Talk:John F. Kelly

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John F. Kelly article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from John F. Kelly appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 3,523 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that John F. Kelly's 2003 promotion to brigadier general while in Iraq was the first promotion of a U.S. Marine Corps colonel in a combat zone since Chesty Puller's 1951 Korean War promotion? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/December.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Military history: Biography / North America / United States / Cold War / Post-Cold War 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Post-Cold War task force United States: University of Massachusetts / Military history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - University of Massachusetts (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 23 to 29, 2017 (23rd) July 30 to August 5, 2017 (19th)

PaulinSaudi; You have correctly stated the rule that ranks are capitalized in front of a name. However, note that the "lieutenant general" edit you reverted is not used in front of a name and is, thus, not to be capitalized in this instance. Same thing with "lieutenant general" in the info box.

Capitalization of "commanding general" is a bit less clear to me. I was attempting to apply the rule from WP:JOBTITLES: "Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting."

As for "Marine Forces North", unless I am mistaken this is the proper name of a unit and "Marine" as part of the name is, thus, capitalized regardless of one's opinion on whether "marine" is normally normally capitalized on its own.

Any thoughts? Ocalafla (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, I am sicker than a dog (and on a Saudi weekend) and unable to make any sort of judgment call. That being said, I suspect I may have been wrong when I changed "Lieutenant General" to Lieutenant general" in the infobox. After all, the box is not a sentence, but more like a headline or something. I see no reason why "commanding general" ought to be capitalized. Even in my kryptonite-depleted condition, I think I can say we all tend to capitalize way too much. Do as you think best, I will be back in a few days. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

PaulinSaudi, yeah the info box could probably go either way. If infobox items are "title case" then capitalize lieutenant general. If "sentence case" then just "lieutenant". Most infoboxes I see seem to have "sentence case" so I just tracked that. I wish you a speedy recovery to get you back in the fight against overcapitalization! Ocalafla (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone agree that John F. Kelly (general) might be a better title? Connormah (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Let's think ahead.... will it change (if) when he becomes the Secretary of DHS? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• That's a good question, I'm not too sure. But the current disambiguation seems a bit off (too specific? Not too sure how to word it.), imo. I took a look at some of the four star general lists and it does like we've used the one I proposed for other cases. Connormah (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would say about this, leave it as it is right now - wait for a few days. Think this out. I think that John F. Kelly article is 'findable' as it is because of the discussion of the strong military presence on the Cabinet appointments. MaynardClark (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

• What I'm trying to avoid is "fixing" it now, only to change it again in a few weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be best to look at past precedent of someone who was in the Cabinet and had a very common name, and use a similar naming convention. I'm not sure of any examples off hand, but just a suggestion. Calibrador (talk) 08:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Assuming a battlefield command is the pinnacle of a Marine's career. Being removed is near the nadir, exceeded only by a court martial. It's extremely rare for the modern U.S. military to relieve a top commander of duty, especially during combat. Col. Dowdy, 47 years old, was the only senior officer in any of the military services to be dismissed in Iraq. He says he would rather have taken an enemy bullet."(1)

One of the cardinal rules of maneuver warfare stipulates that generals should allow commanders in the field, such as Col. Dowdy, to make tactical decisions. Gen. Kelly says he never ordered Col. Dowdy to move through Nasiriyah and never threatened to remove him from his post. But Lt. Col. Pete Owen, Col. Dowdy's chief of staff, has a different recollection. "When we were stalled out in Nasiriyah, Gen. Kelly came up to me and said, 'If Col. Dowdy doesn't get this column moving, I'm gonna pull him.' "(1)

On the morning of April 3, 2003, the 15th day of the war, Gen. Kelly called Col. Dowdy to say he wanted the assault on Kut to begin immediately. Col. Dowdy said he was awaiting fresh ammunition and checking a report that the road to Kut was mined. Gen. Kelly was furious, according to Col. Dowdy. "Those aren't considerations, they're excuses," Col. Dowdy recalls the general saying.(1)

Col. Dowdy says the general continued: "Why aren't you driving through al Kut right now? You know what? I'm going to recommend that you be relieved of command. Maybe Gen. Mattis won't do it. Maybe he'll decide he can get along with a regiment that isn't worth a s-. But that's what I'm going to recommend."(1)

