Talk:Paul Wolfowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject United States  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Article is still way too long[edit]

This article is on the record charts: It is the 67th longest article in Wikipedia as of November 25th. Most of the first 66 are list pages. So it is in the top 5 of non-list articles. Only a fanatic could think that an encyclopedia page for Wolfowitz could deserve this length. One way or another, it should be split or shortened, or both. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wolfowitz article is half as long as another notable article - world war II. Shameful... 65.44.114.33 (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Wolfowitz is undoubtedly an important figure, with a long and controversial career, but at the moment his article's longer than those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush! Something's not right there. This article needs to be cut down, or broken up into smaller articles per Wikipedia:Summary style; at the moment it's well over the recommended maximum length for Wikipedia articles, and some computers may have trouble editing it as a result. Terraxos (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Article is comprehensive, how is long 'bad' unless you want to remove vital information from it? 220.239.179.128 (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It has a page full of material on him as an undergraduate student. If we really needed to have such "vital information," we should move it into a sub-article on his early life and make this top-level article more readable. WP:SUMMARY STYLE is how we roll here. Cool Hand Luke 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The article far more than comprehensive. It is full of non-vital details that, on the contrary, obfuscate the minority of vital information about this person. In fact, the article is completely out of control, but it's a real pain to try to reduce it because there are too many people ready to hit the revert button no matter what you remove. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Meat Axe[edit]

Frankly I couldn't stand wading though all this shit! WP:bold I've reduced the length from over 150KB to about 115KB, with 2 or 3 sections left to go, and I don't think anything I've taken out will be missed (e.g. the blockquotes in the footnotes). However, I think somebody should read a few of the sources, and go through it to see if it makes sense. All I've been doing is removing garbage. Last version before the meataxe was May 18, 2008 [1] if anybody wants to revert or compare content!!!. Smallbones (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's now down to 97k from 150k, 1/3rd reduction, with about 95% of the content. It could use a bit more reduction, and I'll ask that other people check it out, and smooth some of the rough edges I may have left. One benefit from this is that there is now a little bit of room to add something if something new happens or is reported. Please note that most of what I took out was repeated material, wordiness, and something of an edit war in the footnotes. I think that I managed to keep 100 out of 112 footnotes, but removed the blockquotes and catiness in the footnotes. I expect some contributors will have complaints - but before you complain, please compare to the May 18 version and tell me which you think is better. Smallbones (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Bravo! Frankly it could use way more reduction. A lot of the material that is conceivably worth keeping could be in some separate page. Wolfowitz simply isn't five times more important than, for instance, Spiro Agnew. Greg Kuperberg (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to World Bank[edit]

I for one object that the link to the world bank is maintained under his photo on the pane on the right. he has resigned and is no longer associated with that organization. we can link him to the american enterprise institute. if no one objects, i will change the link in the next 3 days. Mediterraneo (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

freedom house[edit]

he served as board member of freedom house, not mentioned in the article. may be smb may include it.-ArazZeynilitalkcontrib10:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Democrat[edit]

