Talk:Jim Mattis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
m Certified Gangsta moved page Talk:James Mattis to Talk:Jim Mattis: He's referred to as such on his official Department of Defense profile https://www.defense.gov/About/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/1055835/james-mattis/
m Corkythehornetfan moved page Talk:Jim Mattis to Talk:James Mattis without leaving a redirect: RV gf move - I think this will require a discussion and James seems to be the more common name (at least from what I can see).
(No difference)

Revision as of 23:37, 10 October 2017

Template:USMCportal

Date of birth

Where did Mattis serve in Vietnam? If he enlisted at 19 in 1969, it would have been difficult for him to avoid Vietnam, and as a future careerist he wouldn't have wanted to avoid it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know his date of birth? I've had a look on the internet, but can't find anything. Palefire 08:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few books that go into some depth on him but good luck finding his DOB. He is not the most public of individuals so it would be very tough to find.--Looper5920 11:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mandatory retirement for this service is at 62 (with an unclear special case that can extend to 64). Subject's profile indicates he would have been approx 22 in 1972. So it's clearly c. 1951. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I do know is that his date of birth as reported (Sept 8, 1950) is incorrect even though it is cited from a transcript of a Congressional Hearing. The transcript is wrong. Further research should be done by the person who insists on publishing that date. Mark Walker, and the management at The North County Times in San Diego have an audio recording published online(and since taken down) on June 19, 2007 where Mattis states that he is 57 on that day. If he was born on Sept 8, 1950 he would have said he was 56. The person who insists upon publishing incorrect data won't go to the trouble to research this thoroughly, he depends on one source only, believing that source to be indisputable. I have a copy of the audio file(s)I speak of. The North County Times will probably release or sell for a small price said audio file(s) to anyone who wants to do thorough research (North County Times Newsroom 760-740-5425).

Also, Mattis' Mandatory Retirement Date (MRD) as reported in the same congressional transcript says "MRD: 1 July 12." That date also supports his birth date being in mid-June 1950. Mandatory retirement age is 62. If he had been born on Sept 8, 1950 he would only be 61 on the MRD reported. The transcript is wrong. The research is incomplete.

SamWest314 Samwest314 (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Encyclopedia Britannica: "James Mattis, (born Sept. 8, 1950, Pullman, Wash., U.S.), U.S. Marine Corps general who was appointed by Pres. Barack Obama to serve..." (Source) Jokestress (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pantano deemed innocent?

I reverted this edit.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this rant here? Under the guise of undoing a simple reversion you felt the need to write a small novella on your take on what happened in the Pantano case, the rules of war, use of WP, etc...? Does this crap need to be on Mattis' page. I would say no. I am going to remove it unless you can provide a reason for its existence.--Looper5920 04:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why was this explanation there? What we sometimes see on the wikipedia is truthiness at work. The excision I reverted on January 11th was excised again two weeks later. The passage that keeps getting excised does not use inflammatory language, cites authoritative, verifiable sources — and yet no doubt well-meaning wikipedians feel they can excise it, without research, calling it an "outright lie". I think we are seeing an archetypical example of "truthiness". We are encountering editors who don't feel the need to research their edits when they read something that feels untrue.
    • I am sure you didn't mean to be give the appearance of defending editors making edits based on what they feel is true, and agree with me that editors should exercise some care to verify that what they feel is true, actually is true, before they make edits, correct?
    • Cheers! — Geo Swan 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring paragraph that is not "an outright lie"

In this edit another wikipedian removed the bulk of a paragraph with the edit summary: "rm outright lie"

  • They didn't say:
    • Whether they were disputing if Pantano emptied two magazines into two unarmed prisoners.
    • Whether they were disputing if Pantano scrawled Mattis's slogan as a warning over the corpses of the prisoners he just killed.
    • Whether they were disputing that the slogan became central to the investigation into Pantano's actions.

Pantano did empty two magazines into his unarmed prisoners. Pantano did scrawl Mattis's slogan over the corpses. So I restored the passage.

