Talk:Thomas Anthony Dooley III

Merge needed
Please join the discussion I've started on the talk page of Tom Dooley (humanitarian). -- Kbh3rd 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Stuff
This source compares Dooley to Greg Mortenson: WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Greenway, H.D.S. "It may turn out to be three cups of bitter tea." The Boston Globe. April 26, 2011.

Puff piece
This is a bit of a puff piece. Specifically, Dooley's humanitarian credentials are over-emphasized as opposed to his prominence as an anti-communist -- which is what really made him famous and important. Dooley's books citing the atrocities by the North Vietnamese communists he claimed to have witnessed have been called the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" influencing American policy toward Vietnam and the subsequent Vietnam War. Secondly, Dooley's legacy doesn't amount to much. Despite his fame in the 1950s and early 1960s he was rather quickly forgotten after his death and he often doesn't get favorable treatment from the few scholars who have written about him. Dooley is important because of the influence he had on U.S. anti-communist policy in Vietnam.

I may take on the task of putting some balance into this article.Smallchief (talk 13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Dooley and Foreign Office
u|DanielALord, you seem deeply confused. The citation was there looking you in the face:

Seth Jacobs, The Universe Unraveling: American Foreign Policy in Cold War Laos ( Cornell University Press, 2012), p. 188-190

I summarized Dooley's defense of the Foreign Office and hardline stance on neutrality in a perfectly appropriate way. There is no legitimate reason to suppress this.

u|Smallchief and others have criticized this article as a "puff piece" in its earlier version. We should not let it fall into that state again.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The citation in question refers to "considerable support." I cannot speak for u|Smallchief, but clearly this piece has evolved greatly since that comment was made. There are people who want to sanctify Dooley; to do so would be ignorant. There are others who wish to vilify; this would be equally ignorant. Of course I fully endorse carrying out the discussions here, and trying to achieve a consensus.DanielALord (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dueling interpretations of Dooley
The ongoing debate about the essential qualities of Dooley is interesting. I'm not fond of the man but at the same time to deny that he was inspirational to a large number of Americans is teleological, e.g. we don't like the Vietnam War so we don't like those people who contributed to U.S. involvement there -- but had we been living in the 1950s we might very well have been impressed and inspired by Dooley, as John F. Kennedy probably was and much of the Catholic hierarchy were. I likewise don't think he was a "propagandist" in that I think he was a true believer in his anti-communism and beliefs that the communists were evil beyond belief. He was "showbiz" in that he played to what his audience wanted to hear -- and Catholics, in particular, wanted to believe that the Catholic leader of Ngo Diem Dinh in South Vietnam was a great leader and the communists were awful. (The truth is somewhere in between.) So, have at it.... Smallchief (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So User:Smallchief, if a Stalinist Cominform operative sincerely believed in workers' democracy, you would not consider him a propagandist, even if he fabricated facts and behaved as if he knew better than the masses what was good for them? -GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you have to look at the times. I was alive in the 1950s.  I read Dooley's books -- and like the great majority of Americans in that era I thought he was an inspiring person.  The knee-jerk anti-communism of that era readily believed the worst about communists...and a lot of the bad we believed was in fact true.  In retrospect, Dooley as well as politicians like John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, etc. sold us a bill of goods on Vietnam.  Were they all just spreading propaganda?  I think they believed what they said, in the same way as medieval priests believed they were right when they burned people at the stake for heresy.  Dooley was influential and inspiring in his day -- and it would be misleading to ignore that fact.Smallchief  (talk)


 * No one's ignoring it. That's why I haven't challenged the statement about inspiration at the end of the lead. But I don't see what that has to do with propaganda. I noticed you haven't answered my question about sincere Stalinists either. There were a lot of those around in the 50's too.


 * Also WP:LEAD says that


 * "The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."


 * Virtually all of Dooley's modern coverage mentions his CIA relationship prominently. Probably the most high-profile mention of Dooley in recent years is in Steven Kinzer's Brothers, and that's where the "disinformation agent" quote comes from. Fabrication and war propaganda are also the themes in the recent Boston Globe article that u|WhisperToMe linked to above.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * In fact, you did delete the initial formulation which said he was inspiring and a model humanitarian with a comment that in your opinion (a reliable source?) he wasn't that.


