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 |
The article says, and I quote, "the organization's own ethics rules preclude simultaneous employment of couples ". But, Wolfowitz's (ex?) wife doesn't work there -- his mistress(?) works there. Do the rules on couples includes mistresses as well? (This unsigned comment was left by Harvard yarrd ( talk · contribs) 15:00, 18 May 2007)
The article says he is separated from his wife, and dating one of his workers. It doesn't say he is divorced. MoodyGroove is censoring discussion of whether he is dating while married? We're not even allowed to ask if he is publically in adulterous relatinshiop, even though it is world headline news about ethics probes on him? What are the rules on this censorship? Are we not allowed to comment on ongoing ethics scandals?
Really, all I wanted to know, is whether he is actually divorced, in which case it is just a matter of a swinging bachelor screwing a subordinate -- and we'll all admire him for it, right? and this is common, and ok. But if he is a married man screwing a subordinate, that is going over the line, right? Surely most agree in the West? (This unsigned comment was left by Paulo48 ( talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 May 2007)
This question surely must have an accessible answer. For many a reader, this aspect of the subject's life is at least as important as his supposed use of public funds to benefit his apparent mistress. Firstorm ( talk · contribs) 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
To partly avoid MoodyGrooves diligant efforts to, rightly so, combat any unsubstantiated, negative or positive "material" - you should make all your comments into questions.
Wordnet for example defines material as; "2. information (data or ideas or observations) that can be used or reworked into a finished form; "the archives provided rich material for a definitive biography." As you can see, they mention data, ideas and observations - the word question is not there. It is similiar with other dictionaries, wich you can go and check at dictionary.com and other places. (although some of the definitions I could find were quite wide, for example material for a comedy show - wich could include questions)
The big question, pun intended, is if questions are information (data, ideas and observations). Wich you are of course also allowed to look up in a dictionary. To me it's clear that a question, given normal circumstances, is, if not the oppposite of information, at least the lack or request of information. I'm sure you could extract data, ideas and observations FROM a question, but that does not necessarily make it into anything other than a question.
When you are asking a question you are normally not making a comment of any sort (sarcasm and sitire might cloud this area abit but) - you are asking a question. The type of question who might implicate something are by Neil Cavuto & Fox news, referred to as Cavutos, since the practice of asking questions that arent really questions was popularized by Mr. Cavuto on Fox news.
Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/index.html "Is Paris Hilton hard up for cash?" ;; www.dictionary.com / www.reference.com (provides dictionary service through several recognized dictionaries) in this specific case http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/material ;; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question ;; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordnet
213.141.89.53 10:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say whether he was supposedly ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Also, I've read elsewhere that ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Is that generally believed, or scurrilous, or...? Interested in any clarification, especially as the ethical questions appear to have gotten worldwide publicity... John furspire ( talk · contribs)
Hi John, I think there has been some rumor that Mr. Wolfowitz ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove***. Whether or not this is true, we can only speculate. - Dick's Chenney (Unsigned comment left by Wolfie.dick ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 10 May 2007)
I removed the photo of Wolfowitz with holes in his socks. Although the caption says that it generated "many opinions in the news media," the article didn't cite any of them. Unless the opinions are more substantive than Joe Blogger saying "lol wolfy needs new sox" they have no place here. White 720 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Svetlana Miljkovic 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1) changing quoted source from the BBC to some other media organization that does make that connection, and rewriting article to make it clear that such a connection is tongue-in-cheek; 2) replacing this part of the article by an outline of serious criticism of Wolfowitz arising from the incident, in the direction indicated by Svetelana Miljkovic; or 3) deleting reference to the incident altogether. [Not a Wikipedia member] 27 April 2007.
A lot of seemingly political minded vandalism and alterations going on, particularly adding vandalism about 9/11, I'm sure that anti-vandal users won't mind and I hope admins won't mind that I jumped ahead and semi-protected this page for a few hours until things cool off and AIV catches up with the IP's involved (a couple have been reported already) SGGH 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"Almost immediately upon confirmation he leapt into action in May 2001 during the height of Sino-American tensions that surrounded the U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident. Wolfowitz defused a very tricky situation when he ordered the recall and destruction of 600,000 Chinese-made berets that had been issued to troops stating "U.S. troops shall not wear berets made in China""
While I did found it funny, I don't know if sarcasm should be a part of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.34.211 ( talk) 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
I recently reverted a big change in the "africa and corruption" section, from the title of the section it seemed to me that everything there should be strongly cited, and the most recent change removed a citation and didn't provide any of its own, so I reverted it. Apologies if it was a helpful change, but you can understand why biography articles (particularly rather volatile ones) must be carefully changed. SGGH 11:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The following quotation does not cite the Wall Street Journal. Rather, it cites an article that cites the Wall Street Journal. This makes it difficult to legitimize the quotation; the WSJ article may have been an opinion piece, for example.
"The Wall Street Journal commented: 'Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power. He saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein.'[22]
[22] is a CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/17/worldbank.wolfowtiz/ - 128.12.108.147 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the WSJ entry is indeed an editorial. The actual source is http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006432 - a part of the opinion page.
the article refers to "kampfner" (john kampfner of the new statesman?) over a dozen times without ever stating who kampnfer is, nor is he (or she) cited in the references anywhere. for all we know, kampfner could be some random opinionated barfly, but a whole lot of information herein is presented "according to kampfner". can the author please give a more complete reference? -- 155.104.37.17 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says: "On January 30, 2007 the pictures of Paul Wolfowitz's socks after his visit to Selimiye Mosque in Turkey were released. BBC criticized the influence the World Bank President can make over the poverty as he cannot afford a pair of socks without holes."
Is it worth mentioning in an encyclopedia ? As far as I can see, there's no mention of pretzels in the article George Bush. :p Régis Lachaume 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Many missing sources throughout this article; lifting of whole parts of unsourced POV material from unidentified souces. Plagiarism from sources creates additional violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Needs much more clean up so as to supply the missing citations and to created a more consistent format in notes, references, and external links throughout the article. Started but have not got time to finish. Please see interpolated editorial comments in editing mode in the article. --NYScholar 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What do folks think about using the National Names Database as a source on this page? The article on Wolfowitz seems poorly written and has zero sourcing. The Talk:NNDB page raises serious issues about using it as a source (the only editors that endorse it there appear to have connections to the NNDB itself). An editor claims that Jimbo Wales is against using it as a source (but without sourcing this claim). It's true that other Wikipedia pages cite this, but if it is not a WP:RS, than we shouldn't repeat that error here. What do others think? Notmyrealname 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've raised the question on the BLP noticeboard here [2] Notmyrealname 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to Jimbo Wales' comment: [3] "Why is the NNDB not considered a valid source? You mentioned this in your recent edit to Maria Bartiromo. Chupper 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"
"Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" Notmyrealname17:34, May 3, 2007 (UTC)(Updated with full quote Notmyrealname 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
[Supplied signature info. from recent revision in editing history; please correct if incorrect. The time stamp seems oddly off, and I have had trouble getting the unsigned template to post correctly. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]
[Comment by another user moved here from my own personal talk page. Seems more relevant here. --NYScholar 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]
NNDB may be linked to in an article where relevant, but it may not be used as a source for a biography of a living person. It fails to meet any one of the standards suggested under
WP:RS - its authors are unknown so we can't regard them as trustworthy, it doesn't have a reliable publication and editing process and it's not widely considered authoritative. Furthermore, many of the articles are biased and/or written for maximum lulz effect. As a link, it can work, as a reference for information, it's right out. Thanks.
FCYTravis
21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
--NYScholar 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[Some details about (add name) listed here may be of questionable reliability ("This is a beta version of NNDB"; corrections and comments are requested).]
The removal of relevant, factual, and fully valid categories is considered vandalism. Please desist from vandalizing this article. The categories that are consistently removed include:
-- Wassermann 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be some vandalism occurring: 68.184.46.189 appears to be inserting profane material [... then deleted by 68.192.166.39 (see correction below)...]: [4] [5]. Some of the unsourced statements in the article also need either deletion or the provision of reliable verifiable sources pursuant to WP:BLP and related Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I tried to provide some additional reliable verified and verifiable sources for some of the statements; I have been unable to do so for others, which remain unattributed. I've run out of time. I've indicated at least some places where they are still needed. This article still needs considerable cleanup, particularly regarding verifying sources placed in it and also attributing currently still-unsourced statements with full citations. See the guidelines and policies linked at top of this talk page, especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Attribution, as these pertain to WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is an incredibly verbose and ultimately confusing account of an only moderately important political figure. To be sure, Wolfowitz is influential and controversial, but it just makes no sense to say 5 times as much about him as, say, Adlai Stevenson. Heck, the Wolfowitz page is longer than the one for Abraham Lincoln.
It would be a service to Wikipedia and its readers to shorten this article by a factor of 3. A lot of the verbiage could be moved to other pages, although I don't know how many people really care. Greg Kuperberg 05:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey spank buddies, this article is too long. Think about what is useful. Don't have an opinion have a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.162.255 ( talk • contribs) 04:44, May 31, 2007
Does anyone know why the cited references are in a "Notes" section and a list of a bunch of (presumably not used as references) other external links are in a "References" section? It seems to me that the "Notes" section needs to be renamed "References" and the "References" section renamed "External links" and dramatically shortened. -- ElKevbo 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For all of the effort to fill in notes and references, the article is ever more over-written, and consequently less and less useful to most users. No Wikipedia article should be this long; very few should even be half as long. If you want to say this much about Wolfowitz, you should expand on it in a series of pages.
