Talk:Bernard L. Schwartz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Political Favors[edit]

Regarding the removal of the 1996 United States campaign finance controversy link, with the edit summary "rm odd link. has nothing to do with campaign finance": this article makes the connection seem like not much of a stretch. —Fleminra (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K your reference does not say "exonerated of any wrongdoing", please mirror the source. Also I did not attack you. I just added a well-sourced statement about Schwartz. And who is Jiimjilin?Jimjilin (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loral agreed to pay a huge civil fine of $14 million. Is that "exoneration"?!

http://www.loral.com/inthenews/020109.html

And of course we can't ignore the findings of the House Select Committee.

For example: The rocket guidance system on which Loral and Hughes provided advice in 1996 is judged by the Select Committee to be among the systems capable of being adapted for use as the guidance system for future PRC road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles,

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/app.html

And according to the Defense Technology Security Administration:

Loral and Hughes committed a serious export control violation by virtue of having performed a defense service without a license in the course of conducting an investigation for China of the failure of the February 1996 launch of the Long March 3B.

This activity also violated the U.S.-China Space Launch Technology Safeguards Agreement.

The defense service consisted of a full range of investigatory, engineering and corrective analyses to assist the Chinese in identifying the root cause of the failure and corrective measures.

The significant benefits derived by China from these activities are likely to lead to improvements in the overall reliability of their launch vehicles [i.e., rockets] and ballistic missiles and in particular their guidance systems.

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch6.html

I suggest: Loral under CEO Schwartz was accused of transferring sensitive missile technology to the Chinese government.

or

Loral under CEO Schwartz was accused of offering unauthorized assistance to China's ballistic missile program.

Any objections?Jimjilin (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All this is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on your part. As I explained to you on your talk, multiple reliable sources are clear that Schwartz was exonerated. I added the reliable sources in the article with quotations.:
A citation from the New York Times which says:

We are pleased that the facts in this case have now been made public and that Mr. Schwartz and Loral are shown to be innocent of any wrongdoing, said Thomas B. Ross, a company vice president. [...] Mr. Specter said in an interview that he did not realize at the hearing that Mr. Schwartz had been exonerated by the Justice Department because he had not seen Mr. La Bella's addendum.

.
A Google Book:

<ref name="Hirsh2003">{{cite book|author=Michael Hirsh|title=At War with Ourselves: Why America is Squandering Its Chance to Build a Better World|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=jiM1ag9p8H8C&pg=PA150|year=2003|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-515269-2|pages=150–|quote=Bernard Schwartz was exonerated of all wrongdoing when the Justice ...}}</ref>

The book also mentions that the company paid the fine under protest since there were no clear guidelines as to what constituted technology transfers. Also Franklin Miller, deputy secretary of defence, testified at a senate hearing that he didn't believe that there was any improvement to Chinese ICBM capability due to any information transfer from Schwartz's company. It's all in the book.
And this book calls them "China-bashing pseudoscandals":

<ref name="Blumenthal2003">{{cite book|author=Sidney Blumenthal|title=The Clinton Wars|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=vAxrr2fcO8AC&pg=PT1035|date=20 May 2003|publisher=Farrar, Straus and Giroux|isbn=978-0-374-70629-6|pages=1035–}}</ref>

Overall, the negative information you want to add doesn't look strong enough to be included in Schwartz's BLP. The reliable sources are clear. Schwartz was exonerated, case over: This material is not going into this BLP. Let's wait now for other editors to chime in because it is apparent to me that you do not agree with my comments to you. I will also inform BLPN. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also opened a section at BLPN. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding: According to a House Select Committee, Loral under CEO Schwartz provided the Chinese government with advice regarding a guidance system for future PRC road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Defense Technology Security Administration concluded Loral "committed a serious export control violation" and that the "significant benefits derived by China from these activities are likely to lead to improvements in the overall reliability of their launch vehicles [i.e., rockets] and ballistic missiles and in particular their guidance systems." Loral paid a fine of $20 million, the largest that a company has ever paid under the Arms Export Control Act.

References: http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/app.html

http://www.house.gov/coxreport/chapfs/ch6.html

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/print/volume-13/issue-4/departments/cots-watch/loral-arms-technology-exports-lead-to-20-million-government-fine.html

I don't want to delete the findings of the Justice Department, now why would anyone want to delete the findings of the House Select Committee or the Defense Technology Security Administration?Jimjilin (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition is unacceptable because Schwartz was fully exonerated per the reliable sources and your addition makes no mention of that and no mention that Franklin Miller, deputy secretary of defence, testified at a senate hearing that he didn't believe that there was any improvement to Chinese ICBM capability due to any information transfer from Schwartz's company. Your proposed addition is also in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT for this article. But, as I said before let's wait for the advice of WP:BLPN on this matter. It is rather clear that we are not going to agree any time soon so we need further input from more editors. This is a wiki after all and we should wait for the input of the community since there is WP:NODEADLINE to put this POV stuff, which violates WP:BLP, into this BLP article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bernard L. Schwartz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bernard_L._Schwartz&oldid=1214251188"