Talk:Douglas A. Zembiec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

[edit] Notability

I realize that this might be sensetive but this article does not meet the notability guidelines. --192.94.73.4 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've read the notability guidelines and fail to understand how it's not notable. Please advise what's missing and I'll be happy to correct it. External sources, extended online and traditional media coverage of Douglas Zembiec's life and death are all included. Perhaps my summary section ought be more complete? -- Resker 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Online coverage doesn't really count. This means blogs, people's webpages and so forth. If it is something like the LA Times (404 link, btw) or Washington Post, then that does count as traditional media. He had received a nice array of awards. However, lots of armed forces personnel do and are also not notable. But what does notability really mean? I've never heard of him. I'm willing to bet that people have heard of Jessica Lynch more than they had of this person. Has he been the subject of a book or a large part of a book? Has he been plastered or at least featured repeadidly on TV? There are laid out rules in the guidelines but the spirit of the rules matter more than the wording of the rules. Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#People. The notability is also very temporary. Also, I just need to know: are you independent of the subject? I am sorrry to say, that while it sounds like the Major lead an interesting life and is no doubt missed, wikipedia is not a memorial. Finally, you're not really supposed to just remove the notability tag outright. I think an editor needs to step in on this one.192.94.73.4 01:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Has he been featured in print media and TV repeatedly? Yes (in fact I've included a link to a new story published in the Baltimore Sun just yesterday). Has he been featured in traditional books? Yes. Will he be portrayed in a major motion picture set to release next year? Yes. Will he be the subject of at least one book on the subject of military leadership? Yes. Is Jessica Lynch the barometer for notability? Is anyone less notable (from the simple perspective of media exposure) not worthy of note? This entry is not constructed in the form of a memorial. I welcome an editor stepping in since I suspect your objection is based largely on your personal unfamiliarity with the subject and perhaps my inexperience in properly crafting the article. I do strongly contest the notion that the subject is not notable however. Resker 22:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

How much TV? Was it national or local TV and how often? For example, just because a person was ABC's "Person of the Week" doesn't count as notability, either. What kind of print? A large section of a notable book or newspaper articles from, say a news bureau or a semi-national paper (WaPo, LA Times, USA Today, etc) ranging in the dozens versus a chapter or two in a less notable and a few articles in a several city papers is preferable.

As it happens, my unfamiliarity with the subject actually is kind of a barometer. If you pick any random (American) person off the street and ask about Major Zembiec or Pvt. Lynch, I don't think that the Major will be well-known. The average, random person (like me) is not very familiar with the military or impressive figures, such as the Major, but we have all heard about Pvt. Lynch because of the news reports and also because she may have been used by the government as a propoganda effort. Contrast with Major General Smedley Butler who is probably more obscure than the Major but has the distinction of two Medal of Honors as well as his role in the Business Plot which is pretty notable by any account. Both Maj Gen Butler and Pvt Lynch are notable for these various reasons. I didn't know about the movie, though, and that might change things, depending on how popular or notable it is. So, in conclusion, it's just wait and see, I guess.

Per the deletion policy "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Douglas A. Zembiec. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed." Thus the tag is being removed. One's personal agenda ought not interfere with accurate preservation of descriptions of notable historical figures for posterity. Resker 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Retaining the notability note to give the original objector an opportunity to objectively assert the perceived lack of notability. The myriad references and ongoing coverage suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that the subject satisfies any reasonable definition of notability. Resker 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is being viewed personal. My only agenda is Wikipedia and maintaining its integerty. An editor will settle this and we can put it behind us, either way. OneNineTwo 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated previously, I'm more than willing to amend the article to satisfy a very (extremely) broad definition of notability. Alas, I'm unable to comply until somebody can point out how this article does not meet current guidelines. External and independent sources are referenced extensively, the material of why Maj. Zembiec and the role he played in notable events is described, the significance of his contributions within his field is described in abundance in the referenced articles, honors / awards are specified, the forthcoming characterization of Maj. Zembiec in a major motion picture is noted. One individual's specific knowledge of Maj. Zembiec can't possibly be a useful barometer for whether or not a Wikipedia article is notable or not. I'm frankly trying very hard to understand how the aggressive move to censor material here is contributing to the greater good. Resker 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and anonymous punters

Isn't it against Wiki policy to allow unregistered users to submit entries for deletion?
 In any event, there's a preponderance of media coverage regarding Major Zembiec as well as a 
work-in-progress on combat leadership featuring his words and a movie somewhere in the 
development pipeline. For some reason, the request for deletion of this article smacks of 
some sort of a personal-agenda issue and don't belong here.

Fyrfitrmedic 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Doug Zembiec is known to tens of thousands who have served in Iraq. He is a genuinely hero and an example for the youth of America. If harrison ford does the movie of Fallujah, zembiec will be known to millions, which is just. When I first met Captain Doug Zembiec, he was sitting on the roof of a shot-up house in Fallujah, nibbling on a cracker and shouting into a headset over the cracks of rifle fire and the crump of mortar shells. A few insurgents were darting across a street several hundred yards away. You could barely glimpse them for a second or two.

Zembiec gestured at two snipers hunched over rifles with telescopic sights. One fired a .50 caliber shell, big as a cigar, and the recoil rocked him back. The other took a shot with a smaller M14 rifle, and scarcely noticed the recoil. "The corporal with the M14," he said, "has more kills than the .50 cal. We keep knocking them down out there, and they'll eventually get the message."

An All-American wrestler while at the Naval Academy, Zembiec adored his wife and baby daughter, took care of his Marines, bragged about his dad, made sure the china in the house was tucked away from the bullet-pocked windows and shared food packages with the civilians behind the front lines. He was a fighter - what we infantrymen affectionately call a grunt. He was most alive, he told me, in the middle of a firefight. His men dubbed him "The Lion".

In theory, counterinsurgency (COIN) is divided into two schools of thought: "hearts and minds" versus "kinetics" - the use of weapons. In the actual fight, it's not an either-or proposition. Resolving an insurgency is 80 percent political reconciliation -- following after the 20 percent security that is won by soldiers in battle. Military success is not sufficient for a stable outcome, but it is the essential core. How our military performs under girds what happens in Iraq.

I stayed with Doug and his company in Iraq in 2004, and again in 2005. We just missed hooking up again in Baghdad in April of 2007, where his unit was hunting down al Qaeda operatives. He was confident the terrorists were on the run. A month later, Doug Zembiec, leading his team into a house during a raid, was shot in the head and killed instantly.

In World War II, our nation highlighted valor and quietly accepted mistakes as part of war. In Iraq, we have lost four thousand soldiers in the past sixty months. In one month on Iwo Jima in 1945, we lost close to six thousand men. Iwo was a blunder that could have been avoided. We remember the battle not because it was a terrible mistake, but because of the valor captured in a photo of six Marines planting the American flag atop a bullet-swept peak. Courage, Aristotle wrote, is that virtue that makes all other virtues possible.

As a nation, we used to believe that. Today, we quietly accept valor and highlight mistakes. Zembiec is America's tribute to valor. Of course he deserves to be in Wikipedia; he will be talked about in boot camps, in barracks and in the SOF community for years.

Sincerely, Bing West Bingwest 15:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm from Italy and I read about Maj. Zambiec on the USMC portal and on defenselink.mil. So, there's at least a person who looked for this Marine on wikipedia and that person is not from USA... --Gianmarco T. (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)