This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Boot, being less well known than Doris Kearns Goodwin, seemed to need better identification. There is ample description of him on his Wikipedia page on which editors strove to present a balanced view. It notes that he is a "self-admitted neocon" as mentioned in one paper for which he formerly wrote, the Christian Science Monitor.
The characterization of the book as "hagiographic," certainly is well founded, given the surreptitious relationship that was said to have begun after Petraeus left the US Army, but I wonder if it was judged hagiography before the exposure of the affair? Activist (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
A reviewer from the Associated Press described as "part hagiography" in late 2011, long before the affair was known, according to this BBC News article. See also this Rolling Stone review by Michael Hastings from January 2012, which describes the book as "such blatant, unabashed propaganda, it's as if the general has given up pretending there’s a difference between the press and his own public relations team".
Also note that we don't actually know that the relationship only began after Petraeus retired. They certainly have an incentive to claim that as it would have been a bigger problem if it had occurred before his retirement when he was commanding in Afghanistan and Broadwell's superior. But then that's just the word of two people who already have a history of lying about this relationship. --Saforrest (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply
