User talk:QueenofBattle

Just wanted to drop in and compliment your recent work on Stanley A. McChrystal. You have been consistent in keeping the article respectable during this crazy time. Cheers †TE†Talk 16:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to things calming down soon, so I can go back to my semi-retirement. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I just want you to know that your effort on this article was noticed and appreciated by me. Furthermore, your constructive edits to articles relating to naval history and organization have contributed immeasurably to the quality of articles relating to the naval services of the United States. Keep up the good work, even in semi-retirement! Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Chief. I humbly accept it. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to have a problem with some content, I'll ask you what it is directly. How is it too much detail, and how is the context inappropriate? The way I see it, the information is accurate, just more detailed, thus an improvement, which is why I'm inquiring as to why you're reverting to the inferior version. Swarm^Talk 02:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in reverse order (and ignoring the snarkiness), I don't think that the "inferior" version was, in fact, inferior. That seems to be an opinion that you share with yourself. Sometimes, and especially so with an encyclopedia, less is more. Ask yourself if in 10 years, anyone will care whether McChrystal retired with four starts or merely three? Does anyone really care if his retirement will take several months to be effected? Also, I find the blow-by-blow of his retirement plans to be unencylopedic. Allow me to ask you: what does it add to the BLP to cite that his is retiring with four stars although he is really only "entitled" to retire with three? How does it help a reader gather and form a picture of the individual to discuss the nuance of the Army's retirement process for general officers? Is this BLP really the place for a lesson on the interaction between the DoD's promotion and retirement practices and presidential intervention? If accuracy and detail were of primary importance, why not quote the entire article rather than just a few points? Me thinks the answer is context and appropriate weighting.QueenofBattle (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you detected snarkiness, as that was not an intention.

Yes, naturally, what is superior and inferior is up to individual opinion, and I felt I explained why that was my opinion. As to whether anyone will care how many stars he retired with, I think the important thing is to get his rank right, not wonder if anyone cares about his rank.

Which is exactly why I believe the current (so called, inferior) text gets his rank "right" with the phrase about the White House confirming that he will retire as a General (United States).

As to whether or not anyone cares how many months his retirement will take to process: it certainly wasn't necessary, but it explains why, if he submitted his resignation, he is still listed as in the Army elsewhere in the article.

I think most people will understand the term "submitted", especially so when coupled with the phrase "plans to retire" used later in the BLP. I have also Wikilinked to the section on retirement in the General (United States) article to further explain to the reader the process.

As to "...the nuance of the Army's retirement process for general officers? Is this BLP really the place for a lesson on the interaction between the DoD's promotion and retirement practices and presidential intervention?" That's a loaded question, as there is no "lesson" on that; there is simply a sentence or two explaining why a General who has not completed the requirement to retain his rank in retirement, is retaining his rank in retirement. The information is certainly valuable to a reader familiar with the three year rule.

I doubt there any very many people, at all, who are familiar with the "three-year rule" so I think we are unlikely to get many queries on this point, and we run an equally low risk that someone will view the article deficient without the detail of it. BUt, I have Wikilinked to the section on retirement in the General (United States) article to further explain to the reader the process.

As to "appropriate weighting", you speak as if there are paragraphs on Army rules and his retirement plans (which are not mentioned at all), while there are only a few additional sentences explaining why things are the way they are. Trimming something that has been given undue weight is not the same as removing all background and detail from a paragraph and replacing it with a single sentence. In other words, appropriate weighting is not the same as no weighting. Perhaps you wouldn't, but I, as a reader, would ask, why is he retiring with a four-star pension? If he announced his resignation, has he officially submitted his papers yet? If so, why is he listed in this article as currently serving? It's better to give these details to those who would appreciate them, even if there are those who don't care. Swarm^Talk 03:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate weighting is measured many ways, of course, but to devote the same amount of sentences to something that comprised a few months of 55 years as one would to something earlier in his career that comprised several years, is forcing the reader to be interested in something that they would otherwise not. Plus, the addition of the Wikilinks to the retirement section makes for a stronger article, as well as streamlined text in this BLP, which aids readability. And this discussion and discourse really belongs at the BLPs talk page, not here. Others should have the opportunity to weigh in so that we might find consensus. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid a revert wart if I can. I would like to point out the David Petraeus article and recent revert by admin HJ Mitchell. It is his and my belief that it is you who is misreading the MOSBIO. Section 3.2 covers Titles of people and how it should be used in an article. That way the ranks were in all the articles you have changes were correct. Also, I must add that your grammar for ranks is not correct. WP:MOS for titles and ranks states, a rank that is not in front of a name or that does not begin a sentence is not capitalized. Neovu79 (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An admin has no more editorial authority around here than you or me, so I am unpursuaded by HJ Mitchell's actions; I still believe you are both reading the guidelines incorrectly. WP:MOSBIO#honorific titles clearly states that the use of titles should be inline text entries rather than preceeding the names. This is true for nobles, government officials, and members of royal families and clergy, and other individuals. And the section on opening paragraphs merely states that the name and title should be included, but is silent as to the proper or preferred order. Also, your reference to section 3.2 deals solely with capitalization and points the editor back to the MOSBIO section on honorific titles. The capitalization rules are noted (although it's not really a matter of grammar), and were an oversight on my part. But, I might suggest that the way to avoid an edit war is to discuss the use of titles on the articles' talkpages rather than on my talk page, as there are other editors who seem to agree with my reading of MOSBIO. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While this recent stylize edit is not one that I favor, it does conform with WP:MOS. I will leave it as it currently is, but I would like to open this up to general consenus. Neovu79 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss it and find consensus. Pick any article in question and I'll participate. Let's hope others do as well, so we can come to a comfortable place on this. Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have created a discussion in the WP:MOSBIO under Ranks of people. Please put in you thoughts. Thanks. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

