Talk:Paul Wolfowitz/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2007

what is a couple at world bank?

The article says, and I quote, "the organization's own ethics rules preclude simultaneous employment of couples ". But, Wolfowitz's (ex?) wife doesn't work there -- his mistress(?) works there. Do the rules on couples includes mistresses as well? (This unsigned comment was left by Harvard yarrd (talk · contribs) 15:00, 18 May 2007)

• In accordance with Wikipedia talk page guidelines, new comments should be put at the bottom of talk pages, not the top. It is also considered good manners to sign your comments on talk pages. Having said that, please provide your reliable source that PW is still married, or that his girlfriend is actually his mistress. Apparently the Washington Post can't figure it out so something tells me that you don't really know either. I will therefore ask you to not speculate as to whether or not PW is having an extra-marital affair on this talk page, unless you can verify it with a reliable source. This is in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines regarding biographies of living persons. It's really quite simple. MoodyGroove 16:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Can you at least be honest in the article, and say, eg, "from his (ex?)wife of 30 years", so it is clear that the writer really doesn't know whether she is his "wife of 30 years" or his "ex-wife of 30 years"? Right now, it says "wife", so the writer is saying he is still married -- but subtly, and I am not sure if the subtlety is to try to hide the controversy, or because the writer believes he is still married, but wishes to try to avoid having footnoting the alleged fact? ~~

Is he divorced???

The article says he is separated from his wife, and dating one of his workers. It doesn't say he is divorced. MoodyGroove is censoring discussion of whether he is dating while married? We're not even allowed to ask if he is publically in adulterous relatinshiop, even though it is world headline news about ethics probes on him? What are the rules on this censorship? Are we not allowed to comment on ongoing ethics scandals?

Really, all I wanted to know, is whether he is actually divorced, in which case it is just a matter of a swinging bachelor screwing a subordinate -- and we'll all admire him for it, right? and this is common, and ok. But if he is a married man screwing a subordinate, that is going over the line, right? Surely most agree in the West? (This unsigned comment was left by Paulo48 (talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 May 2007)

• This isn't a tabloid. It's an encyclopedia. Any controversial material must be reliably sourced, in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons, which also applies to talk pages. You can comment on ongoing ethics scandals, as long as you do so in a responsible manner. MoodyGroove 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

This question surely must have an accessible answer. For many a reader, this aspect of the subject's life is at least as important as his supposed use of public funds to benefit his apparent mistress. Firstorm (talk · contribs) 21:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• This question does have an accessible answer. I Wiki-linked the relevant Wikipedia editing guidelines in my previous reply. The Wikipedia is not a place for irresponsible speculation about the personal lives of living persons. It is also not a place for original research or connect-the-dot narratives. Feel free to locate a reliable source (in the mainstream print media for example) that discusses this issue, and quote it here to make your point. But this is not the place to engage in gossip. There are plenty of other websites that encourage that sort of thing. MoodyGroove 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

To partly avoid MoodyGrooves diligant efforts to, rightly so, combat any unsubstantiated, negative or positive "material" - you should make all your comments into questions.

Wordnet for example defines material as; "2. information (data or ideas or observations) that can be used or reworked into a finished form; "the archives provided rich material for a definitive biography." As you can see, they mention data, ideas and observations - the word question is not there. It is similiar with other dictionaries, wich you can go and check at dictionary.com and other places. (although some of the definitions I could find were quite wide, for example material for a comedy show - wich could include questions)

The big question, pun intended, is if questions are information (data, ideas and observations). Wich you are of course also allowed to look up in a dictionary. To me it's clear that a question, given normal circumstances, is, if not the oppposite of information, at least the lack or request of information. I'm sure you could extract data, ideas and observations FROM a question, but that does not necessarily make it into anything other than a question.

When you are asking a question you are normally not making a comment of any sort (sarcasm and sitire might cloud this area abit but) - you are asking a question. The type of question who might implicate something are by Neil Cavuto & Fox news, referred to as Cavutos, since the practice of asking questions that arent really questions was popularized by Mr. Cavuto on Fox news.

Sources: http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/index.html "Is Paris Hilton hard up for cash?" ;; www.dictionary.com / www.reference.com (provides dictionary service through several recognized dictionaries) in this specific case http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/material ;; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/question ;; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wordnet

213.141.89.53 10:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Marital status?

