![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
He did not "win" a scholarship to Cornell. Free tuition for the children of Faculty (and staff) at Cornell is a normal employee benefit (although it has been cut back to tuition assistance for lower ranking staff in more recent years). To say he "won" a scholarship with his dad on the faculty is like saying the guy "won" a head of hair, or two legs. CherylF
That is absolutely true. No Ivy League schools give scholarships. Any aid provided is based on financial need or, as in this case, as a perquisite for a faculty member.
Actually, Wolfowitz did win a merit scholarship that payed for his room and board at Cornell, even though Cornell itself like the other Ivy leagues offer no merit based scholarships. The key to this puzzle is the Telluride Association, on the Cornell campus, and affiliated with Cornell but legally and administratively a separate institution. Telluride programs are among the most prestigious in the academic world. It would be hard to overstate the importance of Telluride to Wolfowitz's education. Annie06
I've read that Perle, Wolfowitz and Kirkpatrick (and possibly others in their circle) are still nominally Democrats, despite their close association with Republican administrations and hawkish views on foreign policy. Does anyone know for sure? CJCurrie 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Since no-one answered, I looked it up myself:
Finally, he will offer unusual energy and optimism. Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a "right-wing hawk", he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person.
Printed in The Times , 18 March 2005. I make no comment on the text itself. CJCurrie 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd normally trust the Post over the Times as well, but that may not be the point at issue. The Times reference seems to contain a more recent update as to his affiliation, while the Post reference could be based on an assumption. I agree that a third source would be useful. CJCurrie 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Dems should take cues from neocons University Wire February 9, 2006 Thursday
The "intellectual high priest of the Bush administration's hawks," Paul Wolfowitz, is actually a registered Democrat.
Democrat hawk whose ghost guides Bush: Scoop Jacksons body is 20 years in the grave but his spirit goes marching on The Guardian (London) December 6, 2002
Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, the two leading strategists at the defence department, and Richard Perle, an unusual but influential Pentagon adviser, are all former Democrats who worked for Jackson in the 70s, and looked on him as their mentor.
Mr Perle still claims to be a registered Democrat, in honour of the late senator for Washington state, and Mr Wolfowitz has been known to describe himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican".
Tailor-made for the 21st century ; Nothing new about war plans. San Antonio Express-News (Texas) October 20, 2002, Sunday
Designers of this American imperialist strategy are a cadre of neo-conservative foreign-policy intellectuals, many with ties to the Reagan and Bush I administrations, who now hold key positions in the current administration. At the Pentagon, they include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who worked in the Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations, as well as Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. Wolfowitz served in the Reagan State Department, worked in the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy, and, according to the New York Times, has been focused on the Iraqi threat since 1979.
The American imperialists also include Richard Perle, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, who now chairs the Defense Policy Board, a panel of Republican foreign policy thinkers who advise the secretary of defense. Known as the "Prince of Darkness" for his fierce opposition to arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, the immensely influential Perle is a protege of the late Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a long time Democratic senator from Washington. (Perle is still a registered Democrat out of respect for Jackson.)
Richard Perle Slate Magazine August 23, 2002, Friday
As a staffer for the fiercely anti-Communist Sen. Henry Scoop Jackson, D-Wash., in the 1970s, Perle established himself as the quintessential Washington operator, as the Washington Post's Robert Kaiser described him in 1977 in a nearly 3,700-word profile, an unusual amount of space to devote to a Senate staffer, even the right-hand man for the senator from Boeing. (Like some other neocons, Perle sometimes reminds reporters that he's a registered Democrat, though he's been associated with Republican administrations and candidates for two decades.)
Congress To Debate Terri Schiavo Legislation Sunday Night; Democrats Threaten Filibuster Anti-Filibuster Legislation; Prime Minister Martin, Presidents Fox, Bush To Meet in Crawford Next Week. Fox News Network March 19, 2005 Saturday
MORT KONDRACKE, HOST: You know, there's some agitation, lots of agitation on the part of various Europeans and even some Americans about, you know, whether this guy, this warmonger, should be at, at the World Bank. The fact is that Paul Wolfowitz is a democrat, small D, he's a humanitarian, he's an idealist, he, he deserves a shot. And what's more...
FRED BARNES, HOST: He's a friend of yours.
KONDRACKE (ignoring statment/question): ... he's not going to be stopped by the Europeans...
