Talk:Madeleine Albright: Difference between revisions
→Genocide Prevention Task Force: new section |
→Repeated vandalization: new section |
||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
[[Harut Sassounian]] offers the same criticism of both Albright and [[William Cohen]], so I've left the link to his articles, but moved his argument onto a page for him. Readers interested in his argument can follow the external link to his article,[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut-sassounian/secretaries-albright-and-_b_73628.html] or follow the wikilink to the article on him. [[User:DougHill|DougHill]] ([[User talk:DougHill|talk]]) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
[[Harut Sassounian]] offers the same criticism of both Albright and [[William Cohen]], so I've left the link to his articles, but moved his argument onto a page for him. Readers interested in his argument can follow the external link to his article,[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harut-sassounian/secretaries-albright-and-_b_73628.html] or follow the wikilink to the article on him. [[User:DougHill|DougHill]] ([[User talk:DougHill|talk]]) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Repeated vandalization == |
|||
It seems as this Wikipedia page is subject to repeated vandalization. I repaired the infobox and restored the name of her predecessor but I am not sure if there are other vandalizations as well. Not being a US citizen or an expert on US history I don't know all the details about the late Madeleine Albright so would someone please check if there is other parts that have recently been vandalized? As far as I can judge from the edits the vandalization is the result of an edit war between two culprits. [[User:Jsde|Jsde]] ([[User talk:Jsde|talk]]) 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:16, 19 January 2009
![]() | Religion: Interfaith Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
Template:WikiProject Columbia University
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. |
![]() | Biography: Politics and Government B‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | International relations: United Nations Unassessed | ||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Madeleine Albright article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
- talk page archive
Ambassador section
I placed the Sixty Minutes comment under the "Ambassador to the UN" section, as the date of the comment is 5/12/96 and she was ambassador until 1997.
Should the heading of the "Ambassador to the UN" section instead read "US Ambassador to the UN"? Deisbrenner 16:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The heading has been corrected.
WWII
Here we state that she spent WWII in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Here http://www.nwhp.org/tlp/biographies/albright/albright_bio.html they say she has spent WWII in UK. I believe that second is correct. If no-one objects, I´d change the text. Saigon from europe 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The highest ranking woman?
The intro has the claim and at that time the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government. I think that is not correct since Sandra Day O'Connor was a Supreme Court justice since 1981. I don't think you can argue that Secretary of State is a higher position in the government that a Supreme Court justice. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think you CAN argue that. Firstly, judges are not part of the government (the judiciary is the judiciary, and is in most countries independent). Secondly, according to the United States order of precedence, the Secretary of State is normally outranked only by the President, Vice-President, their spouses (who are not part of the government), the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chief Justice (not part of govt). Thirdly, in most countries the foreign affairs brief is seen as THE most important cabinet position after prime minister (which in the US would be the President), though it is perhaps equalled by finance or interior, where such a post exists.--Dub8lad1 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
First, the United States Order of Precedence is a matter of protocol for parties and such. It is createed by the President and has no binding legal effect. Second, Judges are part of the government. Specifically, federal judges are created by Article III of the U.S. Constitution in the same way that Articles I and II create Congress and the Executive respectively. Third, there is no dispute that the Secretary of State is the most important Cabinet post considering that it is the oldest as well as first among Cabinet positions in the Presidential line of succession. Finally, a Prime Minister should not be compared to a President because the systems of government from which they come are too different to support the comparison.
To return to the original issue, Albright, is the highest ranking woman in the history of the Executive branch, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the highest ranking women in the history of the Judicial branch and Nancy Pelosi is the highest ranking woman in the history of the Legislative branch. The Constitution established a separation of powers and comparisons of the relative power of the three are inappropriate.--Jj002 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You could make the argument that since she was born outside the US, thus constitutionally barred from the Presidency or Vice-Presidency; Condelezza Rice is the highest ranking woman ever in the executive with the ability to ascend to the Presidency.
Condoleeza Rice is completely irrelevant here because the article clearly states the phrase "at the time" and at that time Condoleeza Rice was working at Stanford, which I wouldn't really consider a high ranking government position.
The Secretary of State is the highest ranking Cabinet position within the Executive branch and it shows a lack of forethought to suppose that a position in which you are in the line of sucession to become head of state is not superior to one in which you are merely an associate member. O'Connor was neither Cheif Justice nor held the position of the Associate Justice with premier seniority. Your objection is marring the article and should be removed because your point has been left unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.