The article doesn't say whether he was supposedly ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Also, I've read elsewhere that ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Is that generally believed, or scurrilous, or...? Interested in any clarification, especially as the ethical questions appear to have gotten worldwide publicity... John furspire (talk · contribs)

Hi John, I think there has been some rumor that Mr. Wolfowitz ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove***. Whether or not this is true, we can only speculate. - Dick's Chenney (Unsigned comment left by Wolfie.dick (talk · contribs) 08:04, 10 May 2007)

• You can speculate all you want, but please don't do it here. This is exactly the kind of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information that Jimmy Wales explicitly disapproves of, especially when discussing living persons. The fact that this is a talk page is not an excuse. Please use more discretion or provide a reliable source. MoodyGroove 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Holes in Socks Photo

I removed the photo of Wolfowitz with holes in his socks. Although the caption says that it generated "many opinions in the news media," the article didn't cite any of them. Unless the opinions are more substantive than Joe Blogger saying "lol wolfy needs new sox" they have no place here. White 720 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think its safe to put it back in since the BBC had it on the front page of their news site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6316765.stm 192.198.151.130 15:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Why removing the part about the socks??? It holds the same weight as spitting the comb before combing! Besides, if you are head of World Bank, and you are planning to visit a mosque, if you already don't know that you are going to have to take off your shoes, at least as such prominent figure, do some research or have your people tell you that you will be taking your shoes off, so you can wear hole-free socks! It shows complete lack of respect and self-respect. It shows that he just had a trip to mosque on his planner and it was something he had to do, without any research about it, what to do while there. Or, he did, but he is just a slob. Either way, clothes don't make a man, but it certainly give some insight into one's character. Especially if one is head of the world bank for God's sake!!!

Svetlana Miljkovic 21:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, everything is sourced and ready. Please don't delete it anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ltimur (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

• The BBC article mentioned makes no connection, jocose or otherwise, between Wolfowitz' socks and his ability to solve poverty. I suggest

1) changing quoted source from the BBC to some other media organization that does make that connection, and rewriting article to make it clear that such a connection is tongue-in-cheek; 2) replacing this part of the article by an outline of serious criticism of Wolfowitz arising from the incident, in the direction indicated by Svetelana Miljkovic; or 3) deleting reference to the incident altogether. [Not a Wikipedia member] 27 April 2007.

Congrats. WP has descended into the absurd with this issue. Holes in his socks and how he combs his hair are irrelevant. Jtpaladin 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

A lot of seemingly political minded vandalism and alterations going on, particularly adding vandalism about 9/11, I'm sure that anti-vandal users won't mind and I hope admins won't mind that I jumped ahead and semi-protected this page for a few hours until things cool off and AIV catches up with the IP's involved (a couple have been reported already) SGGH 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The protection has expired. If vandalism resumes on a large scale, please feel free to contact me and I'll re-protect it. SGGH 10:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm

"Almost immediately upon confirmation he leapt into action in May 2001 during the height of Sino-American tensions that surrounded the U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident. Wolfowitz defused a very tricky situation when he ordered the recall and destruction of 600,000 Chinese-made berets that had been issued to troops stating "U.S. troops shall not wear berets made in China""

While I did found it funny, I don't know if sarcasm should be a part of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.34.211 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

recent revert

I recently reverted a big change in the "africa and corruption" section, from the title of the section it seemed to me that everything there should be strongly cited, and the most recent change removed a citation and didn't provide any of its own, so I reverted it. Apologies if it was a helpful change, but you can understand why biography articles (particularly rather volatile ones) must be carefully changed. SGGH 11:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

insufficient citation

The following quotation does not cite the Wall Street Journal. Rather, it cites an article that cites the Wall Street Journal. This makes it difficult to legitimize the quotation; the WSJ article may have been an opinion piece, for example.

"The Wall Street Journal commented: 'Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power. He saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein.'[22]

[22] is a CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/17/worldbank.wolfowtiz/ -128.12.108.147 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the WSJ entry is indeed an editorial. The actual source is http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006432 - a part of the opinion page.

kampfner?

the article refers to "kampfner" (john kampfner of the new statesman?) over a dozen times without ever stating who kampnfer is, nor is he (or she) cited in the references anywhere. for all we know, kampfner could be some random opinionated barfly, but a whole lot of information herein is presented "according to kampfner". can the author please give a more complete reference? --155.104.37.17 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks with holes ?!

The article says: "On January 30, 2007 the pictures of Paul Wolfowitz's socks after his visit to Selimiye Mosque in Turkey were released. BBC criticized the influence the World Bank President can make over the poverty as he cannot afford a pair of socks without holes."

Is it worth mentioning in an encyclopedia ? As far as I can see, there's no mention of pretzels in the article George Bush. :p Régis Lachaume 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The article I can find from the BBC doesn't seem to suggest anything like what you say [1]. One would argue that the fact he doesn't waste money on new socks when his old ones are good enough makes him better able to fight poverty. In any case, this seems to be one of those things which are fun to laugh at, but not suitable for the article unless the issue garners enough attention that the article would be incomplete without it (which it hasn't). Bush has many, many similar issues, some like the pretzel incident gained a fair amount of attention, others like the numerous bike incidents and the toilet incident less so. (I still feel that the pretzel incident should be very briefly mentioned in the Bush article proper but that's not for discussion here) Nil Einne 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up tag

