This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
E.g., what was his formal status at the National War College? An adjunct professor? A lecturer? That is *far* different than being a "professor", as anyone in academia knows. (Adjuncts are treated as part-time, temporary workers who are paid something like $5k/course. Professors are tenured or on a full-time tenure-track, teaching 4-6 courses, and with other obligations including *peer-reviewed* publications, not popular-press books.) Why are his lobbying contracts not documented here, surely they are relevant -- especially during an Obama Administration, that has made it a point not to hire lobbyists. Etc. Let's look a little under the surface. FakaraSalik ( talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This guy is a neocon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.224.138 ( talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You need to check your facts. Galbraith was a tenured full Professor at the National War College teaching full time. He taught courses on national security strategy, US foreign policy, Turkey and its neighbors, the Balkans, and coercive diplomacy. The reason you can't document his lobbying contracts is that there are not any. Being friends with foreign leaders does not make one a lobbyist for them. He lives in Vermont, not Washington and I doubt the very many foreign governments are all that interested in lobbying Montpelier. And, in any event, he is not working for the Obama Administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
He actually lives in Cambridge, MA, and not in VT anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.182.56 ( talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an awful article. It reads as if Galbraith's agent wrote it (and it clearly looks like Devotedamerican is responsible for that - someone should issue a complaint about him). Galbraith's reputation is in tatters, but there is hardly any mention of that at all. 77.42.145.113 ( talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no evidence that he's going to announce, and with Gaye Symington now in the race it's pretty unlikely. Shouldn't this mention be deleted now? Bill Jefferys ( talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Does favors the independence of Kurdistan include Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.162.43.63 (
talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This section has been added in the main article; there is a citation, but the citation reads much more tentatively than the article does. The article says that Galbraith "has been exposed" as "having steered..." and later that he "influenced" ...
However, the cited article is much more tentative, and specifically says that "the realities were probably much different," and "If proven correct, these revelations..."
This seems too tentative to me to warrant inclusion in an article about a living person. It trades too much on rumor and inference, and certainly does not warrant the baldfaced statement, made as a statement of fact, in the article.
I believe that this section should be deleted, unless and until a source can be found that supports the strong statements made in this section. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As written, the DNO story was the most important part of Galbraith's career. The account was also unbalanced as it implied a conflict of interest when clearly none existed. There is no basis for the $100 million or more figure. The Times says it does not know Galbraith's financial arrangements but, if it was a 5% stake and if there were no political risk (the first it says it doesn't know and the second is improbable) it could be $115 million, not hundreds of millions. It should also be noted that the Norwegian article was obviously revenge for Galbraith's role in exposing the Afghanistan election fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
How did he participate in the negotiations? My understanding is that he offered informal advice to to the Kurds who obviously knew about and welcomed his role in developing a Kurdistan oil industry. What is the moral issue here? He helped a people who were victims of genocide develop the political and economic means to govern themselves and to defend themselves. These criticisms come from the pro-Arab side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If there was a conflict of interest, what was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The Kurds surely knew of Galbraith's business role when they asked for his help on the constitution. It takes some very self important people to imagine that the Kurds needed Galbraith to tell them they wanted autonomy, when they had been fighting for it for 80 years. Iraq used its oil to pay for the weapons that destroyed Kurdistan and thanks to Galbraith, they now have an oil industry to pay for good things for the the Kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you know that the US Government and the Iraqis did not know? Just because you didn't know doesn't mean no one did. I thought the DNO contract was the first. If so, it would be significant as a start to the Kurdistan oil industry. (I agree he should have said more in connection with his articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Devotedamerican - you deleted my section on Galbraith's op-ed pieces while I was in the middle of drafting it. I am going to put it back in. Please let me finish. I will be including a few paragraphs about his positions on Kurdistan and Afghanistan. If you think that it needs more information, please feel free to add. Please do not just delete it, as this is an important part of Galbraith's career. Zalali ( talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It is already there. Where it belongs as one sentence in connection with the discusion of his involvement with DNO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe it deserves a section of its own. Other people have written far less and have far greater mention in wikipedia. Galbraith has made a number of contributions over the years with his op eds and they should be mentioned in wiki. I am doing this now. Zalali ( talk) 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have included part of one of his article on Afghanistan so readers can see his views on that matter . I am happy to search for more material of his to include under this section so it can presenta complete picture. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
devotedamerican has been deleting a paragraph that i wrote on the articles that have been published recently on galbraith's interest in iraqi oil. i will put it back on the basis that (in my view) the article accurately summarizes what has been said in the press, and even gives galbraith the last word. devotedamerican - please stop deleting all new additions to this article and be a little more constructive. if there is something specific that you think is missing from this paragraph, then please add, instead of deleting it. also - i disagree that this paragraph is not related to the passage on the iraqi constitution. that is why every article in the press about this issue has mentioned his oil interests and his involvement in the constitutional process in tandem. Zalali ( talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I will continue to delete this unless it is dealt with in the appropriate place. You deleted the passages on Galbraith's commentary that I included, so you should be accomodating as well.
