Talk:Kristin Goodwin

recent move

Novabrahm (talk · contribs) moved the article from Kristin Goodwin to Kristin E. Goodwin on 18 June 2019 at 03:29 UTC saying, "Middle initial is more clear". I performed a couple of basic Google Searches and found that "'Kristin Goodwin' 'Air Force'" came back with 12600 results, while "'Kristin E. Goodwin' 'Air Force'" only returned 1480 hits. Her official USAF biography includes the "E", while her flight suit does not. I want to suggest we eschew the "E", but wanted to bring it up for discussion, first. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere, but I wanted to follow the general practice of including middle initials for significant military personnel. John E. Hyten and David L. Goldfein both get more Google hits without the middle initial, but their WP pages have the initial. I believe this is to conform with how they are referenced in what is usually the most reliable sources for military personnel which always use middle initials if available. Novabrahm (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the WikiProject Military history manual of style doesn't say anything about it, and the naming conventions (people) guideline just says "use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources". — fourthords | =Λ= | 22:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

succession

Since these have been implemented, is there any SOP for which positions-held warrant such templates? I would generally only advocate for listing positions that have their own articles (e.g. Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force). If that's not the established consensus, then Goodwin has been an actual commander of several units that have their own articles (as opposed to a chief of staff position), but KingEdinburgh (talk · contribs) didn't include those, and I don't understand why. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

update

Gen Goodwin retired Dec 31 2021. She divorced in 2020 and remarried in Dec 2021. Best way to properly update? FarmGirlRR4 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the short version is: you need a published, reliable source that already says what you're trying to include. Both times you've added these claims, I've looked online for any sources that could be cited for the marraige and career change, but nothing's come up. Do you have a link to (or a physical copy of) some publicly-published verification for these changes? (We require such sourcing for anything that's written on the English Wikipedia, but we're especially stringent about these policies when it comes to claims made about living people.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

So FarmGirlRR4 (talk · contribs) is continuing to edit without discussing the details thereof, and they're finding themselves reverted yet again. First of all, these two edits don't pass muster due to our reliable sources guideline, which I linked above last October; that guideline requires that additions to articles be cited to reliable published sources, and El Paso County, CO License # C000249565 doesn't meet that requirement.

Furthermore, even if there were sources for adding new information, it doesn't explain the removal of the previous information cited to sources; please don't do that. Lastly, I've yet to see any rationale for removing the 1993 photo of Goodwin. Please join us in this discussion before you find yourself blocked for what I believe are well-intentioned edits. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a copy of the valid marriage license to Dr. Traci Paulsen : 17 Dec 2021 (the July 9 2022 date you reference was simply a family ceremony. I ref the license in my latest: El Paso County Co marriage license # C000249565.

As to removal of the picture.... it's a poor photo and one that would find appreciation in being removed.

Trying to keep with the rules, but obviously hitting some hiccups FarmGirlRR4 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether you have a copy of Goodwin's license or not isn't exactly relevant, though, because our guideline on reliable sources requires that we only cite what's been publicly published. As for the new source, American Marriage Ministries seems sufficiently reliable per our standards, and currently the only one available to us (that I've found). For anything contrary, we would need access to a source that's at the very least (a) public, (b) published, and (c) reliable. Lastly, the 1993 photo of Goodwin isn't of poor-quality at all; the resolution is at worse middling, but easily sufficient at the size used in the article.

As for working on the English Wikipedia, there's two things I want to point out. Firstly, I'm going to assume good faith on your part, unless you give us reason to think otherwise. Secondly, you will never hiccough by communicating first and communicating well. The English Wikipedia's over 22 years old, now, and has grown thickly in policies, guidelines, manuals, and rules; nobody can expect you to know them all, but by reaching out here (and at any talk page), you can avoid the sorts of round-robin reversions and repeats we've experienced here. You're here: feel absolutely free to ask any questions about this article, any sources you have or find, and edits that are made. Furthermore, if you have any broader questions about the site that aren't specific to this article, I invite you to my talk page where I'll gladly help. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia

Moved from User talk:Fourthords#Changes to Wikipedia

Hello. I appreciate your attention to General Goodwin's profile, but after discussing with her personally, she wants these changes as they are the truth and read better for the end user. Can you tell me what the issue is please? And why you keep changing it? Thank you in advance. Pagecd (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all, you and Goodwin should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, the nutshell of which says Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. That doesn't apply this discussion page, it should be said. As for the edits themselves:

