Talk:John Stebbins

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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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.

[edit] Neutral or no?

Just at a glance, this article doesn't seem to be all that neutral. It doesn't fit the Wikipedia standards for a biograph, and to have the child molestation charges listed first has a negative connotation. Perhaps include his military service record FIRST and then his charges later. Mientkiewicz5508 01:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noteworthy?

I agree it's not noteworthy, but I think this might warrant a section in the article on the movie since they intentionally didn't include him. Delete as an article, but mention it in the movie article. --Nobunaga24 05:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. The possibility that the US Army may have influenced the decision to remove a character from what is essentially a re-enactment of an actual event is what makes this article noteworthy, IMO. Ignoramibus 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree against deleting. This person should not be swept under the rug just because he brought shame upon himself, his unit and the Army. To "delete" him as a notable character in an historic battle is just sanitizing the truth: that human beings, not archetypes, fought and died in that battle, on both sides.

I vote against deletion. Despite the fact that his character was changed in the movie because of his later crime, it doesn't alter his important role in the battle itself. Acarvin 19:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] combatant?

how dare someone call him a "combatant". he was a US Soldier doing his job. Keltik31 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that. Calling him a combatant means that he took a direct part in the hostilities. How is that inaccurate? It is not a pejorative either. --Rifleman 82 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

they call the Palestinians and Hamas "combatants". he disgraced himself, but he was still an Army Ranger and a soldier. i find it disrespectful to call him a "combatant". Keltik31 17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about it, then I won't argue with you. But maybe you would like to take a look at combatant or any other dictionary and see if it really does have such negative connotations. --Rifleman 82 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you. i do feel strongly about it. never in american culture do we call american soldiers by that term. it likens americans in uniform to those in prison down in cuba. thank you for your understanding. Keltik31 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)