there is so little in the section on vermont politics that i will merge it with "other activities". the paragraph just says that he decided not to run. Zalali ( talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
i propose that we create a new section that covers all his academic appointments, instead of having a series of one or two line sections on different sections. what do u think? Zalali ( talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
both of these sections are very short and could easily be merged. what do u think? Zalali ( talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Devotedamerican - Dagens Næringsliv is not a tabloid. it's a financial newspaper in the same way that the financial times is a financial newspaper. indeed - that what's wikipedia's own page about it says. if you insist that it is a tabloid, please provide a solid reference for this. Zalali ( talk) 10:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Zalali, technically it is, but not the way the word is used in common laguage. The newspaper is in a tabloid format (597 x 375 mm), but that is of course not how the word tabloid is used in English today. I therefore agree with your comment, and recommend that "tabloid" is replaced with something more explanatory, like "the largest financial news paper in Norway". (Which it is by a very wide margin, according to Norwegian Media Businesses' Association.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.96.68 ( talk) 13:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
fine by me. Zalali ( talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It is also regarded as a tabloid--in the common usage--by Norwegian business leaders. How about using both words? "the business tabloid" —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Devotedamerican (
talk •
contribs) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The physical format is tabloid, correct, but so are all printed newspapers in Norway. But Dagens Næringsliv is one of the most respected and influential newspapers in Norway, and certainly the leading newspaper on business and economics. It is particularly respected for its thorough investigative journalism, its independence is beyond doubt. So the word "tabloid" in this context does not indicate quality. Regards Nutty Professor ( talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Dagens Naeringsliv is not a respected paper and behaves like a sleazy tabloid. Its coverage of Galbraith is a case in point. At one point, they ran a page one story with Paul Bremer's criticizing Galbraith's business activities (Bremer had no involvement or knowledge as they took place after Bremer left Iraq) without disclosing that Bremer was chafing to get revenge for Galbraith's harsh review of Bremer's book. Similarly, they solicited Kai Eide's views on Galbraith's work in Kurdistan knowing he would say something inflammatory things and then made that into a page one story. Eide had nothing to offer of substance on Iraq (he has no involvement there) so the only reason to interview him was to make a sensational story. This is not professional journalism and some suspect Dagens Naeringsliv is simply the spear of a Norwegian campaign to discredit Galbraith after he criticized Eide's cover up of the Afghan election fraud. Devoted American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Many of my fellow Norwegians question the quality of DN. I am surprised you never met one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.246.180 ( talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Peter W. Galbraith. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Westerncivil, thanks for your recent contributions.
Wikipedia policy requires sources to be published so our readers can check them. WIth this edit, you said the 5,000-POWs figure was supported by "ICTY: Cables released for the trial of Prlic, et al." This sounds great, because the only source I've been able to find for that is Galbraith's own writings, and I've seen a respectable author write that "many close to events" think Galbraith often "[took] credit for the hard work of others." Along with our policy on self-published sources (they're not adequate for "unduly self-serving" material) means we should try to get third-party sources whenever possible. However, all I can find re: Prlic is this testimony, which doesn't use the 5,000 figure. Were you thinking of something else?
