Talk:Thomas Anthony Dooley III

message: Please join the discussion I've started on the talk page of Tom Dooley (humanitarian).  -- Kbh3rd 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge needed

message: This source compares Dooley to Greg Mortenson:
*Greenway, H.D.S. "It may turn out to be three cups of bitter tea." The Boston Globe. April 26, 2011.
WhisperToMe (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff

message: This is a bit of a puff piece. Specifically, Dooley's humanitarian credentials are over-emphasized as opposed to his prominence as an anti-communist -- which is what really made him famous and important. Dooley's books citing the atrocities by the North Vietnamese communists he claimed to have witnessed have been called the "Uncle Tom's Cabin" influencing  American policy toward Vietnam and the subsequent Vietnam War. Secondly, Dooley's legacy doesn't amount to much.  Despite his fame in the 1950s and early 1960s he was rather quickly forgotten after his death and he often doesn't get favorable treatment from the few scholars who have written about him.  Dooley is important because of the influence he had on U.S. anti-communist policy in Vietnam.    
I may take on the task of putting some balance into this article.Smallchief (talk  13:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Puff piece

message: DanielALord, you seem deeply confused. The citation was there looking you in the face:
Seth Jacobs, The Universe Unraveling: American Foreign Policy in Cold War Laos ( Cornell University Press, 2012), p. 188-190
I summarized Dooley's defense of the Foreign Office and hardline stance on neutrality in a perfectly appropriate way. There is no legitimate reason to suppress this.
Smallchief and others have criticized this article as a "puff piece" in its earlier version. We should not let it fall into that state again.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Dooley and Foreign Office

message: GPRamirez5, you chose not to respond to anything I wrote before, so likely this is futile.  But the LA Times article is a hatchet job, what you'd see in a blog today.  If you want to remove  the author's name, then be consistent--remove everyone's name, and include much more of what Dooley himself said about what he was up to.  At least Dooley's friend made the effort to determine whether Dooley was worthy of canonization, and he found things not so savory.  In that People article, he was open about said.  Still, here, his friendship and motivations are described in the wiki article.  Fair enough.  One final point:  absence evidence that Shepherd denied these assertions is not evidence of absence.  What we do know is that he toasted Dooley when he was working with him, he helped establish a clinic, and his obituary describes his relationship with Dooley positively.  Had he truly been bitter about his relationship with Dooley, we can infer that his heirs might have chosen to omit the implied praise of Dooley.DanielALord (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversation died out, DanielALord, 1) because you didn't have the courtesy to ping me and 2) I optimistically assumed you had come to your senses about the feebleness of your rationalizations. Unfortunately, you fallacious frothing seems to have degenerated further with claims that something which is clearly not a blog—but which has been repeatedly cited in academic literature—is a blog. And then you top it  with an accidental quote of Donald Rumsfeld when he lied about the WMDs (The absence of evidence...). At least I hope it was accidental. Please have some respect for this website and end the canonization and the soapboxing before it's too late.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

text: It's getting too personal for you  DanielALord? Fine, let's stick to policy then. You are in direct violation of the citation guide. It states:It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out [sourcing details]...normally the text itself is best left as a plain statement without in-text attribution.You, however, have created a syntactical nightmare where nearly half the paragraph is a tangent about D. Shaw. That is not improving Wikipedia.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: In-text citation

message: Although Dooley served in the Navy during the World War II era, there are no reliable sources found as of yet state that he was in a war zone during the war. More specifically, the sources do not establish defining role in World War II. Accordingly, "Category:United States Navy personnel of World War II" was removed until a defining role is established. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II service