The Vietnam Continuum Newsweek March 13, 2004 Newsweek Web Exclusive
True, almost none of the Bush administration hawks who pushed hardest for war had served in Vietnam. But for them too, the Iraq debate was framed by the long reach of that war. Some war enthusiasts, so-called neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were Democrats who "came over [to the GOP] as a result of Vietnam in one form or another," disgusted by their party's mishandling of that war and the Cold War in general, as one old Republican lion, a veteran of the first Bush administration, said to me. Hence, of course, the "neo" in neoconservative, although a better term for them is neo-Reaganites: today's hawks are the intellectual heirs of the original Reaganite critique of GOP foreign policy, which of course was shaped by Vietnam.
Conclusion
Wolfwoitz is a democrat, as per the Fox News show. As one of his friends, MORT KONDRACKE states.
signed: Travb 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[Note someone posted in article for consideration]
- ^ "Finally, he will offer unusual energy and optimism. Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a "right-wing hawk", he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person." Editorial (18 March 2005). "Crying Wolfowitz A controversial but astute choice for the World Bank". The Times.
*See also Talk: Paul Wolfowitz[I don't know who put this in the article; I'm moving it to the talk page. People can consider it and decide what to do with it. (Examine in editing mode please.)--NYScholar 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)] [moved up to this section as referred to by the person who placed it in the article. --NYScholar 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)]
Rupert Murdochs News Corporation owns "The Times" in the UK Dean, Mar10, 2006
Has anyone actually read the book "The Brain" ? I can find it at amazon.com but there it says that it won't be released until 2007! [Martin]
I can find no reference to this book in the British Library Catalogue so I have deleted it. Mutt 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Will someone try to fix the punctuation around all the quotations?
"I am" Bob said "a human."
should be
"I am," Bob said, "a human."
etc. Hopefully someone else will fix this so I won't have to, because there are a lot of quotes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Finkelstein ( talk • contribs)
===Israeli-Palestinian conflict===
Despite his support for Israel Wolfowitz is one of the few neoconservatives associated with Bush administration to have endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. Wolfowitz has acknowledged the sufferings of the Palestinian people in their conflict with Israel, and in 2002 was heckled for expressing such views at a pro-Israel rally.
Paul wolfowitz's religion was deleted for this reason:
"why is the fact that he's a jew or of judaism in this template? should not be here... this an anti-zionist crusade?"
I think the reason is bizarre, but i won't fight something so peity. If anyone else wants to revert it, be my guest.
signed.Travb 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Porlob 14:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a very strange argument indeed, that his religious affiliation should be omitted from his biography! What on earth would compel someone to suggest something like that? I do understand the suggestion that it might not be mentioned in the first sentence, but to suggest that mentioning his Jewishness equates an anti-zionist crusade? Absolutely preposterous! I've read that Wolfowitz holds dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel. Can anyone verify it or has anyone else heard this? It seems popular on blogs, but not many official sources.-- Laikalynx 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the first thing you should ask yourself is 'if he were Christian (or of any other religion), would it be relevant to mention the fact here?' If the answer is no, don't add it (there). 84.53.74.196 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the answer is yes. So yes. If someone is a practicing satanist, we'd probably mention it in his biography. LOL If he was christian, same thing, buddhist, same thing, hindu, same thing, muslim, same thing, jewish, SAME THING.- Laikalynx 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
None of the links above directly state he is Jewish, and CounterPunch isn't a reliable enough source for this anyway. Per WP:BLP, he must self-identify as a Jew, and there must be "a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I'm removing it, again per WP:BLP. Also, even if he were an ethnic Jew, that's no guarantee his religion is Judaism. Perhaps he's an atheist, Christian, Buddhist; who knows? By the way, according to whom does he have Israeli citizenship? Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is getting out of control. I was under the impression that one could be considered Jewish in an ethnic sense. Aren't there atheist and secular Jews who are still listed as Jewish American or American Jews? It seems that people are trying to launch a PC battle, and the fact that he is either half Jewish or full Jewish is NOT a POV but a fact. Please maintain NPOV and place him in either of the above mentioned categories. -- CommonSense101 13:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
See previous discussion pertaining to anon. user's addition of "Religion" and "Judaism" to infobox of this article to understand my deletion of it. It is still a highly-contested matter, and, subject to contentious disagreement; I don't think one can add it to the infobox due to lack of consensus; see WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures. I have deleted the entry in the infobox due to ongoing unresolved disputes re: that matter. If the issue is unresolved as to whether or not the information can be listed as a "category", then how can it be listed in an infobox in a biography of a living person? If this kind of apparent anon. IP user vandalism (if that is what it is) continues, the article may need semi-protection again. --NYScholar 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In this transcript of an interview with Paul Wolfowitz doen by Janine Zacharia, the Jerusalem Post Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with the Jerusalem Post, September 22, 2003 Paul Wolfowitz seemingly states himself that he is an observing "reformed jew". Excerpt; Q: So what are you doing for Rosh Hashanah? Wolfowitz: Probably spending most of the time in synagogue. {Laughter} Q: Can I say a reformed synagogue? Wolfowitz: Yeah Q: But are you generally observant or how would you characterize yourself as? Wolfowitz: I guess observant as a reformed Jew. Q: In a reformed kind of way? Wolfowitz: Yes, yes, I mean I do take it seriously.
