Talk:Colin Powell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Powell and Plame[edit]

His possible role is summed up nicely in this MSNBC piece:

{...} on a long Bush trip to Africa, Fleischer and Bartlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? One possible explanation: some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanFreisling (talkcontribs) 11:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Second Highest Ranking Non-Caucasian[edit]

Wasn't he the 2nd highest non-white in U.S. History - from everything from the Order of Precedence to the Line of Succession to actual power, the Sec. o. Ste. is techincally the 5th highest ranking member of the U.S. Gov - he/she has more power than any other cabinet member, but are still bellow the Pres. pro tempore, who is bellow House Speaker, who is below (in title not power) the V.P., who is below the presdident. Chief Justice is techinaclly between Speaker and pro tempore, but there have only been black associate justices. He shld have been the 2nd highest black in history at inaugaration time.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2014[edit]

Please change "Most observers praised Powell's oratorical skills" to "American news outlets provided favorable coverage of Powell's address, praising his oratorical skills." Please add the following source: *Oddo, John. (2014) Intertextuality and the 24-Hour News Cycle: A Day in the Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell's U.N. Address. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015[edit]

Please change "A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that the evidence that Powell offered to support the allegation that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was inaccurate." to "A 2004 report by the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam Hussien was simpley biding his time until the sanctions were lifted so he could restart his Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons programs." [1]

128.237.194.13 (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

References

'first and only' African American to serve on the joint chiefs of staff in lead[edit]

Lead says: "He was the first, and so far the only, African American to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff," however, Russell C. Davis was the Chief of the National Guard Bureau which is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff between 1998 and 2002. Better way to put this?― Padenton|   07:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the article is correct. The CNGB didn't join the JCS until the end of 2011. ~ MD Otley (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Political general[edit]

According to Norman Schwarzkopf, Max Thurman, Army Vice Chief of Staff and Commander in Chief of Southern Command, also never commanded division was a 4 star general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.9.1 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Trump/ Hilary[edit]

I understand we're in the political silly-season and the partisans are out trying to use this article to attack candidates. This is not wise per WP:UNDUE and probably violates WP:NPOV. I'd challenge the hack editors who added that material (@Hidden Tempo and Theatrical harmony:) to create a couple consensus sentences rather than edit war, as you'll likely do. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to edit in a partisan way. I added the material last night, upon the revelation of Powell's emails where his statements about Donald Trump were widely publicized. I will go back and provide a more nonpartisan edit. I apologize, (@Hidden Tempo and Chris troutman:). (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2016 (CST)

No need to apologize (@Chris troutman and Theatrical harmony:). There are many liberal activist users who will try to revise history and delete anything that doesn't reflect their worldview. Unfortunately, WP:NPOV doesn't allow for this, and we must always be sure to accurately reflect the influence of a politician (Powell, in this case) on politics. As his influence on the 2008 and 2012 elections is documented on this page, so should his 2016 trashing of both candidates. The section describing his e-mail revelations is here to stay, regardless of what DNC operatives scattered about on Wikipedia want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden Tempo (talkcontribs) 10:51:26 (UTC)

Recommend to add Library Resources Box via template[edit]

Since Powell is an author, please consider adding a Library Resources Box via template Template:Library_resources_by. Thanks! Dorevabelfiore (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colin Powell. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Colin Powell. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

politician or statesman[edit]