Cheers! — Geo Swan 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic statement

This sentence is opinion, not fact, and it's vague to boot: "Reaction to Mattis' comments aside, however, the General has displayed a deep understanding of the nature of war, an understanding often lost on those of similar rank." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

"bloodthirsty and widely seen as disgustingly racist comments aside" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.147.14 (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

About Oct 2008, an anon added the légion d'honneur to the list of Mattis's awards. Recently, another anon felt the need to remove it. I'm really not sure who is right, and so far, there is no evidence to show that he was actually a recipient of the award. However, I have undone the removal because it messed up the table a bit. Can anyone else find a ref for this French award being given to Mattis? If not, I'll remove it in a few weeks or so. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 11:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it until someone has a reference for it, because I couldn't find one. claudevsq (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Ford portrayal removed

I removed the line about his upcoming portrayal by Harrison Ford, as the reference was from Dec. 2004 and there is no entry about this on Mr. Ford's imdb page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.5.82 (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hard to tell what's going on with this film. It drew some criticism back in 2004 and 2005, but they filmed enough to release a trailer. I can't find any notice that it was cancelled, but there doesn't seem to be any more evidence that production went forward either. The release date was slated to be 2009... not much time left. I suppose we can leave it out until we see more evidence that the project didn't die silently, or is mired in development hell. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 05:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

I have now multiple times removed content about people trying to ascribe political aspirations to the subject. Take a look at the sources: Townhall.com, Daily Caller, and Lifezette. Lifezette isn't a reliable source so that can be thrown out but even so, it's the same as the others. This politics season you have a lot of hack writers trying to fill inches on magazines and websites. No political candidate has named Mattis for anything. Mattis himself hasn't said he's going to run for anything. These websites are just part of the echo chamber of the hopeful audience trying to put Mattis into the political arena. None of this content belongs. Anyone that disagrees need to consider reading these websites critically. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just because someone includes Mattis in their personal wishlist for Trump's cabinet is a far cry from Trump actually considering him for such a position. It also does not equate to popular opinion for such an appointment. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. KMJKWhite (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Siggyb2too: Please stop adding your personal interpretation of the Natl Security Act to the lede. First, the lede is supposed to summarize what's in the body of the article, not introduce material. Add this info to the body of the article and develop it there. Second, what you're adding is unreferenced. Also, the article is about the subject. Whether or not the law allows Mattis to be SECDEF is a small discussion point that shouldn't be in the lede section. Finally, you have to have consensus to add material once you've been reverted. You don't have consensus and you would do well not to edit war. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Nam

Any explanation as to why he didn't serve in Viet Nam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.43.173 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Assumption: he entered service in 1969; by the time he was in a position to be assigned there, the USMC had drawn down their commitment significantly. It appears, reading between the lines, that the earliest he might have served there was 1972, by which time the Marines were pretty much out of straight combat roles, and were limited to scattered advisory roles, and support in Saigon. Probably just luck of the draw, and nothing more, is my guess. LiberTarHeel (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who were draftees were "in a position" to serve in Vietnam 5 months after entry into the military. So a person who wanted a military career could certainly have gotten into combat just as quickly as those who didn't even want to be in the military. Which leaves the question (not a partisan one) why he didn't serve in the biggest war of his lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premature appointulation?

LiberTarHeel (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)It appears that Mattis' appointment as SecDef is not a fact at all. I would suggest either removing it or at least wording it to read more like the rumor that it appears to be. His Press Sec has issued a statement that's pretty definitive in this regard.[reply]

Based on the edits and notes I've seen here, the only effective way to keep this from happening is to restrict editing. That's been done. As for being definitive, the official announcement will be 5 December. Of course, there are obstacles to him being approved, so this will be going on for a while.--KMJKWhite (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWA

Not to be confused with Fraud Waste and Abuse - a former 4 star speakers bureau with many Wikipedia articles (FWA) but none reflecting http://fwaconsultants.homestead.com - in lieu of an article some explanation might be appropriate in this article. - 173.20.148.109 (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Political Islam

Washington Post recently detailed Mattis' views on political Islam or well at the least questioning it as useful to USA. I wonder why no one has added it here. 27.255.221.131 (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a platform for journalism. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there precedence for calling him Jim?