References: (1) How a Marine Lost His Command In Race to Baghdad Col. Joe Dowdy's 'Tempo' Displeased Superiors; Balance of Mission, Men By Christopher Cooper Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL April 5, 2004 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108111980285073875 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discernable (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why is his Navy PUC shown as one of his award ribbons, but not listed in the awards box? ```` 2601:989:4200:BAA2:5912:EBF7:708A:C30A (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

On May 28, 2017, Kelly went to the News Media Sunday programs to defend back channel efforts with Russia by Jared Kushner. Seems that this should be a part of the article since it is viewed as treasonous by many. --Wikipietime (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)-Reply

http://time.com/4796868/john-kelly-defends-jared-kushner-russia/ Headline:DHS Secretary John Kelly Defends Jared Kushner: 'I Don't See Any Issue Here'

Interviews on CNN;

March 6, 2017; http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/03/06/john-kelly-dhs-trump-travel-ban-wiretap-tsr-intv-full.cnn

April 23, 2017; http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/04/23/john-kelly-full-interview-sotu.cnn

June 18 2017; http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/06/16/john-kelly-interview-sot.cnn

Need a summary of factoids on positions. --Wikipietime (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

While translating this article and checking some sources, I checked the source on the promotion of Kelly to Major General. This is currently no. 14: " "Nominations Confirmed (Non-Civilian)". United States Senate. September 11, 2007. Retrieved November 27, 2008.". It links to this overview. However, it doesn't seem to hold any confirmation with the name 'Kelly' nor any appointment that seems to fit the description. Can anyone help out? I'll add a citation needed for now. effeietsanders 12:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I also noticed he's not in List of United States Army four-star generals despite being in List of United States Marine Corps four-star generals and described as "bona fide retired four-star US Marine Corps general" by some journalist [1]. A 2011-03 calendar reports on his nomination as Lieutenant general and he is already called as such in a 2011-02 report

The archived version has «September 11, 2007 PN199-2 MARINE CORPS The following named officers for appointment in the United States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 624: Brig. Gen. John F. Kelly, 7821, to be Major General» and also an earlier «PN511 NAVY Nominations beginning RHETTA R. BAILEY, 1163, and ending KELLY J. WILD, 4473, which 9 nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 3, 2007.» --Nemo 15:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"riebus's ousting" - name should be capitalized. Rereradu (talk) 07:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 08:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Readers may be mystified by G-3 - a wikilink would be useful in the 4th paragraph of Military career. Please change

"was assigned to a third tour of duty at Camp Lejeune, now as the assistant chief of staff G-3 with the Second Marine Division."

to

"was assigned to a third tour of duty at Camp Lejeune, now as the assistant chief of staff G-3 with the Second Marine Division." 173.20.148.109 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Note, however, that the linked article has no source citations for verification, and Staff (military) has very few. —ADavidB 03:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

We should use his official transition portrait instead of his DHS portrait because a. It's in better quality and b. He's not a DHS official anymore & there's no need for the flag to be in the background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmithca (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Someone has added "Independent" to the "political party" line in the infobox. I just did a search and I don't find any reliable source description of his politics at all; WaPo and NYT have described him as "apolitical". Is that the same thing as independent, or is that Original Research? Should we label him "Independent" even though I haven't found a reliable source for that label? --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is an ongoing issue on this page. I think we should leave the field empty unless and until we can find a source which definitively verifies his membership in a political party (I'm guessing we're not going to find one, since I've looked pretty extensively and haven't turned anything up yet). Probably like many high-level military members, he's not registered with any party. "Independent" when describing political parties typically applies to a registered third-party of one kind or another, so I don't think it is the same thing as "apolitical." Marquardtika (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree, and thanks for removing it. I have even heard high-ranking military officers say that they never vote - not out of apathy, but as some kind of statement of principle, that they are military and outside the realm of politics. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you both. Now the question is: how do we go about this in other articles (i.e. DHS Secretary article where his number is shaded as Independent)? Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 23:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Gray is not a bad depiction of "independent/apolitical/other". It's a neutral as it can get. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The label for it though is just "independent". A person not familiar with this would automatically assume he's an independent. I think we need to rethink how it is labeled if we don't have sources for his party... Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 00:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well, you might take that question to that article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering if the section about Wilson might go into too much detail about the incident. IMO it could probably be shortened and focused. I have started working on a rewrite but have to leave for a while. I will post a proposed rewrite here later. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Later: I do think the section about Frederica Wilson goes into too much detail and is more about her than about him. What we now have is