 * You've proposed that Dooley be called a "propagandist" in the initial sentence of his summary paragraph. I'm not aware of any other prominent American anti-communist of the 1950s who is called a "propagandist". Not Joe McCarthy, not Roy Cohn, not William Buckley, Jr., not the Dulles Brothers, not any of the prominent members of the American Friends of Vietnam. Not even Edward Lansdale is called a propagandist. Matt Cvetic who wrote the story "I was a communist for the FBI" is not called a propagandist nor is Dana Andrews who starred in the television series of the same name. If Dooley was a "propagandist" then dozens or hundreds of his fellow anti-communists in the 1950s should also be identified as "propagandists."


 * The much respected International Rescue Committee was instrumental in setting up anti-communist, pro-South Vietnam "propaganda" organizations in the 1950s, The Wikipedia article for the IRC mentions but it doesn't doesn't highlight the IRC's role.


 * You are trying to put Dooley in a uniquely unsavory category by calling him a propagandist -- and he wasn't unique for his time. Typical actually of many respected, admired, Americans.  We shouldn't make Dooley an ex post facto monster if we're not going to do the same to many other anti-communist Americans of the time. Smallchief  (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"Despite his flaws, he inspired many others to become involved in philanthropic work." That line is in the second paragraph right now and I'm not challenging it.

And I think the reason that "propagandist" isn't in those other articles is that most people consider politicians and CIA agents propagandists by definition. It isn't expected of a physician. Dooley had no medical career that wasn't linked to propaganda. His med school professors said he wasn't ready to leave internship, and then he pops up in Operation Passage to Freedom, which was largely run by Lansdale.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Also I've found a precedent for calling a fifties Cold Warrior a propagandist. It isn't just in a capsule description, it's in the title of a full book:


 * C.D. JACKSON: COLD WAR PROPAGANDIST FOR DEMOCRACY AND GLOBALISM, John Allen Stern Landham, University Press of America Inc., 2012 xvii+126 pages, paper, $28.99


 * "An overlooked and concise book, C.D. Jackson: Cold War Propagandist for Democracy and Globalism focuses on a unique player during the Cold War, C.D. (Charles Douglas) Jackson...this is the first book from historian John Allen Stern, who is now Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Neither a biography nor a portrait, C.D. Jackson aims to explain through one key character the background and the official policies (or strategies) that promoted a positive image of the USA and the tacit strategy of a 'good propaganda' (what an oxymoron!), officially a 'democratic propaganda' for promoting American values and worldview, domestically and abroad, especially in Communist countries..."

I believe it fair to say that Dooley's serious biographers have seen him and his role to be extremely complex. For the most part, the Catholic, apologetic view has been omitted. Careful editors try to avoid giving too much weight to ideologues. This should hold true for Catholicism, and it should hold true for those who try to place excessive blame on Dooley, for the US's failings in Vietnam and Laos. Indeed, over time it has become clear that the Catholics are not comfortable with what has been revealed about him in intervening years. From that quarter, there seems to be mostly silence. Recent discussions of him says much about his involvement with the US government, but that was an extremely complex relationship. There is much to say here, but it should be born in mind that William Lederer played an important role in this regard, and he was a co-author of The Ugly American.DanielALord (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