I took out 2 refences to Wolfowitz being a Democrat, one in the info box (did not insert Republican in its place). They are both from the same source. Nevertheless, the The Times observed in March 2005, in the context of discussing his suitability as president of the World Bank Group, that "he has not ceased being a registered Democrat."[1] Given the source, it's pretty bold of me to remove it. But I think the Times must have misunderstood US politics. PW has been associated with Republican administrations for almost 30 years and is considered a theoretician of the most right wing part of the Republicans. The Democrats wouldn't acknowledge him as one of their own. Maybe if there was another source, I'd accept it, but as of now at best it looks misleading. Even the Times can make a mistake. Smallbones (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is confirmed, Wolfowitz was registered as a Democrat when he worked for Democratic Party senator Henry M. Jackson. 99.244.181.114 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Was and is are very different verbs. I understand that this citation thing has its uses, but when it is just plain wrong ... See WP:IAR, e.g. if the Times said that George III was a supporter of American democracy, I'd likely remove that. This mistake is more egregious than that would be! Smallbones (talk) 23:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The article on Henry M. Jackson says he was a democrat, and the Times article testifies that he still is registered as one. 99.244.181.114 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this from this info box: "| party = Democratic[1]" By all rules except WP:IAR the person who reverted it back in is correct. Nevertheless, it is just plain wrong, "at best misleading" understates the case. I think that a formal thrid opinion would very quickly clear this up. Smallbones (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no point in the anon switching it back to "Democrat." It just ain't so, no matter what the Times wrote. Sorry I didn't do a more thorough check earlier. But I just googled "Democrat Paul Wolfowitz" and got only two hits, both with a sentence ending after "Democrat," i.e. no real hits. Googling "Republican Paul Wolfowitz" only got 10 hits, but they all appear to be real, including a BBC story, a small California newspaper, and the University of Alberta. Let's not mislead people anymore, he is a Republican. Smallbones (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when evidences do not fit reality, change reality. mabey you should try this on the Richard Perle article too. 99.244.181.114 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's the BBC article [2], The Washington Post article in footnote 28 is probably the clearest. Based upon the WP, it might be best to say "Republican since 1981" but why are we shaving fine points on this? Smallbones (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did check the Richard Perle article and did remove the "Democratic" party affiliation. The source was very clear about what kind of Democrat he is. It is just misleading to put in this junk. What is this? a game to see how long you can claim that "black is white" on Wikipedia??? Smallbones (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you change Joe Lieberman's party affiliation to Republican too? 99.244.181.114 (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a tough issue, because we have many reliable sources, one of which says something completely different from the others. It is possible that the Times of London just simply messed up on this one, because I don't think that it is correct to claim that BBC and the Washington Post are flat out wrong. It should be noted that Wolfowitz was previously a Democrat until the Reagan administration, and cite that with the Washington Post article. IP 99.244.181.114, sarcasm is not looked very highly upon here. Joe Lieberman is a self-described Independent Democrat. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

Concurring with Happyme22 above, we should avoid placing undue weight on a single editorial from the Times. In particular, footnote 28 from the Washington Post - a paper that certainly knows US politics - should lay to rest the notion that Wolfowitz is currently a Democrat. Specifically:

After serving at the Pentagon during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz remained a registered Democrat until he joined the Reagan administration as head of policy planning at the State Department. He said it was not he who changed his political philosophy so much as the Democratic Party, which abandoned the hard-headed internationalism of Harry Truman, Kennedy and Jackson.

The infobox should read "Republican (formerly Democratic)", and cite the text noted above from the WP article in footnote 28. Snuppy 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Cut down the world bank section[edit]

I have removed the paragraphs that praised him or loathed him. That info is really irrelevant. Virtually every political appointment has an op-ed praising or condemning them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.34.218 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I don't respect the man for his lack of military service. I view him as unqualified to have been involved as a national defense advisor. I believe his lack of military experience made him lack an understanding of military operations and gave him a naievete regards realpolitik. But we can do without the anti-semitic vandalism "the rest of his family and their diamonds perished in the holocaust"? Why was this left up there so long? Schmitt's article doesn't mention diamonds. Also the article is way too long. He does not merit that long of an article-should be cut by about 80%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.192.187 (talk) 10:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why rely exclusively on John Kampfner's interpretation of Wolfowitz's policy arguments? It's one-sided. John Kampfner is a British journalist who has no experience in policy discussions or its decision making process. Also, this sentence: Prior to the invasion, Wolfowitz had a plan to sell the war to the administration as well as the general public, as he later stated: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."[14][15][42][43][44][45] is factually and contextually incorrect.
This is what Wolfowitz said:
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --
(Pause)
Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --
Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.67.176 (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultural References[edit]

The musician David Rovics sings a song called "Paul Wolfowitz" on his album "Crashing Down". --71.168.124.11 (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much included bio on his father Jacob Wolfowitz[edit]

There is way too much detail on his father in this page, detail that does not (but should) appear in the page on his father. This content should be (for the most part) moved and merged into the page on Jacob Wolfowitz. This will also go some way to making this page more concise. Enquire (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor Vandalism[edit]

The link "Neoconservative" at the bottom of the second paragraph leads to an article on the common housefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.212.205 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b "Crying Wolfowitz", The Times, March 18, 2005, accessed May 23, 2007: "Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a 'right-wing hawk', he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person."