In October 2017, congresswoman Frederica Wilson said that Trump made insensitive remarks in a call to the widow of a slain U.S. soldier. Kelly subsequently harshly criticized Wilson, including an accusation that she had bragged in a 2015 speech about securing federal funding for an FBI building in her district. Fact-checkers reviewing a video of her speech found that Kelly's specific accusation was false; Wilson did not say anything about having secured funding for the building, and in fact the building's funding had been secured before Wilson was elected to Congress.^[1][2][3][4] Instead, Wilson's nine-minute speech recounted her leadership in ensuring a bill was expedited to name the building after two FBI agents killed in the line of duty.^[5] The White House later said she had made other comments on the subject which were not part of her speech and so were not on the video.^[6]

Sources

^ Alcindor, Yamiche; Shear, Michael D. (2017-10-20). "After Video Refutes Kelly's Charges, Congresswoman Raises Issue of Race". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-10-23. ^ "Fact-checking John Kelly on Frederica Wilson's 2015 speech". @politifact. Retrieved 2017-10-23. ^ "AP Fact Check: Kelly Distorted Facts in Attack on Congresswoman". Bloomberg.com. 2017-10-20. Retrieved 2017-10-23. ^ "Video Backs Wilson, Not Kelly - FactCheck.org". FactCheck.org. 2017-10-20. Retrieved 2017-10-23. ^ Nakamura, David (October 20, 2017). "Video of 2015 event shows Gen. John Kelly misrepresented Rep. Frederica S. Wilson's remarks". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 24, 2017. In her nine-minute address, Wilson did recount how she went into 'attack mode' to ensure that Congress and Obama expedited a bill to name the building ^ King, Ledyard (October 20, 2017). "Video debunks John Kelly's claim that Frederica Wilson took credit for FBI building funds". USA Today. Retrieved October 24, 2017. Sanders said the video did not capture everything. 'She also had quite a few comments that weren't part of that speech and weren't part of that video ... that (speak to) what Gen. Kelly referenced'

I'd like to see us 1) trim some of the detail 2) eliminate the duplicative references and replace them with refs targeted to the sentence, 3) make it more about Kelly (the subject of this biography), and 4) include the most widely quoted thing he said - calling her an "empty barrel". How about something like this:

In October 2017, congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D-FL) criticized Trump for his phone call to the widow of a slain U.S. soldier, saying his remarks had been insensitive.^[1] A few days later Kelly held a press briefing where he defended Trump's phone call, which he had overheard, saying Trump had "expressed his condolences in the best way that he could." He harshly criticized Wilson, calling her "the empty barrel that makes the most noise" and stating that in a 2015 speech she had inappropriately claimed credit for securing federal funding for an FBI building in her district.^[2][3] However, video of her speech showed that she had not made such a claim.^[4]

Sources

^ "Rep. Wilson calls Trump 'insensitive' for telling widow of soldier "he knew what he signed up for'". CBS Miami. October 17, 2017. Retrieved 25 October 2017. ^ Fabian, Jordan; Easley, Jonathan (October 19, 2017). "John Kelly defends Trump on calls, lashes out at Florida Democrat". The Hill. Retrieved 24 October 2017. ^ McCaskill, Nolan D. (October 19, 2017). "Kelly emotionally defends Trump's call to military widow". Politico. Retrieved 25 October 2017. ^ Nakamura, David (October 20, 2017). "Video of 2015 event shows Gen. John Kelly misrepresented Rep. Frederica S. Wilson's remarks". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 24, 2017. In her nine-minute address, Wilson did recount how she went into 'attack mode' to ensure that Congress and Obama expedited a bill to name the building