Many missing sources throughout this article; lifting of whole parts of unsourced POV material from unidentified souces. Plagiarism from sources creates additional violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Needs much more clean up so as to supply the missing citations and to created a more consistent format in notes, references, and external links throughout the article. Started but have not got time to finish. Please see interpolated editorial comments in editing mode in the article. --NYScholar 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

After all that debate in Talk, you left out the identification of his family as Jewish from Goldenberg's Guardian profile, and the only mention of Wolfowitz being Jewish is in the quote from the NYT article (which is way down and might get deleted some day). Do you think that the fact that his family is Jewish is significant enough to be mentioned further up in "Early life and education"? Nbauman 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With the arbitration going on, I'll let someone else add however much else of those quotations that they want to add. I provided the additional sources [See the ext. links to the NYT Topic articles, e.g.] [I quoted the phrase that I think you refer to now.] People can read it and decide what they want to do. His family's being Jewish is mentioned in [several of the] the articles cited in the notes. I'm not adding categories or anything else. I just corrected all kinds of erroneously-cited sources and indicated where a lot of POV material is not sourced. Other people can work on this. I did not "leave out" anything [intentionally]. I provided quotations and sources that other people can read to decide what else they want to add. It's up to others to do this work. I've done all that I want to do. There are many sources that are still cited in incorrect format and that still need correction; many missing sources that need to be added. --NYScholar 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC) [updated; made a few other mostly-minor typographical corrections; provided a couple of new sources; additional source info. Taking this off my watch list due to other work obligations. --NYScholar 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I updated this article through May 9, 10:40[-10:53 or so] p.m. (EST). It is no longer on my watch list. I hope others will carry on in being vigilant about providing missing reliable and verifiable source citations (W:Citing sources, WP:Attribution, W:Reliable sources, following WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles in the course of updating it. It is no longer on my watch list. --NYScholar 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 02:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)] [Please note: even though I took this article off my watch list, I checked it another time tonight while working at my computer, and I noticed that some more-recent inaccurate presentation of information (POV) and faulty format of sources re-inserted in the article; please watch out for these kinds of problems in my absence. Thank you. The article still needs ongoing clean up. --NYScholar 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)]

Someone removed the cleanup tag; I've added a more specific message tag re: missing citations; someone has also added at least seven external links to a section and I tagged the section; the external links need to be converted properly to notes in a full citation format following the current prevailing citations format. I do not have time to do these conversions. I suggest that the person or people who are adding such external links take their time to make proper citations. See the other notes for examples (in editing mode). Also, someone has been added a blog to the section of other related external links; such a blog is not permissible and violates WP:BLP. Such insertions need to be deleted on sight according to WP:BLP and W:Reliable sources. I provided an additional reliable source from Newsweek (Hirsh). I do not want to take any more of my time to work on this article. I hope others will perform the cleanup needed. [For further help, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.]--NYScholar 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [I added a citation in the text as well in updating. --NYScholar 22:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC); and I restored some reliably-sourced material and reorganized sections to accommodate the material and some more minor corrections. --NYScholar 19:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC); updated. --NYScholar 20:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC) and --NYScholar 09:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)]

NNDB reliable source?

What do folks think about using the National Names Database as a source on this page? The article on Wolfowitz seems poorly written and has zero sourcing. The Talk:NNDB page raises serious issues about using it as a source (the only editors that endorse it there appear to have connections to the NNDB itself). An editor claims that Jimbo Wales is against using it as a source (but without sourcing this claim). It's true that other Wikipedia pages cite this, but if it is not a WP:RS, than we shouldn't repeat that error here. What do others think? Notmyrealname 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've raised the question on the BLP noticeboard here [2] Notmyrealname 20:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to Jimbo Wales' comment: [3] "Why is the NNDB not considered a valid source? You mentioned this in your recent edit to Maria Bartiromo. Chupper 04:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)"

"Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia. To my knowledge, it should be regarded like Wikipedia: not a valid source for anything in Wikipedia. We need to stick to REAL reliable sources, you know, like newspapers, magazines, books. Random websites are a very bad idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)" Notmyrealname17:34, May 3, 2007 (UTC)(Updated with full quote Notmyrealname 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC))

[Supplied signature info. from recent revision in editing history; please correct if incorrect. The time stamp seems oddly off, and I have had trouble getting the unsigned template to post correctly. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]