To Neve-selbert: Not only do you not have consensus for your change here, you seem to be changing a bunch of other biographies similarly. I recommend you stop. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I think his little tool altered at least one hundred BLPs. A mass revert may be in order. Newimpartial (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Please understand that the term "statesman" is controversial and should only be used to describe respected dead politicians. To quote Harry Truman: "A politician is man who knows how the government works. A government needs politicians. A statesman is a politician who's been dead 10 or 15 years." --Nevéselbert 20:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're dead wrong. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
And I think you're dead wrong to think that I'm dead wrong Face-wink.svg.--Nevéselbert 21:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
There is no inherent BLP issue in referring to a living person using that term. If you think that there is, suggest you raise the matter at BLPN, but for the moment consensus appears to be against you. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Chris troutman and Nikkimaria: You may be interested to read the Request for Comments discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan/Archive 18#RfC about whether Reagan is a statesman in the lead section. The consensus there agreed that the term was subjective.--Nevéselbert 21:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Many of the comments there seem to be specific to Reagan, and not specific to BLPs. Again, if you want to apply this change to all BLPs, you'll need to raise the issue in a broader venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Neve-selbert: And? We may have a different consensus here. Colin Powell never ran for any political office. He was appointed as SECSTATE. Clearly some on that other conversation had animus against Reagan; I don't buy their "politician = objective" argument. Create an RfC here if you must. Tilting at this windmill about the term statesman is a foolish way to spend your editing career. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I have to agree. He/she is swapping out "statesman" and "stateswoman" for "politician" on the bios of Governors General of Canada who were never politicians. That's very clearly inserting misleading information into Wikipedia. -- MIESIANIACAL 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm a "he", just so you know. Regarding the governors-general, I may have made a mistake there and for that I apologise. @Chris troutman: Powell may not have ran for any political office but he was appointed to a political office, hence Powell was a political figure. I will start an RFC momentarily.--Nevéselbert 21:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Neve-selbert: You don't specify your gender identification in your preferences, FYI. Before you create an RfC, please consider if you want an RfC to remove the term from across Wikipedia or you just want to fight the battle over Colin Powell. I assume the former. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
To be clear, Chris troutman, I'm fine with the term being used to refer to dead politicians. Truman was dead on the money.--Nevéselbert 21:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me a perversion of history to grant dead people more "respectable" titles once their actual policies and views have basically been forgotten. The misuse of history is encouraged by powerful polities with a perceived stake in the matter. We should resist such a bias, and judge people by their merits, not their posthumously glossed image. Uglemat (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Truman is not a reliable source when it comes to defining statesmen. Also, the RfC that found that the term "politician" was more appropriate for Reagan than "statesman" cannot possibly apply to the myriad cases auto-"corrected" by Neve - he is making changes on the basis that the subjects are alive (which Reagan is not) to people like Powell who never sought elected office (as Reagan undeniably did) and who were therefore never politicians. He even changed the Mikhail Gorbachov entry, which was precisely used in the RfC as an example of someone who, unlike Reagan, was undeniably (and therefore not subjectively) a "statesman".Uglemat (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


I still hold that these changes should have been mass-reverted, and that the editor who initiated them should hold his tongue until he actually understands WP:BLP. Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I am biting my tongue at your refusal to even countenance why I initiated these changes. Per WP:BLPSOURCE, contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. There are no sources in the lead referring to Powell as a statesman. Powell was appointed to a political office and is therefore a political figure. If you can provide me with a variety of WP:RS confirming that these figures are indeed statesmen, I may reconsider whether to launch an RFC. In the meantime, I wholeheartedly agree with the entirely reasonable Truman quote.--Nevéselbert 23:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCE's suggestion is intended to protect BLP from unsourced *negative* characterizations, for reasons that should be obvious to you. You're using it to remove the label on pages of historical individuals you dislike because you perceive the term as having mildly positive connotations. The label "statesman" is not *contentious* in BLP's usage of the word, and its principle is precisely the opposite of what BLP intends. Please stop trolling. 73.61.20.122 (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with what the IP editor has stated above about process lawyering, and would also point out that the use of widely-accepted terms that have been in place, in some articles, for many years, does not suddenly become contentious (in wiki terms) because one editor arrives on the scene with a script and DOESNOTLIKEIT. Newimpartial (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Ж
In response to the rather impertinent IP, I must stress that these are not historical individuals in the sense that they belong to history. They are still alive and are subject to WP:BLP. The label may not be formally contentious on Wikipedia, but it remains disputable elsewhere for a variety of reasons. Is Barack Obama a statesman? Is Angela Merkel? I digress. I must respond to Newimpartial that my edit to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing was in response to this edit made a couple of days ago, which was made without consensus.--Nevéselbert 18:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)