Merger Proposal
For the rational behind the proposed merger, see the Talk page for Joseph Medill Patterson Albright. --TommyBoy 02:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
See the above link for reason NOT to link as well.CJ Chapman 14:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Merging the articles would be a tremendous disservice to any serious student of international public policy and U.S. diplomatic affiars. Medeliene Albright is the highest ranking female in the history of the United States government and has generated an impressive cadre of accomplishments on her own. Her work warrants separate visibility. Perhaps the articles should, instead, be linked.N. McAllister 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
My opinion on the merger has changed, see the Talk page for Joseph Albright for more details. --TommyBoy 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
We can remove the merger proposal, then. Ksnow 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Ksnow
This should not even be an issue. Madeline Albright and Joseph Medill Albright are two completely different people with two completely different life experiences, circumstances, and accomplishments. Not only would it do a disservice to each, but such a merger would be completely incomprehensible. I strongly recommend that this merger proposal be removed. - MAI
As a result of overwhelming opposition, I have removed the merger tag. --TommyBoy 16:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this true
I was watching ESPN, it said she can leg press 400lb, is this true or just false? Paul.Paquette
Whether or not it is true, how is it relevant? Fsotrain09 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is relevant. It makes her interesting. By the way, it was confirmed by the New York Times: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp? vnu_content_id=1002383529.--128.61.44.15 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Gary Mann
source?
Albright has stated that she did not know she had Jewish ancestors until she was an adult. Can't find any source confirming she really said that. Foreigner 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Sub-headline in Washington Post of 6 Jan 1996 (not sure about exact date) went along the lines (paraphrased) of "Secretary of State says she did not know..." She confirms it also in his memoir Madam Secretary. Excellent read btw. 218.186.9.1 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Hope that this is the place to make a comment on an unconvincing reference. Text says A's parents "converted from Judaism in order to escape persecution" and then refers to a newspaper article. That newspaper article however does not reveal the motives of A's parents, only that the motive of escaping persecution was a common motive for conversions during that pre war years. But there is nothing in that article that tells me that A's parents did not act out of inner conviction. Jippert (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Episcopalian or Catholic?
Is she an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic? Homagetocatalonia 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Born Roman Catholic, she became an Episcopalian prior to her marriage to Joe Albright. AFAIK she remained Episcopalian after their divorce in 1982. -Fsotrain09 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Jewish.
Post 2001 Career
This
"Secretary Albright has been an out-spoken opponent of the war in Iraq. Although she stated in Jerusalem in 1998 "we must sop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stabilty and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction". She apparently no longer holds this position as supported by her statements in Moscow (6/06) where she stated.."The message out of Iraq is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded. If you do have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded"."
Seems slanted. It can even be argued that the statements are consistent. Only invading countries that don't have Nuclear weapons would encourage countries to get nuclear weapons. The person who added this seems to want to score points and cherry pick quotes.
170.232.128.10 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)crackpipe
I agree and I made the change. I think the last quote does show that she has concerns about the Bush Administration's Iraq policy....--MattDartmouth 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Flip Flopper
Secretary Albright has been an out-spoken opponent of Saddam Hussein. She stated in Jerusalem in 1998 that "we must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." She has expressed concerns about the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. In June 2006 in Moscow she stated, "The message out of Iraq is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded. If you do have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded.
Was this a major issue during her time under Clinton? It sounds like POV..
Of course, it was. See http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html
Our media have let us down by not reporting on the historical context of our position vis-a-vis Iraq.
Madeline saved by Serbs in WW2!?
During NATO bombing,many women and men came out on TV and brought photos or personal stories how mrs.Madeline spent her life saftly thanks to Serbs during WW2.Many talked about sharing bread with her,the last piece and appeled to her to stop bombing them.So,why this part of the story is not integrated?
Also recently when she had published her biography book or so,she said :"My dad loved Serbs and said if he wasn't Czech,he would be a Serb,but unfortunately I will not be able to walk again along Belgrade's streets which I love as people remember me by NATO bombing"....So,plase,edit the article.
Thanks
- Actually, it is you, dear anon., who bears the burden of providing sources for these claims. Please provide them. -Fsotrain09 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is what I found:
- according to this [1] her father Josef Korbel worksed as a diplomat in Belgrade.
- According to the World Net Daily Madeleine lived together with her father in Belgrade while he was Czech ambassador the the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
- According to the University of South Carolina, she and her father moved back to Belgrade after World War II. When the Communists took power in 1948, they left for the US. --PaxEquilibrium 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
this is the latest Serbian news. Albright's family lived in Vrnjačka Banja for a time in World War II. By the end of this month Albright shall return to her (former) home in Vrnjacka banja as a witness on a municipal dispute (she has allegedly accepted the call and is gladly willing to revisit her youth-place). --PaxEquilibrium 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
vandalized
This article's last section has been vandalized. If anyone has a chance to fix this before I get home, please do so.
I think I need a reference for Condoleeza's piano shaped planter. I wouldn't put it past her, but it seems like vandalism. Rawkcuf 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf
WP Biography Rating
Due to a backlog it is no longer possible to give comment on ratings. Please put any comments/questions on my talk page. GDon4t0 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hong Kong?