Thoughts? (forgot to sign) --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with the rewrite. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The only update I'd suggest to the proposed rewording is to append to the last sentence that she did not make such a claim "in it", referring to the speech itself. —ADavidB 01:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can add that if you want, but it seems unnecessary. She obviously didn't make that claim in her other, "not in the speech" comments either, despite the efforts of Trump World to hint that maybe she did. It would have been ridiculous. She wasn't even in Congress when the money was appropriated. What they are thinking of, and confusing themselves over, is that she took credit for the NAME of the building. That, she did. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think not giving one side of the dispute more benefit of doubt than the other is more neutral. I understand the credit taken in the speech is for expediting the naming so it would coincide with the building's opening. —ADavidB 02:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I concur that "in it" is unnecessary. The building's funding was secured in 2009. She became a congresswoman in 2011. Kelly said she boasted of personally calling Barack Obama to get the funding. How could she have done that 2 years before she became a congresswoman? starship.paint ~ KO 10:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
• One side of the dispute lies about literally everything on a daily basis, even most mundane and blatant facts. On this occasion, the lie has been contradicted by video evidence, and now the side is making the extraordinary claim that she made her lie under different circumstances than those that they originally claimed. I don't think the rewrite ought to include the White House's unsubstantiated and 'moved goalposts' claim after their original lie was shown to be false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Yeah. First Kelly says "A congresswoman stood up ... stood up there in all of that and talked ... [insert accusation] ... and she sat down", then the video came out and the White House says she "had quite a few comments that day that weren't part of that speech" - with no evidence. Add to that, Kelly got the figure of the building's cost wrong. There's nothing going for Kelly here. starship.paint ~ KO 01:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your opinions, all. This looks like consensus. I will replace the current paragraph with the shortened, more focused version. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Foote does not have a PhD in history and has no peer-reviewed publications in the field. He's a historian in the sense of Bill O'Reilly and Ta-Nehisi Coates: amateurs writing about history. Foote and Coates' works on history might be interesting but that doesn't make them historians. An amateur who writes about politics does not become a political scientist. To describe Foote as a historian is also a horrible contrast to the actual historians that this Wikipedia page otherwise cites. Foote himself does not describe himself as a historian[2]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Foote was both a non-fiction writer and historian, and has been generally referred to as both. When the White House referred to Foote as a historian with whose views Kelly agrees regarding the Civil War, renewed attempts were then made to deny that Foote was a historian, to summarily diminish the validity of his viewpoint. Foote is described as a historian via many sources; his NY Times obituary was given as one example in a recent edit summary to this article. Others include The Washington Post, NPR, and Fox News. —ADavidB 19:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Where did he get his PhD in history? What peer-reviewed publications does he have? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Who made these the set criteria for attaining "historian" status? Even the journal article from 2003 that you linked above notes that Foote had "in fact gained a historical authority, both with the general public and professional historians." We should go by what sources say. —ADavidB 19:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

• I reverted edits here [[3]] that appear to relate to this discussion. Foote is clearly recognized as a historian. His work has been cited by others. Google scholar shows over 500 citations of his first Civil War volume. He received an honorary doctorate for his work which supports the view that academics respect it. Springee (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

An honorary doctorate in what? It could be in literature for all you know. Bill O'Reilly's Killing series has combined citations in the dozens and Ta-Nehisi Coates 'Between the World and Me' has accumulated +400 citations in two years. Are they suddenly historians now? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Should Kelly's article mention that the NYT editorial board called his confederate remarks a "racist history lesson"[4]. This is something that seems of lasting encyclopedic value but I'm wary of adding "racist" to any WP:BLP even if attributed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Kelly. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120308214154/http://freedomremembered.com/index.php/2nd-lt-robert-m-kelly/ to http://freedomremembered.com/index.php/2nd-lt-robert-m-kelly/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Throughout the article, it seems very clear that this article has left-leaning sympathies. From the section on the Civil War, one would discern that Kelly prevails historically inaccurate because of the bias of the section. Many historians have claimed Kelly historically inaccurate, yes. Many others believe he does prove accurate in his comments.The Compromise of 1850 was for instance, not really a compromise seeing as only 4 senators voted for the entire compromise; most in Congress only voted for the parts they personally agreed with. As a result, no one in Congress gave anything up. Does this not prove a historically accurate argument? Again, from this article, Kelly's comments seem factually inaccurate-but they are not. Kelly's comments have historical backing and reasoning-while he might prevail wrong, this is purely subjective. This section needs to be modified immediately to eliminate left-leaning bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100e:b02e:f734:e84a:a504:ca10:1d6d (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2017‎ (UTC)Reply