Similarly, I can't find a source giving Galbraith full credit for the Timor Sea Treaty. The currently included reference, a scholarly reference work, gives him a secondary role after Indonesian diplomat Mari Alkatiri, and this Asia Times article (came up when I was trying to find your reference) puts him third after Alkatiri and Jose Ramos-Horta. I'm changing it back to "assisted with successful negotiations" until we can find strong sources contradicting these ones ( WP:BURDEN).
About the Massachussetts primary run; the sources clearly say he was giving speeches, holding fundraisers, holding meet-and-greets at supermarkets, and "kissing babies" (probably metaphorically), although he "dropped out" of the race apparently without ever filing as a candidate (but we mayn't make our own inferences). I feel it's a closer reflection of the sources to say "he briefly campaigned" instead of " he briefly explored running"; the latter sounds like he spent an afternoon looking up how many petition signatures he'd need. Discuss? You can respond below and auto-sign by ending with four tildes (~~~~). FourViolas ( talk) 03:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is very dishonest in terms of its description of events in Croatia in 1995. What happened is that around 100,000 people were driven from their homes and turned into refugees. The area was ethnically cleansed. At the time, Peter W. Galbraith made statements to the press denying that there was any ethnic cleansing going on in the face of an entire population fleeing an army. Contrary to the article, he worked against the cause of those driven from their homes and offered them no "U.S. Support" at all. He participated in a photo opportunity where he drove along with a convoy of people fleeing their homes, but to say he or the US offered any support to those people is the worst sort of dishonesty. Croatia ethnically cleansed its territory and got away with it. Its an incident that should bring shame on Galbraith and the United States. How the article could come to portray him as a protector and to claim that the U.S. was offering support to those people is just sick. Is there at long last no conscience and no shame? Science would be better than the outright misrepresentation of event that is in the article now. 75.17.126.104 ( talk) 05:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Galbraith did not "uncover Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds" as the second sentence of the article says, and that hyperlink to the Halabja chemical attack Wikipedia page is in error when that's not what Galbraith claimed to have "uncovered". As a member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he made a very brief visit to Turkey to see Kurdish refugees from Iraq in September 1988. From this visit, he claimed widespread chemical weapons attacks were occurring and more extremely that hundreds of thousands were killed since (late) August. His only "proof" for all of this was a claim of chemical weapons injuries among refugees, said to comprise escaped militants and their families. The problem is that he didn't have evidence other than his word and that of a few of the militant refugees, and more importantly, UN, Turkish, Iranian, and other physicians found no signs of chemical weapons injuries across the refugees in Turkey and Iran and had made formal statements, challenging if not outright disproving the most 'plausible' part of Galbraith's claim. [1] [2]
There isn't evidence that Galbraith consulted with the UN's or others' findings either and his visit did not involve any medical examination or other investigation during his brief visit in Turkey. Rather, immediately after arriving back in the US, he pushed legislation in the Senate for sanctions on Iraq based on his Turkey trip. The factual contradictions to his claim, and by extension Secretary of State Schultz who also took up the claim, were widely reported including in US mainstream media with a couple since-digitized examples provided above, which is absent here. The known evidence demonstrates a case of a politically-motivated and controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially, already noted in this Talk page and article.
