Talk:Arthur D. Nicholson

Conflicting dates
The second and third sentences of the (currently) third paragraph state:

In 1980, he received his master's degree in Soviet and East European Studies from the Naval Postgraduate School and also attended a two year course in the Russian language at the Defense Language Institute. From 1980-82, Nicholson attended the U.S. Army's Russian Institute in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.

How could Nicholson attend a two year course at the Defense Language Institute (apparently starting in 1980 and continuing to 1982) if at the same time he was attending the U.S. Army's Russian Institute in Germany in the years 1980-82?--Blake the bookbinder (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

neutrality and other issues
The article needs to be rewritten to be more neutral in its presentation: there is still historical debate on the events leading to Nicholson's death and furthermore, there is presentation only of the perspective of the USA and the NATO, ignoring Soviet perspectives on the event.


 * If you can provide me leads on where material regarding this historical debate can be found, I'll try to find it and include it in the article. I will tell you what Nicholson was doing -was- authorized under international agreements at the time and that the Soviets and their Pact partners had a long history of increasingly violent provocations against the internationally allowed operations of France, the U.K., and the U.S. in East Germany. Soviet perspectives -- even high Soviet officials presented apologies later on; they knew they had gone too far in their provocations. W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This person is known for one event only, a tragic one certainly, and as such the extensive biographical notes are superfluous unless a reliable source sustains this is relevant to the event he is notable for.

All said and done the article needs improvement, and I wish I had time for it but I dont (notice how long it has taken to respond), but this doesn't mean the criticism is any less valid.--Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand limitations on personal time, but it is not good practice to put a neutrality box on an article without any commentary on the talk page. I also think it is reasonable that if you do not provide any citations or pointers to relevant material supporting your stance that the article violates NPOV, then you can't expect the neutrality box to remain on the article for very long. As I said above, I'll be glad to note other viewpoints and include other material, but the sources have got to be better than your simply stating so on this talk page. W. B. Wilson (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)