NNDB link(s) in Wikipedia

[Comment by another user moved here from my own personal talk page. Seems more relevant here. --NYScholar 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]
NNDB may be linked to in an article where relevant, but it may not be used as a source for a biography of a living person. It fails to meet any one of the standards suggested under WP:RS - its authors are unknown so we can't regard them as trustworthy, it doesn't have a reliable publication and editing process and it's not widely considered authoritative. Furthermore, many of the articles are biased and/or written for maximum lulz effect. As a link, it can work, as a reference for information, it's right out. Thanks. FCYTravis 21:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For information about how frequently and in what ways the template for the NNDB is currently being used in various Wikipedia articles, one needs to click on "what links here" in Template:Nndb name (the template page), not simply the article page for the NNDB: i.e.,Template Nndb name: What links here. (Also see the editing history of the template page, for previous decision to "keep.") The template is very frequently used throughout Wikipedia in "External links" sections and as an external link in References sections. When possible, it is useful to provide clear annotations of problems in such sources being listed as "external links" in Wikipedia articles: e.g., see Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#The inclusion of the NNDB article on Libby in external links, which makes this point; scroll down that page to Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#Section deleted by another editor. I think that it is useful to cite the "Beta version" message posted in the NNDB, as I have tried to do [in the current version of Lewis Libby, n. 18 [cf. n. 5 in the earlier talk page discussion],] and to alert other Wikipedia users to its problematic reliability due to unclear or lacking documentation. Thank you. --NYScholar 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the more recent comment cited by FCYTravis above, when that article on Libby is unprotected, it would be better (in my view) to move the template information in n. 18 to the references section (just as an external link [in "Selected annotated bibliography"]), with the accompanying qualifying annotation. I suggest that by way of example, because I think a similarly-annotated template link to the NNDB article on Wolfowitz is useful in this article on him, also not in a specific note citation but in the references section (in the other biographical accounts sec.). --NYScholar 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)]

As an example, here's the annotation currently in n. 18 of the Libby article; I've removed his name and added "add name" by way of a kind of format:

[Some details about (add name) listed here may be of questionable reliability ("This is a beta version of NNDB"; corrections and comments are requested).]

--NYScholar 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism -- the removal of valid categories

The removal of relevant, factual, and fully valid categories is considered vandalism. Please desist from vandalizing this article. The categories that are consistently removed include:

• Category:American bankers
• Category:Jewish Americans
• Category:Jewish American politicians
• Category:Jewish businesspeople

--Wassermann 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please desist from violations of WP:CIVIL; removal of WP:BLP#Use_of_categories violating material is not "vandalism". See also WP:CAT: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've removed Category:Designated terrorist organizations from Hamas, since it arguably (and apparently) violates WP:WTA. Nbauman 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

There appears to be some vandalism occurring: 68.184.46.189 appears to be inserting profane material [... then deleted by 68.192.166.39 (see correction below)...]: [4] [5]. Some of the unsourced statements in the article also need either deletion or the provision of reliable verifiable sources pursuant to WP:BLP and related Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I tried to provide some additional reliable verified and verifiable sources for some of the statements; I have been unable to do so for others, which remain unattributed. I've run out of time. I've indicated at least some places where they are still needed. This article still needs considerable cleanup, particularly regarding verifying sources placed in it and also attributing currently still-unsourced statements with full citations. See the guidelines and policies linked at top of this talk page, especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Attribution, as these pertain to WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You might be getting confused. User:68.184.46.189 indeed vandalised this article, twice. One of these was reverted by User:68.192.166.39, but not the other. As 68.192 belongs to Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) and 68.184 belongs to Charter Communications, I doubt this is the same person, despite the coincidentally similar IP... Nil Einne 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the second anon. IP address in brackets above pursuant to your comment. My point is that whoever it is who is inserting profane material into this and other Wikipedia articles really should not be doing that. Thanks for your pointing out the differences between the two IP addresses. I hadn't noticed that. I did wonder why the same anon IP user would insert and then delete such material, but I do not speculate about the motives of vandals. Their conduct violates Wikipedia guidelines; WP:BLP asks responsible users to remove such material on sight, that is what I did, explained the deletion in my editing summary, and then also posted about it here. Sorry for the error in mistaking the two similar anon IP addresses for one. --NYScholar 04:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately vandals don't care about what should and shouldn't be done and tend to be attracted to controversial articles like this one. If it get's out of hand, then you might want to request semi protection but so far, it seems just run of the mill stuff Nil Einne 10:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Article is grossly overwritten

This article is an incredibly verbose and ultimately confusing account of an only moderately important political figure. To be sure, Wolfowitz is influential and controversial, but it just makes no sense to say 5 times as much about him as, say, Adlai Stevenson. Heck, the Wolfowitz page is longer than the one for Abraham Lincoln.

It would be a service to Wikipedia and its readers to shorten this article by a factor of 3. A lot of the verbiage could be moved to other pages, although I don't know how many people really care. Greg Kuperberg 05:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to put my two cents in: sure, it's long, but instead of complaining about how unfair it is :why not expand the article on Abe Lincoln? Wikipedia is about being encyclopedic: encompassing :great amounts of knowledge and learning. It doesn't need to sound as if it was written by a :third grader. If the language is too flowery, make it clearer. Just don't remove valid :information. Fifth Rider 16:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It isn't that the language is too "flowery", it's that a useful summary is buried in too many details. People are missing the forest for the trees. You can't remove the details in present conditions, because there are people pouring in more details all the time. Yes, a third grader wouldn't write this much, but a seventh grader might well, because a lot of seventh graders don't know when to stop. The Wikipedia size guide is very clear: An article over 100kb almost certainly should be divided up. This one is 132kb and growing.

