Talk:Iván Castro/Archive 1

Notability?
This Guy is a NOBODY. Thanks for going to war, But come on this aint your MYSPACE!!! 24.5.151.206 (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does he really deserve an article? I salute him for doing his duty and keeping us safe, but does Wikipedia need an article on every soldier who was wounded in battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.174.200 (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. This is barely relevant for an article so what is it doing on the fron page. tonyf12 ( talk) 17:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Txmy (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, there is a different from "every soldier who was wounded in battle" and a still active blind Special Forces soldier. Good article, by the way. -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  13:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Txmy. The article contains a long section of how he runs Marathon and attended a meeting for blind militaries.

"Castro then focused on the Marine Corps Marathon which he ran on October 29, 2007 exhausting two running companions before latching onto a third, to finish in 4 hours, 14 minutes.[5] During the marathon he was accompanied by running partner Lynn Salgado who held on to the same shoelace as Castro and by Amy Moyes who spread her arms protectively to shield him from other runners"
 * This cannot be of public interest. Apparently the man is given a massive backup to continue his activities - his wife has for instance abandoned her job to help him. It is good that the US army is supporting disabled veterans, but we cannot repeat this minutiae. The article needs a severe trimming.

Sponsianus (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unindent

Notable enoough. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Only blind oficier in the Specail Forces.
 * 2) One out of three oficers in the whole United States Army.
 * 3) Has been been featured in numerous newspaper articles.


 * If he's notable enough to be mentioned on the Main Page, then he needs an article. Also, I would move up the number of active duty blind officers - so we don't give the impression that he's the only one. We should also mention as early as possible whether he goes out on missions or stays back giving advice or something. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the article is not only about Castro the soldier, it is also about Castro the athlete whose acts have been featured and noted in the public media. This is a biography and the information posted provides reliable verifiable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is "not" about what we like or "do not" like, but about verifiable facts. If not then we should start removing the irrevelant movies or roles plated mentioned from every single biography of every actor and actress. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick response! I have not objected to the existence of Ivan Castro's article per se. I have not removed any of his military credentials, or the fact that he works for the improvement and integration of disabled soldiers. I have however objected to extremely trivial details about his running and other exercise activities. These have certainly not been noted because Castro (who is fourty years old) is a top athlete but because he is doing PR work for the US army, especially its disabled soldiers.
 * Castro's upcoming schedule - unless he is going to meet the president or something like that - is not relevant for a global encyclopaedia. Such info belongs on a homepage - which could well be linked to last on the page.
 * I will revert once more; I do not accept that you erase my efforts once more unless you give reasons for why the following details are relevant:
 * What is important about the names of 5 Marathon races in which he contributed, purely as exercise?
 * What is important about the names of the persons who guarded him on these races?
 * What is important about how Castro was lead by a shoelace?
 * What is important about the colour of said shoelace?
 * What is important about the exact length of these races, and Castro's exact times (including seconds), when he was obviously participated out of competition?
 * What is important about the slight mishap when Castro fell into a wall? How important should people be for us to record every time they stumble?
 * What is important about Castro and his wife bearing identical t-shirts with a logo?
 * What is important about his spin cycling? This is standard exercise even for blind people?
 * What is important about listing every single activity at the Blinded Veterans Association's 62nd National conference? The organisation itself has a short article about 10 lines here on Wikipedia?
 * That Castro is interested in participating in a Triathlon?


