Talk:Paul Yingling

Yingling's Political Position on the Iraq War
Paul Yingling is not a war protestor or anti-war activist. Please do your research on this matter, whoever keeps linking him to those who hold those positions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paganolive (talk • contribs) 02:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

LTC Paul Yingling is an active duty officer that critized the war in Iraq, that is a fact from his research. He critized highter rank officers of their duties, while he was on active duty. Just like active duty officer First Lieutenant Ehren Watada critized the war in Iraq, but 1LT Watada has stated that he would volunteer to goto Afganistan if sent and would volunteer if allowed to serve in Southwest Asia. Futhermore, Colonel Ann Wright while she was on a member of the Reserves just like LTC Paul Yingling used their position to critized the war in Iraq and she just like LTC Paul Yingling did it publicly in the media. Bnguyen 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your error lies in the difference between criticism of continued US military presense in Iraq or the invasion (your two links) and Yingling's articles, notice plural. Yingling does not criticise the presense of the US military in Iraq, only the strategies pursued by unnamed American generals. Yingling's advocacy of institutional change in the Army is made towards improving the American military's position in Iraq, and he offers no political opinion or moral judgement. Watada and Wright's criticism are not ones concerning the training of Army officers, but are political and moral, made outside of their duties as officers. Please become better informed on the kinds of "criticism" that exist. Yingling consistantly holds positions that are not those of Watada and Wright, who you note as against the Iraq War. Yingling is not against the Iraq War, and you should cease implying that is his political position. Research better, and read Yingling's articles, and look into his connections to both Nagl and Petraeus. Perhaps you will then understand this... finer point. Paganolive 05:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Lieutenant General William Eldridge Odom after his retirement from the United States Army he became a think tank policy expert and a university professor and has since became known for his outspoken criticism of the Iraq War. When you disagree with a policy you are against it, there is no in between. LTC Yingling by speaking out against his superior officers direction is against the Iraq War that is being fought right now. Just like any officer that critizes openly in public and does not use their chain of command if they have any suggestions that might assist their commanders in a successful mission.(Bnguyen 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Utter nonsense. You are trying to categorize people into "anti" and "pro" war in order to corral him into your camp, next to a deserter and others calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. His views are much more complex than simply "pro" and "anti" war. He does not disagree with the current policy, he in fact argues that we should have adopted Petreaus' strategy sooner, and chastizes the leadership for not recognizing earlier the nature of the insurgency we are in. Professional journals like AFN are regularly vehicles for lateral communication and debate about current issues. That does not make every dissenter "anti-war" for having different idea.s --Mmx1 12:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

LTC Yingling falls into the same category as Colonel Ann Wright, Lieutenant General William Eldridge Odom and First Lieutenant Ehren Watada
Colonel Ann Wright before retirement from the United States Army spoke out against the initial entrance of US forces into Iraq. She was well aware of the consequences and now LTC Yingling after the fact blames it on his current leadership. General Petreaus's stradegy is a book "technique" that LTC Yingling believes should had been used earlier? That is UTTER NONESENSE. LTC Yingling was in the position to be heard through his chain of command in Iraq. He was not behind a desk back in the United States or in a military base located in Europe or Asia. LTC Yingling served two tours in the Iraq War, first as executive officer of 2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery in OIF 1, and later as the effects coordinator for the 3rd ACR from March 2005 to March 2006, during OIF III. His idea is anti-war to the effort for not using his chain of command through the proper channels, which is a dishonor as a member of the military of the United States of America.

LTC Yingling falls into the same category as Colonel Ann Wright, Lieutenant General William Eldridge Odom and First Lieutenant Ehren Watada of using the public forum to make statements against their military chain of command which is anti-war.Bnguyen 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You
 * do not understand Petreaus's strategy
 * have some bizarre view of how the chain of command works and seeing "dishonor" in publishing professional critiques
 * do not comprehend that LTC Yingling is pushing for Military reforms based on failures in the early part of the war
 * Fail to see that Yingling does not call for US withdrawal from Iraq, not that we should not be in Iraq, nor that our presence in Iraq is illegal.

--Mmx1 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This might be put to rest if a quote can be found in which Yingling says he opposes the war, opposes the start of the war, opposes the continuation of the war or anything in between. I've read the article and all I saw was his complaints about the manner in which military leadership has pursued victory in Iraq. To claim that he is opposed to the war in general is a clear violation of policy. To put forth that theory because you seem to think that is his underlying message is original research. To advance a theory he's never out right said he holds by putting together a string of quotes that are not directly related to an anti-war position is a clear violation of WP:SYN. Maybe deep down he is anti-war but until he says that to assume so is original research. NeoFreak 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Refer to Mmx1
-The chain of command is not bizzare, it is an institution of the military by using your chain of command to seek redress. A person in the military to follow protocol by the laws of the military. It is called Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

-Your statement that LTC Yingling is trying to reform the military with his ideas is mis-informed he was on the planning with an U.S. unit during the war.

Yingling was a division planner with 2nd Infantry Division prior to his deployment to OIF I as a battalion executive officer. In OIF I, his unit was tasked with collecting enemy ammunition and training the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps. On his second deployment to Iraq, as the effects coordinator, he was responsible for information operations, public affairs, psychological operations, civil affairs, and Iraqi Security Forces development.

-All of a sudden a division planner as LTC Yingling is blaming now the Generals? He was in the position to use his chain of command.