Someone tried to at least begin to pare down the enormous verbiage. His edit was reverted, as if the article is a hydra. I have to ask whether some of the editors are obsessed with this page and have no real concern for brevity. Greg Kuperberg 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
<<
Gaouette observes:
The controversy has added fuel to anger at the bank over Wolfowitz's management style and his involvement in two unusual and large pay raises given to his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a bank employee on loan to the State Department.... Wolfowitz's problems have been compounded by revelations that Defense Department officials told one of their contractors to hire Riza for a short-term contract while Wolfowitz was the deputy Defense secretary. The Pentagon announced Wednesday [April 18, 2007] that it was looking into the matter.... These issues will be on the table as the bank's board of directors meets today [April 19, 2007] to debate Wolfowitz's future." [1]>
On April 19, 2007, on the website of Fox News, Richard Behar posted his exclusive interview with Roberto Danino, the bank's former general counsel, who claimed that Wolfowitz froze him out of the loop because he "'didn't like my advice'" on the Shaha Riza compensation matter in 2005, which led to Danino quitting his post at the bank altogether several months later. [2]
BBC News and other media outlets reported on the meeting in which Wolfowiz "faced" the World Bank's board of directors: he and his lawyer Robert Bennett continued to assert that he had engaged in no "conflict of interest" regarding "bogus charges" concerning the "promotion and pay rises" of his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, who was "seconded to the State Department" from the World Bank when he became its president in 2005, and that he had consulted the Bank's "ethics committee" about the matter before proceeding; he even "won a fresh endorsement from his former boss," President George W. Bush, who argued that Wolfowitz "should stay" head of the Bank and be "given a fair hearing." [3] Attending a conference on education for the poor in Brussels, Belgium, amidst news reports that the World Bank ethics committee members disputed his claims, [4] Wolfowitz insisted in a press conference that the controversy would not be "distracting" from the work of the World Bank. [5] Yet, others are focusing on how "wary" Europeans are of potential international financial instability resulting from the continuing controversy affecting the World Bank president:
So guarded was the reception for Wolfowitz that Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor of the Exchequer, canceled plans to appear on the podium with him at a news conference. British officials said publicly that Brown had decided to leave early to campaign in the Scottish elections. But privately they admitted that appearing side by side with Wolfowitz had become a political liability.
Wolfowitz initially escaped the hoard of reporters waiting to greet him at the entrance of the conference, held at the European Commission's headquarters, by entering the sprawling building through an underground garage. But at a news conference where former African child laborers discussed the importance of going to school and where Wolfowitz himself spoke movingly about his grandfather's lack of education, his discourse was disrupted by recurring questions about his stewardship.
Asked if he would resign and whether he was concerned the allegations against him were distracting from the bank's development goals, Wolfowitz stressed that the work of the bank was continuing.
"The work of the bank goes on," he said. "There are millions of poor people who depend on us, and we will continue that work. It's a matter of keeping promises made. We're talking about the long term, it goes beyond me."
But he sidestepped questions about his future, referring journalists to his testimony to a panel investigating his role in promoting Riza, for whom he helped arrange a pay raise, promotion and transfer to the State Department after he arrived at the bank in 2005. "The board is considering the issue," he said.
On Tuesday [May 1, 2007], two former top officials at the bank issued new statements disputing the contention of Wolfowitz that they and others knew about his actions on behalf of the woman, who had been employed at the bank for seven years when he joined. The officials' testimony exposed the extraordinary discord at the highest levels of the bank after Wolfowitz became president. [6]
After some delay, the World Bank board's decision on Wolfowitz's future with the organization was at first expected within a week. [5] In their "Communication" of May 1, 2007, the executive directors of the World Bank Group state:
Following the April 16 statement of the Development Committee, the ad hoc group has continued its work, taking it forward in an orderly manner, with fair process and careful deliberation.
The ad hoc group has completed an additional round of interviews with the people involved and received a number of statements. It will now draw its conclusions from the information obtained from the documents and during the course of the interviews. It will then expeditiously prepare its report and submit it to the Executive Directors for their decisions.
The Executive Directors remain very concerned about the impact on the work of the Bank Group and are committed to the earliest possible resolution of the matter. [7]
On May 2, 2007, FoxNews.com posted a detailed news analysis complaining that the World Bank scandal had "morphed into a full-blown battle of prepared statements" -- with no reporters permitted to ask follow-up questions. Fox listed some key unanswered questions for all the major players in the Riza saga -- including Danino, Melkert and Wolfowitz. The analysis concluded that "everybody involved in the saga still has things to reveal." [8]
On May 5, 2007, Reuters reported that
More than 700 World Bank staff have signed a letter expressing concern and calling for a resolution of a crisis involving bank president Paul Wolfowitz as a decision over his leadership looms.
In a rare move, the 718 employees asked to add their names to a letter first circulated on April 26 by 46 World Bank officials working to implement the bank's anti-corruption strategy. The surge of signatures, on a public letter on the bank's website, reflected signs of increasing discontent.
The next 72 hours will be critical for the former No. 2 Pentagon official accused of violating staff rules by directing a high-paid promotion for his companion Shaha Riza, a World Bank Middle East expert, as an investigating panel prepares to announce its findings. [9]
In the edition of New York Times of Monday, May 7, 2007, Steven R. Weisman reported from Washington, D.C. that by the weekend ending Sunday, May 6,
The World Bank committee investigating misconduct charges against Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank president, failed to complete its review on schedule...but bank officials said the panel would eventually find that he violated bank rules barring conflicts of interest.
The committee, made up of 7 of the 24 members of the bank’s board, indicated last week that it would reach a conclusion about Mr. Wolfowitz on Saturday [May 5], and would transmit its findings to him to allow him to prepare for a rebuttal this week.
But no results were transmitted by early Sunday evening, though some officials said it was theoretically possible for the panel to finish later Sunday night.
Bank officials said the committee was also preparing a recommendation on what the full board should do in light of its finding but would not be disclosing that to Mr. Wolfowitz.
The committee is considering whether to recommend an outright removal or some kind of no-confidence vote that may persuade him to resign. That part of the conclusion is not likely to become known until later, bank officials said. [10]
Later, on Monday, May 7, 2007, news media reported that Kevin Kellems, "director of strategy in external affairs and senior adviser" and "the right-hand man of embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz," has "resigned," which some commentators regarded as a "blow" to the embattled World Bank president and some analysts as "likely an effort to save his boss." [11] [12] [13] [14]
By Tuesday, May 8, 2007, according to Lesley Wroughton reporting for Reuters, amidst ostensible support for Wolfowitz from the United States and increasing concerns from the European community, the World Bank Group's ethics panel had already given Wolfowitz three days to respond to their findings (by Wednesday, May 9), eliciting a request from Bob Bennett, Wolfowitz's lawyer, that the Bank grant Wolfowitz at least the five days prescribed by its policies to respond to "such allegations," and, preferably, a full week, and the United States Treasury "urged" that the Bank accommodate Bennett's request for more time to respond. "European board sources" said that "Wolfowitz was unlikely to quit even though the panel's findings further damaged his credibility." Not attributing Wolfowitz's situation to his being an American, Dutch Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister Wouter Bos appeared less concerned about the process of how the World Bank selects its presidents, who are by tradition American, and more about the dubious "integrity" of this particular incumbent. [15]
According to more recent press reports, the World Bank Group then gave Wolfowitz until Friday, May 11, 2007, to respond to the "report by a special bank panel that accuses Wolfowitz of circumventing bank rules when he arranged for the compensation package." Whereas "[c]ritics - including many European countries, many on the bank's staff, aid groups and others - want Wolfowitz to resign," as they "contend that the controversy has tarnished the bank's reputation and could hobble its ability to raise billions of dollars from countries around the world to bankroll financial help for poor nations," Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow continue the Bush administration's call for a "fair hearing" for Wolfowitz, "still" expressing "full support" for him. [16] >>
The above material (between <</>>) has been updated. Cut out the portions that could be summarized more briefly or deleted; other very lengthy sections of the article in the Career section, especially those apparently plagiarized from or insufficiently attributed to books and articles need shortening as well. --NYScholar 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This is inaccurate, particularly after seeing the featured article History of Jews in Poland - see Interwar period 1918–39, which states that claims of anti-Semitic attacks, while true in some cases such as the Blue Army in Warsaw, were exaggerated (summarised in the American Morgenthau Report). To cite a publication from Cornell which doesn't necessarily conform to the NPOV policy is unencylcopedic. The phrase should be removed or replaced with something more appropriate. Brisv e gas 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Material in this article seems lifted from unidentified and unattributed secondary (not primary) sources--e.g. a blog with quotations of passages from The Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann (or some similar online source)--this one is by Laura Rozen and called War and Piece. [7], the blog post is dated April 25, 2004. (It quotes in full a passage from which statements have been posted in the article as bulleted items.) (Or, alternatively, the material may come from the primary source, the book by Mann, but still need page reference citations.) I may be back to post a possibly-useful interview with Mann that can serve as a secondary source of pertinent statements that he makes concerning Wolfowitz that may also be repeated in this article without proper citations. --NYScholar 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that citing an entire book for a fact (or quote), rather than the book and page number is a very poor citation style. It makes it extremely difficult to actually verify the fact because someone would have to read the entire book, without overlooking anything, in order to spot fabricated facts or quotes. Citing page numbers makes it much easier to verify facts and quotes. (As Bob Woodward said in Bush at War, "Paul Wolfowitz is a pacifist at heart.") -- JHP 06:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
don't you have another one, this one is really ugly... Paris By Night 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Naomi Klein has pointed-out the overall corruption of The World Bank regardless of the Paul Wolfowitz scandal, and has called for the organization's complete dissolution."