This type of contentious and refuted information likely would have trouble finding a place on a Wikipedia article in general, nevermind stated as an assured fact as done here, and absolutely wouldn't belong on a BLP with the stricter guidelines. Some books such as this and several sections in this also directly challenge and refute the Galbraith claim. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 03:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
"a politically-motivated and controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially"; it may constitute a violation of Wikipedia's policies on living persons. You have already racked up two reverts and you should stop edit warring on this sensitive WP:AP2 article until consensus is reached for your proposed changes. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
"to the potentially serious WP:BLP/WP:SYNTH claims—such as the implication that Galbraith is a liar with a financial conflict of interest—introduced by User:Saucysalsa30"[4]
"Dropped unnecessary and inaccurate WP:WEASEL language about "his claim""[6]
"RV unexplained content removal."[7]
"You may object to the term "secret police" but, for the record, the description of Ba'thist Iraq as a dictatorship with secret police is a widespread view in mainstream reliable sources; if anything, the opposite view that Ba'thist Iraq was a benevolent democracy with normal police would be WP:FRINGE"
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
E.g., what was his formal status at the National War College? An adjunct professor? A lecturer? That is *far* different than being a "professor", as anyone in academia knows. (Adjuncts are treated as part-time, temporary workers who are paid something like $5k/course. Professors are tenured or on a full-time tenure-track, teaching 4-6 courses, and with other obligations including *peer-reviewed* publications, not popular-press books.) Why are his lobbying contracts not documented here, surely they are relevant -- especially during an Obama Administration, that has made it a point not to hire lobbyists. Etc. Let's look a little under the surface. FakaraSalik ( talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This guy is a neocon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.224.138 ( talk) 12:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You need to check your facts. Galbraith was a tenured full Professor at the National War College teaching full time. He taught courses on national security strategy, US foreign policy, Turkey and its neighbors, the Balkans, and coercive diplomacy. The reason you can't document his lobbying contracts is that there are not any. Being friends with foreign leaders does not make one a lobbyist for them. He lives in Vermont, not Washington and I doubt the very many foreign governments are all that interested in lobbying Montpelier. And, in any event, he is not working for the Obama Administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
He actually lives in Cambridge, MA, and not in VT anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.182.56 ( talk) 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an awful article. It reads as if Galbraith's agent wrote it (and it clearly looks like Devotedamerican is responsible for that - someone should issue a complaint about him). Galbraith's reputation is in tatters, but there is hardly any mention of that at all. 77.42.145.113 ( talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no evidence that he's going to announce, and with Gaye Symington now in the race it's pretty unlikely. Shouldn't this mention be deleted now? Bill Jefferys ( talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Does favors the independence of Kurdistan include Turkish and Iranian Kurdistan? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.162.43.63 (
talk) 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
This section has been added in the main article; there is a citation, but the citation reads much more tentatively than the article does. The article says that Galbraith "has been exposed" as "having steered..." and later that he "influenced" ...
However, the cited article is much more tentative, and specifically says that "the realities were probably much different," and "If proven correct, these revelations..."
This seems too tentative to me to warrant inclusion in an article about a living person. It trades too much on rumor and inference, and certainly does not warrant the baldfaced statement, made as a statement of fact, in the article.
I believe that this section should be deleted, unless and until a source can be found that supports the strong statements made in this section. Bill Jefferys ( talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
As written, the DNO story was the most important part of Galbraith's career. The account was also unbalanced as it implied a conflict of interest when clearly none existed. There is no basis for the $100 million or more figure. The Times says it does not know Galbraith's financial arrangements but, if it was a 5% stake and if there were no political risk (the first it says it doesn't know and the second is improbable) it could be $115 million, not hundreds of millions. It should also be noted that the Norwegian article was obviously revenge for Galbraith's role in exposing the Afghanistan election fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
How did he participate in the negotiations? My understanding is that he offered informal advice to to the Kurds who obviously knew about and welcomed his role in developing a Kurdistan oil industry. What is the moral issue here? He helped a people who were victims of genocide develop the political and economic means to govern themselves and to defend themselves. These criticisms come from the pro-Arab side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
If there was a conflict of interest, what was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The Kurds surely knew of Galbraith's business role when they asked for his help on the constitution. It takes some very self important people to imagine that the Kurds needed Galbraith to tell them they wanted autonomy, when they had been fighting for it for 80 years. Iraq used its oil to pay for the weapons that destroyed Kurdistan and thanks to Galbraith, they now have an oil industry to pay for good things for the the Kurds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
How do you know that the US Government and the Iraqis did not know? Just because you didn't know doesn't mean no one did. I thought the DNO contract was the first. If so, it would be significant as a start to the Kurdistan oil industry. (I agree he should have said more in connection with his articles) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Devotedamerican - you deleted my section on Galbraith's op-ed pieces while I was in the middle of drafting it. I am going to put it back in. Please let me finish. I will be including a few paragraphs about his positions on Kurdistan and Afghanistan. If you think that it needs more information, please feel free to add. Please do not just delete it, as this is an important part of Galbraith's career. Zalali ( talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It is already there. Where it belongs as one sentence in connection with the discusion of his involvement with DNO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe it deserves a section of its own. Other people have written far less and have far greater mention in wikipedia. Galbraith has made a number of contributions over the years with his op eds and they should be mentioned in wiki. I am doing this now. Zalali ( talk) 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have included part of one of his article on Afghanistan so readers can see his views on that matter . I am happy to search for more material of his to include under this section so it can presenta complete picture. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
devotedamerican has been deleting a paragraph that i wrote on the articles that have been published recently on galbraith's interest in iraqi oil. i will put it back on the basis that (in my view) the article accurately summarizes what has been said in the press, and even gives galbraith the last word. devotedamerican - please stop deleting all new additions to this article and be a little more constructive. if there is something specific that you think is missing from this paragraph, then please add, instead of deleting it. also - i disagree that this paragraph is not related to the passage on the iraqi constitution. that is why every article in the press about this issue has mentioned his oil interests and his involvement in the constitutional process in tandem. Zalali ( talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I will continue to delete this unless it is dealt with in the appropriate place. You deleted the passages on Galbraith's commentary that I included, so you should be accomodating as well.
