean it warrants inclusion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The statement as it is currently written and cited, "On March 13, 2015, Dakota became engaged to Bristol Palin, daughter of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.[31] On May 18 it was announced that the wedding, originally scheduled for May 23, 2015, has been called off.[32]" seems okay to me. It was a high profile announcement on both ends of the event, but really this is all that it warrants per our guidelines on weight. EricSerge (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Online

[edit]

Radar? Really? it's a tabloid rag that relies on shadowy, anonymous, unnamed alleged "sources" whose credibility can't possibly be known. WP:BLP is very clear that for personal-life details of living people we need to have impeccable reliable sources. An encyclopedia doesn't publish gossip that doesn't appear in any credible source but only a single tabloid.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is no place for gossip. The gossip rags have their own websites. EricSerge (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dakota Meyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dakota Meyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[edit]

Just raising the question of MDY vs DMY format consistency, in case anyone wants to discuss it. In some sections, it’s MDY (consistent with the template at the top of the article) and in other sections it’s DMY (consistent with WP:MILFORMAT. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Artillery Mission that Didn't Happen

[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mev2exb1C0g Around 3:57, CBS News/60 Minutes tells a story about how an Artillery strike was requested, and then denied due to being "too close to the village". It then says that a military investigation determined that two of the Officers involved in refusing the artillery strike were found to be "clearly negligent". This should be included in this Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"retired" vs. "former"

[edit]

I reverted Jwolfe7's good-faith change of "former" to "retired". While it is true that Marines have a culture of "once a Marine, always a Marine," there's an actual defined meaning to retired Marine: someone who left after serving long enough to receive retirement benefits. Former Marine is the correct way to refer to someone who formerly served as a Marine but not long enough to retire as one. (If you really want to insult a former Marine, call him or her an "ex-Marine", which is how they refer to a person who was dishonorably discharged.)

One caveat here: I looked for and could not find any evidence that Meyer, who served for about five years, had somehow actually retired. If we find some, I'll be happy to revert my revert. PRRfan (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dakota_Meyer&oldid=1235291752"