NC is an influential WB critic and journalist and author of No Logo. To use the word "corruption" in this context is to state what is factually correct and often written about by reliable journalsts, human rights groups, trade analysts, diplomats and presidents. I really think this point should stay in the article. Open to dialogue on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee ( talk • contribs) 21:49, May 19, 2007 (UTC)
This source has been deleted a few times now by more than one editor--It is placed incoherently in terms of chronology, not properly identified in terms of "full citations" (see tag at top of page re: WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Citing sources etc., and it makes no sense to include it at that point in the article. The red linking of an article that does not currently appear in Wikipedia indicates POV and should not be included, especially at that point in this article. There is no article on the so-called "scandal" that the adder/adders of this source imply. It is not within the guidelines of Wikipedia:NPOV. The date of its publication is earlier in May and it should not be placed in a paragraph discussing chronology in mid May and May 17 on. By May 17/18/19, its point of view is outdated, and placing it at that point in the article indicates pushing a POV: for related issues, please see WP:POV-PUSH. --NYScholar 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to your Paul Wolfowitz edit in which you said, "sources cited--he lived in Chevy Chase when married to Claire [Clare] Selgin Wolfowitz; reliable source not yet cited for his current resid. in Washington, D.C. (NW); current add. unr", I'm not sure how to use a constantly changing Newspaper website homepage as a source, but right now on the WashingtonPost.com homepage there is a photo of Wolfowitz with a caption that reads, "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaves his house in Chevy Chase, Md. on May 15, 2007. (Getty Images)" I can't find it now, but on May 16, NYTimes.com had a photo of Wolfowitz leaving his home. There was a caption that said something along the lines of "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaving his Chevy Chase, Maryland home this morning." The photo even showed his street address, "7104", on the side of his door. A quick google search for "Paul Wolfowitz" and "7104" confirms that he lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland. -- JHP 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Took out the Chicago wikiprojects template; not sure why it is here. If it is legitimate, a registered user can add it as needed. Sorry if it is incorrect to delete it. It just seems unwarranted to me. --NYScholar 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Paul Wolfowitz {{ ChicagoWikiProject}} tag
WP:WPChi tags all articles with Category:University of Chicago alumni. I have added the parameter values following our priority scale. If this is a problem let me know. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I see the U of Chicago conn.; at first I thought it was a city of Chicago and didn't see that conn. Will restore tag if you did not already; though I think it should be placed below the more general talkheader and WP:BLP tags. Will move this to talk page of article in a bit. --NYScholar 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please change his name above his picture from Wolfotitz to Wolfowitz. 75.185.66.16 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have some comments about the pictures on this page. All of the pics are small, and I think that making them larger would be good, for they are hard to see. Also, there is a substantial lack of photographs before the "Deputy Secretary of Defense" section, with only one pic being present, besides the main pic in the infobox. I have tried to fix this problem with resizing many of the images, but my edits were undone, as far as I can tell. I also added a pic of Wolfowitz and former First Lady Nancy Reagan, but the image size was lowered on that pic too. Is there any reason why? Happyme22 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[Deleted unsigned inappropriate comment. See editing history of talk page. --NYScholar 23:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)]
See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: removed to talk page: problematic passage being added in reverts by other user:
On the other hand, there is a very long tradition of interpretation of Article 51, going back to the founding generation of the United Nations itself, that supports Wolfowitz's more expansive interpretation. [see e.g. Clark M. Eichelberger, "The United Nations Charter: A Growing Document," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1947.] (added by 20:10, May 22, 2007 Annie06) (editing history)]. [15]
(Note the source that user is citing w/o a link is dated 1947!) The invasion occurred in March 2003. The controversy about it occurred for two years before and for the 4 years after that: about six years. Other sources needed: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV, and WP:BLP#Public figures. --NYScholar 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
How is adding that passage improving this article on Wolfowitz? (See tagged notice at top of this page re: need to focus on discussing improvements to the article; this is not a message board about the subject or related subjects. Statements need "full citations" and to be pertinent, reliable, and verifiable by all readers of the article. --NYScholar 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I don't find the other user's editing history summary (linked above) clear at all. I don't see any "error" in what I wrote as that user claims. If the user wants to cite Wolfowitz's own point of view, cite a documented quotation in which he expresses it or a source that explains what Wolfowitz's point of view is. (Already cited earlier in the paragraph anyway?) What the user is adding violates WP:NOR. The user is expressing the user's own point of view about matters relating to 2003-2007 and citing a source from 1947 that appears both outdated and no longer pertinent to the paragraph in this article itself. It goes off the topic of the paragraph, which is criticism of Wolfowitz's already cited view about "pre-emption" and "pre-emptive strikes". See the larger contexts of the section. It follows earlier sections. --NYScholar 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [Moreover, the cross-referenced article section on 2003 invasion of Iraq already discusses the topic in more detail; discussing it further here will unduly lengthen the article and take it further off the topic of Wolfowitz's views (already cited at start of para.) --NYScholar 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)]
Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, wrote Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2006). This book details the behind-the-scenes decision-making that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq during the initial months of the Bush Administration (before September 11th). In this book, they wrote: "Wolfowitz sought to enlist the Joint Staff's support to develop a strategy for aiding an anti-Saddam resistance. Saddam had drained the southern marshes in Iraq to deprive Shiite rebels of a sanctuary, so Wolfowitz wondered if the dams could be bombed to re-create them. The Pentagon lawyers challenged whether such a strike would be consistent with the rules of war. Wolfowitz's view was that it would be more humane than leaving the Shiites to Saddam's mercy. Wolfowitz also wanted to know what it would take to arm and train Iraqi insurgents." citation needed
The United States invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003 and victory was declared on May 1, 2003 but this was only the beginning of Wolfowitz’s problems. During the reconstruction work that followed "[t]he American planners portrayed a mixture of supreme confidence and woeful lack of preparation." Kampfner states "[t]hese clean-cut young Americans … were adherents of the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld school of ‘revolutionary transformation’. They believed that, with goodwill, they could resurrect Iraq in a matter of months." This did not prove to be the case. Kampfner goes on to say that while "Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Cheney had also invested considerable hopes in Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress," these would also prove to be ill-founded. citation needed
Although he may have had considerable influence in the Administration's decision to invade Iraq, in Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor depict Wolfowitz as having little influence on the actual implementation of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. For instance: "At the Pentagon, Wolfowitz and his aides had taken the idea of Iraqi assistance a step further. Dusting off his proposal, made during his years out of office, to arm and equip Iraqi insurgents, Wolfowitz's initial goal was to raise an indigenous opposition army. As first imagined the plan was bold: there would be thousands of Iraqi freedom fighters who would battle Saddam's forces alongside U.S. and allied troops. Abizaid, who had served on the Joint Staff before moving to CENTCOM as Franks' deputy supported Wolfowitz's concept. Like Wolfowitz, Abizaid wanted to put an Iraqi face on the invasion force. Most of the administration were skeptical, if not opposed, to Wolfowitz's plan … [General Tommy Franks] thought that an Iraqi force would just get in the way and gave no weight to the benefits such a unit might provide in terms of local knowledge and language." According to Gordon and Trainor, money was poured into the idea but it never got the necessary backing or planning: "Franks turned to Feith in a Pentagon corridor, letting him know where he stood: 'I don't have time for this fucking bullshit.'....Rumsfeld was not pushing the idea very hard and Franks was not shy about taking on the defense secretary's subordinates....The Defense official blamed bureaucratic obstacles and lack of enthusiasm on the part of CENTCOM. White House officials and CENTCOM said that the fiasco showed that Feith and his team were better at drafting conservative policy manifestos than instituting programs." citation needed
In Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor also state that, "Wolfowitz and his aides suffered another setback when the White House rejected their proposal for the establishment of a provisional Iraqi government." The State department favored "internals" whereas Wolfowitz had proposed exiles. Rumsfeld was also opposed to the idea because he believed that an Iraqi provisional government would "get in the way". When the US announced that it would be running the country for a year and that Iraqis would only have an advisory role, Iraqi opposition groups futilely objected. Activist and academic Kanan Makiya, who supported regime change and had ties to the Iraqi National Congress, wrote an op-ed piece denouncing the decision. Gordon and Trainor also believe that one of the crucial mistakes of the administration was initially sidelining Zalmay Khalilzad and bringing in Paul Bremer instead. The move was criticized by Colin Powell and it's unclear if Wolfowitz supported Rumsfeld's decision to sideline Khalilzad since Khalilzad had in the past been closely associated with Wolfowitz. citation needed
There are no [full citations to] sources [given in the above passage(s) and many others in this article, which probably also need to be deleted until they can be properly and fully sourced]; the material is not clearly relevant to this article (see last sentence); and the cross-linked articles amply cover the time period. Without full citations ( Wikipedia:Citing sources), this material violates WP:BLP. See tagged notices at top of this talk page and my own and others' comments on plagiarism throughout this article. --NYScholar 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)] [Added earlier passage(s) too; as I and other editors state earlier in this talk page, page citations are needed to document quotations from a book. Just saying that the material comes from a book is not enough. "Full citations" are required. See WP:BLP. --NYScholar 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)]
[Please see editorial interpolations in the edit mode of this article throughout. They also explain the problems with missing citations throughout this article. See above sections re: plagiarism problem in this article. --NYScholar 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[....] [Deleted poorly sourced and potentially libelous material posted to talk page by Public Service ( talk · contribs) 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC). Please see the comments added below by NYScholar. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This material (as I say in the editing history summary) violates WP:BLP. It is unsourced [parts are still unsourced; other parts still poorly sourced--see MoodyGroove above, who deleted it from talk page --NYScholar 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]. See the tagged policy (at top) of this page. It is not appropriate to include such unsourced potentially- libelous material in articles on living persons, including articles on living persons who are public figures: WP:BLP#Public figures. I'm moving my reply to this passage also put on my personal talk page to this talk page, where the discussion is appropriate. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[Moved from my personal talk page. Not moving whole passage [it appears above]; the citations are not "full citations" (see the tagged notices above); there are not enough of them to make the whole passage properly sourced according to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Citing sources and it does not adhere to guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:POV, which include policies pertaining to Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]] [Updated: Please see the tagged notices to WP:BLP with linked policies and guidelines and also WP:NOR. Thanks. ---NYScholar 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)]