The best solution is to wait a few months until Wolfowitz fades from public attention; then someone can replace each section by a reasonable summary and export it to a separate article. Frankly I'm not convinced that these detail-heavy, citation-heavy passages are very useful for anybody, but the reasonable Wikipedia compromise is to export rather than delete. Greg Kuperberg 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey spank buddies, this article is too long. Think about what is useful. Don't have an opinion have a reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.162.255 (talk • contribs) 04:44, May 31, 2007

Notes and References

Does anyone know why the cited references are in a "Notes" section and a list of a bunch of (presumably not used as references) other external links are in a "References" section? It seems to me that the "Notes" section needs to be renamed "References" and the "References" section renamed "External links" and dramatically shortened. --ElKevbo 21:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes are "footnotes" to the article; they are in notes format. The References list may include both sources cited in the notes (in bibliographical format; last name first, alphabetized) and external source links. There is no "External links" section when the References section includes external links (almost all of the citations are to external links), but there can be an additional section of useful related external links. There are a variety of ways that sources are listed in bibliographies in Wikipedia; the options are guidelines and not requirements in Wikipedia:Citing sources, e.g. One has to scroll through and read the whole presentation there to see the varieties of options possible in citing sources in bibliographies and (alphabetized) lists of reference sources. "< ref >" and "< /ref >" are simply the html code for in-text citations ("notes"; "footnotes"); there are a variety of ways (including templates, which I find both unwieldy and often incorrectly formatted by many Wikipedia editors, resulting in errors in the ways that citations in "Notes" format post. The prevailing citation format in this particular article (which I worked on revising considerably) is first name then last name (in "Notes"/footnotes) and last name then first name (if there are authors) in the "References" (Bibliography) sections. Please examine the editing summaries throughout the editing history for specific changes over an extended period of time (weeks now). Thanks. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full citations ("full citations") (authors' names, titles, publications, places of publication [for books], dates of publication, and dates accessed [not simply external links]) are required for controversial articles on living persons: see WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and other guidelines and policies linked in tagged notices at the top of this talk page. --NYScholar 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[Note:I renamed "References" section to "Bibliography" for greater clarity. --NYScholar 22:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)]

It's extraordinarily messy, confusing, ugly, and completely unnecessary to have the article formatted and presented in this manner. But if you're happy with it then it's *way* too much work for me to try to fix. Happy editing. --ElKevbo 22:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(We were cross-posting, ElKevbo: this is what I was writing prior to seeing "editing conflict" message on my screen:):[See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Notes, References, and Further Reading sections for related information; scroll down through all the examples and various source-citation possiblities. They are numerous and there are links to the various handbooks and guidelines in various disciplines provided by various disciplinary associations (Modern Language Association (MLA), American Psychological Association (APA), Harvard referencing (links provided in the Citing sources page), Wikipedia templates (not required, sometimes not even recommended, but possibilities), etc. A key conventional rule for any article is that its notes and bibliography formatting be consistently used throughout it. --NYScholar 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)]

I have no doubt that what y'all have done is "proper." But it's still ugly, messy, confusing, etc. :) It also seems to be a rather silly holdover from print media that doesn't work well and isn't necessary in hypertext. But if it works for y'all... --ElKevbo 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think you've answered my questions and instead have cited a bunch of common knowledge "citations are good" and "here's how you cite a reference" statements. I know how to cite references. I want to know why there are two sections with references in this article. If they're duplicates of one another with one in a different order than the other then that's just stupid. I assume that is not the case therefore I must be missing something. --ElKevbo 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We are cross-posting, and you are replying while I am still in the midst of trying to clarify. I find the answers to your questions already discussed in Wikipedia:Citing sources; some other things I was trying to add:

Additional point: It is extremely important to have what Wikipedia terms "full citations" (see link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full citations when URLs become defunct in order to know what a source citation is and to be able to locate and access it either online or in print. Not every reference source is an online source. Some are both print and online and/or print or online. It is important for a source citation in a note and a source entry in a bibliography (References list) to make clear what kind of item a source is and to attribute it properly. Otherwise, readers will not be able to find, check, verify and/or read the sources attributed in the article. WP:Attribution. --NYScholar 22:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For more info. see: Wikipedia:Citing sources#What to do when a reference link "goes dead".