I completely agree. This needs to change immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You need to propose specific changes you'd like to see to the article and provide reliable sources for the content you'd like included. It is not clear to me from your comment what you'd like to see changed. It is generally more productive to address content than supposed motivations of editors who contributed the content. --Klaun (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, and it is sad, the more controversial the issue, the more Left-wing wikipedia has become. It is largely correct that the Civil War was a result of the failure to compromise. Furthermore, regardless of whether you believe the ultimate cause to be just, or not, Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. It is often forgotten that Lee was first offered command of the Union Army by Lincoln, but he turned it down, not because he was pro-slavery, but because he felt loyal to his home state of Virginia. I agree with Kelly's description that Lee believed "men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had to make their stand." Furthermore, the article states, "Several historians of the Civil War described Kelly's remarks as ignorant" but does not give a source or attribution for those remarks, in the absence of which "several historians described..." are weasel words. Visit https://www.ballotpedia.org or https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Info:Main_Page for more balanced articles. It is easy for us in 2020 to superimpose progressive ways of thinking on mid-19th century America, and it is also sheer folly. Wikipedia has lost its way. Tpkatsa (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article sites the NY Times to say that Kelly removed Bannon. Bannon himself disputes this. He has said on Sirius XM Channel 125, after rejoining Breitbart News Daily, that he originally agreed to join the administration only for a year and that he and Kelly mutually agreed on the date of his departure. Note the New York Times has published a large number of unsubstantiated and malicious rumors concerning pro-Trump figures, several of which were subsequently shown to be false, and their report of this is therefore not credible. That is why I earlier removed it, and I still feel that it does not belong here. Why is it relevant to anything else in the article? It is just an attempt to libel Steve Bannon using a very biased source that is proven to be a leftwing propaganda outlet and not a news source when it comes to anything related to Donald Trump or his supporters (yes, I mean the New York Times). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkailey (talk • contribs) 15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article stated that “John Kelly [is] the highest-ranking military officer to lose a child in Iraq or Afghanistan.” This is strictly speaking too absolutely worded and thus incorrect: he might be the highest U.S. general or admiral to lose a son in those conflicts, but he is certainly not the highest coalition or NATO general who befell this sad fate. I thus added American for some nuance.

After all, nearly three years earlier an even higher ranking NATO-colleague befell the same sad fate. On 18 April 2008 the son (first lieutenant Dennis van Uhm) of the Chief of Defence (which is the Dutch equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) 4-star general Peter van Uhm was killed in Afghanistan. General P. Van Uhm thus clearly outranked Kelly.

Ironically… general Van Uhm had only taken up his post as the new Chief of Defence (before that he was Commander of the Royal Netherlands Army, or equivalent to Chief of Staff of the US Army) on 17 April 2018… one day before the death in action of his son.

-- fdewaele, 23 January 2018, 13:26 CET.

This edit[5] removed an assessment of Kelly's tenure as CoS. The section and its contents had long-lasting encyclopedic value. The source is not an op-ed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Read the source, there is a big banner on it that says "The Debrief: An occasional series offering a reporter’s insights" so yes, that would be an opinion article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The 'assessment' placement here also seemed only to summarize the prior paragraphs in this article. —ADavidB 16:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The person who keeps injecting that John Kelly is "restrictionism" and an "immigration hardliner" should explain why they keep adding this paragraph. This is an opinion, not supported by fact. Kelly himself stated that he does not support Trump's wall. https://web.archive.org/web/20170522005008/https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/john-kelly-homeland-security-senate-confirmation-hearing/index.html

He was also behind Kirsten Nielsen's appointment, who has also stated that she does not support the wall.

