Talk:Richard Dannatt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force

[edit] Daily Mail Interview

Breaking news story at the moment that General Dannatt is seeking withdrawal from Iraq (BBC News: General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal).

Interview in tomorrow's Daily Mail (Daily Mail: Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon').

I suggest this may be noteworthy in main article once all the facts and commentary has settled down. --Leigh 21:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably a good idea. I got a bit excited there and put something in the main article. I was going to revert but two people have picked it up and started to develop. JoelUK 23:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should be developed, in news terms this is a very significant story - watch for his appearance on BBC One's Breakfast at 0810. Escaper7 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, today, October 13, the general unsaid what he spoke yesterday. Even Blair now agrees with him. The meaning of the words suffered a change... 201.19.182.192 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole section appears to be much ado about nothing and should probably be removed. Jim2345 20:15 , 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit wars

We seem to be getting rather hot under the collar on who said what to whom! Why not fight it out on the talk page, and then we can all join in?Phase4 22:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The story summary box is meant to be used to add information to help editors track the history of an article, not for personal disagreements or edit wars. Please see: Wikipedia's policy on civility which applies to all parts of articles including edit summaries. Also, it's usually courteous to discuss major changes before editing on the article talk page- and this especially applies to moving, controversial stories. Escaper7 11:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Should the heading Controversial Daily Mail interview of October 2006 be subbed to just Daily Mail interview of October 2006? If you're a typical Daily Mail reader, or someone who agrees with the general, you won't find the article "controversial" at all. I think it might help the NPOV of this article, and also shorten it a bit - then the Wiki reader can decide for themselves whether the article was controversial with all sides of the story listed under one heading. (...and yes I am aware that it's unprecedented for a senior military figure to enter a political debate). Any thoughts? Escaper7 12:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No comments by other editors on this - so I've changed the heading - probably better to let readers decide for themselves whether they thought the article was controversial. Escaper7 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)