One more thing on William Lederer, lest I be misunderstood: Lederer's co-authored book, as well as his evolving views of the US role the region (see, "A Nation of Sheep") testify to the complexity of the times and the personalities involved. Static, uni-dimensional portrayals of Dooley are simplifications, as would similar portrayals of Lederer's work for the US government be simplifications. It is not uncommon among people of anytime and in any place to be both opportunistic and idealistic; it is also not uncommon among people to begin with monolithic views of, say, communism, and evolve views that are far more nuanced. My assessment of the Dooley-Lederer relationship is that Lederer respected Dooley's linguistic abilities as well as his compassion for the people he treated in his clinics. He probably disliked other aspects of Dooley's behavior and personality. But, let us say, the positive aspect of Dooley that seems to have influenced Lederer's writing, is that aspect that is consistent with the ideals of the Peace Corps.DanielALord (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I had not intended to linger here, but in the spirit of further rounding out the picture: The 'show biz' aspect of his life may well have fed his ego. To say that it fed his ego is not to say that it was inessential to drawing attention to and accumulating resources for the benefit of others. Please look at Fisher, p. 263, where he discusses a Canadian journalist who regarded Dooley as a fanatic and an egotist. That same journalist wrote of Dooley: "His 'miracle', and it was virtually that, was not that he became obsessed with, or committed to, helping the people in a remote corner of the world, but that by dint of personality and his relentless, single-minded drive, energy, and force of will, he made his cause a worldwide issue and inspired North America to help the sick and deprived of Northern Laos. If not a saint, he was certainly an exceptional human being who worked courageously and tirelessly and deserved some form of immortality." Dooley wasn't a saint, and I'm not convinced that anyone deserves any form of immortality, but that he was dedicated and that he inspired many--Catholics and non-Catholics--is not disputed by any serious historian of the period, nor by anyone who knew him. His involvement with the US government does deserve serious attention, along with other controversial aspects of his life. No one wants hagiography, but a balanced view of Dooley does seem to support the description of him as "an exceptional human being who worked courageously and tirelessly."DanielALord (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm still not satisfied that the opening paragraphs capture the essence of Dooley's reputation in the 1950s and his subsequent fall from grace. I'd like to replace paragraph two of the opening paras with the following text


 * In presenting Dooley posthumously with the Congressional Gold Medal, President John F. Kennedy said that Dooley had "a reputation for humanitarianism and selfless dedicated medical service that ranks with the heroic figures of all time.


 * However, Dooley's reputation has suffered over the years due to the disenchantment of the American public with the Vietnam War and the revelations that Dooley was an informant of the Central Intelligence Agency and that he had fabricated or exaggerated the communist atrocities he described in his books. Dooley has been called the "key agent in the first disinformation campaign of the Vietnam War," garnering support for the US government's growing involvement there.  Dooley, one critic said, is an example of "celebrity sainthood" and the "intersection of show business and mysticism occupied the space where Tom Dooley was perhaps most at home".


