User talk:Interest09

Interest09, Welcome to Wikipedia! May I ask what your reference is for saying Kiley didn't retire until 2008? --ScreaminEagle (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Screaming Eagle
I am a very new user and I'm not sure if I have properly replied to your question - if I have please let me know and I'll answer the question!

Interest09 (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)interest09
 * You can reply here or on my talk page. Some editors have a preference for which user's page you use to reply (some prefer keeping the conversation all in one location for example), but I don't, so this is just fine.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well - I'm not sure I know what I'm doing because this looks different again - anyway - Kiley submitted his retirement papers on March 12. He was not actually retired until this year - that was in media - and anyone who knows the army knows that you don't move from the active to retired list the same day you submit your papers. Right?

Who would I talk to about the fact that I think this is a heavily biased page? Actually, just the recounting of the WRMAC "scandal" is biased. There were also articles supporting Kiley and the IG report made clear that this was not about 3 rooms with mold.

I am not talking about your contribution - because I thought your contribution was fair and balanced - but let's face it - an entire barracks at Bragg was in much worse shape - and no one lost their jobs over that (yet..).

Your thoughts? Interest09 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)interest09


 * The window looks different depending on what you're editing. If you're starting a brand new section (by clicking the plus sign tab at the top of the window), the editing window will be blank.  If you're adding to an existing conversation (by clicking the "edit this page" or the "edit" link for individual sections), the preceeding comments will show up first.  To indent, use colons (one set indents once, two sets indent further, etc.)


 * I didn't realize it would take 14 months to retire after submitting the paperwork, but all right. My question though is how do you know what his official retirement date is?  Is there a press release or any official documents stating that?  If you just know it because you heard it or you know him, that isn't enough for Wikipedia's requirements.  If you're Kevin Kiley himself, we'll just take your word for it.  Otherwise, without the sources, it's considered original research, one of the three cardinal sins of Wikipediaism.


 * Also, we should probably get our verbs right. Did he submit his retirement papers last year or did he submit his resignation?  Kiley himself said the former, never admitting the latter; we should probably shy away from saying he resigned/was fired without an official release saying that.  So that part in the opening summary should be changed to say March 11th was when he submitted his retirement papers.  I'll let you change that if you like.


 * Keep in mind that not everyone who reads a US Army article actually knows anything about the Army or is even from the US. So you always explain things as if no one has ever even heard of this person/place/thing/idea.


 * If you honestly believe that section is heavily biased, I would first bring the issue up on the article's talk page and ask for a discussion. Something tells me you're not going to get a whole lot of responses since it's not a huge article and not many people have it on their watch lists.  I'll participate of course, so at the very least it will be you and me talking it out.  If it becomes a bigger problem that doesn't seem to want to be resolved easily and pleasantly, you can add a NPOV tag to the offending section.  This alerts admins to the issue as well.  But you'll get further by discussing the issue with those editors who have already actively taken part in the article's creation.


 * Or we can talk about it here, but I think it would be in the article's best interest if we discussed it where the discussion can be permanently archived with the article it's referencing.


 * And thanks, but I didn't add much to the article other than adding facts about his name, service, predecessors, etc. That would be the other editors who did the good writing on that one.


 * If you have anymore questions feel free to ask. I'll try to help when and where I can.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me. I changed the word to retirement - not resignation.   Good catch!


 * Now I have a question or two about "source" material. For example, when you recommended that we be careful with the verbs resignation and retirement, you said "Kiley himself said the former, never admitting the latter" - and I'm not trying to be smart - but did you "hear" him say that - or was that what you read in his statement following his retirement?  I know you didn't put that on the page - and I am honestly not trying to split hairs.


 * Another question. Do we take as gospel something that was printed in the media?  Or, if, for example, I observed him in his uniform acting in an official capacity can't I assume he is active - in other words if there was NO press release stating that he was retired, can't I assume he has not retired?  Don't I apply the same standard to the editor claiming that he is retired?  Was there a press release stating that he was retired or did it state that he had submitted his request for retirement?


 * I agree with you when you say "we should probably shy away from saying he resigned/was fired without an official release saying that" - and yet, that's exactly what this page says - and uses as its reference a media source who is quoting a "source" in the Pentagon.


 * Also, not splitting hairs again, but I did not claim to know his retirement date, only that he was active in the year 2008. That was in the media and I can find a link to reference - although I notice that there is not a reference for every piece of data on this page.


 * I am honestly trying to learn about how this works - and while I still think the original editors took a very biased approach to Kiley and the WRMAC story, I don't really feel the need to escalate it past this page.


 * The Army generally releases a press release regarding general officers and their retirement dates and next assignments. They usually publish a batch at a time.  If it would make you more comfortable to wait for that release I will be happy to change years of service back to 2007 - but then I might ask you for your source :)


 * Thank you Mr. Eagle! You obviously care a great deal about this content and I admire your dedication - I have used wikipedia on a regular basis and if it weren't for contributors like you, it would not be so valuable.


