Talk:Kevin P. Byrnes

Speculation on the web
Since when is "speculation on the web" appropriate for an encyclopedic article? --mtz206 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Over a year has passed and no one has addressed this. Why is "speculation on the web" appropriate? Is this an encyclopedia or a gossip page? If I start a blog and say Gen. Byrnes was relieved because he told Gen. Schoomaker that someone was stealing his precious bodily fluids, does that get to be added here? 207.38.168.98 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Months more have passed and even more ridiculous "speculation on the web" has been added. Unverified and unverifiable "speculation" by bloggers is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. This section merits removal.Airbornelawyer 18:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

serious vandalism
i don't know anything about this guy but i do know that there have been multiple nonuser edits to the point i can't tell what anything is. help. someone. anyone. Mikelj 04:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what command from Peter Schoomaker did K.P.Byrnes disobey?
The introduction states the General was relieved of command for insubordination: he did not follow a command from Peter Schoomaker.

Then at bottom it states he was relieved because "...involves an adult relationship with a woman who is not in the military, nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government" but I don't see a command from Schoomaker here... unless Schoomaker is granted the authority to command him not to f--- outside the military? Barack Obama is Commander in Chief of the Army, yet his wife "is not in the military, nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government"


 * The order Gen. Byrnes didn't obey was the one forbidding soldiers from having an extramarital affair. The necessity of such an order is obvious so I won't go into it here. The whole "...involves an adult relationship with a woman who is not..." is just whitewash by an attorney trying to defend his client. But it's just meaningless. And your "point" about Michelle Obama is, well, pointless. __209.179.0.121 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the employment category of the female involved should be clarified. The "...involves an adult relationship with a woman who is not..." is not clear for a number of reasons. It could have been a 37-year-old retiree's spouse (enlisted guys can join when they are 17), or a 37-year-old female retiree of any number of ranks, or (whatever). The "...nor is a civilian employee of the military or the federal government..." is also ambiguous because a DAC, for example (Department of the Army Civilian employee), could be both an employee of the military and the federal government (it means the same thing; a civilian employee who works for the Army might be a NAF, or AF/GS federal employee). It could have been a famous journalist, a local national employee, or a third national employee. We are aiming for accuracy on this page, I believe.


 * Was there any effort made to determine who the female was, and would it be pertinent here? Only reason I ask is because the female in the David Petraeus case (Paula Broadwell) was a major player, right? Who she was added important content to the Wikipedia page? Her photo is on Patraeus's Wikipedia page, e.g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snackattack68 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)