 * Objections or comments? Smallchief (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Smallchief, I'll leave it for you to decide. Here are my thoughts:  1. Opening with the JFK quote does capture some of the ethos of the time, including the contribution that Lederer and Dooley made to Kennedy's thinking about the Peace Corps.  2.  For what it's worth, I think the "key agent" remark, is over-the-top.  He was playing a role, but this strikes me as a "gang of four" type of remark: what I mean is that to call him the "key agent" is to treat him as a scapegoat.  He was one of many, and he was often critical of the US, in a way that distinguishes him from others in the "disinformation campaign."   3.  I'd also recommend, "he had fabricated or exaggerated some of the communist atrocities described in his book, 'Deliver Us From Evil'." I don't think anyone denies that some of what he described was accurate, and I think the main criticisms target the first book.  4.  I also think the "intersection of show business and mysticism occupied the space where Tom Dooley was perhaps most at home" quote captures one aspect of him.  But I think it unfairly skewers the tone toward the negative or the shallow. Let me say it this way; I think you would not agree to put the following quote in this paragraph: "His 'miracle', and it was virtually that, was not that he became obsessed with, or committed to, helping the people in a remote corner of the world, but that by dint of personality and his relentless, single-minded drive, energy, and force of will, he made his cause a worldwide issue and inspired North America to help the sick and deprived of Northern Laos. If not a saint, he was certainly an exceptional human being who worked courageously and tirelessly and deserved some form of immortality." My chosen quote skewers things in a different direction, but I think it also captures an important aspect of who he was and what he did. In sum, you seem to want this paragraph to say that, yes, JFK reflected how many people thought at the time, in that context, but everything they thought has subsequently been shown to be untrue.  The historical record is spotty, but I think a merger of these two quotes gets closer to the truth. As I say though, I'll respect your judgment, and refrain from any further amendments. Kind regardsDanielALord (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, wrote "skewer", meant "skew".DanielALord (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Smallchief, I should have organized this more systematically, but a few more thoughts that you may or may not find helpful. 1. Personally, what I find interesting about Dooley, and similar people, is that they managed to accomplish some good things (I realize not everyone will agree that Dooley accomplished some good things), even though he was a deeply flawed human being.  Being deeply flawed and accomplishing good things seem almost to go hand in hand.  2.  There is a manner of talking about Dooley and similar people, e.g. "key agent", that sounds too much like conspiracy theory.  I think what more often happens in life is that people sense mutual self-interest and coordinate their activities in ways that appear to be more clearly planned than is actually the case.  Dooley probably believed some of the anti-Communism rhetoric--like all of us, he was a child of his time.  But he also had other mixed motivations for his words and deeds--he doubtless wanted to keep his private life private, but he also believed he could really help people in need if he went along, for by so doing he could acquire the supplies and the freedom to aid the people of Vietnam and Laos.  3.  I sometimes wonder what the word "courage" means, but my sense is that it applies to Dooley.  His work was not easy and his televised cancer surgery revealed a man who faced life's challenges calmly.  I am sometimes troubled by people who are so anxious to use words like "propagandist," to stigmatize another human being, and wonder how much of life these people have lived.  Actually accomplishing something in life, as opposed to talking about what others have done, is not easy.  All of us who try to do things make compromises along the way.  No one gets through life without having to deal with a lot of shit.  Whether Dooley went too far in that direction is, I think, a fair issue for discussion.  For my money, given the spottiness of the historical record, I think we should be careful in rendering judgment.  4.  I am always more impressed by the views of people who knew the man or the woman than by the views of people who did not.  In Dooley's case, most people who knew him, while recognizing his flaws, seemed to like him and appreciate that he was doing good work, in complex circumstances.  5.  I'm uncertain what to say about the Vietnam War, at least up to the time of Dooley's death.  Most people tend to think of the Johnson years and Nixon's first term.  Sometimes January 17, 1961 is taken to mark the start of the War.  By that time Dooley was dead. It was nearly half a year later before Kennedy sent in a few hundred special forces and, three years later, when Kennedy died, the total number of US troops in Vietnam was about 16,000.  People evolve and situations are dynamic.  There was plenty of time for people to rethink.  I'll stop here lest we drift into a discussion of what would have happened in Vietnam had Kennedy lived.  Kind regards.DanielALord (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Those are very thoughtful comments. I'm looking at the material about Dooley again to see if we can come up with a more nuanced presentation of the man.  Nor do I think the present summary paragraphs quite capture the importance of Dooley in his time. Smallchief  (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the level of nuance that's being proposed isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article about a relatively minor historical figure. Dooley's private life and personality aren't of great historical importance, his public pronouncements and strategic activities are. Secondly, it's disingenuous for u|DanielALord to criticize sanctifying Dooley when that has been his pattern of behavior on the page.


 * Those who wished to celebrate the great humanitarian created the prototype of this page, which tilts it far enough towards hagiography. I deleted almost nothing which they contributed. But I did correct distortions of the historical record. If that appears unfair that's very unfortunate. I am not a believer in "alternative facts" and I think they do grave damage to Wikipedia and public discourse generally, regardless of their intentions.


 * If you're going to go into the long-term humanitarian impacts of Dooley, then you'll have to go into the humanitarian effects of Cold War propaganda. His opposition to reform and neutrality helped polarize the countries that he worked in, as well as Americans' very unnuanced views of foreign policy. (I notice that this is the part of his legacy which DALord is most persistent in deleting.) The American escalation of the Vietnam War killed over a million people in spectacularly horrible ways, and left a legacy of mutilation on the environment and the people. It's extended over multiple generations through the birth defects from toxics and the unexploded cluster bombs that still kill people in Laos. I don't think that can be ignored.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Smallchief, thank you, I look forward to reading your thoughts.DanielALord (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * GPRamirez5, in order:

1. About his private life, it seems to be a sign of the times that some have wanted to emphasize his sexual orientation; if it is relevant, I suppose it is because this relates to his abrupt departure from the military.