 * I forgot to sign thisInterest09 (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)interest09


 * Ms. Eagle. Hope I didn't disappoint. :-)


 * I'm always happy to help; I got a lot of patient help when I started (and some not so patient, but I still learned from it). Considering your interest and attention to detail, I think you'll make a fantastic addition to Wikipedia.  Glad to have you here.


 * You've raised a lot of excellent points with regard to our sources on this and in many cases you are absolutely right and we should change a couple of things to make sure we're complying with the rules. Unfortunately I don't have the time to address every single issue you raised--I'll have to finish my response after the weekend.


 * With regard to his retirement date, we'll have to wait until we have an official source on that. You observing him in uniform and using that as your source is the original research I was talking about.  Basically, everything we write has to be verifiable by other editors, whether it's expressly cited in the article or not.  Since no one but you can prove if you actually saw him in uniform or not, it's not verifiable and therefore can't be used.  Until the general officer retirement list comes out and we have something concrete to point to should the issue ever arise, we can probably get away with keeping it at 2008, although if we've never found a source saying the date, it should technically be blank.  Personally, I'm not losing sleep over it, but I will be on the lookout for that announcement to add to the bottom of the article.


 * And I gotta go. I'll get to the rest on Monday or Tuesday. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So I went ahead and read the link you kindly provided regarding original research. Now I get it!  You are right - if we are to follow the letter of the law, we would remove 2008 from years of service.  Neither can provide an acceptable source for his year of retirement so it should not be included until we can - that makes perfect sense to me - but I won't remove it until I hear from you.


 * For the record, I am not Kiley - as you correctly guessed, I am female :) and I really was using the "seeing him in his uniform" as an example - I have not seen him in his uniform in an official capacity - I was just trying to get a sense of what kind of source was acceptable - of course if I had read the link when you sent it, I probably could have saved us both some time - so sorry.


 * I also read the link on Bias - and I do believe that this page is biased by omission - not that everything that was written was not documented - and I won't go into the fact that the "senior Pentagon official" may or may not have known what he was talking about - but by excluding the Washington Post article which included comments from folks who thought he was the bees knees - it ends up being a little one-sided. It would also be nice to include his perspective on his retirement by quoting his words from his statement at that time - he said something about it not being about one doctor and how it was in the best interest of the Army to move forward bla bla bla - it would make the page more balanced. So my question is this - do you have to ask permission to add to a page (with documented sources) if you think it will better balance the content?  I would certainly understand that someone would want to discuss it if I removed something they had added, but what about adding to balance?


 * Again, your help is very much appreciated! Interest09 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)interest09


 * My pleasure Ms. Interest. :) And as a warning, an emergency arose in our family over the weekend and that make take precidence throughout this coming week.  However, I never forget a conversation in the works and I'll come back to this when I find I have some free time between racing around.  Hope you'll forgive.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh no! Well I'll keep your family in my prayers - there is no hurry here.  I'll check back and keep my fingers crossed! I am hoping that it all works out well! Interest09 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)interest09

Many thanks for the prayers; they are fully appreciated. Our lives have calmed down a little bit since the incident, but my editing will have to be curtailed a little as a result. C'est la vie. Hope you're still interested in this article after that long wait.

You asked if one needs permission to edit an article. Heck, no! That's the whole point/beauty (some would say problem) with Wikipedia: anyone can edit it. Hopefully we have dedicted and intelligent people doing so. Sometimes we don't. Either way, anyone can do it without asking permission, especially if it will improve the article AND there are verifiable sources backing it up. If you were to change the name of the article or its entire focus or something like that, yeah, a little discussion first would probably do the community good, but otherwise be bold, as Wikipedia often tells its new editors.

I don't know if your reading has already answered this, but you seemed to be asking at one point how the article can be neutral when it quoted that article from the Washington Post (or did you mean the CNN Wire quote?). We can use quotes from reliable second-hand sources as long as they pertain directly to the article, even if the quotes themselves are biased in nature, regardless of whether they're for or against the subject of the WP article. It's the wording and tone of the actual WP article itself, written by editors, that cannot be biased. So including that quote about Kiley is perfectly acceptable because it pertains directly to the scandal and what others in the source thought about it. On the other hand, I would say that the sentence "Kiley blamed junior officers for the conditions at Walter Reed" carries some bias with it. It states the facts of the Senate hearings (which I watched), but also seems to assume Kiley is at fault, which was never proven conclusively other than, well, everyone saying he was (which isn't proof, just a majority opinion). I would say that Kiley defended his command of Walter Reed by stating that junior officers who he had assigned to care of the situation had not fulfilled their assignments. Something like that. But we always have to say that "he said this" or "this article said that" or whatnot. We can never say something like, "Kiley was not to blame for the incident because his staff failed to complete their assigned tasks of fixing the problem." There, the editors are making commentary on the issue, which they/we have no right to do on WP. We can only state facts, and one of the facts of the case is that Kiley defended his actions as commander and instead said that his underlings and/or superiors failed to do their assignments to take care of the problem. Is it true? We can't know that. All we can know is that's what he said, so we include it.

