Talk:Teresa King

Controversy

   The first female commandant of the Army’s school for drill sergeants at Fort Jackson, S.C., has been suspended from her position, according to an Army official.

   Command Sgt. Maj. Teresa L. King was placed on suspension pending further review and investigation, a spokesperson for Initial Military Training Center of Excellence said.

   King, a 28-year Army veteran, gained notoriety when she took the helm at the Drill Sergeant School in September 2009.

   In 2010, King was named to Oprah Winfrey’s “20 women rocking the world” power list and appeared in the October 2010 issue of Oprah Magazine, noted WIS-TV, a local television station that was first to report that King was suspended…

   She has served in South Korea and Europe, and held jobs at NATO and the Pentagon, yet despite those accomplishments, she has not deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan through 10 years of war.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/12/army-teresa-king-drill-sergeant-school-commandant-suspended-121311w/#.TulKUDcO550.email--0321recon (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I made quite a bit of changes. The article had some POV and was very "cheerleader." Also, details of her investigation have been leaked. The source was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.53 (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re-added details about not deploying

The fact that Sergeant Major King has not deployed to a combat theater was used against her by her critics. Because of this, I think the fact that not having deployed is not her choice is relevant -- it's her rebuttal to her critics. Billmckern (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody making POV changes

Somebody keeps making POV/cheerleader changes to this article. He/She keeps taking out the bad....The entire reason E9 King has a Wikipedia article is because 1) she was the first black female in the position she held and 2) because of the controversy surrounding her departure. In fact, her departure is what was in the news more predominately.

To answer "billmckern", stating "it's not my choice" is not something noteworthy. Soldiers following orders is not noteworthy. That is why it has been taken out. Additionally, the fact that a CSM hasn't requested deployment is the more noteworthy information (I was active duty Army for five years, and I know for a fact that she would've been obliged had she requested...in fact, my personal opinion, spoken from experience I've witnessed, is that she was dodging the sandbox for cushy assignments....but my personal experience cannot be put in the article, so it's not there).

I've replaced the parts of the controversy that made the news, and will continue to do so until there is a legitimate reason to not do so stated by the Wikipedia editors on this talk page.116.233.33.155 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not deploying is relevant

Look, I don't want to get into a spitting contest, and I have no vested interest in the Teresa King page one way or the other, but you're wrong.

If someone accuses you of having committed a crime, and your defense is that you didn't do it, it's not reasonable to publicize the accusation without the defense. If someone accuses you of cheating on your spouse and your defense is "no I didn't", it's not reasonable to make the accusation known, but not the rebuttal.

It's the same with SGM King. If her critics say that she shouldn't have been the head of the drill sergeant school because she never deployed, and her defense is "it wasn't my choice not to deploy", then it's simply unfair to include the criticism and not the defense. Billmckern (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

1) Your response (stating the need for her "defense") doesn't conform with Wikipedia's notability standards.

2) The fact that you're considering anything an "accusation" as opposed to a fact doesn't conform with Wikipedia's POV standards.

3) E9s can (and, during OIF/OEF, could) request and get deployment easily. In fact, all one needs to do is check any military internet forum concerning E9 King's lack of deployment to see that. Everybody in the military knew (and knows) that, if you wanted to go to combat, it was a DA 4187 away...just fill out the paperwork and it would quickly get approved.

If you're going to edit the article, please conform to Wikipedia's article rules.64.9.146.39 (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Deployment defense

You tell me how a sourced quote from the individual who's the subject of the article, which is her rebuttal to a relevant fact about the very issue that makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia entry is irrelevant or doesn't conform. It's the crux of why she's on Wikipedia in the first place.

You think she "could have" deployed? Then find a source that disproves her argument and make your case.

I've said before that I have no vested interest in this topic. That said, I don't like to see such blatant one-sided entries about an individual when there's a counterargument that can be referenced and footnoted. Billmckern (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, she's on Wikipedia because she was the subject of news articles concerning her removal from the DS school. Her "deployment rebuttal" was not the subject of said news articles.