Wolfowitz Bio
I am willing to work with your to meet you editorial requirements for my posting that you removed. The intention is to complete the biographical picture. I have re-added the refs that had gotten removed when someone before you removed the contribution last night. Let me know how you want to proceed. Would you like to first post it to the Discusion section? [Posted by Public Service on my personal talk page.-- Public Service 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Public Service Have moved here later. --NYScholar 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]
It would be a very good idea to keep this deleted due to WP:BLP until and unless proper and "full citations" (not just external links) are added with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view transitions identifying sources of information (see WP:POV.) Right now, as it is, the above passage requires deletion due to WP:BLP, which requires removing on sight such potentially libelous and unsourced and/or improperly-sourced (insufficiently-sourced) material concerning living persons. I suggest that you work with other editors (not I) on whether or not such material is appropriate in this biography of Wolfowitz. See the talk page of the article and the tags on the top of the talk page. This reads like gossip. It does not seem appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. (Please do not post material relating to discussion of how to improve articles on my talk page. Please post it on the talk page of the article on the subject. Thank you.) I am moving this discussion to the appropriate talk page: Talk:Paul Wolfowitz. My editing history summary in the article on Paul Wolfowitz already cited WP:BLP. It is Wikipedia policy to remove material like what you [Public Service] added (above passages) "on sight". (I do not have time to work on the above passages. Such development of what appears to be very gosssipy and potentially-libelous material about a public figure is not of interest to me.)--NYScholar 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC))
Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. (Qtd. from the policy tagged in WP:BLP notice at top of this page.) [See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Added link.]--NYScholar 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC) [updated w/ link. --NYScholar 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]
[Added q. from the warning (above): --NYScholar 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]
In my view, the passages added first to the article (which I deleted on sight, citing WP:BLP) and then re-added to this talk page and my personal talk page by the above user) should be removed, deleted, on sight, not only from the article but also from this talk page (see notice w/ links in WP:BLP as tagged on top of this page). See the tagged notice re: other editor's concern about length of this article (on article page): scroll up; read whole history of this article in talk. Passages like these have been deleted before out of already-stated concerns. I leave it to other editors to deal with this matter further. --NYScholar 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent additions to this article appear to be pushing various points of view of editors making them. Please maintain adherence to Wikipedia's most central editing policy and guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cross-links to articles on related subjects provide detailed information about them. Those articles also must conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Many of those articles are controversial and contentious; in editing them (and this one), please consult Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles [and linked/related guidelines and policies]. See editing history summary comments and earlier talk page discussions (scroll up). Editors should not be interjecting their own points of view into this or other Wikipedia articles. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC) --[clarified in brackets. --NYScholar 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)] [[Updated: as added above: please also review WP:NOR and other related Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked therein. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)]
[***deleted section heading with offensive slur*** --NYScholar 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)]
Someone jumped the gun by adding Robert Zoellick as "successor" in the bottom box in article; the dates didn't post right for Wolfowitz when that user added them as "incumbent"; reformatted that part of the box; added ref. to the World Bank Group's press release; unfortunately, the date of posting on the site is in error; it was posted on May 30, 2007 (not June 30, 2007); the Spanish language version has right date; the French version has no date; the English version has erroneous date. Don't know how to incorporate that in any other way right now. I really don't think the box should be changed until a "successor" to Wolfowitz is actually approved. Wolfowitz is still holding that office until June 30, 2007, the effective date of his resignation: see the sources cited in the article and in that box. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Generally, blog posts are not permitted in biographies of living persons:
WP:BLP;
WP:Reliable sources and
Wikipedia:Citing sources; the blog cited is by
Eric Alterman, in his blog called Altercation, who at the time cited (March 8, 2005) was describing himself as a professor of journalism at two institutions
Brooklyn College and
City University of New York (CUNY); but [his current description on the Media Matters for America website (current host of Altercation)]
Staff Advisors: Eric Alterman describes him as a professor of English (which is not necessarily inconsistent, since in many institutions journalism is taught in English departments; one can be a professor of journalism and housed in the English department, e.g.) [See current personal website
EricAlterman.com: "A senior fellow of the
World Policy Institute at
New School University, and former Adjunct Professor of Journalism at
NYU and
Columbia professor of journalism."] Anyway, I just happened to see some discrepancies in the material added recently (calling Alterman an "historian," which he is not [more accurately: he may be an "historian," but he's not currently an "academic historian"; i.e., he's not teaching in a department of history in an academic institution]; I added some comment in the editorial interpolation in the text (visible only in editing mode), and I moved the material from the text to a note. I also wonder whether, since Alterman is writing that blog post as a media commentator/media critic, whether the material might be placed more appropriately in the section on perspectives in the media (if a blog post is permissible in this article at all). There are exceptions in Wikipedia (when the blogs are written by the subjects of the articles themselves; or when the blogs have been given official media credentials--as in the situation relating to court reportage in
United States v. Libby and, thus, re:
Lewis Libby (cf. also
WP:BLP#Public figures). Both Wolfowitz and Libby are
public figures (due to their roles as public officials and the subsequent legal case and World Bank controversy, relating to each of them, respectively). I don't know whether or not Altercation (a political blog) is permissible in this article. I do think that the material is more appropriately placed in a note than in the main text, though that is also something to be discussed and debated perhaps. I myself don't have time to discuss this matter any further than posting this comment and making the typographical and factual corrections. Perhaps others want to discuss this, however. I was not planning to edit articles in Wikipedia (due to time constraints involving my own non-Wikipedia work), but I did see this error while checking the article very late tonight after being offline all day and thought I had better just make the minor corrections and raise the more major question here for others to consider. If one wants to revert the material from a note back to the text, I can understand that, but I myself still think the qualification by Eric Alterman in this particular section is either more appropriately placed either in a qualifying note citation or more appropriately placed in the other section on "perspectives" in the media. --NYScholar 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Eric Alterman, however, in some "cocktail party banter" in which he engaged Wolfowitz during a "book party" hosted by Tina Brown and her husband Sir Harold Evans (which Alterman reports as "on the record," citing Wolfowitz's not specifying that it was "off the record"): "I asked if he thought it was important that so many people associated with the ideas behind U.S. foreign policy were Straussians. He definitely demurred. Wolfowitz does not consider himself to be a Straussian. He says he does not find political philosophy all that exciting and Allan Bloom found him to be a disappointment in this regard, but a 'successful disappointment,' which appealed to Bloom. He says when he gets together with real Straussians he becomes impatient with the level of abstraction of the discussion. He does not think Strauss is in any way important to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy." [1]
.... Deleted by NYScholar; my own editorial interpolation is already, as I said, visible in editing mode. I do not want my words copied and posted here. They are clear in both the editing history summary and in show preview in editing mode. Editorial interpolations are just what they are called "editorial interpolations." There is no reason for copying and pasting my words from the editorial interpolation here. [Threaded the comment added below.] --NYScholar 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)]
Instead, I'm moving my own (earlier) editorial interpolation from the article to this talk page; it was posted beginning on June 4, 2007); since I first posted it, I updated some of the article's references in subsequent changes and also in comments in the editing history summaries (see above bracketed comments in talk and also editing history summaries; the context of Eric Alterman's remarks in his blog post need to be very clear; otherwise, readers may be misled by them. It was an ongoing process to find out more about
Eric Alterman, which led me to add some external links to the Wikipedia article about him for others to consult as they wish]:
Blog=dubious source? Is this blog post (and the inclusion of all the other blog posts along with it) a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which does not generally permit blog posts in biographies of living persons? WP:BLP? Altercation is a blog reposted on its own site by MSNBC.com (2002-2006). Alterman has undergraduate and graduate degrees in history (U.S. history and international relations) and is a journalism professor according to the self-description in another blog post by Alterman above the one cited (the one dated March 10, 2005 that is a memo); see the "From" info.: "From: Eric Alterman, Professor of Journalism, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Media Columnist, The Nation, Altercation 'Weblogger,' MSNBC.com, senior fellow, Center for American Progress and World Policy Institute (New School University), author, six books, Jew." His current website says that he is a professor of English at both Brooklyn College and [of] CUNY [Actually, Brooklyn College is a senior college of CUNY; sometimes he lists his affiliation as CUNY, sometimes as Brooklyn College.] (In Wikipedia "Straussian" redirects to "Leo Strauss"--added the link.) I also moved the material from a note citation back to the text, where it was placed originally by prev. editor. See talk page for discussion. The Wikipedia link to Eric Alterman defines who he is, his various areas of expertise, and what his current postion(s) are.
[Updated a bit in brackets. --NYScholar 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)]
Stores are now selling subscription based sox. [16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.205.35 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, June 5, 2007 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a biography. I recommend splitting off the Career section into its own article as that seems to be the largest subsection. -- Rajah 05:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The tag was added by MoodyGrove ( Talk | contribs) in this edit on May 28, 2007. There have been several edits since and, while there's been lively discussion on this talk page, it's hard to ferret out any actual, current neutrality disputes. If there are any current concerns about the NPOV nature of this article, let's hear and resolve them now, and dispatch the tag, if possible.-- HughGRex 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Wolfowitz.E2.80.8E Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To me it looks a little strange to have 2 exact quotes in the intro section. I'm not sure I've ever seen that on WP. Steve Dufour 04:42, 16 November 2007 (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 |
The article says, and I quote, "the organization's own ethics rules preclude simultaneous employment of couples ". But, Wolfowitz's (ex?) wife doesn't work there -- his mistress(?) works there. Do the rules on couples includes mistresses as well? (This unsigned comment was left by Harvard yarrd ( talk · contribs) 15:00, 18 May 2007)
The article says he is separated from his wife, and dating one of his workers. It doesn't say he is divorced. MoodyGroove is censoring discussion of whether he is dating while married? We're not even allowed to ask if he is publically in adulterous relatinshiop, even though it is world headline news about ethics probes on him? What are the rules on this censorship? Are we not allowed to comment on ongoing ethics scandals?
Really, all I wanted to know, is whether he is actually divorced, in which case it is just a matter of a swinging bachelor screwing a subordinate -- and we'll all admire him for it, right? and this is common, and ok. But if he is a married man screwing a subordinate, that is going over the line, right? Surely most agree in the West? (This unsigned comment was left by Paulo48 ( talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 May 2007)
This question surely must have an accessible answer. For many a reader, this aspect of the subject's life is at least as important as his supposed use of public funds to benefit his apparent mistress. Firstorm ( talk · contribs) 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
To partly avoid MoodyGrooves diligant efforts to, rightly so, combat any unsubstantiated, negative or positive "material" - you should make all your comments into questions.
Wordnet for example defines material as; "2. information (data or ideas or observations) that can be used or reworked into a finished form; "the archives provided rich material for a definitive biography." As you can see, they mention data, ideas and observations - the word question is not there. It is similiar with other dictionaries, wich you can go and check at dictionary.com and other places. (although some of the definitions I could find were quite wide, for example material for a comedy show - wich could include questions)
The big question, pun intended, is if questions are information (data, ideas and observations). Wich you are of course also allowed to look up in a dictionary. To me it's clear that a question, given normal circumstances, is, if not the oppposite of information, at least the lack or request of information. I'm sure you could extract data, ideas and observations FROM a question, but that does not necessarily make it into anything other than a question.
When you are asking a question you are normally not making a comment of any sort (sarcasm and sitire might cloud this area abit but) - you are asking a question. The type of question who might implicate something are by Neil Cavuto & Fox news, referred to as Cavutos, since the practice of asking questions that arent really questions was popularized by Mr. Cavuto on Fox news.
Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/index.html "Is Paris Hilton hard up for cash?" ;; www.dictionary.com / www.reference.com (provides dictionary service through several recognized dictionaries) in this specific case http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/material ;; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question ;; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordnet
213.141.89.53 10:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't say whether he was supposedly ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Also, I've read elsewhere that ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Is that generally believed, or scurrilous, or...? Interested in any clarification, especially as the ethical questions appear to have gotten worldwide publicity... John furspire ( talk · contribs)
Hi John, I think there has been some rumor that Mr. Wolfowitz ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove***. Whether or not this is true, we can only speculate. - Dick's Chenney (Unsigned comment left by Wolfie.dick ( talk · contribs) 08:04, 10 May 2007)
I removed the photo of Wolfowitz with holes in his socks. Although the caption says that it generated "many opinions in the news media," the article didn't cite any of them. Unless the opinions are more substantive than Joe Blogger saying "lol wolfy needs new sox" they have no place here. White 720 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Svetlana Miljkovic 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1) changing quoted source from the BBC to some other media organization that does make that connection, and rewriting article to make it clear that such a connection is tongue-in-cheek; 2) replacing this part of the article by an outline of serious criticism of Wolfowitz arising from the incident, in the direction indicated by Svetelana Miljkovic; or 3) deleting reference to the incident altogether. [Not a Wikipedia member] 27 April 2007.
A lot of seemingly political minded vandalism and alterations going on, particularly adding vandalism about 9/11, I'm sure that anti-vandal users won't mind and I hope admins won't mind that I jumped ahead and semi-protected this page for a few hours until things cool off and AIV catches up with the IP's involved (a couple have been reported already) SGGH 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
"Almost immediately upon confirmation he leapt into action in May 2001 during the height of Sino-American tensions that surrounded the U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident. Wolfowitz defused a very tricky situation when he ordered the recall and destruction of 600,000 Chinese-made berets that had been issued to troops stating "U.S. troops shall not wear berets made in China""
While I did found it funny, I don't know if sarcasm should be a part of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.34.211 ( talk) 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
I recently reverted a big change in the "africa and corruption" section, from the title of the section it seemed to me that everything there should be strongly cited, and the most recent change removed a citation and didn't provide any of its own, so I reverted it. Apologies if it was a helpful change, but you can understand why biography articles (particularly rather volatile ones) must be carefully changed. SGGH 11:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The following quotation does not cite the Wall Street Journal. Rather, it cites an article that cites the Wall Street Journal. This makes it difficult to legitimize the quotation; the WSJ article may have been an opinion piece, for example.
"The Wall Street Journal commented: 'Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power. He saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein.'[22]
[22] is a CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/17/worldbank.wolfowtiz/ - 128.12.108.147 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the WSJ entry is indeed an editorial. The actual source is http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006432 - a part of the opinion page.
the article refers to "kampfner" (john kampfner of the new statesman?) over a dozen times without ever stating who kampnfer is, nor is he (or she) cited in the references anywhere. for all we know, kampfner could be some random opinionated barfly, but a whole lot of information herein is presented "according to kampfner". can the author please give a more complete reference? -- 155.104.37.17 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says: "On January 30, 2007 the pictures of Paul Wolfowitz's socks after his visit to Selimiye Mosque in Turkey were released. BBC criticized the influence the World Bank President can make over the poverty as he cannot afford a pair of socks without holes."
Is it worth mentioning in an encyclopedia ? As far as I can see, there's no mention of pretzels in the article George Bush. :p Régis Lachaume 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Many missing sources throughout this article; lifting of whole parts of unsourced POV material from unidentified souces. Plagiarism from sources creates additional violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Needs much more clean up so as to supply the missing citations and to created a more consistent format in notes, references, and external links throughout the article. Started but have not got time to finish. Please see interpolated editorial comments in editing mode in the article. --NYScholar 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What do folks think about using the National Names Database as a source on this page? The article on Wolfowitz seems poorly written and has zero sourcing. The Talk:NNDB page raises serious issues about using it as a source (the only editors that endorse it there appear to have connections to the NNDB itself). An editor claims that Jimbo Wales is against using it as a source (but without sourcing this claim). It's true that other Wikipedia pages cite this, but if it is not a WP:RS, than we shouldn't repeat that error here. What do others think? Notmyrealname 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've raised the question on the BLP noticeboard here [2] Notmyrealname 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is the link to Jimbo Wales' comment: [3] "Why is the NNDB not considered a valid source? You mentioned this in your recent edit to Maria Bartiromo. Chupper 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"
"Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" Notmyrealname17:34, May 3, 2007 (UTC)(Updated with full quote Notmyrealname 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
[Supplied signature info. from recent revision in editing history; please correct if incorrect. The time stamp seems oddly off, and I have had trouble getting the unsigned template to post correctly. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]
[Comment by another user moved here from my own personal talk page. Seems more relevant here. --NYScholar 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]
NNDB may be linked to in an article where relevant, but it may not be used as a source for a biography of a living person. It fails to meet any one of the standards suggested under
WP:RS - its authors are unknown so we can't regard them as trustworthy, it doesn't have a reliable publication and editing process and it's not widely considered authoritative. Furthermore, many of the articles are biased and/or written for maximum lulz effect. As a link, it can work, as a reference for information, it's right out. Thanks.
FCYTravis
21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
--NYScholar 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[Some details about (add name) listed here may be of questionable reliability ("This is a beta version of NNDB"; corrections and comments are requested).]
The removal of relevant, factual, and fully valid categories is considered vandalism. Please desist from vandalizing this article. The categories that are consistently removed include:
-- Wassermann 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be some vandalism occurring: 68.184.46.189 appears to be inserting profane material [... then deleted by 68.192.166.39 (see correction below)...]: [4] [5]. Some of the unsourced statements in the article also need either deletion or the provision of reliable verifiable sources pursuant to WP:BLP and related Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I tried to provide some additional reliable verified and verifiable sources for some of the statements; I have been unable to do so for others, which remain unattributed. I've run out of time. I've indicated at least some places where they are still needed. This article still needs considerable cleanup, particularly regarding verifying sources placed in it and also attributing currently still-unsourced statements with full citations. See the guidelines and policies linked at top of this talk page, especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Attribution, as these pertain to WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is an incredibly verbose and ultimately confusing account of an only moderately important political figure. To be sure, Wolfowitz is influential and controversial, but it just makes no sense to say 5 times as much about him as, say, Adlai Stevenson. Heck, the Wolfowitz page is longer than the one for Abraham Lincoln.
It would be a service to Wikipedia and its readers to shorten this article by a factor of 3. A lot of the verbiage could be moved to other pages, although I don't know how many people really care. Greg Kuperberg 05:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey spank buddies, this article is too long. Think about what is useful. Don't have an opinion have a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.162.255 ( talk • contribs) 04:44, May 31, 2007
Does anyone know why the cited references are in a "Notes" section and a list of a bunch of (presumably not used as references) other external links are in a "References" section? It seems to me that the "Notes" section needs to be renamed "References" and the "References" section renamed "External links" and dramatically shortened. -- ElKevbo 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
For all of the effort to fill in notes and references, the article is ever more over-written, and consequently less and less useful to most users. No Wikipedia article should be this long; very few should even be half as long. If you want to say this much about Wolfowitz, you should expand on it in a series of pages.
Someone tried to at least begin to pare down the enormous verbiage. His edit was reverted, as if the article is a hydra. I have to ask whether some of the editors are obsessed with this page and have no real concern for brevity. Greg Kuperberg 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
<<
Gaouette observes:
The controversy has added fuel to anger at the bank over Wolfowitz's management style and his involvement in two unusual and large pay raises given to his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a bank employee on loan to the State Department.... Wolfowitz's problems have been compounded by revelations that Defense Department officials told one of their contractors to hire Riza for a short-term contract while Wolfowitz was the deputy Defense secretary. The Pentagon announced Wednesday [April 18, 2007] that it was looking into the matter.... These issues will be on the table as the bank's board of directors meets today [April 19, 2007] to debate Wolfowitz's future." [1]>
On April 19, 2007, on the website of Fox News, Richard Behar posted his exclusive interview with Roberto Danino, the bank's former general counsel, who claimed that Wolfowitz froze him out of the loop because he "'didn't like my advice'" on the Shaha Riza compensation matter in 2005, which led to Danino quitting his post at the bank altogether several months later. [2]
BBC News and other media outlets reported on the meeting in which Wolfowiz "faced" the World Bank's board of directors: he and his lawyer Robert Bennett continued to assert that he had engaged in no "conflict of interest" regarding "bogus charges" concerning the "promotion and pay rises" of his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, who was "seconded to the State Department" from the World Bank when he became its president in 2005, and that he had consulted the Bank's "ethics committee" about the matter before proceeding; he even "won a fresh endorsement from his former boss," President George W. Bush, who argued that Wolfowitz "should stay" head of the Bank and be "given a fair hearing." [3] Attending a conference on education for the poor in Brussels, Belgium, amidst news reports that the World Bank ethics committee members disputed his claims, [4] Wolfowitz insisted in a press conference that the controversy would not be "distracting" from the work of the World Bank. [5] Yet, others are focusing on how "wary" Europeans are of potential international financial instability resulting from the continuing controversy affecting the World Bank president:
So guarded was the reception for Wolfowitz that Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor of the Exchequer, canceled plans to appear on the podium with him at a news conference. British officials said publicly that Brown had decided to leave early to campaign in the Scottish elections. But privately they admitted that appearing side by side with Wolfowitz had become a political liability.
Wolfowitz initially escaped the hoard of reporters waiting to greet him at the entrance of the conference, held at the European Commission's headquarters, by entering the sprawling building through an underground garage. But at a news conference where former African child laborers discussed the importance of going to school and where Wolfowitz himself spoke movingly about his grandfather's lack of education, his discourse was disrupted by recurring questions about his stewardship.
Asked if he would resign and whether he was concerned the allegations against him were distracting from the bank's development goals, Wolfowitz stressed that the work of the bank was continuing.
"The work of the bank goes on," he said. "There are millions of poor people who depend on us, and we will continue that work. It's a matter of keeping promises made. We're talking about the long term, it goes beyond me."
But he sidestepped questions about his future, referring journalists to his testimony to a panel investigating his role in promoting Riza, for whom he helped arrange a pay raise, promotion and transfer to the State Department after he arrived at the bank in 2005. "The board is considering the issue," he said.
On Tuesday [May 1, 2007], two former top officials at the bank issued new statements disputing the contention of Wolfowitz that they and others knew about his actions on behalf of the woman, who had been employed at the bank for seven years when he joined. The officials' testimony exposed the extraordinary discord at the highest levels of the bank after Wolfowitz became president. [6]
After some delay, the World Bank board's decision on Wolfowitz's future with the organization was at first expected within a week. [5] In their "Communication" of May 1, 2007, the executive directors of the World Bank Group state:
Following the April 16 statement of the Development Committee, the ad hoc group has continued its work, taking it forward in an orderly manner, with fair process and careful deliberation.
The ad hoc group has completed an additional round of interviews with the people involved and received a number of statements. It will now draw its conclusions from the information obtained from the documents and during the course of the interviews. It will then expeditiously prepare its report and submit it to the Executive Directors for their decisions.
The Executive Directors remain very concerned about the impact on the work of the Bank Group and are committed to the earliest possible resolution of the matter. [7]
On May 2, 2007, FoxNews.com posted a detailed news analysis complaining that the World Bank scandal had "morphed into a full-blown battle of prepared statements" -- with no reporters permitted to ask follow-up questions. Fox listed some key unanswered questions for all the major players in the Riza saga -- including Danino, Melkert and Wolfowitz. The analysis concluded that "everybody involved in the saga still has things to reveal." [8]
On May 5, 2007, Reuters reported that
More than 700 World Bank staff have signed a letter expressing concern and calling for a resolution of a crisis involving bank president Paul Wolfowitz as a decision over his leadership looms.
In a rare move, the 718 employees asked to add their names to a letter first circulated on April 26 by 46 World Bank officials working to implement the bank's anti-corruption strategy. The surge of signatures, on a public letter on the bank's website, reflected signs of increasing discontent.
The next 72 hours will be critical for the former No. 2 Pentagon official accused of violating staff rules by directing a high-paid promotion for his companion Shaha Riza, a World Bank Middle East expert, as an investigating panel prepares to announce its findings. [9]
In the edition of New York Times of Monday, May 7, 2007, Steven R. Weisman reported from Washington, D.C. that by the weekend ending Sunday, May 6,
The World Bank committee investigating misconduct charges against Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank president, failed to complete its review on schedule...but bank officials said the panel would eventually find that he violated bank rules barring conflicts of interest.
The committee, made up of 7 of the 24 members of the bank’s board, indicated last week that it would reach a conclusion about Mr. Wolfowitz on Saturday [May 5], and would transmit its findings to him to allow him to prepare for a rebuttal this week.
But no results were transmitted by early Sunday evening, though some officials said it was theoretically possible for the panel to finish later Sunday night.
Bank officials said the committee was also preparing a recommendation on what the full board should do in light of its finding but would not be disclosing that to Mr. Wolfowitz.
The committee is considering whether to recommend an outright removal or some kind of no-confidence vote that may persuade him to resign. That part of the conclusion is not likely to become known until later, bank officials said. [10]
Later, on Monday, May 7, 2007, news media reported that Kevin Kellems, "director of strategy in external affairs and senior adviser" and "the right-hand man of embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz," has "resigned," which some commentators regarded as a "blow" to the embattled World Bank president and some analysts as "likely an effort to save his boss." [11] [12] [13] [14]
By Tuesday, May 8, 2007, according to Lesley Wroughton reporting for Reuters, amidst ostensible support for Wolfowitz from the United States and increasing concerns from the European community, the World Bank Group's ethics panel had already given Wolfowitz three days to respond to their findings (by Wednesday, May 9), eliciting a request from Bob Bennett, Wolfowitz's lawyer, that the Bank grant Wolfowitz at least the five days prescribed by its policies to respond to "such allegations," and, preferably, a full week, and the United States Treasury "urged" that the Bank accommodate Bennett's request for more time to respond. "European board sources" said that "Wolfowitz was unlikely to quit even though the panel's findings further damaged his credibility." Not attributing Wolfowitz's situation to his being an American, Dutch Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister Wouter Bos appeared less concerned about the process of how the World Bank selects its presidents, who are by tradition American, and more about the dubious "integrity" of this particular incumbent. [15]
According to more recent press reports, the World Bank Group then gave Wolfowitz until Friday, May 11, 2007, to respond to the "report by a special bank panel that accuses Wolfowitz of circumventing bank rules when he arranged for the compensation package." Whereas "[c]ritics - including many European countries, many on the bank's staff, aid groups and others - want Wolfowitz to resign," as they "contend that the controversy has tarnished the bank's reputation and could hobble its ability to raise billions of dollars from countries around the world to bankroll financial help for poor nations," Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow continue the Bush administration's call for a "fair hearing" for Wolfowitz, "still" expressing "full support" for him. [16] >>
The above material (between <</>>) has been updated. Cut out the portions that could be summarized more briefly or deleted; other very lengthy sections of the article in the Career section, especially those apparently plagiarized from or insufficiently attributed to books and articles need shortening as well. --NYScholar 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This is inaccurate, particularly after seeing the featured article History of Jews in Poland - see Interwar period 1918–39, which states that claims of anti-Semitic attacks, while true in some cases such as the Blue Army in Warsaw, were exaggerated (summarised in the American Morgenthau Report). To cite a publication from Cornell which doesn't necessarily conform to the NPOV policy is unencylcopedic. The phrase should be removed or replaced with something more appropriate. Brisv e gas 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Material in this article seems lifted from unidentified and unattributed secondary (not primary) sources--e.g. a blog with quotations of passages from The Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann (or some similar online source)--this one is by Laura Rozen and called War and Piece. [7], the blog post is dated April 25, 2004. (It quotes in full a passage from which statements have been posted in the article as bulleted items.) (Or, alternatively, the material may come from the primary source, the book by Mann, but still need page reference citations.) I may be back to post a possibly-useful interview with Mann that can serve as a secondary source of pertinent statements that he makes concerning Wolfowitz that may also be repeated in this article without proper citations. --NYScholar 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that citing an entire book for a fact (or quote), rather than the book and page number is a very poor citation style. It makes it extremely difficult to actually verify the fact because someone would have to read the entire book, without overlooking anything, in order to spot fabricated facts or quotes. Citing page numbers makes it much easier to verify facts and quotes. (As Bob Woodward said in Bush at War, "Paul Wolfowitz is a pacifist at heart.") -- JHP 06:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
don't you have another one, this one is really ugly... Paris By Night 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Naomi Klein has pointed-out the overall corruption of The World Bank regardless of the Paul Wolfowitz scandal, and has called for the organization's complete dissolution."
