Talk:David L. Goldfein

Febr 2017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-4201064/Air-Force-general-urges-caution-accelerating-IS-air-war.html Airforce General urges caution ...]

[https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/goldfein-military-must-remain-apolitical Air Force chief: Military must remain apolitical, uphold its values]

Imo wirth to mention (reception also in Germany: Luftwaffenchef kritisiert Trumps IS-Strategie ) --Neun-x (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Flight hours "in" a drone
Regarding this revert: I think the Chief of Staff needs to have an accurate summary of his career and flying "in" a drone is not accurate. My previous wording is better, or I'd settle for "with" airframes but "in" is definitely no good (despite the USAF bio saying it). ☆ Bri (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not have an issue with the current wording, as they are flying both platforms and the current text being copied from the bio. That being said, I believe that “with” will address both my and your concerns. Garuda28 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Added language to give President Trump credit
Need to reduce ambiguous language in future to credit individuals.

Added a url https://www.aetc.af.mil/News/Article/743213/goldfein-nominated-as-21st-csaf/ that credits the President for nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.240.46 (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it proper to cite the government individual in this case President Trump as being responsible for nominating someone? Another Wikipedia user reverted a change mentioning President Trump was responsible for nominating Gen David Goldfein when similar CSAF articles cite sources and mention who nominated him or her. I believe this user is not acting in good faith and neutrality by trying to whitewash articles of relevant information. 2600:1700:c490:900:e1a3:b0fd:a9cc:4bf3 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the changes and the user's history and claim it seems apparent the user is not acting I'm good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC00:1960:EDEC:9036:D53C:D878 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Birth date?
Goldfein's page shows two different birth years, 1963 & 1959. But there's a bigger issue here: on May 13, 2015 a user who no longer exists ("Sgt. Maj. Campbell, USMC") added "1959" as the birth year. It remained this way until yesterday when a user at an IP address changed Goldfein's birth year to 1963 w/out citation nor explanation. This can't be right because the U.S. Air Force Academy requires age 17 by July 1 of the entry year; he graduated 1983 per his official bio which would have made him no older than 16 upon entry. I'll be bold and do a revert given the fact the user is just another IP address, and it's still the latest change.

Looking farther back, we see on August 2, 2020 that blocked user "Ail Mohammed" [sic] set Goldfein's birth date to December 21. But where did this come from? The best I can find is just "1959" at The Military Times. I'm not sure that's a good source though: its timeframe makes me suspect the writer may have simply pulled it from Wikipedia.

Given that Campbell's account no longer exists, and everything else is suspect, I feel we should discuss "ca. 1959" as his birthdate. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a CV
We do not need his every posting and promotion date. It's over detail, it's not noteworthy, and it's not even properly sourced. The USAF bio being cited is not indicative of significant coverage for any of this. Unbh (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to be operating under the assumption that WP:SIGCOV applies to every piece of information in an article. This is incorrect. SIGCOV is a requirement for a topic, and indeed the very next heading of the notability guideline states Notability guidelines do not usually apply to content within articles or lists. While excessive detail about the various awards a person has received is probably WP:UNDUE (e.g. Air Force Training Ribbon is probably not worth mentioning), your interpretation of this appears overtly strict. In addition, you keep stating "Not a CV". If you refer to WP:NOTCV, that guideline is about something altogether different. The USAF source might not be indicative of notability, but it is absolutely acceptable as a source for information. Even the subjects own tweets (with some caveats) are allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF. Ljleppan (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * NOTCV applies to user pages, not articles. - w o lf  07:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you can't just blurt out one brief comment, then go on a reversion spree, removing both content from articles and attempts to engage on your talk page, and expect others to leave things as they are. (Notfications are ok though, policy states that once you delete a notice, you are deemed to have read it.) That said, Communication is required. You are expected to engage with others in this discussion, and/or the discussion at WT:MILHIST. There are concerns about your edits that need to be addressed. - w o lf  09:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no neeed for these great long lists of dates of promotion. They add nothing of value to the article. Promotions are not inherently noteworthy. Ribbons and medals awarded for turning up are not noteworthy. Unless there's a reason for special significance this sort of info is just bloat in these articles and are adequately covered on the military's own website. Unbh (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, you boldly removed the content, after which your removal was then reverted. At this point, you should have taken it to this talk page rather than have re-reverted. Regarding Promotions are not inherently noteworthy., as noted above, you seem to operate under a misunderstanding that every piece of information in the article should be WP:NOTABLE in isolation. As stated above, this is not correct. Even if individual awards would be WP:UNDUE, this does not excuse blanket removal of those sections in totality, including awards that clearly have a place in the article. Given that you were just blocked this year for edit warring, I suggest you self-revert your latest revert until discussion on this talk page establishes a consensus that the blanket removal was due. Ljleppan (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not it. I think the information in an article should be noteworthy. I'm perfectly aware of the difference between that and notable. This sort of inclusionism that means every last bit of information is added to an article simply because it's out there is hat leads to poor articles that don't properly highlight to a reader what is significant about and individual and why . Unbh (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The information is not only generally note worth, but appears on most MILHIST biography pages. I'd suggest starting a discussion there if you want to change consensus. Garuda28 (talk) 12:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "appears on most MILHIST "
 * That simply isn't true. There's no consistency about this - some version of awards/postings/promotion dates appears on maybe 1/3 - 1/2 of pages but it varies wildly in how and what components are there and what layout there is, and the sourcing is almost always poor if it's there at all. And it's still pretty much valueless information that is not noteworthy at all beyond proving they were in the army.  Unbh (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First, they were in the Air Force, not the Army. Second, among major modern U.S. military leadership it is the vast majority. The information is notable, as it provides insight into their careers. Garuda28 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by coverage. If it was about Notability this stuff would need better sourcing. Luckily for those who want to include it is only has to be notoriously. It certainly is not the cast majority, half at best there's absolutely no consistency about how it's done  it's a mess. Unbh (talk) 21:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

why did you cite "WP:NOTCV" in your edit summary? - w o lf  04:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because personal page or not this junk is like posting resumes. There's no value to it.Unbh (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with your cite aside, it would seem that the consensus here does not agree with you. - w o lf  03:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed - hence I've not reverted.Unbh (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Fraud
You know there is someone on Facebook dating that is impersonating you. 2A02:C7E:3938:7000:7CD2:FBE5:37F8:E837 (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)