2. About his personality, for those who wish to understand him, it might be relevant that he faced death with grace and aplomb, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXXfTTg1jZk. One aspect of his personality, perhaps worthy of reflection. Might also be noteworthy that his was the first cancer surgery to be televised and discussed, publicly, in detail. Worth mentioning? You think not. I get it.

3. I think fault can be found with some of my edits. People who care about the truth and who care about intellectual integrity, modify their beliefs or seek better support for those beliefs, when they are challenged.

4. I do not know who created the prototype of this page. I do know that some have tried to sanctify Dooley, where others have tried to vilify. Please remind me of in what respects you "corrected the historical record." What facts did you cite? And, what "alternative facts" about Dooley were presented on this page?

5. On the Vietnam War and his role: It is fair to say of Dooley that he used or, if you prefer, exploited, Catholic symbolism, as did many other people, after Ngo Dinh Diem seized power. He did contribute to misrepresentations of the nature of the conflict in Vietnam as well. Fair enough. But you put too much at his doorstep. His work was cited when the Peace Corps was established, not by Kennedy, Goldwater, Johnson, or first-term Nixon when they escalated American presence in Vietnam. And, very much unlike hawks on Vietnam, Dooley repeatedly criticized US activity in Vietnam and Laos. Moreover, you cannot have it both ways: you say he is a minor historical figure but you also want him to take responsibility for "The American escalation of the Vietnam War killed over a million people in spectacularly horrible ways, and left a legacy of mutilation on the environment and the people. It's extended over multiple generations through the birth defects from toxics..."

6. On nuanced views, in 1961, when Dooley died, there were few nuanced views held by Americans toward events in Southeast Asia. Arguably, Dooley and Ledderer held views more nuanced than most.

7. On the Vietnam War, this is not the right place to get into that, but it seems that is what drives most of your thoughts as regards Dooley. Those of us who fought there and who have since visited many times, without denying any of the evils that were wrought, might see the events of that war and in the decades since rather differently than do you.DanielALord (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually I was critiquing you for trying to have it both ways, DanielALord, since your effort to treat every personality trait as significant would only be appropriate here if Dooley were world-historic. My emphasis on later events of the war was conditional on your inflation of his legacy: "If you're going to go into the long-term humanitarian impacts of Dooley, then you'll have to go into the humanitarian effects of Cold War propaganda."


 * I confess that I can't go back in time and fight in Vietnam, but I've read Tim O'Brien, I've read Ron Kovics, I've read Daniel Ellsberg. My view of the war is more informed and nuanced than most.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But you put too much at his doorstep. His work was cited when the Peace Corps was established, not by Kennedy...when they escalated presence in Vietnam.


 * His work was cited by Kennedy when founding the Peace Corp...which was shortly before he escalated in Vietnam and started spraying herbicides. This is what I mean about facts, DanielALord.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

So, again, point-by-point: 1. On personality traits, I only mentioned that in the Talk section. But, to take the matter a step further, although I do not know what counts as "world-historic", it is a fact that this was, historically, the first televised cancer surgery. Still, I've not played this up in the article. 2. In what respect did I inflate his legacy? 3. It is one thing to trace Dooley's relationship to the people who carried on humanitarian work, explicitly, in his name; it is an entirely different matter to interpret his portion of the Cold War propaganda as directly leading to the Vietnam War. There were simply too many contributing factors that led to the Vietnam War. It distorts the record to lay the blame on one of the few people to be openly critical of the US government's activities in Vietnam and Laos. You repeatedly neglect the fact that Dooley was critical of US policy. 4. Two events occur:  A first, then B (Peace Corps, then escalation). To claim thereby that A and B are causally related is not only not a fact, it is a fallacy.Best regardsDanielALord (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