• You've removed—without explanation or cause—information from the article about Kelly Goodwin and their children that is sourced & cited to the Shreveport Times (Judy Christie's 30 April 2016 article).
• You've removed—without explanation or cause—the in-text attribution to American Marriage Ministries. It's a secondary source, which is allowable, but less reliable than a third-party source; that's why we make it up-front and clear to the reader from where the claims originated.
• You've added claims that Goodwin divorced. Our policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability says All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Now, it can be assumed that she divorced, but (a) that's original research, and (b) the source we have for the subsequent marriage isn't great.
• You've left claims about Goodwin's children wholly uncited in contravention of the verifiability policy.

What policy-, guideline-, or manual-of-style-based rationales do you have for these changes?

It should furthermore be noted the following from Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I find it very disturbing that a person doesn't have the freedom to make corrections on their own Wikipedia page without harassment. Goodwin is not making changes in her own interests, but would like the truth to be told. Shall she just live with lies on Wikipedia? You seem very knowledgable about the platform, perhaps you could assist us with the changes to be made? Pagecd (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The conflict-of-interest guideline has been in place for a very long time. If you have issues with it, specifically, then you want to bring it up on that talk page, not this one. If Goodwin herself has been editing and suffered harassment, then she may benefit from the information at this policy page.

As for "lies", specifically which of the 19 sources in the article are you accusing of lying about Goodwin? As of the 19 May 2023 12:02 UTC version of the article, every bit of information in the article is cited to a sufficiently reliable source. If there are "lies", then they were published by the cited sources, because Wikipedia articles only contain material from other publications; that's a core policy of the project. Now, it's certainly possible that some of our sources were retracted or corrected by their original publishers, or are contradicted by a different reliable source; if so, please provide those URLs, and we'll update the article.

Yes, I'm absolutely disposed to assisting you if I can. If you want something removed from the article, you need to either (a) demonstrate why the cited source should be considered untrustworthy, or (b) provide [a URL for] a published contradictory third-party source that is equally-or-more-reliable than the original. If you want to add something to the article, you just need a published reliable source that can be cited. Does that make sense? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Kristin Goodwin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from User talk:Fourthords#Kristin Goodwin

I reverted "airman" to "aviator" in generic contexts and set the infobox to "Airwoman/Aviator" to use inclusive, gender-neutral terminology. Rationale: MOS:GNL, MOS:JOBTITLES, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP—use gender-neutral language and avoid phrasing that excludes women and LGBTQ+ people.

Military terms like "airman" are gendered and can marginalize some readers, which is why Wikipedia favors neutral wording in biographies and general descriptions. If that wasn't your intent, could you share why you replaced the neutral term with "airman"? I'm happy to discuss and work toward wording that aligns with sources and Wikipedia’s style guidance.

Also, I have to ask this: do you have any bias against the LGBTQ+ community? Soistafir (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems that you're confusing airman (a synonym for pilot) with airman (the official common title for any and every uniformed member of the US Air Force). |occupation=Airman isn't to say, 'Goodwin was a pilot'; it's saying, 'Goodwin was a USAF member, with all the other sundry component service obligations that entails'.

Neither aviator nor airwoman properly or comprehensively describe Goodwin's occupation in the USAF (leader, pilot, student, instructor, assistant, etc.)—that's what airman does; it is analogous to soldier for the Army, sailor for the Navy, and Marine for the Marine Corps. Its just what they're officially titled—this is an airman, this is an airman, this is an airman, this is an airman, this is an airman, and yes, this is an airman. I even tried to lay this out in the HTML comment that you removed: official descriptor for enlisted and officers of the USAF, gendered or not. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

How about we include "military pilot" in both the lead and the infobox? I understand your logic, but as I mentioned, the Trump administration has suppressed the LGBTQ+ community within the military, so I'm not sure "airman" is appropriate anymore. Would you feel the same way if China or Russia did the same, simply because it was official? I'd welcome a second opinion, if you don't mind. Soistafir (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

How about…? For the lead, it's absolutely a salient fact to include. …that's kinda why the lead actually already says, "she was a transport and then bomber command pilot". For the infobox, though, not only isn't piloting that for which she's best known (that would be her commands—both for good and ill), it's just one of the nigh-uncountable tasks she undertook as an airman. Helpfully, |occupation=Airman is not only succinct (to the purpose of an infobox), but all-encompassing of her career in the USAF.

The term airman, broadly referring to all USAF personnel, dates back multiple decades. It's not a modern sociopolitical prop; it's just an uncontentious common noun—as problematic as calling someone sailor or soldier. As for requesting additional input, I think that after yours (1) and mine (2), what you're looking for is a 3rd opinion, and I've gone ahead and made that request on your behalf. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 10:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (the propriety of the word, airman):

After considering arguments, and relevant policies and other guidance, I believe the best option for the Occupation field in the infobox is military aviator and commanding officer. Prepending with "retired" may also be an option. No caps. These terms are NPOV, gender-neutral, commonly understood, inclusive, and least likely to invite controversy. I often stick around for questions and further discussion if no one objects to it, and respond to pings for any reason. I have made no previous edits on Kristin Goodwin and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Summary of editors' arguments Soistafir contends that "airman" when used in a generic context should be replaced with more inclusive and gender-neutral language to avoid excluding women and LGBTQ+ people, citing MOS:GNL, MOS:JOBTITLES, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Fourthords responds that the term "airman" is "the official common title for any and every uniformed member of the US Air Force," and that "Neither aviator nor airwoman properly or comprehensively describe Goodwin's occupation in the USAF," and lists a handful of specific roles. Fourthords says the term is analogous to the terms soldier, sailor, and marine in their respective service branches. 3O volunteer response: Both editors make compelling arguments. Fourthords is correct about usage of "airman" as a general term for members of the USAF. The reasoning seems to be that "airman" is an accurate and common term, carrying no implicitly contentious meaning, and has a longstanding historical precedent. Soistafir cites a number of relevant policies by name, but not how their particulars apply to the specifics of this dispute. I have read them all, and quoted the bits of the ones which I believe are relevant, with some light commentary to justify my recommendation. First some context based on my personal awareness and opinions on real-world happenings, which may bias my views of Wikipedia policy. Why this matters: Discrimination and abuse by gender and sexual orientation are an issues for militaries in general. Wikipedia has already been sensitive to such issues on any topic, hence the policies cited below. In the context of the US armed forces, the current administration's active efforts to overturn previous progress on gender-related issues is creating heightened awareness, and also heightened dispute and sensitivity. The subject of this article, Kristin Goodwin, an openly gay woman, told Military.com in June of this year that she has faced harsh comments as a female pilot: "I've heard that women should be in the kitchen, women shouldn't be in combat, women can't fly. I've heard all the things that we can't do," and stresses that the important thing is doing her job correctly and effectively. The context of this story is comments made by current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who prior to assuming that role, said that women didn't belong in combat; and in his current role praised "our boys in those bombers" during the recent strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran—which included at least one B-2 bomber pilot who is a woman. The article also quotes Retired Lt. Col. Jessica Ruttenber, who understood that Hegseth could be speaking generally, but that he should be more conscious of the language he's using, "given his history, his track record," and the high profile of his position. "It matters," she said. I'm with the women on this one—which is not to say that I don't get the tradition of calling combat personnel "boys" out of habit and which intends no offense—but I'm generally not a fan of the direction Hegseth wants to take policy regarding women and LGBTQ+ members of the military. In short, there is a currently heightened sensitivity that we as editors of Wikipedia should take care to consider in these sorts of topics. Now on to definitions and policy. Airman: A Wikipedia article supporting Forthords' statements of fact about the term. An airman is a member of an air force or air arm of a nation's armed forces. In certain air forces, it can also refer to a specific enlisted rank. An airman can also be referred to as a soldier in other definitions. As a military rank designation, the male form of address also applies to women. In the U.S. Air Force, "airman" is a general term which can refer to any member of the United States Air Force, regardless of rank, but is also a specific enlisted rank in the Air Force. While "airman" is a generally accurate term to describe Goodwin in this context, it is somewhat ambiguous, especially in an infobox field which lacks any other contextual cues. Also, just because a term is accurate does not mean it is necessarily the best term to use. When other more specific terms exist which are as concise as the general term, I lean away from the more generic term—unless the generic term is better in context, which is not true in