Talk:John W. Troxell

ribbon rack

Per MOS:ICON, I removed the many pictures of awards the subject has received. Please discuss. Further reversions will result in a warning about edit warring. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I talked to many other users. You cannot make such "big" changes without first discussing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:D3D7:B801:2149:559E:DBDD:B1E1 (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You are misinformed. There are two issues: first, I removed images because they fail MOS:ICON. You haven't addressed that. Second, I notice that the article claims to come from public domain material but isn't clear exactly where. There's only one footnote. Content must be verifiable, especially on a biography of a living person. Finally, using only gov't sources for a gov't employee is problematic. For that reason, I've tag-bombed the thing. Next thing I'll do is consider deletion. I recommend that you discuss this and work with me to improve this article. Edit warring and re-adding unsourced material with get you blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree Chris Troutman because I find the ribbon rack to be helpful to those who don't know what the ribbons/rewards represent. Troxell's portrait clearly shows the ribbons associated to the awards that he has earned. But that's the main problem when it comes to military bios, I find and in my experience in looking for reference sources, is that 80%-90% I only find one source and usually its from a U.S. government site. I do have to say that with how many "guidelines" there are in wiki, that Chris Troutman is technically justified in deleting the information and I mirror his encouragement in continuing to look for more verifiable sources so you can add the ribbons back to this. I can tell you first hand that it sucks when an admin deletes all or most of your hard work and then refer to guidelines you probably didn't know that exists. But in all truth, if you're not willing to put in the time and effort to reference what you post on wiki, then it probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Neovu79 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I tagbombed this article for good reason

To editor Galobtter: I don't understand this edit. You claim some of the tags were "contradictory and unecessary" but I disagree. The verbiage in {{more footnotes}} comments about it being unclear but my intent is that there aren't enough footnotes. The article claims to be mostly from some public domain source but I don't know if that refers to the one footnote that's present. Per WP:IC, we ought to have more footnotes rather than a general reference. Further, the one source provided is a primary source (which is why I added {{primary sources}}) and it's a US government source and not independent of the subject (which is why I added {{third-party}}). I don't understand why you'd remove them. Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the more footnotes problem anyhow now (I don't think that template was the correct one you were looking for though) by adding the ref I reckon. I added back third-party; I don't think primary source is necessary - third party is more specific, overlaps with it, and points to the real problem. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: I disagree about the primary source issue. Although Wikipedians might disagree, it's problematic writing a biography based upon primary (contemporaneous) sources because it's mere journalism. Responsible history can't be written until 100 years after someone is dead. When authors are writing books (even about the living) with some amount of reserve and critical outlook can it be considered secondary. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

what the subject was under investigation for

2A00:23C4:B571:B00:3580:7E5C:B676:CCA6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Please stop edit-warring by removing content you don't like. If the material of his investigation doesn't violate WP:BLPCRIME, why remove it? As I understand it, he was not exonerated, just allowed to return to work after being reprimanded. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)