Talk:Paul Wolfowitz

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

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... (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? (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)


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. (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. (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. (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? (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, 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 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


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 (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 --
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 (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". -- (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 (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."

holes in his socks[edit]

I've removed the claim that he had holes in his socks when he visited a mosque. Whether it's true or not, it's irrelevant and also pretty low class. If he is presenting himself before God, God doesn't need us to tell Wolfowitz that he was improperly dressed. What else would be the point? Making fun of Wolfowitz? I'll also note (see the sections at the very top) that I reduced the size of this article from 150k to 97k. We don't need a paragraph on sock holes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Going native in Indonesia[edit]

Strangely, it seems that all reference to his wife of at least 30 years has been removed. It is significant, at least in the context of Indonesia where this article says that Paul "went native." In fact, Clare had been to Indonesia when she was 16, living with a local family in Jogjakarta, and as an anthropologist focusing on Indonesia was the kind of person to do exactly that. Indonesians at the time found Paul Wolf.... (hard for many to pronounce the whole name, lol) interesting precisely because of his wife. This should be added in, and some awareness of the fact that systematically someone may be removing references to his longtime wife. (Dewobroto (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Paul Wolfowitz. 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) 21:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)