Talk:Jeffrey Fowler

Job titles without accomplishments = "lame ' Navy official-bio' writing"

I think that the admiral deserves better than simply a list of job titles. I know, I know...that's how the Navy writes a "bio." That doesn't mean that it isn't a completely lame approach toward both the effort of biography and the characterization of a man's service.

I suggest that the admiral's flag writer (or similar) get on the stick and make this read like the admiral has actually accomplished something in his naval career besides having his name engraved in a series of ever-larger melamine plastic nameplates. As it happens, I know Jeff Fowler, and he is neither lame nor unaccomplished...but I leave the details here to others.

--24.28.6.209 23:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well sorry that I wrote a "lame" article but that was the only information on Fowler once he was selected as the next supe. Personally I feel that the article is much better than other classic "navy bio" articles because of the extra picture I added and some of the extra educational info. I'll try and work on taking another look at getting some more information and maybe you can try

"No, sir (or ma'am)...I was college-educated."

--24.28.6.209 12:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clear up any confusion, I was joking when I said that and was full aware that the navy bio was lame. Those navy bio writers don't know how to write at all. So hopefully you didn't think I was mad or anything. And about the USNA application process, I've been through it once and already got the nominations and did all the interviews, and made it on the waitlist but didn't get in, now that I'm going to OSU there really is no point for me to take the SATs or ACTs, I'll be reapplying just to see if I can get in but I'm not so sure I would want to after I do a year at college but anyways thanks for the advice.--Joebengo 14:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that a great many biographical articles of naval officers rely almost entirely on published official bios. To be honest, I think any attempts to elaborate would 1) be unsourced or 2) require original research. On another note, I'm not sure your edits to the lead paragraph made it better, clearer, or more in accordance with the style guidelines regarding leaders. Rem01 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you mention, I have "found" many official bios...and they are no more than lame job listings. You would do well to lift a finger to research what you're saying before you ASSUME, Rem01, that original research and lack of sources are the case here. Try this link, for instance, regarding the sourcing of the kind of context that I'm calling for in this article (and others). There are undoubtedly plenty of other sources, including the public, quarterly-or-so publications that each of the admiral's previous commands have produced over time. The net-net is that the man has been more than a monotonous list of previous job titles...he's made decisions and been involved in any number of matters of encyclopedic interest, and biographers exist that can weave this into an interesting story. He has, for instance:

• As operational commander, dealt directly (in his chosen fashion) with the commanding officer of USS Minneapolis-St. Paul (SSN-708) after the recent tragic loss of two lives, which was subsequently attributed to the C.O.'s decision to enter hazardous seas while still having crewmembers topside.

• Personally trained submarine commanding officers.

• As Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, worked to foster the Navy's relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.

• Sponsored cars and been interviewed regarding sports affiliations, watching the Superbowl while on Top Secret patrol, etc. at a NASCAR event.

• Made speeches regarding the likely future operations of the submarine force.

Etc., etc. I think I've made my point regarding publicly-availble info that could be used to help make this a real biography with sources. As for original research (very much including my own, regarding more youthful days with the good VADM), I don't see anyone making that a problem, so let's not pretend it is one.

So, armchair analysis aside, please pitch in if so-inclined, and feel free to edit whatever you'd like. It's a free country. --24.28.6.209 22:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You seem very angry about this. Do you think I was condescending to you? I wasn't. There's no need for you to be hostile and condescending to me.

I can't really see why - on a little-edited page - you would express your frustration about the quality of the article and then "leave the details ... to others." If you want to fix it, fix it. In any case, my observation was incorrect - you seem to have found a number of things to add, though I question the encyclopedic interest of some of those items. Good luck if you choose to improve the article. Rem01 02:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

portdeltona complaint

Thank you Rem01 for deleting my (portdeltona) entire contribution. My material was unsourced, which is contrary to this site’s policy. I do see from this discussion that you’re vigilantly guarding the VADM. Where would History be without those who keep our leaders looking good, regardless?

No problem. I'm happy to fight editorializing via the passive voice, weasel words, and other unencyclopedic content wherever I find it. Write a letter to the newspaper. Bitch to your friends. Put it on the talk page if you must. Just don't foist your opinions off on unsuspecting people looking for a little information from the actual article.

Your suggestion that my removal of your "contribution" equates to a defense of Admriral Fowler is childish and misses the point. Surely you must know that. Rem01 06:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

From Portdeltona:

Definition of whitewash - exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data. (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Definition of control - dominance, ascendance, ascendence, ascendancy, ascendency, (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

Thanks for that. You're right - I am biased in my presentation of data. I - and all other editors who comply with Wikipedia guidelines - attempt to present only sourced and notable information in an encyclopedic fashion. -Rem01 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jeffrey Fowler. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004220151/http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/10/8761/ to http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2013/10/8761/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)