Talk:William Westmoreland

message: The article currently says: "They had three children: Katherine, Margaret, Julie and James Ripley."  I count 4, although who "James Ripley" is, is a bit of a question mark.  Why does he get a middle name when the daughters don't?  Or is Ripley a surname?  In which case, is James Ripley his wife's son from a previous marriage, or something like that?  In any event, as it stands it is confusing and ambiguous.  Does anybody know the truth?  The truth is out there.  JackofOz 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Three, according to all obituaries I have checked. "Julie" is a figment of someone's imagination, added by the IP 65.35.229.53 without giving a source. His children are Kathryn, Margaret, and James Ripley (seems to be a middle name). Or maybe the anon meant that Margaret was called "Margaret Julie"? Anyway, out she goes. Lupo 11:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How many kids did he have??

message: Though I never knew him, my family talked about him quite often. I always admired his accomplishments in the military and have studied him thoroughly. I was devastated to hear of his death last year, he will always hold a place in my heart. Here's to the Westmoreland tradition!
Sarah Westmoreland
Louisville, KY
- What is his military accomplishments in Vietnam? 
He was defeated badly by those men he thought they were inferior to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.122.158.109 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  very intriguing man 

message: :This text was added to the article space by User:Hardy Parkerson and has been moved here by --rogerd 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: encounter with Westmoreland

message: While it is essential to show general views of the man, I being an Asian/Indian, find this quote to be positively offensive and deriding. I am sure I speak for many others like me. I hope it is clear by now to the "we won/we lost" contributors to this page, that we Orientals do place the same value to human life as any other human being. This quote is prominently displayed, as if it is a great musing, without any explanations given. It immediately brings to mind the horror that was Vietnam, almost a justifications for the 7 million tons of bombs dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  Shanksinha  (talk • contribs)  03:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree delete his sorry *ss loser pathetic quote. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is necessary. We must never forget the past. We must never forget Vietnam, Nazi Germany, slavery and so on. Uncle Tom's Cabin will offend anyone today. For blacks it's a personal insult. But it is even worse to pretend it never happened.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the "Quotation" absolutely necessary? 

message: Don't make this loser a hero by listing all his excuses. Everyone has excuses when he loses the fight. Delete that quotation, which is an excuse for a loser general generally bitter for his loss. Take the defeat like a man, just for reference in the future. Lose like you won it. 71.237.70.49 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorry *ss quote

message: The quotation section discussed above was removed on 08:47, 31 August 2008 by 71.237.70.49. The sourced quotation in question is: "The Oriental doesn't put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. Life is plentiful. Life is cheap in the Orient." -- ToE 02:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: What is the distinction between "temporary" and "permanent"? The page lists him as earning "permanent" ranks of Lieutenant General in July 1963 and Major General in August 1965; this is incorrect as Lieutenant General is a higher rank (O-9) than Major General (O-8). Both the obituary in The Independent and his papers, state he was promoted to Lt. Gen. in 1963 and that he was the youngest Maj. Gen. before that; his papers say he became Maj. Gen. in '56 and the Washington Post obituary says he was age 42. We need individual sources for each of these dates.
Brlancer (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Permanent" refers to the date when the rank was granted in the Regular Army.  An officer of "temporary" rank can always revert to permanent rank at the convenience of the government.  I believe when an officer retires, it is at the highest "permanent" rank attained.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.119.130 (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I too am confused, was he demoted at some point? I see he dropped from Major Gen. to Colonel back to Brigadier Gen.? Does this have something to do with the temporary/permanent?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.239.251 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates of rank

message: According to Spartanburg, South Carolina, Saxon is a neighborhood of Spartanburg.  Saxon, South Carolina is described as a "census designated place", not necessarily a town in its own right.  So I'm guessing that either Saxon or Spartanburg would be correct.--Father Goose (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the official boundary of Spartanburg seems to not encompass Saxon: .--Father Goose (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxon vs. Spartanburg 

message: The statement that under Westmoreland, the U.S. never lost a battle is nothing more than a lie. Check the Vietnam War battle pages.Canpark (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never lost a battle 

