Talk:Veteran with disputed status
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] List of veterans with disputed status
I removed the "see also" section because the list implied that the individuals were disputed veterans, without explanation or citation. A list needs explanations for each entry. Below are the members of the list. If an editor has an explanation for why a person is a disputed veteran, the editor may re-add him under a section titled something like "list of disputed veterans". A new "see also" section may be added for entries related to the article title, such as "veterans", but disputed veterans should be kept out of it.
- Joseph A. Cafasso
- Pat Robertson
- Brian Dennehy
- Wes Cooley
- Zell Miller
- George W Bush
- Arnold Schwarzenegger
- Arnold Murray
- It would be good to have some examples, but an explanation of the controversy next to the name would certainly be necessary.
Also, some guys like John Kerry or George W. Bush have had various things disputed, but don't really fit into any of the categories given. - Matthew238 07:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
-DDerby-(talk) 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Joseph A. Cafasso is a con man, not a veteran. It's very clearcut. Email me if you need more details about his life. -Kathryn Cramer (kec@panix.com)
[edit] terminology
The article implies that to have a disputed status is to be a liar. This seems unfair, that your status could be under dispute without any fault of the person under examination. If my supporters make incorrect claims about me, my status could be disputed, even if I'm the one trying to clear up the fact that I didn't see any action, etc. NickelShoe 21:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article
I think this whole article is questionable in regards to its encyclopedic nature. The information is valid, but could likely benefit from some redefining, maybe becoming a section of another article, or prehaps even broadened to include more information that might make it more tidy. Also, I would use care that articles of this type not be used to label people. Lists like this can be informative, but they can are also often ripe for misuse.
I just think addressing these issues could improve the quality of the piece and make it more informative to readers. A solid definition and purpose often make for strong articles, but when a purpose is questionable, people are likely to read two lines and move on. --DanielCD 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I put an NPOV tag on it. There is little if any alternative views given, and this makes it read like an editorial, not an encyclopedia article. --DanielCD 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Cramer is turning Wikipedia into a model on her crusade agasinst Joseph Cafasso who she claims conned her although she admitted to one of his victims that she put his charges on her credit card to stalk that woman. She created his Wikipedia entry - lots were deleted because of inappropriateness for Wikipedia. She has been hammered by the editors to stop this misbehavior but as usual rules dont apply to Cramer. She morphs over here on this page and puts up an email address to collect more data on a man she was with to expose him. Why dont we take up a fund for this woman - she clearly needs therapy. Her request of contact is inappropriate. Look at her talk page which is Pleasantville Talk and look at Jossi's talk page. She filed two police reports which were declined for prosecution and she is begging the world to help her! This is totally inappropriate! Maybe she will post an ad in USA Today next!
WP:CIVIL: The above unsigned comment is from Christine Dolan. I did not add Cafasso to this page. His name was here in the first place. -KC Pleasantville 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe his name was first posted but you added this line, Cramer - "Joseph A. Cafasso is a con man, not a veteran. It's very clearcut. Email me if you need more details about his life. -Kathryn Cramer (kec@panix.com)"..........this is you putting up yourself as source on this man on this WP page.......just utterly extraordinary of you! this is not what wikipedia was designed for. if that were the case, you could just go in and do this to all of the 8 or 9 or more entries you are using for your campaign against cafasso. i just dont think it passes that good o'le editorial standard of decency and writing...is there something you just refuse to adhere to or is your conscience so fogged with your personal axe to grind that you dont care about anyone but yourself.....you have no right to do this Cramer no matter what he did to you and others.....signed Christine Dolan february 6, 2007 11:00pm.