-LTC Yingling falls into the same category as Colonel Ann Wright, Lieutenant General William Eldridge Odom and First Lieutenant Ehren Watada of using the public forum to make statements against their military chain of command and is accoutable for all his actions by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).Bnguyen 09:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible UCMJ violation by LTC Paul Yingling
933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court. Bnguyen 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of the folks here are very familiar with the UC MJ, afterall most of them live under its rules. I don't want to be rude but it doesn't really matter if you think that Yingling violated the UCMJ. At all. Unless you can reference a reliable source that claims or speculates that he has commited a violation or a reliable source that has classified him as anti-war then it is just your opinion. Yoe are of course you're entitled toyour opinion, you're just not entitled to put your opinion into an article per original research. Please stop beating this dead horse. NeoFreak 05:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does this BLP exist?
Honestly, while Yingling may have done some things while serving the country, how is this anything other than a bunch a blathering about the biography of someone who wrote a few articles equivalent to a college newspaper?

Is this bandwidth worthy?

$.02

-PY


 * I agree. This guy seems to be non-notable. Titanium Dragon 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We run into each other in the stangest places don't we? The article exists because he has been quoted quite alot in the news as an example of a senior officer that has challenged the current strategy in Iraq in an open and official context. I'm pretty sure the major American weekly magazines like Time, Newsweek, etc have all dropped his name and I'm 95% sure he made his way into both the NY Times and the Washington Post. The article should more accuratly reflect the amount of coverage the media has given him so that's something to fix but the article is sound. It fits the criteria of WP:N and WP:V. While he's not "famous" he is notable. NeoFreak 12:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree Neofreak. WP:N states, "Notability is not temporary


 * A short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.[10] Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest. Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future."


 * And while the sources of information obtained are in and of themselves accurate, the long term repercussions of his actions are already forgotten. IE - there has been no press on Yingling's position.


 * Therefore, in referring back to Notability - this BLP does not satisfy a long term impact of his actions on any social, political, economical or other larger realm. The article is a blip on the map.

To be honest, I'm frankly shocked that anyone would consider this entry non-notable. LTC Yingling made quite a bit of turbulence both in the military and in the political establishment with his writings. He's been featured numerous times not only in military publications, but also general circulation papers such as the New York Times (most recently on June 28). He is widely regarded in the US Army as the type of officer Gen. Petreaus has been trying to cultivate. I really can't see any justification for removing him for "non-notability." Severnjc (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, considering there has been no news since his original displeasure and published articles (which spanned a *very* short time, I would consider his influence a flash in the pan. That short termed, temporary 15 seconds of fame is directly addressed by Wiki WP:N as stated above as evidence of long term notability.


 * I still petition for the removal of this stub. -PY 15:02 9 Aug 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.54.142 (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Google hits ?!?
Your basing the decision not to delete this BLP on the number of Google hits? How absurd. My website has gotten 2000 hits this month alone and it's incredibly specialized to a small target audience!

Please look at the arguments for notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments and look at this without the rose colored glasses.

Put yourself in my shoes for a moment - I'm about to publish a book unrelated to this, but this is bad press. Should I have a BLP on wiki about me? NO! I've done as much as this fella, but am not conceited enough to think that it warrants attention. In the large scope of things this guys actions are only significant to a limited few and will be limited in duration of time.

Therefore, because of the short term interest in the information, it really would not have merit when compared to the guidelines of notability.

-PY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.104.219 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was using the number of Google hits as an explanation of one of my many reasons to end a prod deletion, if you really want to delete it try sending it to AfD for a full debate. I am aware that having hits on google is not reason enough to keep an article, but it is surely enough reason for me to remove a prod.  Aside from that Yingling is quite notable, has been discussed repeatedly in articles on the stategy of the war in Iraq, and  will certainly be a part of any historical analysis of what happened in this war both in US military and US political history.  As to my need for a reaon to remove a PROD, Wiki policy is pretty vague on how shallow my justification need be.   If you feel so strongly nominate for AfD.  Moheroy (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, i see. He was notable when Bnguyen tried to smear him as an anti-war officer, but now that it's been established that he's merely pushing similar arguments to Petraeus and Nagl he's nothing special and should be deleted. Makes complete sense. --Mmx1 (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this a a reasonable alternative, let's include Yingling's middle name in this BLP to eliminate ambiguity. Would that be fair?  -PY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.104.219 (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He's an Officer, He Cares, So he Speaks!
LTC Yingling, whom I know personally, is an intelligent, thoughtful man. His words count because he is who he is. A standout among his peers, who has taken setbacks due to his chosen path, LTC Yingling chose to do something which will probably not benefit himself. Though I may not completely agree with what LTC Yingling wrote, he posed his thoughts in a journal which would make the Army think about what it has done and where it is going. A father, a husband, a career officer, a volunteer coach, and everything else he is, he wrote what he thought, at his own risk. Not for grandeur, but just because he thought it. When a professional organization can't look upon what it is with a critical eye, it may no longer be able to make itself relevant. Is he guilty of actions unbecoming? IMO. absolutely not. He has staged a suggestion ready for comment for an organization that prides itself on its ability to learn and change. If an up-and-coming leader cannot do such things, then our taxpayers should be leary. Otherwise, read what he said, determine what it means, and make an informed, educated jab at what needs to happen next.

LTC Bill Allen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billallen65 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LTC Allen:

Thanks for continuing the conversation. One of the aspects I have been trying to resolve on this BLP is to further identify the BLP by including a middle name in the title. The reason for this is that there are others with the same name who are doing other things unrelated to the military. As you know publicity can make or break a cause, and my goal stems from this very fact.

Would you be so kind to modify the BLP to include Yingling's middle name or initial in order to accurately reflect the BLP and whom the information contained herein applies to?

The reason I also ask is because I am not very savvy with the modification of wiki information and wouldn't want to mess things up.

Thanks -

PY