message: I restored {Citation needed} tags, removed earier without adressing the problem. As far as I was able to find out, Westmoreland commanded 34th Field Artillery Battalion of the US 9th Infantry Division during the World War II and he was never serving with the 82nd Airborne in WWII. If his battalion's fire was ever assigned to support the 82nd Airborne, this should be correctly clarified and referenced. Thanks.78.128.177.162 (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed - restored 

message: I also restored some other {Citation needed} removed earlier without adressing the issues raised (which I realized later on). "Where unessary" (?) claim certainly does not deal with the correct sourcing of the article claims.-78.128.177.162 (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other tags removal 

message: Does anyone know what age his wife was when they married? As the article reads right now, it sounds like he was courting a nine year old, which I kind of doubt.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HacksawPC (talk • contribs) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal 

message: According to Westmorelands awards he served in the Korean war, yet I cant find anything about the subject in the article. Fred26 (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean war service? 

message: WASN'T Westmoreland a candidate for the US Senate in North Carolina in 1974???  Also,  wasn't he a Commandant of the US Military Academy at West Point???Johncheverlyjohncheverly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem---VERY INCOMPLETE ARTICLE. 

message: Does anybody know if General Westmoreland had any biological siblings? If so, their names?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.182.82 (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anybody know if General Westmoreland had any biological siblings? If so, their names? 

message: I've tried editing it out but some guy decided to upload is twitter account link in the middle of the first sentence under "Early Life"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanrock29 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitter account in opening line 

message: Westmoreland’s strategy, based on artillery and air power, was tactically successful but politically allowed the enemy to destroy the American public's support for the war.
:First statement is debatable (I thought the tunnels defeated those tactics). Second statement needs explanation. Valetude (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the lead was written before these changes were made contained some factual inaccuracies, and also bordered on a POV (not this section in question specifically). Westmoreland's tactics left the communists largely depleted of manpower and firepower after several major engagements. But several allied commanders were displeased with Westmoreland's desired timeframe and intent to take the war across borders. Westmoreland, in essence, wanted a longer war. He felt justified since in a tactical setting he had proved superior to the enemy in several engagements and believed if he continued with his strategy the war would have been won (a view many historians hold today). However, the lengthy war, coupled with the panic inspired by the Tet Offensive (which, to be clear, was an American victory. But the news media had only filmed the bombed US embassy, leading the American public to view the war as a lost cause). Hence, his strategies were tactically successful, but allowed the enemy to destroy America's support for the war. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the problem is that it's not clear that it was even a "tactical victory."  Also "many historians" think a lot of things about the Vietnam War, you can get the full gamut of opinions there.    SnowFire (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This statement by Valetude is absolutely correct.  That sentence that his plan was "tactically successful but politically allowed the enemy to destroy the American public's support for the war" is highly misleading and should be changed.  First, "tactically successful" does not win wars and is a very poor way for a leader of the entire war to run a war. It also isn't true.  Historian Lewis Sorley in his book and YouTube video Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam makes it clear it is a myth that politics caused the failures of the US during Westmoreland's time in command. Westmoreland waged big battles with large groups and artillery in a counter-insurgency war.  He ignored the reality on the ground and the villages.  He failed to understand the enemy and waged his war based on the idea the enemy would co-operate with his plans.  His failures and lies while commanding (and afterword) were a big factor in losing the American public's support, not the other way around.  Fanra (talk) 07:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify, please 

message: Cian has been in the news relating to his opposition to the use of drones in warfare, a job he did in the US military.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.97.242 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related to Cian Westmoreland? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on William Westmoreland. 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/20060114140124/http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/William_Westmoreland.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/William_Westmoreland.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060920021014/http://photo.citadel.edu/pao/newsclips/archive20042005/5687.html to http://photo.citadel.edu/pao/newsclips/archive20042005/5687.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060525061904/http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/12175354.htm to http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/12175354.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on William Westmoreland. 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/20050721080305/http://www.vvi.org/Content/vvi2.asp to http://www.vvi.org/Content/vvi2.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050724014901/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0720-20.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0720-20.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: nytimes.com 6 October 2018  
I'm no native speaker (if I were, I would add this to the article). Is there a fellow wikipedian to add it to the article ?   thanks in advance, --Neun-x (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  he "Considered Nuclear Response in Vietnam War, Cables Show"