In-text citation
GPRamirez5, you chose not to respond to anything I wrote before, so likely this is futile. But the LA Times article is a hatchet job, what you'd see in a blog today. If you want to remove the author's name, then be consistent--remove everyone's name, and include much more of what Dooley himself said about what he was up to. At least Dooley's friend made the effort to determine whether Dooley was worthy of canonization, and he found things not so savory. In that People article, he was open about said. Still, here, his friendship and motivations are described in the wiki article. Fair enough. One final point: absence evidence that Shepherd denied these assertions is not evidence of absence. What we do know is that he toasted Dooley when he was working with him, he helped establish a clinic, and his obituary describes his relationship with Dooley positively. Had he truly been bitter about his relationship with Dooley, we can infer that his heirs might have chosen to omit the implied praise of Dooley.DanielALord (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The conversation died out, DanielALord, 1) because you didn't have the courtesy to ping me and 2) I optimistically assumed you had come to your senses about the feebleness of your rationalizations. Unfortunately, you fallacious frothing seems to have degenerated further with claims that something which is clearly not a blog—but which has been repeatedly cited in academic literature—is a blog. And then you top it with an accidental quote of Donald Rumsfeld when he lied about the WMDs (The absence of evidence...). At least I hope it was accidental. Please have some respect for this website and end the canonization and the soapboxing before it's too late.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5: As regards "pinging", I apologize for the oversight. But still you fail to reply to any of the points made. I would be happy to call in a neutral arbitrator, and abide by their decision on all of these matters. But you pile insult on top of insult, and respond to none of the points that are made. Bluster is not a proper substitute for citation or argumentation. As for the LA Times article, it is completely lacking any sources or any information as regards the origin of the information--e.g. did the author interview these people? What I did was leave the assertions and attribute them to an author who does not disclose the source of her information. Were we to eliminate the name of the author who sought canonization for Dooley, you would object. Correct? So I have not tried to pass those claims off as mere matters of fact. By analogy, this author's name and background (or what little the LA Times reveals) should be included in the text of the article.DanielALord (talk) 03:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5: Two more things--You seem to have mistaken me, and to be intent on characterizing me, as someone who willingly misleads or distorts, often for hawkish purposes. I'll interpret this charitably, and allow that you have misunderstood some things. In this instance, the reference to Rumsfield. For the sake of clarity, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is an old aphorism. My point here is that if you attribute a comment to a person, without any explanation of how that comment was obtained, and then add that the person never refuted it, hence, it is probably true--that is not a cogent argument. Second, you write "Please have some respect for this website and end the canonization and the soapboxing before it's too late." Let's look at this--You claim that I do not respect the website, but at each step along the way I have tried to explain my rationale; you have not done likewise. You claim I am interested in canonization; there is nothing in what I have edited that suggests such. You say that I am treating this website as a soapbox; previously you've made similar comments, and I've asked you to provide examples. You have not done so. Finally, you add "before it's too late." Is that some kind of threat? It certainly has no place in civilized discourse.DanielALord (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's getting too personal for you DanielALord? Fine, let's stick to policy then. You are in direct violation of the citation guide. It states: It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out [sourcing details]...normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution. You, however, have created a syntactical nightmare where nearly half the paragraph is a tangent about D. Shaw. That is not improving Wikipedia.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez5: You repeatedly miss the point. Indeed, you never respond to any points. As to the policy, apply it consistently, and there is no problem. But, I assume, you have no intention of applying the policy consistently. As for the rest, I will not respond in kind; cowards behind keyboards are too numerous to count. I was lucky in life, when I needed it most, not to have been surrounded by people of your ilk. If wikipedia tolerates your unwillingness or inability to engage in civilized discussion and your lack of etiquette, there is nothing more to say. End of discussion.DanielALord (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

World War II service
Although Dooley served in the Navy during the World War II era, there are no reliable sources found as of yet state that he was in a war zone during the war. More specifically, the sources do not establish defining role in World War II. Accordingly, "Category:United States Navy personnel of World War II" was removed until a defining role is established. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)