NC is an influential WB critic and journalist and author of No Logo. To use the word "corruption" in this context is to state what is factually correct and often written about by reliable journalsts, human rights groups, trade analysts, diplomats and presidents. I really think this point should stay in the article. Open to dialogue on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee ( talk • contribs) 21:49, May 19, 2007 (UTC)
This source has been deleted a few times now by more than one editor--It is placed incoherently in terms of chronology, not properly identified in terms of "full citations" (see tag at top of page re: WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Citing sources etc., and it makes no sense to include it at that point in the article. The red linking of an article that does not currently appear in Wikipedia indicates POV and should not be included, especially at that point in this article. There is no article on the so-called "scandal" that the adder/adders of this source imply. It is not within the guidelines of Wikipedia:NPOV. The date of its publication is earlier in May and it should not be placed in a paragraph discussing chronology in mid May and May 17 on. By May 17/18/19, its point of view is outdated, and placing it at that point in the article indicates pushing a POV: for related issues, please see WP:POV-PUSH. --NYScholar 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to your Paul Wolfowitz edit in which you said, "sources cited--he lived in Chevy Chase when married to Claire [Clare] Selgin Wolfowitz; reliable source not yet cited for his current resid. in Washington, D.C. (NW); current add. unr", I'm not sure how to use a constantly changing Newspaper website homepage as a source, but right now on the WashingtonPost.com homepage there is a photo of Wolfowitz with a caption that reads, "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaves his house in Chevy Chase, Md. on May 15, 2007. (Getty Images)" I can't find it now, but on May 16, NYTimes.com had a photo of Wolfowitz leaving his home. There was a caption that said something along the lines of "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaving his Chevy Chase, Maryland home this morning." The photo even showed his street address, "7104", on the side of his door. A quick google search for "Paul Wolfowitz" and "7104" confirms that he lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland. -- JHP 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Took out the Chicago wikiprojects template; not sure why it is here. If it is legitimate, a registered user can add it as needed. Sorry if it is incorrect to delete it. It just seems unwarranted to me. --NYScholar 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Paul Wolfowitz {{ ChicagoWikiProject}} tag
WP:WPChi tags all articles with Category:University of Chicago alumni. I have added the parameter values following our priority scale. If this is a problem let me know. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. I see the U of Chicago conn.; at first I thought it was a city of Chicago and didn't see that conn. Will restore tag if you did not already; though I think it should be placed below the more general talkheader and WP:BLP tags. Will move this to talk page of article in a bit. --NYScholar 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Please change his name above his picture from Wolfotitz to Wolfowitz. 75.185.66.16 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I have some comments about the pictures on this page. All of the pics are small, and I think that making them larger would be good, for they are hard to see. Also, there is a substantial lack of photographs before the "Deputy Secretary of Defense" section, with only one pic being present, besides the main pic in the infobox. I have tried to fix this problem with resizing many of the images, but my edits were undone, as far as I can tell. I also added a pic of Wolfowitz and former First Lady Nancy Reagan, but the image size was lowered on that pic too. Is there any reason why? Happyme22 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
[Deleted unsigned inappropriate comment. See editing history of talk page. --NYScholar 23:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)]
See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: removed to talk page: problematic passage being added in reverts by other user:
On the other hand, there is a very long tradition of interpretation of Article 51, going back to the founding generation of the United Nations itself, that supports Wolfowitz's more expansive interpretation. [see e.g. Clark M. Eichelberger, "The United Nations Charter: A Growing Document," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1947.] (added by 20:10, May 22, 2007 Annie06) (editing history)]. [15]
(Note the source that user is citing w/o a link is dated 1947!) The invasion occurred in March 2003. The controversy about it occurred for two years before and for the 4 years after that: about six years. Other sources needed: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV, and WP:BLP#Public figures. --NYScholar 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
How is adding that passage improving this article on Wolfowitz? (See tagged notice at top of this page re: need to focus on discussing improvements to the article; this is not a message board about the subject or related subjects. Statements need "full citations" and to be pertinent, reliable, and verifiable by all readers of the article. --NYScholar 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I don't find the other user's editing history summary (linked above) clear at all. I don't see any "error" in what I wrote as that user claims. If the user wants to cite Wolfowitz's own point of view, cite a documented quotation in which he expresses it or a source that explains what Wolfowitz's point of view is. (Already cited earlier in the paragraph anyway?) What the user is adding violates WP:NOR. The user is expressing the user's own point of view about matters relating to 2003-2007 and citing a source from 1947 that appears both outdated and no longer pertinent to the paragraph in this article itself. It goes off the topic of the paragraph, which is criticism of Wolfowitz's already cited view about "pre-emption" and "pre-emptive strikes". See the larger contexts of the section. It follows earlier sections. --NYScholar 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [Moreover, the cross-referenced article section on 2003 invasion of Iraq already discusses the topic in more detail; discussing it further here will unduly lengthen the article and take it further off the topic of Wolfowitz's views (already cited at start of para.) --NYScholar 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)]
Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, wrote Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2006). This book details the behind-the-scenes decision-making that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq during the initial months of the Bush Administration (before September 11th). In this book, they wrote: "Wolfowitz sought to enlist the Joint Staff's support to develop a strategy for aiding an anti-Saddam resistance. Saddam had drained the southern marshes in Iraq to deprive Shiite rebels of a sanctuary, so Wolfowitz wondered if the dams could be bombed to re-create them. The Pentagon lawyers challenged whether such a strike would be consistent with the rules of war. Wolfowitz's view was that it would be more humane than leaving the Shiites to Saddam's mercy. Wolfowitz also wanted to know what it would take to arm and train Iraqi insurgents." citation needed
The United States invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003 and victory was declared on May 1, 2003 but this was only the beginning of Wolfowitz’s problems. During the reconstruction work that followed "[t]he American planners portrayed a mixture of supreme confidence and woeful lack of preparation." Kampfner states "[t]hese clean-cut young Americans … were adherents of the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld school of ‘revolutionary transformation’. They believed that, with goodwill, they could resurrect Iraq in a matter of months." This did not prove to be the case. Kampfner goes on to say that while "Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Cheney had also invested considerable hopes in Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress," these would also prove to be ill-founded. citation needed
Although he may have had considerable influence in the Administration's decision to invade Iraq, in Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor depict Wolfowitz as having little influence on the actual implementation of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. For instance: "At the Pentagon, Wolfowitz and his aides had taken the idea of Iraqi assistance a step further. Dusting off his proposal, made during his years out of office, to arm and equip Iraqi insurgents, Wolfowitz's initial goal was to raise an indigenous opposition army. As first imagined the plan was bold: there would be thousands of Iraqi freedom fighters who would battle Saddam's forces alongside U.S. and allied troops. Abizaid, who had served on the Joint Staff before moving to CENTCOM as Franks' deputy supported Wolfowitz's concept. Like Wolfowitz, Abizaid wanted to put an Iraqi face on the invasion force. Most of the administration were skeptical, if not opposed, to Wolfowitz's plan … [General Tommy Franks] thought that an Iraqi force would just get in the way and gave no weight to the benefits such a unit might provide in terms of local knowledge and language." According to Gordon and Trainor, money was poured into the idea but it never got the necessary backing or planning: "Franks turned to Feith in a Pentagon corridor, letting him know where he stood: 'I don't have time for this fucking bullshit.'....Rumsfeld was not pushing the idea very hard and Franks was not shy about taking on the defense secretary's subordinates....The Defense official blamed bureaucratic obstacles and lack of enthusiasm on the part of CENTCOM. White House officials and CENTCOM said that the fiasco showed that Feith and his team were better at drafting conservative policy manifestos than instituting programs." citation needed
In Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor also state that, "Wolfowitz and his aides suffered another setback when the White House rejected their proposal for the establishment of a provisional Iraqi government." The State department favored "internals" whereas Wolfowitz had proposed exiles. Rumsfeld was also opposed to the idea because he believed that an Iraqi provisional government would "get in the way". When the US announced that it would be running the country for a year and that Iraqis would only have an advisory role, Iraqi opposition groups futilely objected. Activist and academic Kanan Makiya, who supported regime change and had ties to the Iraqi National Congress, wrote an op-ed piece denouncing the decision. Gordon and Trainor also believe that one of the crucial mistakes of the administration was initially sidelining Zalmay Khalilzad and bringing in Paul Bremer instead. The move was criticized by Colin Powell and it's unclear if Wolfowitz supported Rumsfeld's decision to sideline Khalilzad since Khalilzad had in the past been closely associated with Wolfowitz. citation needed
There are no [full citations to] sources [given in the above passage(s) and many others in this article, which probably also need to be deleted until they can be properly and fully sourced]; the material is not clearly relevant to this article (see last sentence); and the cross-linked articles amply cover the time period. Without full citations ( Wikipedia:Citing sources), this material violates WP:BLP. See tagged notices at top of this talk page and my own and others' comments on plagiarism throughout this article. --NYScholar 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)] [Added earlier passage(s) too; as I and other editors state earlier in this talk page, page citations are needed to document quotations from a book. Just saying that the material comes from a book is not enough. "Full citations" are required. See WP:BLP. --NYScholar 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)]
[Please see editorial interpolations in the edit mode of this article throughout. They also explain the problems with missing citations throughout this article. See above sections re: plagiarism problem in this article. --NYScholar 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[....] [Deleted poorly sourced and potentially libelous material posted to talk page by Public Service ( talk · contribs) 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC). Please see the comments added below by NYScholar. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This material (as I say in the editing history summary) violates WP:BLP. It is unsourced [parts are still unsourced; other parts still poorly sourced--see MoodyGroove above, who deleted it from talk page --NYScholar 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]. See the tagged policy (at top) of this page. It is not appropriate to include such unsourced potentially- libelous material in articles on living persons, including articles on living persons who are public figures: WP:BLP#Public figures. I'm moving my reply to this passage also put on my personal talk page to this talk page, where the discussion is appropriate. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[Moved from my personal talk page. Not moving whole passage [it appears above]; the citations are not "full citations" (see the tagged notices above); there are not enough of them to make the whole passage properly sourced according to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Citing sources and it does not adhere to guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:POV, which include policies pertaining to Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]] [Updated: Please see the tagged notices to WP:BLP with linked policies and guidelines and also WP:NOR. Thanks. ---NYScholar 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)]
