: Are you referring to these edits by any chance ([1], [2])? Can you please tell me for example how you know that "Ted" was "a soldier's soldier"? Or that "U.S. Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall saw in Ted the kind of intelligence and aggressive instinct that would be needed as a new generation of young Americans, by the millions, went off to war largely untested by combat."? We are writing an encyclopaedia, not a Mills and Boon romance novel. No offence, but please familiarise yourself with e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable Sources etc etc etc. and then we can discuss it again. Those edits were blatantly your POV and had absolutely nothing by way of citation to back them up (not that such intrinsically POV material can ever really be sourced anyway). Any reasonable Wikipedia editor will remove this sort of nonsense on sight, as I did. I defy you to find any experienced editor who would do anything but giggle at that kind of prose, and I mean no offence by that, you are obviously invested in the article and no doubt have a lot to offer. But not with that kind of material. Badgerpatrol