 * Surely you realise that this is not of sufficient public interest? Sponsianus (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think being the only blind person to serve as an officer in the US special forces is sufficient notability on its own. Both in terms of achievements of disabled persons, and as a matter of military history.  If we decide that there is enough notability for an article, then it is not unreasonable to put things like his family history (even thought it is not related to his notability) or his running (which is probably not related, but not sure - may be connected to his awareness raising - charitable running is often used for that).  But if there is a real feeling that it is not notable, why not list it as an AfD (be bold and all that), and let the Wikipedia community express its views. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saddened that some people can't see how unique this person is, I'm still absolutely flabbergasted that a blind person can serve in any capacity of the Special Forces. This person is a role model for any person with a disability and should be featured for everyone to see. However, there's a limit to the necessary level of detail and I agree that shoelaces and length of races aren't suited for the article.--David Igra (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, if there are legitimate concerns about this individual's notability to exist as a biography on Wikipedia, then the editors who deem him non-notable need to stop beating around the bush and nominate for deletion, so we can get a serious discussion instead of wasting brain cells and causing frustration. It concerns me because at least one single purpose account has weighed in; and that because of its high profile (having been in the DYK section of the Main Page), drew some attention that might not normally be seen on a biography (i.e. POV-pushers).
 * Second, where does notability for Ivan the soldier end and notability for Ivan the athlete begin? I feel that the individual in question would be notable enough for an article in either profession. This opinion makes me question why editors insist on ripping apart properly cited information and removing it from an article. The sarcasm seen above makes me wonder if Sponsianus recognizes the differece between notability, public interest, and where Wikipedia's policies on biography factor in. Some of the logistics about running a marathon while blind might be worth mentioning to have a more complete and richer article that meets the definitions of "thorough" and "complete"; which are part of the assessment criteria.
 * Lastly, WP:BLP doesn't seem to be involved here... none of the removed content seemed to be contentous in that regard.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   20:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Unindent

Per Notability_(people) &mdash; "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."


 * He has been covered in civilian media:
 * Associated Press wire stories - picked up by national media:
 * ABC News - June 2008
 * FOX News - June 2008
 * Washington Times - July 2008
 * Also CBS News, MSNBC
 * Money magazine - April 2008
 * CNN Feb 2008
 * USA Today - Nov 2007
 * By veterans' groups:
 * Veterans Today - Nov 2007
 * By the U.S. military:
 * U.S. Air Force - September 2008
 * U.S. Army - September 2008
 * Above is a small sample. The medial coverage is ongoing; focusing not only his recovery and military service, but also his athletic endeavors &mdash; running and skiing included. Clearly he meets Wikipedia notability criteria. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Castro's job is hardly that of an actual officer
I am highly impressed by officer Castro's strength during his recovery and his serving as a role model for disabled soldiers. My "sarcasms" concerned details that were clearly very trivial and were obviously added against better judgement, such as the colour of the shoelace Castro was lead by and the print on his and his wife's t-shirt. I challenged the people who wrote these things to defend them and repeated exactly what they wrote. If that qualifies as sarcasm then they brought it upon theirselves.

Still, it is very clear that Castro does currently not work as a real military, but rather as a spokesman for the army rehabilitation programs for disabled people. A PR job, basically, and it is not the job of Wikipedia to promote PR for the US army. The US army is the military force of the USA; their military obligations are little fulfilled by paying a blind man - and his guide - for running marathons. If it improves the confidence of a disabled man like Castro to pose in a camouflage uniform swinging a cosh then this is all very good, but it is a pose and could hardly be described as a milestone in military history. The US army would never allow him to use that cosh or any other weapon against enemies, and so he is for all practical purposes no different from a civilian employee, regardless of how he is dressed. His service involves no actual danger and while impressive is by no means unique for a blind person - many such persons have careers.

It is said that Castro is looking forward towards his education to become a leader of troops and military operations. To have a blind man lead troops would indeed be a remarkable military achievement - but that has not happened yet. While he certainly deserves an article, this text is far too long, even with the shoelace colours edited away. It is preposterous to list 21 military decorations and badges for a man who was a subaltern during his active career. Something like: "Castro was awarded the purple heart, to add to several previous decorations." would suffice. We should briefly state his origin, birth, grade, service in Iraq, recovery, current service and engagement for disabled officers, popularity, one picture. Sponsianus (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree and I believe you're failing to see the bigger picture here, which is of course that Wikipedia contains a vast number of articles on subjects ranging from shoelaces and their color to people with Aspberger's syndrome, I'd say there's hardly anything that doesn't merit an article on Wikipedia. In my mind this, and thousand other articles, should be expanded. It's not like it's taking up space on your personal hard drive... --David Igra (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately you are wrong about that. On the page "What Wikipedia is not" there is a subheading called |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I quote:


 * "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own."