Also, bibliographical lists are alphabetized versions of what is cited in an article and given in notes in the normal order. It depends on which citations handbook guidelines one uses: there are many possibilities: e.g., Bibliographies of alphabetized lists of reference sources cited in notes may be lists of "Works Cited" or "Works Consulted" or "A Selected Bibliography" and so on. Wikipedia does not invent conventions of scholarship; it adapts to already-existing conventions of scholarship, sometimes in confusing ways (in my view). I've done the best that I think that I can do with the guidelines and policies given in Wikipedia. Many articles in Wikipedia are inconsistent in the provision of sources in notes and reference lists. There is no single format recommended and many sometimes-conflicting guidelines and policies that are difficult for many editors to navigate and to interpret. --NYScholar 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For more rationale, please consult earlier discussion of the need for "clean up" in this article and earlier problems that existed in missing citations and improperly-formatted citations in notes and external links sometimes just added wily-nily throughout the article. See tagged notices re: BLP that require "full citations" for controversial statements about a living person. --NYScholar 23:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Matter of length of article again

For all of the effort to fill in notes and references, the article is ever more over-written, and consequently less and less useful to most users. No Wikipedia article should be this long; very few should even be half as long. If you want to say this much about Wolfowitz, you should expand on it in a series of pages.

Someone tried to at least begin to pare down the enormous verbiage. His edit was reverted, as if the article is a hydra. I have to ask whether some of the editors are obsessed with this page and have no real concern for brevity. Greg Kuperberg 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article (notes embedded in it for verification/documentation)

<<

Gaouette observes:

The controversy has added fuel to anger at the bank over Wolfowitz's management style and his involvement in two unusual and large pay raises given to his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a bank employee on loan to the State Department.... Wolfowitz's problems have been compounded by revelations that Defense Department officials told one of their contractors to hire Riza for a short-term contract while Wolfowitz was the deputy Defense secretary. The Pentagon announced Wednesday [April 18, 2007] that it was looking into the matter.... These issues will be on the table as the bank's board of directors meets today [April 19, 2007] to debate Wolfowitz's future.">

On April 19, 2007, on the website of Fox News, Richard Behar posted his exclusive interview with Roberto Danino, the bank's former general counsel, who claimed that Wolfowitz froze him out of the loop because he "'didn't like my advice'" on the Shaha Riza compensation matter in 2005, which led to Danino quitting his post at the bank altogether several months later.

BBC News and other media outlets reported on the meeting in which Wolfowiz "faced" the World Bank's board of directors: he and his lawyer Robert Bennett continued to assert that he had engaged in no "conflict of interest" regarding "bogus charges" concerning the "promotion and pay rises" of his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, who was "seconded to the State Department" from the World Bank when he became its president in 2005, and that he had consulted the Bank's "ethics committee" about the matter before proceeding; he even "won a fresh endorsement from his former boss," President George W. Bush, who argued that Wolfowitz "should stay" head of the Bank and be "given a fair hearing." Attending a conference on education for the poor in Brussels, Belgium, amidst news reports that the World Bank ethics committee members disputed his claims, Wolfowitz insisted in a press conference that the controversy would not be "distracting" from the work of the World Bank. Yet, others are focusing on how "wary" Europeans are of potential international financial instability resulting from the continuing controversy affecting the World Bank president:

So guarded was the reception for Wolfowitz that Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor of the Exchequer, canceled plans to appear on the podium with him at a news conference. British officials said publicly that Brown had decided to leave early to campaign in the Scottish elections. But privately they admitted that appearing side by side with Wolfowitz had become a political liability.

Wolfowitz initially escaped the hoard of reporters waiting to greet him at the entrance of the conference, held at the European Commission's headquarters, by entering the sprawling building through an underground garage. But at a news conference where former African child laborers discussed the importance of going to school and where Wolfowitz himself spoke movingly about his grandfather's lack of education, his discourse was disrupted by recurring questions about his stewardship.

Asked if he would resign and whether he was concerned the allegations against him were distracting from the bank's development goals, Wolfowitz stressed that the work of the bank was continuing.

"The work of the bank goes on," he said. "There are millions of poor people who depend on us, and we will continue that work. It's a matter of keeping promises made. We're talking about the long term, it goes beyond me."

But he sidestepped questions about his future, referring journalists to his testimony to a panel investigating his role in promoting Riza, for whom he helped arrange a pay raise, promotion and transfer to the State Department after he arrived at the bank in 2005. "The board is considering the issue," he said.

On Tuesday [May 1, 2007], two former top officials at the bank issued new statements disputing the contention of Wolfowitz that they and others knew about his actions on behalf of the woman, who had been employed at the bank for seven years when he joined. The officials' testimony exposed the extraordinary discord at the highest levels of the bank after Wolfowitz became president.

After some delay, the World Bank board's decision on Wolfowitz's future with the organization was at first expected within a week. In their "Communication" of May 1, 2007, the executive directors of the World Bank Group state:

Following the April 16 statement of the Development Committee, the ad hoc group has continued its work, taking it forward in an orderly manner, with fair process and careful deliberation.

The ad hoc group has completed an additional round of interviews with the people involved and received a number of statements. It will now draw its conclusions from the information obtained from the documents and during the course of the interviews. It will then expeditiously prepare its report and submit it to the Executive Directors for their decisions.

The Executive Directors remain very concerned about the impact on the work of the Bank Group and are committed to the earliest possible resolution of the matter.

On May 2, 2007, FoxNews.com posted a detailed news analysis complaining that the World Bank scandal had "morphed into a full-blown battle of prepared statements" -- with no reporters permitted to ask follow-up questions. Fox listed some key unanswered questions for all the major players in the Riza saga -- including Danino, Melkert and Wolfowitz. The analysis concluded that "everybody involved in the saga still has things to reveal."

On May 5, 2007, Reuters reported that

More than 700 World Bank staff have signed a letter expressing concern and calling for a resolution of a crisis involving bank president Paul Wolfowitz as a decision over his leadership looms.

In a rare move, the 718 employees asked to add their names to a letter first circulated on April 26 by 46 World Bank officials working to implement the bank's anti-corruption strategy. The surge of signatures, on a public letter on the bank's website, reflected signs of increasing discontent.

The next 72 hours will be critical for the former No. 2 Pentagon official accused of violating staff rules by directing a high-paid promotion for his companion Shaha Riza, a World Bank Middle East expert, as an investigating panel prepares to announce its findings.

In the edition of New York Times of Monday, May 7, 2007, Steven R. Weisman reported from Washington, D.C. that by the weekend ending Sunday, May 6,

The World Bank committee investigating misconduct charges against Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank president, failed to complete its review on schedule...but bank officials said the panel would eventually find that he violated bank rules barring conflicts of interest.

The committee, made up of 7 of the 24 members of the bank’s board, indicated last week that it would reach a conclusion about Mr. Wolfowitz on Saturday [May 5], and would transmit its findings to him to allow him to prepare for a rebuttal this week.

But no results were transmitted by early Sunday evening, though some officials said it was theoretically possible for the panel to finish later Sunday night.

Bank officials said the committee was also preparing a recommendation on what the full board should do in light of its finding but would not be disclosing that to Mr. Wolfowitz.

The committee is considering whether to recommend an outright removal or some kind of no-confidence vote that may persuade him to resign. That part of the conclusion is not likely to become known until later, bank officials said.

Later, on Monday, May 7, 2007, news media reported that Kevin Kellems, "director of strategy in external affairs and senior adviser" and "the right-hand man of embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz," has "resigned," which some commentators regarded as a "blow" to the embattled World Bank president and some analysts as "likely an effort to save his boss."

By Tuesday, May 8, 2007, according to Lesley Wroughton reporting for Reuters, amidst ostensible support for Wolfowitz from the United States and increasing concerns from the European community, the World Bank Group's ethics panel had already given Wolfowitz three days to respond to their findings (by Wednesday, May 9), eliciting a request from Bob Bennett, Wolfowitz's lawyer, that the Bank grant Wolfowitz at least the five days prescribed by its policies to respond to "such allegations," and, preferably, a full week, and the United States Treasury "urged" that the Bank accommodate Bennett's request for more time to respond. "European board sources" said that "Wolfowitz was unlikely to quit even though the panel's findings further damaged his credibility." Not attributing Wolfowitz's situation to his being an American, Dutch Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister Wouter Bos appeared less concerned about the process of how the World Bank selects its presidents, who are by tradition American, and more about the dubious "integrity" of this particular incumbent.

According to more recent press reports, the World Bank Group then gave Wolfowitz until Friday, May 11, 2007, to respond to the "report by a special bank panel that accuses Wolfowitz of circumventing bank rules when he arranged for the compensation package." Whereas "[c]ritics - including many European countries, many on the bank's staff, aid groups and others - want Wolfowitz to resign," as they "contend that the controversy has tarnished the bank's reputation and could hobble its ability to raise billions of dollars from countries around the world to bankroll financial help for poor nations," Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow continue the Bush administration's call for a "fair hearing" for Wolfowitz, "still" expressing "full support" for him. >>

Notes

The above material (between <</>>) has been updated. Cut out the portions that could be summarized more briefly or deleted; other very lengthy sections of the article in the Career section, especially those apparently plagiarized from or insufficiently attributed to books and articles need shortening as well. --NYScholar 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"fled the anti-Semitic unrest of between-the-wars Poland" is too broad and inappropriate

