Talk:Raymond T. Odierno

POV and Centcom

Someone at CENTCOM is continuously revising this article to eliminate or mitigate criticism. While I appreciate loyalty to a commander, Wikipedia articles are not official biographies and POV's should be minimized.Virgil61 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The same thing went on (and doubtless still does) with the Wikipedia article on Petraeus. If you even pointed out that Petreaus could have volunteered for the biggest war of his lifetime, Vietnam, such an obvious factual entry was promptly deleted by Pentagon spindoctors as if it were heresy. Look at the many rows of ribbons Odierno has, then ask yourself how many of them were earned in combat. Millions of draftees have the combat ribbons Petraeus and Odierno don't, me included. But it is somehow viewed as overly critical to merely note that interesting fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.184 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You can get on your ideological high horse if you like, but the fact is you also felt the need to remove a cited passage that refutes the very critisim you claim is so important. I understand the need for an open forum on the internet, especially in a heavily utilized site such as this. But that door swings both ways. Scott.Radcliffe 3 September 2007

There's no ideological high horse [I was in Iraq during 4th IDs first deployment] this isn't a CENTCOM official bio it's Wikipedia. The reference isn't a source in that it's an opinion piece in the NY POST. There's been no 'vindication' except in Ralph Peters mind [You used the word 'vindicate' and the article proves no such thing]. The argument--which Peters rah-rah piece has given no thought to--that's made by critics include the view the heavy-handed approach contributed to the rise of the insurgency [a view I and many who witnessed firsthand 4th IDs actions such as 1st MARDIV, USASOC and others share]. I will rephrase the sentence to show it as a counter viewpoint but not as the final word in vindication. That's fair to both views. Virgil61 12:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that since it now gets down to semantics. As far as that not being a source, one could argue the same about a book written by a man with an agenda. Each did their own research and interpreted the facts as they saw them with healthy doses of opinion interspersed within their works. Some would argue that the Sunnis needed to truly understand they were defeated, others would say that the "heavy handed techniques" prompted a lot of this in the first place. In truth, there's really no way to know. My first deployment I was in charge of large portion of Rashid, one of Baghdad's most diverse neighborhoods, and I can tell from my own experience as well there needs to be an equal portion of patience and aggressive action. So just as Ricks and Peters, I believe we can both agree to disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.141.100 (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undid the revision of what was agreed upon above that came from a CENTCOM IP that has--again--deleted criticism. Legitimate criticism was made by several valid sources in the Army and Marines, it was sourced correctly. It is not the last word but the criticism was widespread enough that it does merit inclusion. I know, I was in 1st MARDIV's COC (Marine for TOC) and heard criticism of 4th ID often. Virgil61 (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Choosing not to do something (when you are not violating an order or going against your duty) isn't really relevant to an article.

Every one of us chooses not to do millions of things. The real story is what we do.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, have you noticed that there is always someone out there that hates a biography article subject? Hating people is not news either. Just because you hate someone doesn't make your point of view relevant.

There are actual psychological problems that make people develop fixations that cause them to hate other people. Given that X-percent of the population have such mental illnesses that make them hate certain people, it is therefore also a statistical certainty that someone will always log onto each and every biographical Wikipedia article and try to manipulate it into a hate-fest.

Sean7phil (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop thinking people are sick, only because they do not admire your idols. AlphaF (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Learn how to make proper edits on Wikipedia. You're doing nothing but putting in opinion (POV) and poor English usage; there are rule against this on in Wikipedia which you seem to have trouble understanding. Editors will continue to correct your changes, which are personal rather than factual. Virgil61 (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from an obvious empty arrogance, you have very little to teach me. Do not get hysterical and personal. Critisize my English. only when you can revise texts in Turkish. That your editors keep busy correcting (!) my changes does not impress me at all; I think, at least few decent people must have read my comments, while your editors were asleep: That was all I wanted anyway.....No matter how you chose to write about the General, there is no glory in bullying a nation 1/10 of US size.You know what you can do with your Wikipedia, good luck ! AlphaF (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC).

I'm not sure what 'empty arrogance' is. Since this is English, not Turkish, language Wikipedia, I'm very much in my element criticizing your English usage. The reversions are because of POV inclusion which you seem to not understand. Neither do you understand, after you've been told, that Odierno did not command the 173rd ABN BDE who took part in the capture. I'm sorry that this is so difficult for you to understand. Virgil61 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I figure my English must be pretty clear: Even you seem to have no problems, getting the general idea.AlphaF (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you've missed the point. Virgil61 (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove the criticisms of Odierno re Iraqi Freedom and time with 4th ID. Even if you disagree, the fact is that the criticism existed and did so at division levels both in the Army and the Marines; and it is sourced. It deserves to be included just as much as his later--and much more important I think--successes during COIN ops should be. Virgil61 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The General's story in Wikipedia is growing and getting bolder, better, juicier - everyday, since I stopped editing it. One important point unjustly missed so far is that his mission in Iraq is a god given one (not something cooked up by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney), as rightly pointed out by Ms.Palin, in her recent speeches. That, I think, should be the final touch. AlphaF (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making this into a he said/she said page. While you maybe believe one view to be an axiom, that might not be the view of another. Please try to find a balance between views and be respectful to another person's view even though it does not coinside with yours. Neovu79 (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand you disliking my comment, but she did say it on a live TV interview. She can be the next US President, if McCain is elected but can not live to see the end of his term. I never have first hand personal audiences with Ms. Palin, we only communicate thru the TV. If she is not to be taken seriously and her TV interviews can not be referred to, why is she there in the first place? I do not mean any serious offense or disrespect, but this is how truth appears to me.AlphaF (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The article mentiones General's heroically remarkable rapid deployment of armored vehicles from Kuwait into the operation area, I had added "not to be forgotten, of course, was that the desert was absolutely flat and that there was almost no opposition". My revision was erased from the text, by another gallant reader. I wonder what the Eraser did not agree with; does he think the desert was not flat, or does he think there was fierce opposition? 78.169.179.73 (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

Due to the war editing that has been going on in this article, I have protected the same from further editing until the parties involved discuss the situation here and a consensus is reached.

1. It seems to me that one party contends that there is an article about "The Surge 2007-2008" and that content in regard to said surge in Gen. Odierno's bio. should be limited to only a "link".

2. The other party claims that Gen. Raymond T. Odierno played an instrumental role in said surge and therefore it should be included in Odierno's bio. provided that said information does not enter in POV's and that verifiable reliable sources are provided as required by Wikipedia policy.

To those not directly involved, please view edit summary comments here. O.K. people, let's get the ball rolling. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm more concerned about the 'cheerleading' overtly pro POV aspects than simply the issue of the Surge being included. Allegra may be new or a single-topic (or whatever the Wikipedia term is) poster. Virgil61 (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you mean single-purpose account. I would have to agree with that, considering the user's contribs and the fact that the account was created in the midst of this edit war. Possibly also a sock puppet given the nature of the edits made... bahamut0013♠♣ 00:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing is for sure: the general's involvement in the planning and undertaking of the surge would be notable both here and on the article about the surge, but the majority of details would be more appropriate for the letter article. A biography that weighs too heavily on a single aspect or event in a person's life is not a balanced biography. Criticisms about the 4th ID's conduct in Iraq would be better for the unit's article, with perhaps a brief blurb on the bio about criticisms made specifically to him as commander. Also, according to the Hood event article, Odierno had nothing to do with it. While I agree with Virgil61 for the most part, I wouldn't be as restrictive... some of this content is relevant. I would also highly suggest that you take a more cooperative and less bitey approach to future disagreements; I think this edit war/protection could have been avoided. bahamut0013♠♣ 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that there has been some POV issues in this article. Here are a few thoughts I have.

1. I recommend we do include some verbage about "the surge" but it should be limited in scope to what was verifiably done by the general. The surge was a huge effort with a lot of players and simply being the man in charge doesn't justify having a massive section on their role in it.
2. We review the surge article to ensure that it also is inline with this article. If this article has been in issue its likely that the surge article is also or will be. I honestly haven't checked it yet.
3. IMHO much of this articles structure and prose needs to be rewritten anyway. After reviewing it much of it has been copy pasted directly from the references. Since they are all governmental and free domain its fine but its still not ideal for a WP article.
4. Most of the article centers around recent events, additional info should be included for his early life and career.--Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the recommendation to place the majority of the General's involvement with the surge in the separate article & include only a short mention of it on his bio article with a link to the surge article. IMHO this section is becoming too long to include on the bio article. FieldMarine (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the above comments are fair, but considering General Odierno's very public position, his role in the 'Surge' is very important for inclusion on his bio. It is important to note that the 'Surge' continued after General Odierno left Iraq, so describing the drop in violence during his tenure is relevant for inclusion on his page, rather than the page about the 'Surge' (which, incidentally, is quite bad and needs some work). For better or worse, Wikipedia is the first stop for many doing research on the web, and it's important to highlight the role that General Odierno played in planning for and implementing the strategies that had an impact on the situation in Iraq. I also think some of the criticisms of Odierno's time as the 4th ID commander should be included, as they are right now. I'm not trying to 'cheerlead' for Odierno. He's leading 140,000 soldiers right now, and providing sufficient and accurate information about his past performance as a commander -- both good and bad -- is very important for this site. allegra1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Consensus conclusion

Thank you all for your valued participation and suggestions on the Gen. Raymond T. Odierno biography. The edit "protection" of the aticle will be lifted soon. Consensus suggest that additional info should be included for his early life and career. Career history should go after the "Early life and education" section. It is recognized that the general's involvement in the planning and undertaking of the surge is notable and should be included in the article, however it should be limited in scope to what was verifiably done by the general and should not weigh too heavily on that particular subject in order to to have a more balanced biography. Final comments welcomed. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good ! We shall all wait until this saga reaches a final form that satisfies all fans of the General. 78.169.139.83 (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Invite comments on minor formatting edit

In reviewing the article for pov, I made some minor edits - formatting dates and section headings per MOS and combining, via "name" in ref, a reused footnote. If there are any objections, I will revert myself and await a discussion and consensus. Normally a minor item, but as the article is under full protection, edits are to receive consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)