 * Wikipedia users should not record trivia without common interest - that is what Myspace is for - as this makes the encyclopaedia more difficult to overlook and less reliable. The length of an article should be proportional to its importance. Sponsianus (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, I remind you: common interest is not synonymous for notability. Just because you can't find any possible interest in this man's biography does not mean that others won't. The quoted policy you've provided is very broad, and your interpretation seems to lean on the side of cherry-picking (see WP:GAME). I could nominate History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, which you've contributed to, for deletion based on your flawed concept: nobody cares about it except a select few individuals. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate that. I could start removing content based on the same principle, and I'm sure some editors would object. Your perspective, while always welcome, seems to be skewed negatively for reasons I won't try to deduce.
 * I'll also respond to some of your earlier comments: justifying sarcasm with the "they brought it on themselves" line is a weak argument at best. I could say you brought harassment onto yourself, but I'd be just as wrong. Secondly, stating that Castro is no longer a real soldier is quite an offense. The man is blind, and he's doing the best he can with what resources he has available to him. You might as well state that everyone not directly involved in combat arms isn't a real soldier. Third, having a biography about a spokesperson (which I'll call Castro just for the sake of argument) is certainly well within Wikipedia policy (for example, every single White House Press Secretary has an article). If the article was blatent advertising and hero worship, then I'd agree with you, but it's not. It's a simple military (and formerly, and athlete) biography.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   12:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I made an edit where it was blindingly obvious that I removed trivial information, and this edit was reversed. Naturally I wanted the reverter to explain himself. To erase people's contributions without explaining yourself is violating Wikipedia's policy.
 * Wikipedia is a dictionary,which means that certain subjects - such as history - have a justified place regardless of whether many people are interested in them or not. There is fashion in popular history and right now few people care about the Indo-Greek kingdom, but dictionaries should not swayed by questions of what is in or out at the moment.
 * You are formally right that anybody who is employed by an armed force could be called a soldier. In peacetime, many regular officers work as bureaucrats or educators. But such tasks differ little from civilian employments, and it is no more difficult for a disabled person to work in a non-combat capacity in the US army than for any civilian employer. To repeat myself: while Ivan Castro has made a remarkable personal achievement, his current employment - where he teaches Spanish and participates in events for disabled people - is not at all principally different from the thousands of blind people who have regular jobs.
 * While it is to the honour of the US army that it takes good care of its disabled veterans, this is not at all sensational. When it comes to his marathon running, this is also to Castro's credit, but his athletic skills are basically those of a decent middle-aged amateur and it is well-known that blind people, if provided with a guard, could run races.
 * What is falsely implied in several of the articles in the reference is that Castro still functions as some sort of "fighting soldier". When an officer is given weapons, this is usually a very serious matter - he is given the right to use force by the state. When Castro is seen holding a weapon on one of the photos, but everybody realises that unlike his colleague officers who are given this privilege, Castro is in practice not allowed to use it. If this does make him less of "real" officer than a colleague is just a matter of sophistry - he could hardly be compared to other officers allowed to carry weapons. I am quite certain that you are well aware of this difference, even if you hide behind accusations that I am offending him. Sponsianus (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, The marathon section has been decimated with the edits and we will not create an issue over that, the bio and decorations sections, however are within established military related Bios. Let's not create any more further issues. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the central issue here appears to be the commnet: The length of an article should be proportional to its importance. I have to say, that is not something that I am familiar as part of Wikipedia policy.  I accept some articles must be longer than others, but I think it is a grey scale.  Where someone was born, died, was buried, or how often they were married rarely has anything to do with their notability, but usually gets included as the norm in biographical articles.  So do weird hobbies and quirky facts about them. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Unindent

