Talk:Michael Hagee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
MILHIST 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.

Page does not render correctly in Mozilla at 1600x1200. --Tbjablin 06:17, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fixed as of now. Tbjablin 03:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Page problems in Firefox

Table format in Firefox problematic. Entries overlap standard infobox. —ERcheck @ 12:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't get the same problem with IE but the real answer is that the tables need to be turned into prose like all of the other commandant bios. I don't have the patience to accomplish this right now. That will be an over the weekend job--Looper5920 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks to User:Tbjablin for fixing the table formatting. —ERcheck @ 03:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

The layout of this page from a military standpoint is very good. We should make all entries regarding military personnel in the same way... command and staff assignements along with education and awards in a linear, instead of narrative manner. Hal06

Yep, I agreee with Hal06. I know it's a style choice, but for most military personnel who don't have a "story", turning lists into paragraphs is boring to write and painful to read. :)  — MrDolomite | Talk 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The Military History WP has made a decision regarding articles using lists vs. prose and a consensus has been reached stating that all good articles should be written in prose. If the person doesn't have a "story," then they shouldn't be on Wikipedia--I think we can all agree that Hagee deserves to be on WP and he certainly has his own story, whether it's gripping, edge-of-your-seat narrative or not. If anyone would care to help me transition this page to prose, I'd be grateful for the help. Otherwise, I'll do it myself. --ScreaminEagle 18:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Information

Can anyone talk about the changes and things that happened during his term of office? Hal06 13:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement ceremony versus official retirement

There seems to be a bit of editing back and forth on whether General Hagee is officially retired. The reference from usmc.mil indicates that on November 13, 2006, Hagee had his retirement ceremony followed by the change of command ceremony. That had been taken to mean that Hagee is retired from the Marine Corps. A recent edit, both in article change and in edit summary, said he is awaiting retirement. I had read that though he had given up command, he would not officially retire until near year end — though I can't remember where I read it and could not relocate the original reference.

On the official USMC site — for General Officers' biographies, General Hagee's page is still listed under active.

I finally found a definitive reference: "Public Directory of:U.S. Marine Corps General Officers & Senior Executives", 6 December 2006 says:

Name: Gen Hagee, Michael W.
Date of rank: 13 Jan 03
Duty assignment (commenced): Awaiting Retirement (1/1/2007)

Therefore, he is is not yet a retired Marine Corps general. He is still on active duty, though has no duty assignment. I will be making the change to the main article, and adding the reference. — ERcheck (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So he's on terminal leave then. Surely that could be added to clarify somewhat. --ScreaminEagle 18:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I added this information to the article. "Terminal leave" might not be terminology familiar to non-military folks, so I did not use that wording. If you feel my wording is not clear, please feel free to edit. — ERcheck (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for digging that up. Any idea why the official retirement date would be 1/1/2007 and not, say, the full 60 days the statute allows him to keep his rank after leaving his last four-star assignment? Or does "terminal leave" just mean he had a bunch of vacation days piled up and they scheduled his retirement ceremony by counting backward that number of days from a nice round date? Morinao 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It would only be speculation on his vacation days, etc. The references do not indicate the reason for that particular date. — ERcheck (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Portrait

I'm slightly confused as to why his official portrait, which is only a depiction of reality, has been used in place of his official photo, which is reality. Is this a practice being put in place for all former CMCs or something? I fail to see how this is a better image to use for the article than an actual photograph of the man. --ScreaminEagle 15:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll have to agree with ScreaminEagle on this one. I don't believe that the painting should be in the infobox vice a real photo.--Looper5920 19:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Very well, i just put it in there because it's a notable portrait, with him being in cammies. Windyjarhead 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the official photograph should be returned to the infobox; but, the portrait in cammies is appropriate for the body of the article, if a mention is added to the article that his official portrait is in cammies — being only the 2nd CMC to be so portrayed. (See USMC Portal, DYK.) Reference Marine Corps Times. — ERcheck (talk) 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)