Sleepeeg3 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The text is reliably sourced. Kelly has been widely characterized as an immigration hardliner.[6][7][8][9] Your evaluation of him is totally irrelevant. We go by RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The reliable source describe Kelly as an immigration hardliner, so that's what we follow. Sleepeeg3, the January 2017 article you link to is also quite out of date; look to the more recent sources from late 2017 and 2018. Neutrality^talk 20:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, the article I posted was barely over a year old and contains one of the few actual quotes from John F Kelly himself. The articles cited by Snooganssnoogans seem to imply Kelly was anything, but a hardliner on immigration. For example:

"Kelly eventually called Schumer to say the framework of the immigration deal he proposed was too liberal for Republicans." ^[1]

"Kelly also addressed the Trump administration’s efforts to combat illegal immigration. He said most people coming into the country without documentation “are not bad people”, but they will not assimilate easily. Kelly was seen as a hardliner on immigration in his pre-chief of staff role as head of the Department of Homeland Security. Now questions have also been raised about the future of Kelly’s successor at the DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen. ^[2] This article says Kelly was (past tense) considered a hardliner on immigration, but now questions have been raised about whether he and Nielsen are.

The first article lists examples of President Trump congratulating Kelly for doing a great job. The remark was to appease Kelly over his "remark that Trump’s campaign pledge to build a wall along the entire length of the U.S.-Mexico border may have been uninformed." ^[3] Meanwhile, border crossings have surged since his proposed successor has taken office. ^[4]

The last article relies almost entirely on anonymous sources with no named sources saying he is a hardliner on immigration, which seems to fly against the definition of "reliably sourced." CNN may be considered a reliable source, but the work itself is not. ^[5]

This section should be removed or improved with factual sources. Sleepeeg3 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The lead sentence of the article says John Francis Kelly (born May 11, 1950) is an American politician and a retired United States Marine Corps general who is the White House Chief of Staff for U.S. President Donald Trump. I object to "politician". In what sense is he a politician? He has never run for office, he has never taken part in partisan politics. He went directly from military service to civilian positions in the federal government. I propose to remove "politician". -- MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added a section about Sallyport Global Services, another subsidiary of Caliburn International, which is the company that John Kelly has joined the board.

Sallyport is currently under federal investigation for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and paying bribes to a company, Afaq Umm Qasr, which is linked to Iraq's former Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, in order to obtain military contracts. This was disclosed in documents Caliburn filed with the SEC as part of their IPO process. Other parts of the Sallyport Afaq story were explained in a Daily Beast article. Sallyport has also been the subject of other news investigations by the Associated Press and the Daily Beast.

I think it's pretty relevant that the company Kelly has joined is under investigation for bribery and has reported problems with racism. My edits were removed and I was told to take it to the talk page. I'd love for someone with more experience to update this since I haven't edited in years and don't know all the right etiquette. All the sources are cited in my edits and they're also easily available to anyone with Google.

98.164.72.36 (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Trump–Ukraine scandal, per

• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/john-kelly-alexander-vindman-north-korea-and-trump/606496
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-white-house-chief-of-staff-john-kelly-takes-issue-with-trump-for-ousting-lt-col-alexander-vindman-among-other-things/2020/02/13/8a7d6dcc-4e51-11ea-b721-9f4cdc90bc1c_story.html

Kelly said Trump’s request for Ukraine to investigate his political rivals was “tantamount to an illegal order,” and that Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was right to report Trump’s July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky. “He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave,” Kelly said during an event. “He went and told his boss what he just heard.” Kelly said Trump’s decision to make aid to Ukraine contingent upon Zelensky announcing investigations into his political rivals “essentially changed” U.S. policy toward Ukraine. X1\ (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is after:

• https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/11/trump-military-disciplinary-action-vindman-114161
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-mum-trumps-suggestion-vindman-face-disciplinary-action/story?id=68939412
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/11/us/politics/trump-vindman.html
• https://www.axios.com/robert-obrien-decision-remove-vindman-his-trump-c6cc0446-7731-480f-ade1-f86138ec8d51.html
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/02/trump-vindman-impeachment-fired-tweets/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/us/politics/trump-roger-stone.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/13/ex-white-house-chief-staff-john-kelly-speaks-out-against-trump
• https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/john-kelly-trump-criticism-vindman/index.html

X1\ (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply