Talk:Michael C. Gould

Alleged Command Failure

There are daily reported items about this biographical subject. These reports are in well-respected publications recognized by Wikipedia standards. I believe that the pattern daily reports will continue for awhile. The biographical subject is connected to a governmental investigation that is reported on local, regional, and national levels. I accept the olive branch extended by Binksternet. He is clearly a very experienced Wikipedia editor while uninformed on this subject. I gladly accept his editorial style suggestions. But if he is factually wrong, I will say so with even-handed explanation. Isn't that what Wikipedia is about? JimmyJohnJones (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Please limit the references you use to ones that specifically name Gould rather than ones which discuss matters to which Gould is connected, without naming him. Holding to such a high bar is required to prevent any WP:Synthesis of sources, to prevent saying things about Gould that are not entirely applicable to him. Especially important is to refrain from telling the reader about another issue, per WP:COATRACK. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk) is your criticism in reference to citation 1. above? Gould is mentioned by name four times. In general I understand and agree with your point about WP:COATRACK. But I do not understand how it applies to this particular citation. Please clarify.JimmyJohnJones (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your text, "On August 13 2014, Gould's successor Lieutenant General Michelle Johnson and other academy leaders in several interviews expressed shame and outrage that a small group of football players tarnished the institution by sexually assaulting female cadets and using illegal drugs." This was supported by the following reference: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26330365/academy-leaders-express-shame-outrage-over-sex-related. The Denver Post article does not mention Gould in this news piece. Binksternet (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk) you make a good point, and I thank you for your attention. Your editing strengthens this article. By going back this Denver Post article, I noticed that it has already been updated this past 40 minutes. The public accuser of Gould's misconduct, Staff Sergeant Brandon Enos, has been doing "demeaning tasks such as clean cabinets and vacuum floors," according to a memo obtained by the Denver Post.JimmyJohnJones (talk) 07:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the significance of the article being updated? I still see no mention of Gould in there.

It is clear to me that you are most interested in talking about the problems of cadet misconduct at the academy. Your focus should be the United States Air Force Academy article, as I see is already the case. You may also want to start an article about the investigation. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The article leaves recently added clues that Olinger is not done reporting on this subject with respect to failure of command, which is a UCMJ violation. Example: "Three years after the investigations began, the list of those punished for the academy's latest sex scandal remains at the cadet level." Elsewhere Sergeant Enos has alleged that a command failure lies with Gould. "In his letter to Congress, Sergeant Enos said Lt. Gen. Michael C. Gould. . .had repeatedly interfered in cases." AF commanders are prohibited from interfering with AFOSI cases. My point is that a story is unfolding in the media that bears watching. At this time there are insufficient citations to add to this article. Binksternet, I agree with you that this particular article is not the appropriate location for the developing investigation.

I like your suggestion of starting up another article on the investigation. I'm unfamiliar with how to to it. Would you please direct me to Wikipedia's instructions for this?JimmyJohnJones (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia is all about conclusions, not clues. If you want to put clues in an article you will be accused of WP:SYNTHESIS. Instead, Wikipedia is for published conclusions, taken from published articles in which writers have looked at the clues and analyzed them.

With regard to writing an article, take a look at the several guidelines on Wikipedia, such as Wikipedia:Starting an article and Wikipedia:Simple guide to creating your first article. You ought to study the articles named 2003 United States Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal, Tailhook scandal, and United States Air Force Basic Training scandal, and perhaps copy the formats you see in them. You might want to call the article Operation Gridiron, as that name has come up in the news.[1][2][3][4] (Historically there have been several other programs called Operation Gridiron, but none have been the topic of a Wikipedia article, so you would be grabbing the name first.) Your draft of the article would be started at Draft:Operation Gridiron, where you would develop it and ask people for comments. Binksternet (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet (talk) notice that I brought up clues here and did not change the article. I will abide by the avoidance of WP:SYNTHESIS, follow your suggestions and write the draft in at Draft:Operation Gridiron. Thank you for you help.JimmyJohnJones (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael C. Gould. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090516024925/http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5596 to http://www.af.mil/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5596

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)