I was active duty military for five years from 01-06. I very well know she could've deployed, and so does everyone else that served during that time. Anybody that volunteered could've gotten it (and by the way, you can't prove or disprove that she "could've deployed". That makes no logical sense....you can't prove or disprove a possibility). Besides, her ability to deploy is not issue. It was a side note to the conversation we were having.

And accusing someone of being "one-sided" once again does not conform with Wiki's POV standards. I've stated facts, and nothing but. Any facts that I've edited out have been because of Wiki's notability standards (which, by the way, "27% non-deployed personnel" does not relate to this article, so no, it shouldn't be listed.

I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's rules. The more this article gets edited, the more likely it will end up on the moderators' radar. And, based on Wiki's rules, I'm willing to bet that they will not like your edits.

I will be changing it back in order to better conform to Wiki's rules (and will do so indefinitely - the sooner this gets on the mods radar, the better....you don't seem to want to follow Wiki's rules). If you make any more changes, please state the rule you're conforming to.116.233.32.44 (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Unaccredited degrees

I've left alone the portions of the Teresa King page which refer to unaccredited degrees. So far, I've been able to find only one reference -- the Military Corruption Dot Com site. Every other story I've found on the subject includes a link to the Military Coruption Dot Com. Perhaps someone else can find other references, or maybe the topic of unaccredited degrees needs to be deleted if there aren't more references? Billmckern (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any other references available as far as I can tell, and using the military corruption website as a reference is definitely in violation of Wikipedia's living persons biography guidelines on libel--it's a gossip website, plain and simple. All the information alleged on the website about the contents of the investigation about Teresa King are purely speculative/likely deliberately defamatory, as the results of the investigation were for internal Army review only. I propose that all information solely sourced through military corruption.com be removed.

Also, in seems to make more sense that the section on criticism over deployments be moved to the controversy section. In the interest of neutral POV, it should probably additionally be noted that ~27% of army personnel have never deployed: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR145.html .70.169.142.154 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The MC website is not a violation of Wiki's rules and, as a former criminal investigator for the US Army, I do not see how it is legally "libel.

To be libel, a person has to state something that he/she 1) knows for a fact isn't true at the time of stating, and 2) causes real damage to the plaintiff. In fact, legally speaking as ignorance for the law is no excuse, you've more likely committed libel against MC than MC has committed libel against the person in this article. As citizens, we cannot say we didn't know we were breaking the law, therefore you have the responsibility to know someone committed libel before you accuse them of it (which could cause the defendant, MC in this case, to pay legal fees to defend against your illegal accusations). But that's "neither here nor there."

Again, you need to read up on Wikipedia's rules concerning sourcing. If you want to seem them in practice, check out the "Mumia Abu Jamal" article. It has some "terrible" sources, but moderators have kept them up.

And again, the percentage of non-deployed military personnel is not the subject of this article. Putting it in would not conform to Wiki's rules.

Another thing - the non-deployed part is not controversial. Again, you stating such doesn't conform with Wiki's POV standards. Not deploying is not "controvesial". It's definitely notable given the time she served and should be included as a notable fact of her service/career (hence why it's in the "career" section), but not in "controversy."

Again, please read Wiki's article rules before you make changes.116.233.32.44 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I reworked the controversy section

I've updated the "controversy" section along the lines you suggested, and added wiki links and references. Let's see if this version works. Billmckern (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I give up

I give up. You clearly have an axe to grind as concerns SGM King. You're clearly not going to let any edits stand, and you're clearly determined to include only negative information about her, however tenuous the source. I have other things to do, so you go ahead and carry out your vendetta. Billmckern (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The accusatory language you are using is not in line with Wikipedia's standards. As per this talk page, you are not supposed to assume anyone has biased intentions until it is proven (in fact, in this case it's unwarranted as I'm the one that included the her removal "reflected the normal tour length" information....so you need to get your facts straight).

Furthermore, your language shows that, in fact, you're the one with biased intentions. Facts are not "negative". Thinking facts are negative shows that you actually just don't want derogatory information in the article.