I think the problem with the article is it is short and thus not all-inclusive. Those who wrote the section on the scandal picked and chose bits and pieces from both sides of the issue for inclusion. They took quotes from articles and sources saying Kiley knew about the problem and did nothing. And they also included quotes from Kiley saying it isn't true. The problem is likely not including enough information, but you'll find that problem throughout Wikipedia, hence why all of the articles are constantly being added to and revised. So I don't think it's a problem of bias (except instances like what I pointed out, which can also be argued I suppose) so much as being incomplete. By all means, add away! Just be careful not to turn Kiley's article into a pro-Kiley rant. Yes, he's still alive and as such we have to be supremely careful about what we say about him and make certain that everything we say that could be negative has a very reliable source (I think those are already there though). But just because it's his article doesn't mean it has to be butterflies and rainbows about him, either.

Again, it's a shame that his career had to end on such a crappy note, regardless of his actual level of participation in the scandal. But it did end as a direct result, and that should be documented if this is going to be an accurate article about his life and career.

I agree that adding his entire statement before his retirement would be best and certainly cannot hurt. If we can draw out his yellow journalism quote that would be good too, as it seems rather short and abrubt, and I would put his own version of events in its own paragraph, not quickly lumped in with criticism of him. And yes, I would take out the 2008 until we have that General Officer Retirement update. I'm waiting on word of another general retiring, too, so I hope they hurry up with it already.

Also, you mentioned an article where everyone talks about how awesome he is. Does it relate directly to his command of Walter Reed or does it relate to his career in general? I seem to remember most of those quotes being the latter, in which case I say, meh. I don't think most people questioned his ability as a physician (I do recall one in particular though, but that doesn't really relate), just as a commander, and specifically of Walter Reed. If these folks are saying that he did indeed care about the troops at Walter Reed and they witnessed him attempting to improve conditions, etc., then yes that would definitely be excellent to include. But if it's just people saying, "I love Kiley. He was great.  Wasn't he great?  He was great." So what. It doesn't relate directly and specifically to the scandal. See what I mean?

I think we're on the right track here. Thanks again for bringing this to the forefront. --ScreaminEagle (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Well if you don't teach/instruct or write for a living you have missed your calling.  I can't tell you how much I value your instruction here.  You took what was,for me, an obviously emotional issue, and explained it in a way which made perfect sense and did not insult or inflame my emotions at all.  Not that my emotions are your problem - but your patient attention to this has made a big difference to me and I thank you.

I also understand, given your brilliant and relevant examples, that while I may want to add a thing or two in the name of balance, that the intent of the page was not to smear Kiley - anymore than my edits can unsmear him.

I certainly don't want this to digress to an editing war and have the page take on a me against them feel. I understand that there are those who can intercede if that were to happen, but I'm not at all interested in that type of conflict.

I think your most powerful point is that Kiley, Weightman and Sec Harvey's careers were certainly sidetracked, if not ended. And this point must be made. I am concerned that the page may lead an uninformed reader to believe that it was somehow justified and as a result of incompetence rather than a political scandal more than anything (as the IG concluded - which is why Kiley retired and Weightman was given another command - I read that report - very interesting reading!). I watched the hearings too and I heard Kiley say that it was failure of junior leadership. I guess I'm not clear on how to balance without seeming like I'm picking a fight. For example, the general public doesn't understand that the Surgeon General doesn't inspect barracks (nor should he - although he testified that he had been in all the other barracks). Yet, the media made it sound like it was a complete failure of leadership that Kiley had not inspected the three rooms they found with mold (three rooms was part of the hearings testimony).

There is also the misconception that Kiley was in command of Walter Reed and knew about these things while he was there and did nothing about it bla bla bla. Kiley was at Reed from 2002 to 2004 - the casualties had not really started to pile up to the point where he put them into Building 18 - and despite the fact that he testified to the fact that he did not have out patients in Building 18 when he was in command at WRMAC - the quote in the article states that Congressman's Young's wife said that he knew and did nothing - not what I would call a really great source considering his political career was on the line...(Kiley's testimony in front of Congress).

I think I'm starting to hear myself now and starting to understand your big point - this is not the place to debate whether or not the "scandal" as reported by the media, was accurate or even true. On this page we are simply informing the public that Kiley was the SG and he lost his job because of the scandal. I think I am zoning in on the fact that the depiction of the scandal implies that it was true, rather than the fact that it happened. Does that make sense? I need to go back and read it now to see if I'm over reacting - now that I have a better perspective - thanks to you!

I'm sure I'll be back with more questions!!! Thanks again - I'll figure out how to nominate you for mentor of the month as soon as I figure out how to contribute to an article!!

I need to go look at the HIPAA LAW page and see if Walter Reed is mentioned there :)

Interest09 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)interest09


 * Thank you for the compliments, you're very kind. I'm glad you found me helpful.  It sounds like you've got this situation well under control and you know what needs to be done.  If you need any help with anything, let me know and I'll do what I can when I can do it, OK?  Was there anything we didn't cover that should be covered now?


 * Happy to help! Oh, and are you going to create a userpage? I like userpages.  They're fun and informative.  That's why mine is so freakin' convoluted.  --ScreaminEagle (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)