There is a recent controversy over whether Mattis approves of being called "Jim." My argument is that this was a one time instance, occurring only since his nomination for SecDef and will show to be incorrect over time. People's names don't change just because the press published it that way for one or two days. Not every person named "James" likes to be refered to by the nick-name "Jim" and, until Mattis' official biography changes to such, it should not be included here.--KMJKWhite (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's been called Jim since at least 2010 [1] Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing official identifies him as "Jim." Just because an occasional journalist assumes familiarity, doesn't mean he approves of its use. Yes, articles occasionally pop up using it. There were a lot of "Jim" Mattis articles last week and now everything is "James" again. That may well imply someone has identified it as an issue and corrected it. Until its officially sanctioned, or its use far more common than his given name, it should not be published here as such.--KMJKWhite (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing in

Mattis has been confirmed, but hasn't yet been sworn in. Therefore he's (for the moment) Secretary of Defense-designate. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding the awards and decorations does not match those on the most recent photo's of General mantis in uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.51.121.171 (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intro / Lede

Intro is hard to read, especially 2nd para. "Before" with "previously" in the same sentence is redundant. Grammar surgeon required, stat. Sadsaque (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mad Dog"

Quotations are used in a full name to denote a colloquial or nickname. The inclusion of "Mad Dog" seems to me as below encyclopedic standards, and is especially not appropriate for a Cabinet official and employee of the United States federal government. This should be omitted. Frevangelion (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given Mattis has just announced "Mad Dog" is not the name he prefers, I agree. KMJKWhite (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. From time to time on articles I've seen hidden text instructing editors not to do this or that (usually in all caps). I don't know how to add that kind of text, but since a number of editors have been adding in "Mad Dog," do you think it's worth doing something like that? Marquardtika (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Knowing how to do html comments is good to know on several articles like this. Check it out for yourself. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and will do! Marquardtika (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So can we mention that his radio call sign is CHAOS (Colonel Has An Outstanding Solution), and that he once said that the media made up the "mad dog" moniker?

  • "I assure you that nickname was given to me by the press, and some of you may have experienced similar occasions with the press, where perhaps they didn't get it quite right," he said. [2]

I used to think it was something he was known as, but recent news article (and or Mattis statements) make me think it was just a recent thing - maybe just a media/headline thing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was known as "Mad Dog" when he was still in the Marine Corps and I assumed it came from military peers. If it was invented by the media it was done years ago. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, plus I found a CNN quote:
  • Mattis earned the nickname "Mad Dog" after leading combat troops into the Persian Gulf War in 1991, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s. He was called "Mad Dog" after the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq, where he led British and American troops against Iraqi insurgents. [3]
So maybe we could say, "Despite protestations that the media made up the nickname "Mad Dog" ... [something]"
But was it reporters or Marines who called him that? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nicknames should only be included in the given name when that is what they are normally called, like James Ewell Brown "Jeb" Stuart, who was called Jeb Stuart. TFD (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mad Dog Matis (disc jockey) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need all these images?

I believe there are a few too many low-value images on this page. Per the Manual of Style, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." Some images on this page add little value, perhaps even to being a distraction, given the article's current content. I'm not one to just jump in and start deleting images without addressing my concern. I would not object to keeping them, if someone who does recognize their value would add relative discussion to the article. Unless that happens, I propose the following images be removed from the article (caption shown):

  • "A city street in Fallujah heavily damaged by the fighting, November 2004" - The image depicts Iraqi special forces, albeit attached to a Marine unit, patrolling Fallujah streets during the Second Battle of Fallujah. While a good image for that battle, it has very little to do with Mattis (whose role in that battle is not discussed here), and only remotely involves him leading Marines during the Iraq War.
  • "Joe Biden, Robert Gates, Mike Mullen and Mattis in Baghdad, Iraq" - It's a great photo of dignitaries observing a change of command in Iraq. However, it is applicable to this article only because it has Mattis in it. Neither that change of command, nor him meeting with those officials, are discussed in the article.
  • "Mattis and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, January 2012" - No where in the article does it discuss the relationship between Mattis and Secretary Clinton. The article does include, "the Obama administration did not place much trust in Mattis." However, the posed picture depicts a cordial meeting, with no hint of mistrust.
  • "Mattis in 2016" - Before he became Secretary of Defense, this image had value here. However, other than the tie, suit color and background, it is nearly identical to the main (i.e., infobox) image.

I'm open minded to different viewpoints. If anyone objects to deleting any of these, please discuss below. Thank you, KMJKWhite (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think they give the article a better look and feel. They also convey useful context. I don't see any reason to remove them.Classafelonymonkey (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see some younger images of him as well, or swapped out with the ones that are here, if possible. I don't know if that is possible, as I have not been able to find any that are compliant with Wikipedia licensing requirements. I tried. Sec Defense Mattis was quite a cutie when he was about 20 years younger, and I think it is important for other females (such as myself) to get to see that.--FeralOink (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Mattis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]