As US Secretary of State she attended the handover of Hong Kong and boycotted the Chinese swearing-in ceremony, along with the British contingents. Is this worth mention? Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Judaism???
As far as I can recall she only have Jewish roots from her paternal side. No, both were, and they converted to escape persecution
500 000+ child deaths worth it?
Why is there no mention of her monstrously immoral response regarding the death of 500 000 - 800 000 Iraqi children during the sanctions regimen on Iraq? During an interview on 60 Minutes in 1996 she was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it" Remember, this was in 1996 and the sanctions and the related mortality continue until the 2003 US invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.120.140 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but after, she had said that her statement was a mistake. She had said :'This is no one's fault but my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.46.160 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Mike Rosen described Stahl's question as a loaded question[2] before I did[3], so I added a reference to his article. DougHill (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this statement needs to be in there. Whether she regretted making the statement later or not it is a famous part of her legacy. Infact there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Iraq sanctions at all, A very large part of her legacy whether you agreed or disagreed with the policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.78 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The Iraq sanctions were mentioned but not linked. I fixed that in my last edit.DougHill (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the part about the loaded question Right now what it is saying is that there was controversy over Albright not pointing out that she was given a loaded question. No, the controversy was that it seemed like she was fine with children dying. Instead this part just quotes a bunch of right wing blogs in a very muddled manner to try to push forward a completely unrelated dispute as fact.
- Since Albright herself claims that she fell into a trap, it seems worthwhile to identify the trap. At least to her, that seems to be what the controversy is about.
Maybe you could add a note saying that there is debate about whether the question asked to Albright was even accurate in the first place could be done in a NPOV manner so readers don't automatically assume the questioner is correct. But twisting what was actually an "eek! dead children!" controversy into an "eek! improper handing of logical fallacies!" controversy is a bit ridiculous. 173.66.145.11 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't the controversy about both, about how her mishandling of the second let many to conclude that she was callous about the first? Assuming that "the question asked to Albright was even accurate" is what the loaded question discussion is about. Please go ahead and make the more NPOV edit that you suggest.DougHill (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Rwandan Genocide
In 1994 Madeline Albright, the then UN permanent representative led efforts to deny declaring the massacres in Rwanda genocide (Source: Romeo Dallaores's Shake Hands with the Devil, p. 374). She also led resistance to a new mandate to a new UN mission towards "ensuring" stability and secuirty in the provinces of Rwanda (Source: Romeo Dallaores's Shake Hands with the Devil,p.506). An Episode of the West Wing has press secretary C.J. Craig playing the role of the US spokeswoman who was instructed by the State Department to avoid using the word "genocide" and instead use the words "acts of genocide". This actually happened. Rationalhuman (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
POV tag
This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. If any here have cause to have a tag, by all means put one on with current date, and discussion.Jjdon (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
In popular culture
She was in an episode of Futurama, the one that also starred Lucy Liu. When Leela picks up her head (in a jar) a pressure sensor went off, so Madeleine's head (next to Liu's) was substituted, and her personality was downloaded to someone expecting Liu. - NemFX (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
"liberal intelligentsia"?
Was it only the "liberal intelligentsia" who advocated a change in the "natural born" requirements? I'm not American, so please excuse my ignorance, but over here in the UK Albright used to be the obvious choice for writers of all political persuasions on the (fairly rare) occasions on which the issue was discussed in print. The most prominent ineligible figure is now Schwarzenegger, but I can't say I've seen much difference in the general tone of the debate, such as it is. 86.136.250.66 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Year of birth and Belgrade
If Albright was born in Prague in 1937 then how could her family have been living in Belgrade since 1936? This statement in the article is followed by what I consider a rather politicised comment, so maybe the author of that is also responsible for the confusion as to where her family was in those years. I don't know the facts of this, so can't correct. 92.118.18.24 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the POV insertion -- thanks for that -- but you're right, that's confusing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Genocide Prevention Task Force
Harut Sassounian offers the same criticism of both Albright and William Cohen, so I've left the link to his articles, but moved his argument onto a page for him. Readers interested in his argument can follow the external link to his article,[4] or follow the wikilink to the article on him. DougHill (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Repeated vandalization
It seems as this Wikipedia page is subject to repeated vandalization. I repaired the infobox and restored the name of her predecessor but I am not sure if there are other vandalizations as well. Not being a US citizen or an expert on US history I don't know all the details about the late Madeleine Albright so would someone please check if there is other parts that have recently been vandalized? As far as I can judge from the edits the vandalization is the result of an edit war between two culprits. Jsde (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unassessed Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Unassessed International relations articles
- Unknown-importance International relations articles
- Unassessed United Nations articles
- WikiProject United Nations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles