Talk:John Todd

I believe
I believe this is the correct place, but to be sure, I am trying to "flag" this article for simply being completely biased. I don't have the time, unfortunately to edit the entire thing, and besides, I am not an expert on John Todd. However, what I am is an avid user of wikipedia. I find wiki to be the patriarch of what is simply our golden age of unbridled information. If often spend time reading, and the practice includes constant fact-checking on the laptop, for which I simply use wiki, trusting that it will be as accurate as it claims to be, 99%. The 1% of misinformation that may leak through can be overcome easily, as sooner or later it will be corrected. What cannot be overcome, what is harmful to society, and a good way to turn this great site into garbage overnight, is to allow a hack job like this to be the official wiki-account of anything:

Again, I have no dog in this race. I didn't know who this dude was an hour ago, but just look at the first two paragraphs (and right from the jump to start paragraph 3 lol):


 * We proudly wear our bias on our sleeve. Are there specific points in the article you want to address? ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I actually highlighted the points in bold. If you are representing wiki with a statement like "we wear our bias proudly" then that is sad. Hey, I too have opinions, and I write them in a personal blog. Why not do the same and save wiki for all of us to enjoy objectively. This is not a debate I am entering into; that statement can only be taken one way, the right way.
 * I think you have mistaken us for Wikipedia, we are not associated with them. Robothead.svg dot.svg 02:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bias? Probably, and it's kinda encouraged. Factually inaccuracy? Well, if you can find any no one will object to changing it. It's very important not to confuse the two, though, as bias doesn't necessarily mean wrong. ADK ...I'll yank your carriage! 12:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have!!1 And for that I apologize! Continue on with your beliefs, my friends. lol Don't know how my search bar pulled the switcheroo on me!! haha

Ever Notice... ?
Ever notice how those that come forward claiming to have belonged to the illuminati and satanic cults are always former members of "The HIGH Council," or the "MASTER Witches?" It's never some lowly initiate of the cult that exposes the evil covens... --Stickie 86.25.16.10 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

'The Broken Cross'
... actually has 'another meaning' in German. 31.51.114.38 (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Service Award Record?
I might simply be misinterpreting this but it seems a "John W Todd" has received a bronze medal award in March 1969 (2 months after John Todd enlisted): https://aad.archives.gov/aad/record-detail.jsp?dt=1457&mtch=3&cat=all&tf=F&q=john+todd&bc=&rpp=10&pg=1&rid=1553&rlst=1553,61085,61086

With a Grade Code E6, which is grade code for Staff Sergeant, which seems to go together with the "U.S. Army SGT" designation on the guy's gravestone: https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/symbols/ranks.pdf

However there are a few things here; first is that this is a record for U.S Navy and not Army (which would mean not Green Berets) and second is that the "Eligible for Return From Overseas" date is marked as 1968 and also the field for "Award presented in Republic of South Vietnam" is empty, So I opt that this guy is different than our conspiracy theorist/occultist.

If John Todd died in a facility, though, who put the "US Army SGT Vietnam" text in his gravestone? I guess you can put anything on a gravestone, I see no reason why not, just wondering how that would work in practice.