there is so little in the section on vermont politics that i will merge it with "other activities". the paragraph just says that he decided not to run. Zalali ( talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
i propose that we create a new section that covers all his academic appointments, instead of having a series of one or two line sections on different sections. what do u think? Zalali ( talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
both of these sections are very short and could easily be merged. what do u think? Zalali ( talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Devotedamerican - Dagens Næringsliv is not a tabloid. it's a financial newspaper in the same way that the financial times is a financial newspaper. indeed - that what's wikipedia's own page about it says. if you insist that it is a tabloid, please provide a solid reference for this. Zalali ( talk) 10:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Zalali, technically it is, but not the way the word is used in common laguage. The newspaper is in a tabloid format (597 x 375 mm), but that is of course not how the word tabloid is used in English today. I therefore agree with your comment, and recommend that "tabloid" is replaced with something more explanatory, like "the largest financial news paper in Norway". (Which it is by a very wide margin, according to Norwegian Media Businesses' Association.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.96.68 ( talk) 13:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
fine by me. Zalali ( talk) 15:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It is also regarded as a tabloid--in the common usage--by Norwegian business leaders. How about using both words? "the business tabloid" —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Devotedamerican (
talk •
contribs) 16:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The physical format is tabloid, correct, but so are all printed newspapers in Norway. But Dagens Næringsliv is one of the most respected and influential newspapers in Norway, and certainly the leading newspaper on business and economics. It is particularly respected for its thorough investigative journalism, its independence is beyond doubt. So the word "tabloid" in this context does not indicate quality. Regards Nutty Professor ( talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Dagens Naeringsliv is not a respected paper and behaves like a sleazy tabloid. Its coverage of Galbraith is a case in point. At one point, they ran a page one story with Paul Bremer's criticizing Galbraith's business activities (Bremer had no involvement or knowledge as they took place after Bremer left Iraq) without disclosing that Bremer was chafing to get revenge for Galbraith's harsh review of Bremer's book. Similarly, they solicited Kai Eide's views on Galbraith's work in Kurdistan knowing he would say something inflammatory things and then made that into a page one story. Eide had nothing to offer of substance on Iraq (he has no involvement there) so the only reason to interview him was to make a sensational story. This is not professional journalism and some suspect Dagens Naeringsliv is simply the spear of a Norwegian campaign to discredit Galbraith after he criticized Eide's cover up of the Afghan election fraud. Devoted American —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devotedamerican ( talk • contribs) 05:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Many of my fellow Norwegians question the quality of DN. I am surprised you never met one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.246.180 ( talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Peter W. Galbraith. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:Westerncivil, thanks for your recent contributions.
Wikipedia policy requires sources to be published so our readers can check them. WIth this edit, you said the 5,000-POWs figure was supported by "ICTY: Cables released for the trial of Prlic, et al." This sounds great, because the only source I've been able to find for that is Galbraith's own writings, and I've seen a respectable author write that "many close to events" think Galbraith often "[took] credit for the hard work of others." Along with our policy on self-published sources (they're not adequate for "unduly self-serving" material) means we should try to get third-party sources whenever possible. However, all I can find re: Prlic is this testimony, which doesn't use the 5,000 figure. Were you thinking of something else?