Wolfowitz Bio
I am willing to work with your to meet you editorial requirements for my posting that you removed. The intention is to complete the biographical picture. I have re-added the refs that had gotten removed when someone before you removed the contribution last night. Let me know how you want to proceed. Would you like to first post it to the Discusion section? [Posted by Public Service on my personal talk page.-- Public Service 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Public Service Have moved here later. --NYScholar 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]
It would be a very good idea to keep this deleted due to WP:BLP until and unless proper and "full citations" (not just external links) are added with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view transitions identifying sources of information (see WP:POV.) Right now, as it is, the above passage requires deletion due to WP:BLP, which requires removing on sight such potentially libelous and unsourced and/or improperly-sourced (insufficiently-sourced) material concerning living persons. I suggest that you work with other editors (not I) on whether or not such material is appropriate in this biography of Wolfowitz. See the talk page of the article and the tags on the top of the talk page. This reads like gossip. It does not seem appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. (Please do not post material relating to discussion of how to improve articles on my talk page. Please post it on the talk page of the article on the subject. Thank you.) I am moving this discussion to the appropriate talk page: Talk:Paul Wolfowitz. My editing history summary in the article on Paul Wolfowitz already cited WP:BLP. It is Wikipedia policy to remove material like what you [Public Service] added (above passages) "on sight". (I do not have time to work on the above passages. Such development of what appears to be very gosssipy and potentially-libelous material about a public figure is not of interest to me.)--NYScholar 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC))
Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. (Qtd. from the policy tagged in WP:BLP notice at top of this page.) [See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Added link.]--NYScholar 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC) [updated w/ link. --NYScholar 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]
[Added q. from the warning (above): --NYScholar 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]
In my view, the passages added first to the article (which I deleted on sight, citing WP:BLP) and then re-added to this talk page and my personal talk page by the above user) should be removed, deleted, on sight, not only from the article but also from this talk page (see notice w/ links in WP:BLP as tagged on top of this page). See the tagged notice re: other editor's concern about length of this article (on article page): scroll up; read whole history of this article in talk. Passages like these have been deleted before out of already-stated concerns. I leave it to other editors to deal with this matter further. --NYScholar 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent additions to this article appear to be pushing various points of view of editors making them. Please maintain adherence to Wikipedia's most central editing policy and guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cross-links to articles on related subjects provide detailed information about them. Those articles also must conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Many of those articles are controversial and contentious; in editing them (and this one), please consult Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles [and linked/related guidelines and policies]. See editing history summary comments and earlier talk page discussions (scroll up). Editors should not be interjecting their own points of view into this or other Wikipedia articles. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC) --[clarified in brackets. --NYScholar 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)] [[Updated: as added above: please also review WP:NOR and other related Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked therein. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)]
[***deleted section heading with offensive slur*** --NYScholar 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)]
Someone jumped the gun by adding Robert Zoellick as "successor" in the bottom box in article; the dates didn't post right for Wolfowitz when that user added them as "incumbent"; reformatted that part of the box; added ref. to the World Bank Group's press release; unfortunately, the date of posting on the site is in error; it was posted on May 30, 2007 (not June 30, 2007); the Spanish language version has right date; the French version has no date; the English version has erroneous date. Don't know how to incorporate that in any other way right now. I really don't think the box should be changed until a "successor" to Wolfowitz is actually approved. Wolfowitz is still holding that office until June 30, 2007, the effective date of his resignation: see the sources cited in the article and in that box. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Generally, blog posts are not permitted in biographies of living persons:
WP:BLP;
WP:Reliable sources and
Wikipedia:Citing sources; the blog cited is by
Eric Alterman, in his blog called Altercation, who at the time cited (March 8, 2005) was describing himself as a professor of journalism at two institutions
Brooklyn College and
City University of New York (CUNY); but [his current description on the Media Matters for America website (current host of Altercation)]
Staff Advisors: Eric Alterman describes him as a professor of English (which is not necessarily inconsistent, since in many institutions journalism is taught in English departments; one can be a professor of journalism and housed in the English department, e.g.) [See current personal website
EricAlterman.com: "A senior fellow of the
World Policy Institute at
New School University, and former Adjunct Professor of Journalism at
NYU and
Columbia professor of journalism."] Anyway, I just happened to see some discrepancies in the material added recently (calling Alterman an "historian," which he is not [more accurately: he may be an "historian," but he's not currently an "academic historian"; i.e., he's not teaching in a department of history in an academic institution]; I added some comment in the editorial interpolation in the text (visible only in editing mode), and I moved the material from the text to a note. I also wonder whether, since Alterman is writing that blog post as a media commentator/media critic, whether the material might be placed more appropriately in the section on perspectives in the media (if a blog post is permissible in this article at all). There are exceptions in Wikipedia (when the blogs are written by the subjects of the articles themselves; or when the blogs have been given official media credentials--as in the situation relating to court reportage in
United States v. Libby and, thus, re:
Lewis Libby (cf. also
WP:BLP#Public figures). Both Wolfowitz and Libby are
public figures (due to their roles as public officials and the subsequent legal case and World Bank controversy, relating to each of them, respectively). I don't know whether or not Altercation (a political blog) is permissible in this article. I do think that the material is more appropriately placed in a note than in the main text, though that is also something to be discussed and debated perhaps. I myself don't have time to discuss this matter any further than posting this comment and making the typographical and factual corrections. Perhaps others want to discuss this, however. I was not planning to edit articles in Wikipedia (due to time constraints involving my own non-Wikipedia work), but I did see this error while checking the article very late tonight after being offline all day and thought I had better just make the minor corrections and raise the more major question here for others to consider. If one wants to revert the material from a note back to the text, I can understand that, but I myself still think the qualification by Eric Alterman in this particular section is either more appropriately placed either in a qualifying note citation or more appropriately placed in the other section on "perspectives" in the media. --NYScholar 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Eric Alterman, however, in some "cocktail party banter" in which he engaged Wolfowitz during a "book party" hosted by Tina Brown and her husband Sir Harold Evans (which Alterman reports as "on the record," citing Wolfowitz's not specifying that it was "off the record"): "I asked if he thought it was important that so many people associated with the ideas behind U.S. foreign policy were Straussians. He definitely demurred. Wolfowitz does not consider himself to be a Straussian. He says he does not find political philosophy all that exciting and Allan Bloom found him to be a disappointment in this regard, but a 'successful disappointment,' which appealed to Bloom. He says when he gets together with real Straussians he becomes impatient with the level of abstraction of the discussion. He does not think Strauss is in any way important to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy." [1]
.... Deleted by NYScholar; my own editorial interpolation is already, as I said, visible in editing mode. I do not want my words copied and posted here. They are clear in both the editing history summary and in show preview in editing mode. Editorial interpolations are just what they are called "editorial interpolations." There is no reason for copying and pasting my words from the editorial interpolation here. [Threaded the comment added below.] --NYScholar 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)]
Instead, I'm moving my own (earlier) editorial interpolation from the article to this talk page; it was posted beginning on June 4, 2007); since I first posted it, I updated some of the article's references in subsequent changes and also in comments in the editing history summaries (see above bracketed comments in talk and also editing history summaries; the context of Eric Alterman's remarks in his blog post need to be very clear; otherwise, readers may be misled by them. It was an ongoing process to find out more about
Eric Alterman, which led me to add some external links to the Wikipedia article about him for others to consult as they wish]:
Blog=dubious source? Is this blog post (and the inclusion of all the other blog posts along with it) a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which does not generally permit blog posts in biographies of living persons? WP:BLP? Altercation is a blog reposted on its own site by MSNBC.com (2002-2006). Alterman has undergraduate and graduate degrees in history (U.S. history and international relations) and is a journalism professor according to the self-description in another blog post by Alterman above the one cited (the one dated March 10, 2005 that is a memo); see the "From" info.: "From: Eric Alterman, Professor of Journalism, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Media Columnist, The Nation, Altercation 'Weblogger,' MSNBC.com, senior fellow, Center for American Progress and World Policy Institute (New School University), author, six books, Jew." His current website says that he is a professor of English at both Brooklyn College and [of] CUNY [Actually, Brooklyn College is a senior college of CUNY; sometimes he lists his affiliation as CUNY, sometimes as Brooklyn College.] (In Wikipedia "Straussian" redirects to "Leo Strauss"--added the link.) I also moved the material from a note citation back to the text, where it was placed originally by prev. editor. See talk page for discussion. The Wikipedia link to Eric Alterman defines who he is, his various areas of expertise, and what his current postion(s) are.
[Updated a bit in brackets. --NYScholar 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)]
Stores are now selling subscription based sox. [16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.205.35 ( talk • contribs) 15:07, June 5, 2007 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a biography. I recommend splitting off the Career section into its own article as that seems to be the largest subsection. -- Rajah 05:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The tag was added by MoodyGrove ( Talk | contribs) in this edit on May 28, 2007. There have been several edits since and, while there's been lively discussion on this talk page, it's hard to ferret out any actual, current neutrality disputes. If there are any current concerns about the NPOV nature of this article, let's hear and resolve them now, and dispatch the tag, if possible.-- HughGRex 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Wolfowitz.E2.80.8E Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
To me it looks a little strange to have 2 exact quotes in the intro section. I'm not sure I've ever seen that on WP. Steve Dufour 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)