Listen Sponsianus, the article clearly states that he is in the "active Army" involved in "non-combat" managerial tasks and does not imply that he can be involved or will ever be involved in combat. Plus it is obvious that the image is one taken before he was "blind" as a combat soldier (1st Lt.) since it is in the "deployment section". Furthermore, he is a "real" and "actual" officer. even if he is not in the field leading a combat unit. I fail to see your continued agenda against this article and your accusations of false misrepresentation. I have asked you to kindly stop creating an issue over this already. Please let's give it a rest. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that notion full heartedly. Give it a rest Sponsianus. --David Igra (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tony the Marine here. You had valid concerns about the article, Sponsianus, and those concerns have been addressed. The rest of this discussion has been an airing of personal opinions which are not based in Wikipedia policy. As Legis mentions, "The length of an article should be proportional to its importance" is not a Wikipedia policy, precisely because importance is a subjective matter. There is a policy regarding the indiscriminate collection of information, but this article, as it stands, is by no means an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also a policy on discussing the biographies of living persons, which statements such as "it is very clear that Castro does currently not work as a real military," although not malicious, do tread a bit close to. Tens of thousands of people have viewed this article; a number of them were, doubtless, experienced Wikipedia editors who appear to have found no major fault with the article. I, for one, found it interesting, informative, and well-written. If anything, I would re-add some of the information regarding Castro's racing history, since most future viewings of this article will probably come as a result of people hearing about Castro during a televised race. So please, let's not pick apart a decent article (or its subject) just because it was unfortunate enough to be featured on the main page. --Fullobeans (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern has been that we should be careful lest Wikipedia should become a vehicle for propaganda for the US army, even for such a noble cause as the rehabilitation of disabled persons. It would pehaps have been relevant to add other perspectives to highlight under what circumstances Castro was wounded, such as that the insurgency in Yusufiyah where his unit was attacked had been partly fuelled by the gang-rape and murder of a young girl and her family in the same town by his fellow soldiers earlier that year.
 * Yes, I thought the article had something of a "appraisal of disabled war hero" style, but I would have preferred a discussion about that, rather than people accusing me of insults and like David Igra fuzz about the - not very extensive - edits I made of meaningless trivia.
 * But I digress, especially as the article has obviously drawn a lot of attention.Sponsianus (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I'd like to remind everyone about proper indentation. Some parts of this discussion are getting difficult to attribute words to thier author.
 * Second, I'll restrain myself some, but I have to rebutt your comments: "Wikipedia is a dictionary,which means that certain subjects - such as history - have a justified place regardless of whether many people are interested in them or not. There is fashion in popular history and right now few people care about the Indo-Greek kingdom, but dictionaries should not swayed by questions of what is in or out at the moment."
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that is the purpose of Wiktionary. I think, however, you may have meant to say "encyclopedia" instead. In any case, my remark was not meant to be interpreted to mean that Wikipedia should only include popular topics... quite the opposite. My point was to refute your earlier comments about Castro not being in the "public interest". It seems to me that you have flipped your perspective once I applied your logic to a topic which you care about. Either you do believe that articles should exist that aren't popular (thus allowing this article and the ones you fancy to create and edit) or that you don't believe that articles may exist that are unpopular (which would nix both this article and your favored history articles). Which is it?
 * Tony is also totally right about the propaganda; I'll also add that removing content about Castro's athletics really has nothing to do woth propaganda. If this bio was really US Army propaganda, it would focus more about his military career.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   22:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment with the hope of bringing this discussion to an end
 * This is a Biogarphy of a living person. You can write an article about the insurgency in Yusufiyah where his unit was attacked had been partly fuelled by the gang-rape and murder of a young girl and her family in the same town if you wish. We can not connect "A" to "B" since the unit involved was not Castro's. It was Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment (101st Airborne Division) and the event ocurred on the month of March. There is no proof nor is there any source which tells us that Castro had anything to do with or knowledge of the incident and that some members of his unit where involved as claimed. The article is focused on his life as Biographies of living people should be.
 * The article is not a vehicle for propaganda for the US Army. It is not to the Army's best interest to make public the wounds which Castro received and the death of two fellow soldiers since the horors of war presented would keep people from joiniing their ranks. The article is about a person who wants to proof to himself and everyone else, including the Army, that he is not worthless and that he can still be productive. The Army will most likely let him go. The fact that he is participating in marathons as a contestant (not in an excercise as you claimed) caught the attention of the media, yet there is doubt that the Army will keep him.
 * The Army does not take care of it's veterans as you assumed. Castro is not a "veteran" yet. He will become one after he is discharged. In the United States the Army does not take care of it's veterans as you claim, there is a government agency, the Veterans Association which does that. The marathon team which he belongs to is not affiliated with the Army in any way.
 * I just wanted to make these things clear and thank you for your participation. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be completely unaware of what propaganda is - or PR, if you prefer that word. One very important aspect of propaganda/PR is that you should concentrate on those areas where you can hope to make gains. The US military forces cannot possibly hope to make any gains by highlighting that their soldiers have died or been wounded in cities like Yusufiyah, given the war crimes that members of the US forces have been responsible for there. (It is highly unlikely that Castro was not informed that there was great resentment among the locals after the gang rape as you suggest - if he was not, his superiors should be most severely reprimanded for not warning their soldiers about the atmosphere in Yusufiyah.)
 * Wounded war heroes are however far more likely to sway the public opinion. Castro would not have been able to run these Marathons if the army had not supported him - his wife would hardly have been able to quit her job to support him unless the army had paid for that, and he has been given supervision paid by the army while he ran his races. Perhaps this was paid for by the Veterans association, but the Veterans association and the US army have the same funding - the American government - so this is but a technicality.
 * It is - once again - technically true that each member in a Marathon race is a "contestant", but those who do not belong to the elite are chiefly participating as exercise. Sponsianus (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Unindent