Similarly, I can't find a source giving Galbraith full credit for the Timor Sea Treaty. The currently included reference, a scholarly reference work, gives him a secondary role after Indonesian diplomat Mari Alkatiri, and this Asia Times article (came up when I was trying to find your reference) puts him third after Alkatiri and Jose Ramos-Horta. I'm changing it back to "assisted with successful negotiations" until we can find strong sources contradicting these ones ( WP:BURDEN).
About the Massachussetts primary run; the sources clearly say he was giving speeches, holding fundraisers, holding meet-and-greets at supermarkets, and "kissing babies" (probably metaphorically), although he "dropped out" of the race apparently without ever filing as a candidate (but we mayn't make our own inferences). I feel it's a closer reflection of the sources to say "he briefly campaigned" instead of " he briefly explored running"; the latter sounds like he spent an afternoon looking up how many petition signatures he'd need. Discuss? You can respond below and auto-sign by ending with four tildes (~~~~). FourViolas ( talk) 03:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The article is very dishonest in terms of its description of events in Croatia in 1995. What happened is that around 100,000 people were driven from their homes and turned into refugees. The area was ethnically cleansed. At the time, Peter W. Galbraith made statements to the press denying that there was any ethnic cleansing going on in the face of an entire population fleeing an army. Contrary to the article, he worked against the cause of those driven from their homes and offered them no "U.S. Support" at all. He participated in a photo opportunity where he drove along with a convoy of people fleeing their homes, but to say he or the US offered any support to those people is the worst sort of dishonesty. Croatia ethnically cleansed its territory and got away with it. Its an incident that should bring shame on Galbraith and the United States. How the article could come to portray him as a protector and to claim that the U.S. was offering support to those people is just sick. Is there at long last no conscience and no shame? Science would be better than the outright misrepresentation of event that is in the article now. 75.17.126.104 ( talk) 05:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Galbraith did not "uncover Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds" as the second sentence of the article says, and that hyperlink to the Halabja chemical attack Wikipedia page is in error when that's not what Galbraith claimed to have "uncovered". As a member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he made a very brief visit to Turkey to see Kurdish refugees from Iraq in September 1988. From this visit, he claimed widespread chemical weapons attacks were occurring and more extremely that hundreds of thousands were killed since (late) August. His only "proof" for all of this was a claim of chemical weapons injuries among refugees, said to comprise escaped militants and their families. The problem is that he didn't have evidence other than his word and that of a few of the militant refugees, and more importantly, UN, Turkish, Iranian, and other physicians found no signs of chemical weapons injuries across the refugees in Turkey and Iran and had made formal statements, challenging if not outright disproving the most 'plausible' part of Galbraith's claim. [1] [2]
There isn't evidence that Galbraith consulted with the UN's or others' findings either and his visit did not involve any medical examination or other investigation during his brief visit in Turkey. Rather, immediately after arriving back in the US, he pushed legislation in the Senate for sanctions on Iraq based on his Turkey trip. The factual contradictions to his claim, and by extension Secretary of State Schultz who also took up the claim, were widely reported including in US mainstream media with a couple since-digitized examples provided above, which is absent here. The known evidence demonstrates a case of a politically-motivated and controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially, already noted in this Talk page and article.
This type of contentious and refuted information likely would have trouble finding a place on a Wikipedia article in general, nevermind stated as an assured fact as done here, and absolutely wouldn't belong on a BLP with the stricter guidelines. Some books such as this and several sections in this also directly challenge and refute the Galbraith claim. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 03:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
"a politically-motivated and controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially"; it may constitute a violation of Wikipedia's policies on living persons. You have already racked up two reverts and you should stop edit warring on this sensitive WP:AP2 article until consensus is reached for your proposed changes. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
"to the potentially serious WP:BLP/WP:SYNTH claims—such as the implication that Galbraith is a liar with a financial conflict of interest—introduced by User:Saucysalsa30"[4]
"Dropped unnecessary and inaccurate WP:WEASEL language about "his claim""[6]
"RV unexplained content removal."[7]
"You may object to the term "secret police" but, for the record, the description of Ba'thist Iraq as a dictatorship with secret police is a widespread view in mainstream reliable sources; if anything, the opposite view that Ba'thist Iraq was a benevolent democracy with normal police would be WP:FRINGE"