Talk:Jeane Kirkpatrick

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

National Security Council?[edit]

I'm fairly certain Ms. Kirkpatrick was a member of the NSC staff, but not a member of the NSC itself. (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Jeane Kirkpatrick official portrait.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Jeane Kirkpatrick official portrait.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary[edit]

The article was rated C-class, as there were too many paragraphs and several quotes, that did not have in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Axes Grinding[edit]

"She put this doctrine into practice most clearly in Central America, by supporting the Contras in Nicaragua and the military Juntas in Guatemala and El Salvador, all of which perpetrated massive human rights violations while countering a perceived communist threat."

PERCIEVED!?Why is this sourced to someone, Noam Chomsky, who is no expert on the subject matter and clearly has an ax to grind? Isn't there even a shred of neutrality?

Spiker_22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. "Perceived" is weasel wording (WP:ALLEGED) and anyway it was "gotcha!" POV commentary, which doesn't belong in the lead chapters. Noam Chomsky is a notable author though and his views on Kirkpatrick doctrine should be said somewhere (apparently they already are in Kirkpatrick Doctrine article), but it's not a very good idea to use it such broad statements without atrributing the source. --Pudeo' 04:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Also noting that Noam Chomsky is covered later in this article, when he calls Jeane Kirkpatrick "Chief sadist-in-residence of the Reagan Administration". There is no reason to lift Chomsky's opinions to the lead section however, that would be undue weight --Pudeo' 04:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Pudeo, I appreciate your concern; however, describing her doctrine in her own words with no external analysis is not NPOV either. The word "percieved" was put there simply because some of those opponents are not described as communist by reliable sources; but the governments that Kirkpatrick supported, saw them as communist. I am willing to discuss wording; but we cannot, in Wikipedia's voice, claim them to be communist. Finally, Chomsky is not here because of his own individual opinion; he was used as a source because he synthesizes many sources into his analysis, thus providing almost a meta-analysis. There are different sources which discuss the human rights violations of each of those governments separately; not very many look at them together. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe you think such wording is NPOV and okay to put Chomsky in the lede without even attributing, and it wouldn't be due with attributing anyway. Why do you think this needs to be in the lede when the article later on goes into detail? "Massive human rights violations" is a POV, especially as the Sardinistas are estimated to have committed more abuses and deaths according to some. --Pudeo' 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Your removal was reverted; you need to justify it, per BRD, which you have failed to do. You cannot discuss the Kirkpatrick doctrine without mentioning its criticisms. You cannot call socialist/leftist/authoritarian regimes "communist" without attribution. I am happy to work on wording, or on finding other sources. Repeated blanking is not the way forward. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how a claim from Noam Chomsky's book is WP:DUE in the lead and how we need POV-wording like "massive human rights violations"? --Pudeo' 23:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I did not say Chomsky was due; I said the point that Chomsky is used as a source for, is due weight, because the Kirkpatrick doctrine has been criticized in the literature, and the criticism needs to be present as well. "Massive human rights violations" is documented fact; the phrase is used because gettting into great detail there is not possible. You are still ignoring BRD. Propose alternative wording instead of screaming "undue." You only need to do a quick search through any scholarly database to find a number of critiques of the doctrine. Chomsky is merely the most comprehensive, and easily accessible, of these. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The suggestion or allegation that she was in charge of Latin American activities needs a pretty strong reliable source. Rjensen (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Rjensen, are you taking issue with the use of Chomsky, or do you feel that Chomsky does not quite say this? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
none of the standard biographies or histories of the Reagan years claim that she was in charge of Latin American affairs. Chomsky does not make any such claim in his cited book Turning the Tide. Rjensen (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Jeane Kirkpatrick. 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) 15:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)