Wether or not it should be included in the article or not, i have no opinion on, but it may help in stopping speculations. Bjorn.Persson 06:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Lead image should be current portrait as President of World Bank not old shot as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Image is fair use and copyright holder World Bank encourage its use. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, can it be argued that some gray hair and a few extra wrinkles means the Wolfowitz picture of 5 years past is inadequate? I could understand if the image was 10 years old, but otherwise I don't think that argument can be made. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Have removed NPOV tag as no explanation was given for its placement. If you believe article to be NPOV please explain here why when tagging. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Kudos for removing the NPOV status. At length the article casts Wolfowitz as a hypocrite and as an enabler in Suharto's plundering of his own nation. The article is clearly not neutral. On the contrary, the few statements in defense of Wolfowitz are followed by much lengthier condemning quotes containing the opinion of a few people. Although these are presented as opinion, the preponderance of the same type of information clearly evinces the agenda of those contributing to the article. Would that instead of a little green checkmark, the article were labeled with a stopsign.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectard ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
the caption for the last picture in the article reads: "Paul Wolfowitz stands far right". Seemingly referring to his politics, i chuckled as i realised it was referring to where he stood in the picture itself. lol wiki, nice one. Roidroid 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following from the tail end of the Media Portrayals section:
This has little to do with Wolfowitz. The whole paragraph about Paul William Roberts' book may be insufficiently NPOV, but I'm content with moving the most glaringly biased sentence here in case someone wants to do something with it. Lowerarchy 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
He did not "win" a scholarship to Cornell. Free tuition for the children of Faculty (and staff) at Cornell is a normal employee benefit (although it has been cut back to tuition assistance for lower ranking staff in more recent years). To say he "won" a scholarship with his dad on the faculty is like saying the guy "won" a head of hair, or two legs. CherylF
That is absolutely true. No Ivy League schools give scholarships. Any aid provided is based on financial need or, as in this case, as a perquisite for a faculty member.
Actually, Wolfowitz did win a merit scholarship that payed for his room and board at Cornell, even though Cornell itself like the other Ivy leagues offer no merit based scholarships. The key to this puzzle is the Telluride Association, on the Cornell campus, and affiliated with Cornell but legally and administratively a separate institution. Telluride programs are among the most prestigious in the academic world. It would be hard to overstate the importance of Telluride to Wolfowitz's education. Annie06
I've read that Perle, Wolfowitz and Kirkpatrick (and possibly others in their circle) are still nominally Democrats, despite their close association with Republican administrations and hawkish views on foreign policy. Does anyone know for sure? CJCurrie 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Since no-one answered, I looked it up myself:
Finally, he will offer unusual energy and optimism. Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a "right-wing hawk", he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person.
Printed in The Times , 18 March 2005. I make no comment on the text itself. CJCurrie 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd normally trust the Post over the Times as well, but that may not be the point at issue. The Times reference seems to contain a more recent update as to his affiliation, while the Post reference could be based on an assumption. I agree that a third source would be useful. CJCurrie 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Dems should take cues from neocons University Wire February 9, 2006 Thursday
The "intellectual high priest of the Bush administration's hawks," Paul Wolfowitz, is actually a registered Democrat.
Democrat hawk whose ghost guides Bush: Scoop Jacksons body is 20 years in the grave but his spirit goes marching on The Guardian (London) December 6, 2002
Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, the two leading strategists at the defence department, and Richard Perle, an unusual but influential Pentagon adviser, are all former Democrats who worked for Jackson in the 70s, and looked on him as their mentor.
Mr Perle still claims to be a registered Democrat, in honour of the late senator for Washington state, and Mr Wolfowitz has been known to describe himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican".
Tailor-made for the 21st century ; Nothing new about war plans. San Antonio Express-News (Texas) October 20, 2002, Sunday
Designers of this American imperialist strategy are a cadre of neo-conservative foreign-policy intellectuals, many with ties to the Reagan and Bush I administrations, who now hold key positions in the current administration. At the Pentagon, they include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who worked in the Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations, as well as Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. Wolfowitz served in the Reagan State Department, worked in the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy, and, according to the New York Times, has been focused on the Iraqi threat since 1979.
The American imperialists also include Richard Perle, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, who now chairs the Defense Policy Board, a panel of Republican foreign policy thinkers who advise the secretary of defense. Known as the "Prince of Darkness" for his fierce opposition to arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, the immensely influential Perle is a protege of the late Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a long time Democratic senator from Washington. (Perle is still a registered Democrat out of respect for Jackson.)
Richard Perle Slate Magazine August 23, 2002, Friday
As a staffer for the fiercely anti-Communist Sen. Henry Scoop Jackson, D-Wash., in the 1970s, Perle established himself as the quintessential Washington operator, as the Washington Post's Robert Kaiser described him in 1977 in a nearly 3,700-word profile, an unusual amount of space to devote to a Senate staffer, even the right-hand man for the senator from Boeing. (Like some other neocons, Perle sometimes reminds reporters that he's a registered Democrat, though he's been associated with Republican administrations and candidates for two decades.)
Congress To Debate Terri Schiavo Legislation Sunday Night; Democrats Threaten Filibuster Anti-Filibuster Legislation; Prime Minister Martin, Presidents Fox, Bush To Meet in Crawford Next Week. Fox News Network March 19, 2005 Saturday
MORT KONDRACKE, HOST: You know, there's some agitation, lots of agitation on the part of various Europeans and even some Americans about, you know, whether this guy, this warmonger, should be at, at the World Bank. The fact is that Paul Wolfowitz is a democrat, small D, he's a humanitarian, he's an idealist, he, he deserves a shot. And what's more...
FRED BARNES, HOST: He's a friend of yours.
KONDRACKE (ignoring statment/question): ... he's not going to be stopped by the Europeans...
The Vietnam Continuum Newsweek March 13, 2004 Newsweek Web Exclusive
True, almost none of the Bush administration hawks who pushed hardest for war had served in Vietnam. But for them too, the Iraq debate was framed by the long reach of that war. Some war enthusiasts, so-called neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were Democrats who "came over [to the GOP] as a result of Vietnam in one form or another," disgusted by their party's mishandling of that war and the Cold War in general, as one old Republican lion, a veteran of the first Bush administration, said to me. Hence, of course, the "neo" in neoconservative, although a better term for them is neo-Reaganites: today's hawks are the intellectual heirs of the original Reaganite critique of GOP foreign policy, which of course was shaped by Vietnam.
Conclusion
Wolfwoitz is a democrat, as per the Fox News show. As one of his friends, MORT KONDRACKE states.
signed: Travb 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[Note someone posted in article for consideration]
- ^ "Finally, he will offer unusual energy and optimism. Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a "right-wing hawk", he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person." Editorial (18 March 2005). "Crying Wolfowitz A controversial but astute choice for the World Bank". The Times.
*See also Talk: Paul Wolfowitz[I don't know who put this in the article; I'm moving it to the talk page. People can consider it and decide what to do with it. (Examine in editing mode please.)--NYScholar 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)] [moved up to this section as referred to by the person who placed it in the article. --NYScholar 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)]
Rupert Murdochs News Corporation owns "The Times" in the UK Dean, Mar10, 2006
Has anyone actually read the book "The Brain" ? I can find it at amazon.com but there it says that it won't be released until 2007! [Martin]
I can find no reference to this book in the British Library Catalogue so I have deleted it. Mutt 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Will someone try to fix the punctuation around all the quotations?
"I am" Bob said "a human."
should be
"I am," Bob said, "a human."
etc. Hopefully someone else will fix this so I won't have to, because there are a lot of quotes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Finkelstein ( talk • contribs)
===Israeli-Palestinian conflict===
Despite his support for Israel Wolfowitz is one of the few neoconservatives associated with Bush administration to have endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. Wolfowitz has acknowledged the sufferings of the Palestinian people in their conflict with Israel, and in 2002 was heckled for expressing such views at a pro-Israel rally.
Paul wolfowitz's religion was deleted for this reason:
"why is the fact that he's a jew or of judaism in this template? should not be here... this an anti-zionist crusade?"
I think the reason is bizarre, but i won't fight something so peity. If anyone else wants to revert it, be my guest.
signed.Travb 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Porlob 14:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a very strange argument indeed, that his religious affiliation should be omitted from his biography! What on earth would compel someone to suggest something like that? I do understand the suggestion that it might not be mentioned in the first sentence, but to suggest that mentioning his Jewishness equates an anti-zionist crusade? Absolutely preposterous! I've read that Wolfowitz holds dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel. Can anyone verify it or has anyone else heard this? It seems popular on blogs, but not many official sources.-- Laikalynx 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the first thing you should ask yourself is 'if he were Christian (or of any other religion), would it be relevant to mention the fact here?' If the answer is no, don't add it (there). 84.53.74.196 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the answer is yes. So yes. If someone is a practicing satanist, we'd probably mention it in his biography. LOL If he was christian, same thing, buddhist, same thing, hindu, same thing, muslim, same thing, jewish, SAME THING.- Laikalynx 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
None of the links above directly state he is Jewish, and CounterPunch isn't a reliable enough source for this anyway. Per WP:BLP, he must self-identify as a Jew, and there must be "a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I'm removing it, again per WP:BLP. Also, even if he were an ethnic Jew, that's no guarantee his religion is Judaism. Perhaps he's an atheist, Christian, Buddhist; who knows? By the way, according to whom does he have Israeli citizenship? Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is getting out of control. I was under the impression that one could be considered Jewish in an ethnic sense. Aren't there atheist and secular Jews who are still listed as Jewish American or American Jews? It seems that people are trying to launch a PC battle, and the fact that he is either half Jewish or full Jewish is NOT a POV but a fact. Please maintain NPOV and place him in either of the above mentioned categories. -- CommonSense101 13:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
See previous discussion pertaining to anon. user's addition of "Religion" and "Judaism" to infobox of this article to understand my deletion of it. It is still a highly-contested matter, and, subject to contentious disagreement; I don't think one can add it to the infobox due to lack of consensus; see WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures. I have deleted the entry in the infobox due to ongoing unresolved disputes re: that matter. If the issue is unresolved as to whether or not the information can be listed as a "category", then how can it be listed in an infobox in a biography of a living person? If this kind of apparent anon. IP user vandalism (if that is what it is) continues, the article may need semi-protection again. --NYScholar 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In this transcript of an interview with Paul Wolfowitz doen by Janine Zacharia, the Jerusalem Post Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with the Jerusalem Post, September 22, 2003 Paul Wolfowitz seemingly states himself that he is an observing "reformed jew". Excerpt; Q: So what are you doing for Rosh Hashanah? Wolfowitz: Probably spending most of the time in synagogue. {Laughter} Q: Can I say a reformed synagogue? Wolfowitz: Yeah Q: But are you generally observant or how would you characterize yourself as? Wolfowitz: I guess observant as a reformed Jew. Q: In a reformed kind of way? Wolfowitz: Yes, yes, I mean I do take it seriously.
Wether or not it should be included in the article or not, i have no opinion on, but it may help in stopping speculations. Bjorn.Persson 06:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Lead image should be current portrait as President of World Bank not old shot as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Image is fair use and copyright holder World Bank encourage its use. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, can it be argued that some gray hair and a few extra wrinkles means the Wolfowitz picture of 5 years past is inadequate? I could understand if the image was 10 years old, but otherwise I don't think that argument can be made. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Have removed NPOV tag as no explanation was given for its placement. If you believe article to be NPOV please explain here why when tagging. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Kudos for removing the NPOV status. At length the article casts Wolfowitz as a hypocrite and as an enabler in Suharto's plundering of his own nation. The article is clearly not neutral. On the contrary, the few statements in defense of Wolfowitz are followed by much lengthier condemning quotes containing the opinion of a few people. Although these are presented as opinion, the preponderance of the same type of information clearly evinces the agenda of those contributing to the article. Would that instead of a little green checkmark, the article were labeled with a stopsign.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectard ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
the caption for the last picture in the article reads: "Paul Wolfowitz stands far right". Seemingly referring to his politics, i chuckled as i realised it was referring to where he stood in the picture itself. lol wiki, nice one. Roidroid 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following from the tail end of the Media Portrayals section:
This has little to do with Wolfowitz. The whole paragraph about Paul William Roberts' book may be insufficiently NPOV, but I'm content with moving the most glaringly biased sentence here in case someone wants to do something with it. Lowerarchy 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)