Talk:David Petraeus/Neutral Point of View

( This topic has been moved to its own subpage. It is a current topic and is being moved due to its great length. ) -- Joe Friday (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC) 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)

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.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  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.-- Joe Friday (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)