Talk:John W. Troxell

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John W. Troxell article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Military

	Biography portal 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 supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Biography / North America / United States / Cold War / Post-Cold War C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]