the last commutation of the death penalty in Texas is kenneth foster in 2007.

The Texas Board of Parole and Pardons voted on Thursday in favor of Kenneth Foster, Jr.. In a 6-1 vote. The recommendation went to Governor Rick Perry who commuted Kenneth Foster's death sentence to life in prison, Aug 30, 2007

therefore henry lee lucas is not the last inmate to have his sentence commuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigge365 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sourcing for this? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits today...much needed and helpful. Good to see you back at the keyboard. Do me a favor and check a new article that I am working on. User:Cuprum17/ Coast Guard Squadron One Remember, it is a work in progress, but I would value any suggestions that you might have as to content, form or grammar. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Gramatically, general in this context is not a title. In title form, it would be capitalized and in front of his name. Since general is after, it is considered a normal noun. If you were to put "four-star" in front of it, gramatically it is correct since we would be using "four-star" as an adjective modifying a noun. However, the way that you have it is also correct so I will not go into a editing war over a simple adjective. Neovu79 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

My editing practice with the military leaders is to say that "John Doe is a United States Navy vice admiral who serves..." This context, which I believe matches MoS, gives his (or her) pay grade and rank, but not title per se. In the case of GEN Fraser, the general is a pay grade and rank rather than a normal noun. Accessing the wikilink to general the reader sees that it is a four-star general officer rank rather than a general descriptive noun. I think that if we were to use the generic General, the use of it as a noun requiring the "four-star" adjective would make sense. Just my two cents... QueenofBattle (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that if you only read the phrase "John Doe is a United States Air Force general...", there is no way to tell whether the writer is using the word as a noun or a rank. Even military readers might be uncertain whether the potentially non-military writer understood the difference, and non-military readers might not even know there is a difference. So it is not obvious from the title that the General (United States) article is about the four-star grade specifically as opposed to general officers in the United States generically, and many readers (including me for quite a long time) might not realize the linked article contains disambiguating information and therefore won't click the link. As Neovu79 said, your usage is grammatically correct so I won't push too hard on this. But I think it weakens the lede to force the reader to look elsewhere to verify the officer's rank, which is probably the first thing the reader would want to know. - Morinao (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yours' is a fair point, but in the United States, general is a noun, a title and a specific rank. So this discussion is really only applicable to Admiral (United States) and General (United States), as every other flag or general officer rank is very clear as the number of stars it carries (e.g., Vice Admiral (United States)). Of all of these that I have seen, the infobox clearly specifies the officer's rank with most of them also displaying one to four stars. So, the reader doesn't have to go anywhere else. Plus, the better articles at Wikipedia have many wikilinks, thus opening a series of "doors" for readers to click the link and learn more about how a General (United States) is different from a Major general (United States). I am happy to participate in a broader discussion of this point in some forum if we want to reach consensus. I just find the usage of "four star general" to be uncecessarily redundant because I don't think we would call anyone a "one-star rear admiral lower half". Thanks. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's all true, although it would be better if the lede could stand on its own (and the infobox is just as ambiguous if it also only links General (United States) without the four-star graphic), and the reason you don't see "one-star rear admiral lower half" is that either "one-star rear admiral" or "rear admiral lower half" is sufficient to disambiguate "rear admiral". But the only disambiguators for "general/admiral" are "four-star" or "full", so that remains the annoying edge case. Happy to either discuss this elsewhere or let it drop, as you prefer. - Morinao (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Voting for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Voting closes at 23:59 UTC on 29 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Starting on 1 November, the month-long 2025 Article Improvement Drive will target a number of content improvement areas and backlogs. Participating editors will be in line for barnstars and other awards; articles from all aspects of the project will be eligible so there will be something for everybody. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up now! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2025 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Correction: nominations are open until 23:59 (UTC) on 14 December 2025. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2025! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2025. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)