Wikipedia does not allow this sort of biased editorializing. Now, if you want to actually have a fair discussion about this article, then do it. But throwing around accusations and biased editorializing is not going to fly.64.9.146.43 (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

And one more thing, I find it very ironic that you claim I'm the one with an agenda, especially considering you've obviously been watching this page daily (as evidenced by you coming on here both times one day after I undo your mistakes) and not me. I'm not the one watching this page like a hawk in a concerned fashion - you are. It's obvious you're more concerned with how it reads than I am.

If I'm so biased, you should have no problem pointing it out using Wikipedia's standards. So go ahead.64.9.146.43 (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I decline

I told you I'm not going to continue to engage you on this. The idea that you can make allegations against someone and not the corresponding defense is ludicrous -- I say you beat your husband, wife, boyfriend or girlfriend. Period. End of story. Can you imagine that your denial doesn't get included?

That said, as I've stated, I'm not going to continue this back and forth. Look at any of my work on Wikipedia, Find A Grave or elsewhere. I have no agenda, short of capturing and documenting history for posterity. You do whatever you want to on the Teresa King page. It'll be up to other contributors and editors to set you straight, because I'm done. Billmckern (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep deflecting the issue.

You keep saying there is an accusation. Pointing out a fact is not an accusation.Italic text You are engaged in POV editing. Period. End of Story.

You're the one in the wrong William McKern from the Vermont National Guard. Get over it.138.199.75.76 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Living Persons Biography Policy

From Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons Policy: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. "

From Wikipedia' Verifiability Policy: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[7] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others."

How's that? Reverting. 72.187.114.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The source you are taking issue with has reported the recent BG Bryan Roberts incident, as well as many others, just fine. You obviously haven't taken time to review the source.138.199.75.76 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You've goaded me

I was going to let this go, but even after I told you that, you kept pressing. Fine. Just remember that you asked for this

It is not a mere fact that King did not deploy. The fact that she did not deploy has been used by her critics to attack her by insinuation -- she can't run the DI school because she didn't deploy, and she didn't deploy because she's a coward. That's the clear insinuation.

Since her critics have attacked her by insinuation, it's only reasonable to include her rebuttal.

As for the claim of unaccredited degrees, I can find it via only one source -- the Military Corruption blog. Military Corruption offers no documentation or other proof, only what the writer says he was told by an unnamed source. I think it's debatable whether to include that in the King bio, since the source is so tenuous, but if it is going to be included, it's fair to point out that the claim comes from only one source.

Clearly there's something going on here, and I don't know what it is. I do know this -- it's no a coincidence that you've contributed to or created only two pages -- the Teresa King bio and this talk page.

So, here's what I'm going to do -- I'll check the article page for Teresa King every day, and as fast as you put up thinly veiled claims and attacks by insinuation, I'll reverse them.

And if any of these claims are ever verified or covered by more sources, I'll be sure to make the updates. Billmckern (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Controversy" section violates WP:BLP

I have removed the entire "Controversy" section for failure to comply with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. It cites unnamed "critics" who have allegedly criticized the article subject, but does not supply any reliable sources for that criticism. If, indeed, the only source available for that criticism is a personal blog such as "MilitaryCorruption.com", then that criticism is unencyclopedic and has no place in her biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Her removal, and the circumstances surrounding it, was reported by all major news outlets. All one needs to do is perform an internet search on it.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/16/11736195-first-female-commander-of-elite-drill-sergeant-school-relieved-of-duty?lite

Additionally, there was more information on the controversy until the news outlets took it down (likely due to server space issues).

Due to POV editing (by billmckern), much of that sourcing was taken down.

Also, there are a lot of "unecylopedic" entries on the Mumia Abu Jamal (including obviously biased publications such as "The International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu Jamal", the "Free Mumia Coalition", the "Labor Action Committee to Free Mumia") page, much of which has been kept up by moderators. This is a double standard (not to mention that journalists for major news outlets frequently cite confidential sources, and those journalistic sources are standard for Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.199.74.184 (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Anonymously-sourced attacks on living persons are unacceptable on Wikipedia. End of story.

This article is not about Mumia Abu-Jamal. If you have a problem with the sources in that article, I suggest you take it up on that article's talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)