Wikipedia is based on reliable verifiable facts and not on rumors or assumptions. Everything that you have stated is based on your personal assumption and point of view. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * And so are your own assumptions on what serves the interest of the US army which I replied to (see above). But I have said that I digress. The unnecessary details are largely gone and meanwhile the article has attracted so much attention that it has 'earned' its length. Such is the logic of the internet. Sponsianus (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds as if you are saying that anything that doesn't mention negative aspects is American propaganda? Honestly, I don't really see where the politics factor into Castro's biography. Speculating on how various political atmospheres came to be at the place and time he was there isn't really encyclopedic, and barely related in a military sense.
 * In any case, most of what you mentioned in your 19:24 16 Dec remark was speculation, interpretation, and origional research: none of which is encyclopedic. You conclusions, whether they have merit or not, don't really define the article as propaganda in any sense. Now, if there were facts missing that are directly related to the life, injury, and recovery of Ivan Castro, you might have a case for that. But that is not the case here: the facts have been presented, and the reader is left to draw his or her own conclusion about the topic.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   02:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive
The archive seems a bit premature - and "new broom sweeps clean" -ish. So forgive me if I repeat points that have already been covered.

It's nice that he could run in a marathon. It shows he's still tough, keeping in shape. But he's not the only blind marathoner in the world, is he? I'm more interested in the fact that he was able to stay on active duty despite being blind.

Let's bring out the purposes for which the military has kept him on:
 * he has important, recent experience and valuable knowledge which he can pass on to other soldiers
 * he is an inspiring example to others - perhaps like the amputee who went around giving jitterbugging demonstrations during (after?) World War II.

Then we can mention some more biographical details for the curious: is he married? If so, how supportive has his wife been? How do the other guys in his unit feel about him?

Have detractors - other than us Wikipedians - suggested that he's been kept in his position just as a publicity stunt? If there are published reports, we should mention them, along with any published rebuttals. We should not violate WP:OR, though. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have - as I agree with Ed Poor - posted all the "archive" posts to the new page. In all my years as an editor I have not seen such a preposterous move - removing a few recent discussions to an archive! This is pure obstruction to smother the discussion.
 * I have also added my comments in their correct place. I am sorry if this makes your comment seem out of place, Ed Poor - it was most appropriate. Could anybody help me to remove the archive page? Sponsianus (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I truely believed that there was motive to archive the discussions since there was a lack of participation for over a week in the "DYK" related issues, however I will not oppose to the un-arhivement. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Other posts on this page were signed as late a 10th december, which is certainly less than a week from the 16th. I do however appreciate your constructive attitude. Sponsianus (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd thought the discussion had ended myself. I have gone through and cleaned up the indenting/bullets. Hopefully, it won't be so hard to follow now. If I've made an error, let me know.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the discussion has come to a halt and I believe that we can move on. Are there any further objections to archiving the discussion related to this article's "DYK"? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Castro Sets Record for All-Time DYK Page Views
For anyone who thinks there isn't an interest in guys like Ivan Castro, take note that the Ivan Castro hook drew more than 71,000 page views to the article. That's an all-time DYK record -- more than any of the thousands and thousands of DYK hooks that have been submitted over teh past year. Pretty impressive. If interested, the list of all-time top DYK hooks is found here: DYKBEST. Cbl62 (talk) 06:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely there must be an error - none of my DYKs are on there! It is an interesting list though - seeing what grabs people's attention (no shock over National Cleavage Day though...). --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)