Talk:Charles Pelot Summerall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Different dates than in Find-A-Grave. Lincher 18:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Certainly merge. It is the same person. Hmains 04:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree.
I also agree. Egpetersen 14:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Babcock's Comments[edit]

I removed the Colonel Conrad S. Babcock quotation, accusing it of being gratuitous hearsay. Mr. Spike Toronto has seen fit to put it back, denying that it is gratuitous hearsay because it is from a book.

I will argue the points:

1. It is hearsay: It is hearsay because the claim is not made that Babcock has thorough knowledge of the scene, only that he "did not hear of" part of the claim made in the official commendation. This does not rise to the level of useful documentation, it is one man's remembered experience in one book. In fact General Summerall had a lifelong history of heroism, including presence at front lines. If you wish to contradict a commendation which so perfectly fits what is known about Summerall from many sources, you'll need to provide something a bit more robust.

2. It is gratuitous: How does this quotation fit in what is otherwise a concise and to-the-point biographical entry? It seems out of place, almost to the level of vandalism. There are many, many things said about anyone who leads the United States military. Do they all deserve to be here? I would argue that given the granularity of the information on this page this kind of quote is completely out of place.

I have to ask you, what was the motivation behind placing it here and maintaining it's presence, Mr. Toronto? Do you have some sort of antipathy to General Summerall?

Spokenriotto (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that you are a new editor and perhaps are not familiar with some of Wikipedia’s policies. To better familiarize you, I have placed a welcome message on your talk page that provides you various links to areas of Wikipedia with which you should familiarize yourself.

One of Wikipedia’s core policies is WP:NPOV. The comments from regimental commander Colonel Babcock, which another editor added, would seem to fit with WP’s goals of neutrally balanced wikiarticles. It also satisfies WP’s most important core policy, namely verifiability. Given those two points, the comment cannot be seen as gratuitous.

Finally, your comment regarding “some sort of antipathy to General Summerall” skates awfully close to violating WP’s policy against personal attacks (WP:NPA). Moreover, it is not supported by the facts. While I cannot speak to the motivation of the editor that added Colonel Babcock’s comments, I consider General Summerall to be a great man. Otherwise, I would not have spent time cleaning up the article. I may not like the addition of the Babcock quote, but I saw no reason it should not be included. Thus, my edits from March sought only to properly format it for the article after another editor had added it. Also, if you look back a year ago, you will see my concern with the use of the word vainglorious, hence why I added a {{Fact}} tag. I would like to have deleted the sentence altogether since I consider it factually incorrect. (The comments, smacking of original research, were removed in November 2009 by an IP-only editor.)

Here’s the bottom line: While I may consider Summerall an American hero, wikieditors are not permitted by Wikipedia’s policies to allow our own biases to affect the requirement for balanced and verifiable articles. — SpikeToronto 05:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE:  As a courtesy, I left a comment on the talk page of the wikieditor that originally added Colonel Babcock’s comments so that he could participate in this discussion. — SpikeToronto 05:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a problem of epistemology. It's quite concerned with "facts", which is quixotic and laudable, but in the particular case of this entry (as in many others I suspect) there is a problem. It is presumably a _fact_ that someone named Colonel Babcock is quoted in a book as recorded in the current entry. I have not seen this book, but presumably could find it. However there are thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of equally valid facts (through their mention in books) that I could paste into this biographical entry. Which rise to the level of inclusion here? All of them? If not then how do I decide which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Pelot Summerall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)