this case. Policies: These generally support Soistafir's arguments, but there are some exceptions and tensions. WP:RS: Recent secondary sources refer to her by specifc rank at the time of writing, and/or her specific role: Brig. Gen. Kristin Goodwin, commandant of cadets. This is the primary support for my opinion: we follow how RS refer to BLPs unless there are other overriding considerations, which I explore below. MOS:GENDERID: Do not use gendered noun forms (e.g. mailman, waitress) that do not match the most recent self-identification. But see below MODLANG. MOS:GNL References to space programs, past, present and future, should use gender-neutral phrasing: human spaceflight, robotic probe, astronaut, cosmonaut, uncrewed mission, crewed spacecraft, piloted, unpiloted, not manned or unmanned. Though not mentioned specifically, this is an argument for "aviator", which is perfectly gender-neutral and not at all likely to be confusing or disorienting to readers. Essays: WP:WAW Use gender-neutral nouns when describing professions and positions: actor, author, aviator, bartender, chair, comedian, firefighter, flight attendant, hero, poet, police officer. Avoid adding gender (female pilot, male nurse) unless the topic requires it. This is an WP:NPOV argument, and highly influences my opinion. WP:MODLANG: Tortured attempts at gender neutrality: Several features (or alleged features) of English may be gradually coming to the forefront in the area of gender-neutral language, but should be avoided on Wikipedia unless and until such time that they become far more widely accepted. Broadly successful changes in this area are considered standard English for Wikipedia purposes, as already mentioned, but several are too "bleeding-edge" to be used here. Our language is constantly evolving, the articles will change gradually with the language, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for any kind of language reform. I wouldn't call "airwoman" particularly "tortured", but note its use is not common (it is, however, in the dictionary). Aviator or pilot are more common, and more likely to be searched for. However, there is some tension within the same section: WP:MODLANG: Do not use gender-neutral terms where not necessary (e.g., where the subject's gender is already known), or where such a term is/was not preferred by the article subject: Use "Janet Yamamoto became Chairwoman in 1999", not "... Chairperson ..." (and possibly avoid Chair, Vice-chair and Co-chair – people are not furniture). This argues for "airwoman" since Goodwin identifies as a woman. If at least one RS supports that she would prefer to identify as an airwoman, this would strongly motivate me to consider changing my opinion. WP:JOBTITLE didn't seem to offer much help to us in this particular case. Xan747 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC) No caps. Well, that's not SOP according to MOS:LISTCASE nor the infobox instructions. With proper sentence casing, are you suggesting |occupation={{hlist|Military aviator|commanding officer}}? In that case, while the former is clear, the latter is not (commanding officer of... a fire house, a Cub Scout troop), and it does not summarize her work as: Assistant Deputy Executive Officer for Professional Military Studies at the USAFA EC-130 instructor Operations Executive Officer of Davis–Monthan's 355th Operations Group Her work in the Air Force Intern Program Teaching B-2 pilots Chief of Combat Plans for the 509th Bomb Wing Working under the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, General T. Michael Moseley Deputy director of the United States Pacific Command's Commander's Action Group under Admiral Timothy J. Keating Director of operations for the 393rd Bomb Squadron while evaluating B-2 pilots Center for Strategic and International Studies fellow Senior military assistant to Secretaries of the Air Force Deborah Lee James and Lisa Disbrow All for naught, I say. The only reason this article was using nested infoboxes was for aesthetics. If reverting to an application of {{infobox military person}} will prevent both an edit war over "occupation" and introducing editors' sociopolitics into project/articular decision-making, I'm happy to make that change. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC) I realize that doesn't encompass all of the hats she wore during her career, but an Occupation field should typical only list what the subject was most notable for doing, or their most prominent and/or interesting roles. And if we look at the current infobox we see: Rank Brigadier general Commands 509 OSS (2009–11) 2nd Bomb Wing (2014–16) 34th Training Wing (2017–19) ... but none of the rest of the things you listed above because it would not be appropriate to have so much detail in the infobox. I see nothing wrong placing just above that list, Occupation Military aviator and commanding officer in sentence case, which adds back the fact that she started out flying airplanes before moving up the ranks and retiring as a general officer. It would also give some context to her call sign, Duchess. However, if @Soistafir is happy with this solution, then I am too. Xan747 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC) I am. Thank you so much! Soistafir (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC) Great! I will close the discussion as resolved by consensus, thanks to all. Xan747 (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.