Talk:Battle of Belleau Wood

national emphasis

Reading this, the british and french forces seems to have been of no relevance at this battle. The greatly different perspective on this battle of european historians is widely unmansioned. Marine-corps Propaganda?--178.142.105.60 (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Much as I despise DJT

The last few sentences in this article, regarding the controversy of remarks attributed to President Trump, have only the slightest reason to be in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.19.96.154 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Why do you feel that way? Reports from WP:RSs saying that the president privately disparaged the war dead from this battle -- attributed to the sources in the text -- are at least as important as a tree as a gift, which is mentioned in the previous paragraph.-Ich (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

DJT material is off topic and adds nothing to the understanding of the battle, its aftermath, or historical legacy. – S. Rich (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A sitting US president potentially disparaging the soldiers who died in the battle is part of the historical legacy. This has received international coverage. gobonobo ^{+ c} 11:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. This certainly meets notability requirements. Garuda28 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

While Trumps' comments might be WP:NOTEWORTHY, they are off-topic to the article (e.g., the battle) itself). Rather than removing this incidental controversy, I've re-written to include the comments, reported by unknown persons. WP-wise, I'm seeking to avoid WP:UNDUE. Let's keep the Legacy section focused on the WWI, the battle, and the cemetery. We do the service-members a disservice if we give too much credence to this rather nasty bit of political drama. – S. Rich (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the above was added, there have been several named individuals who deny President Trump said what The Atlantic article claimed. This includes senior officials who where there, including John Bolton, who is no fan of Trump. Every source claiming he said it remains unnamed. Only one source is making the claim, with nothing to back it up, and several reliable sources are denying it. This "incidental controversy" is now better defined as The Atlantic claimed Trump said it, rather than Trump actually did say. It's noteworthiness is, as mentioned, nothing more than a "rather nasty bit of political drama." As such, it certainly doesn't belong in this article and should be removed.--KMJKWhite (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Unnamed sources or not, the article has been independently verified by four different news sources. If individuals claim it didn’t happen, then we can add their rebutle, but that doesn’t erase the fact that it is newsworthy, verified by independent news agencies, and tied to the legacy of this topic. Garuda28 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If it were true, it would be noteworthy enough to be included in the Donald Trump Wikipedia article. It legitimately belongs there far more than it does here. However, it does not, and therefore should not be here either. Just because a reporter wanted a rumor to be true, and the editors let it be published, makes for great political controversy. There is no reason to publish political controversy to an article just because it's location was purported to be there.--KMJKWhite (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you attempting to claim that this source doesn’t meet WP:RS or lacks notability to be included? Garuda28 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

What I am disputing is it's inclusion here. In reports published on September 7th, the editor (Jeffrey Goldberg) who published the story admitted the central claim was wrong. With that revelation, the story became, essentially, a "he said, she said" piece, making the information in it inappropriate as a source for this particular Wikipedia article. Its notability became that of The Atlantic publishing a political controversy, supported only by anonymous sources, which trended for several days until overtaken by other events. Since this September 5th "consensus", the claim has been disputed by other sources who also meet WP:RS, including Goldberg himself, which is why I am recommending it be deleted from this article. Information that becomes suspect also becomes unreliable for use in an article whose only part in the story is that it was reported to have happened on the way here. The claim, which is "impossible to directly prove," is certainly noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia articles related to its origin. This has already been done, to various degrees, in articles for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, and Jennifer Griffin, where it has a place. The claim is notably absent from the article for Donald Trump, where it does not. For this article, since it adds nothing to the history of the battle itself or its legacy, it should be removed.--KMJKWhite (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that the story has been redacted or that the editor admits it’s wrong? I can’t find one. Moreover, regardless of its inclusion or lack of inclusion on the Donald trump article is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and is directly relevant to the topic at hand here. Garuda28 (talk) 03:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

A comprehensive source on the topic can be found here.[1]. It outlines Goldberg's pull back and includes a link to the video where, when confronted with a passage in Bolton's book stating the weather prevented the visit, and that driving was not prudent, Goldberg admitted that was true. This source goes on to link comments from 21 senior officials/aides, 14 of whom were with Trump that day, who go on record to deny the allegations. While Goldberg did not redact his article, he did agree that Bolton was correct, which contradicts his claim for the visit being called off the "because the weather would mess up his hair" (as quoted from this article). As the debunked "mess up his hair" claim is a predominant addition to this issue, and the disparaging comments have been vehemently denied by several others, the Goldberg source is now questionable. The comment should be removed.--KMJKWhite (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The source you provided is clearly not neutral on this topic – it’s even tagged as an opinion piece. I took a look on the website, and nearly every news article I see is a strong right-wing opinion piece (which many are listed as). Moreover, I can’t find a single mainline news source that’s covering what this article is claiming to say. The USAGAG article also tries to make the claim that this didn’t happen based on Goldberg’s interview with CNN, but he states that he stands by his reporting and that “all of those things (referring to Bolton’s book and his reporting, which the site attempts to discredit) may be true.” This clearly doesn’t meet WP:REPUTABLE. Are there any mainline news sources (Fox, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, etc.) that report the same? I really don’t see any chance of the Atlantic source being called into question unless it gets coverage in a reputable source or if the story is withdrawn (which is hasn’t). We don’t remove remove sources just because they’re denied by a certain party or those on a certain side of a political issue (left or right). Questioned by some isn’t good enough to get it removed - a recanted article or widespread reporting in traditional news sources that it was later found to be false is. And this source doesn’t meet the baseline requirements for that. Garuda28 (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This article, good as it is, provides next to no sources for the quotes he provides, many of which are highly contentious (French always advising retreat, for example). I wish the author would provide credible sources.71.167.53.222 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)