This is inaccurate, particularly after seeing the featured article History of Jews in Poland - see Interwar period 1918–39, which states that claims of anti-Semitic attacks, while true in some cases such as the Blue Army in Warsaw, were exaggerated (summarised in the American Morgenthau Report). To cite a publication from Cornell which doesn't necessarily conform to the NPOV policy is unencylcopedic. The phrase should be removed or replaced with something more appropriate. Brisvegas 11:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is reliable and documented properly. It is not "unencyclopedic". Earlier editors apparently plagiarized from it throughout this article; I placed some appropriate source citations in the article as notes after identifying this unattributed source for information that they inserted earlier. This article is not discussing the "history of Jews in Poland"; it's citing a documented statement about why a particular family left Poland in 1920. The statement that is quoted is quoted properly and sourced properly as a point of view on the family's emigration. [Please see WP:BLP#Public figures for encyclopedic rationale for its inclusion.] Whether people dispute the perception of "claims of anti-Semitic attacks" as being "exaggerated" does not dispute the reason given for a particular family's decision to leave Poland in 1920 in that source. If one can document with reliable sources other reasons why the Wolfowitz family emigrated from Poland to the United States in 1920, then please do so. This talk page is not, however, a general discussion of history (not a message board on the topic); it's devoted to making improvements to the article. [added a break here]

Similar statements have been made in this article before without proper (or any) sources provided. I believe that this Cornell Alumni Magazine Online is the source of some of those statements; I've used quotation marks and given the citation to the source. There is no Wikipedia guideline or policy in Wikipedia:Reliable sources or Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Attribution that renders the Cornell Alumni Magazine Online article inappropriate as a source for this article in Wikipedia. [added a break here]

If you dispute the quotation re: the Wolfowitzes' emigration from Poland, then you need to find a notable, reliable, verifiable source to document your dispute about their motives for leaving Poland in 1920 that might serve to add to the article or to comment on this quotation in another note (for example). But there is no rationale for deleting a properly-sourced statement. See Wikipedia:NPOV and WP:POV; WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines re: such matters. --NYScholar 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the important qualification in the previous user's comment: "while true in some cases such as the Blue Army in Warsaw...." The Wolfowitz family's perception of the situation in Poland at that time is what David Dudley is describing; not the history of antisemitism in Warsaw or the rest of Poland between the wars. It would be nice to have another source for Dudley's presentation; it appears to be based on interviews with many people in the Cornell University/Ithaca, NY community and others in other college and university communities who contributed to his development of the article. Other profiles cited throughout this Wikipedia article, published in newspapers, give no more sources than he does for their statements, and those articles are being cited throughout. All such newspaper and magazines are considered "reliable" sources in Wikipedia, to be published in reliable publications. An "alumni magazine" is not a college newspaper (though college newspapers are also considered reliable sources in Wikipedia); such magazines have editors and editorial oversight. --NYScholar 22:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Even a cursory study of "antisemitism in Poland between the wars" suggests that the initial comment that I replied to may be the user's own controversial point of view based on his or her own "original research." (Citing an article in Wikipedia as a source for such a point of view is not acceptable in another Wikipedia article; that is not, in Wikipedia's guidelines, considered "encyclopedic".) If one wants to do "original research" on the matter, one can consult a multitude of sources online and in libraries: e.g. (online): Google books presents some texts online which contradict what the above user states; e.g. Living With Antisemitism: The Jewish Response in the Modern Period, edited by Jehuda Reinharz--[6]. The Polish people's own perception of at least some significant antisemitism between WWI and WWII (during the end of WWI and beginning of WWII--[from 1918-1938], roughly, during the decades of the 1920s and 30s) is well documented in books and articles on that subject (not Wolfowitz, the subject of this article). Whether or not their perception was "exaggerated", however, is not really relevant to the quotation from Dudley in this article on Wolfowitz. The source states that his father's family had that perception and left Poland due to it. Without another source stating otherwise, one has no other point of view to document for their reasons for emigrating from Poland in 1920, when Wolfowitz's father would have been about ten years old. --NYScholar 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A user deleted the material claiming that it is "irrelevant" to this article; some time later I restored some material from the source and the source citation which the user also had deleted. That particular source was being/is being used throughout this article (earlier without attribution; though later I found the source and created the note citation for it); See above. --NYScholar 19:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism? Sources?

Material in this article seems lifted from unidentified and unattributed secondary (not primary) sources--e.g. a blog with quotations of passages from The Rise of the Vulcans by James Mann (or some similar online source)--this one is by Laura Rozen and called War and Piece.[7], the blog post is dated April 25, 2004. (It quotes in full a passage from which statements have been posted in the article as bulleted items.) (Or, alternatively, the material may come from the primary source, the book by Mann, but still need page reference citations.) I may be back to post a possibly-useful interview with Mann that can serve as a secondary source of pertinent statements that he makes concerning Wolfowitz that may also be repeated in this article without proper citations. --NYScholar 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the interview of James Mann conducted by Harry Kreisler, of the Institute of International Studies, at University of California, Berkeley, on February 14, 2005, with embedded hyperlinks.[8]; e.g., espec. [9] and [10]. [There are a lot of other such interviews accessible online, including audio at NPR. I don't know what sources previous editors used for the large amount of unattributed material in this article, but they need to document their sources so that they can be checked and verified by others.] --NYScholar 01:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 01:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)]

I would like to point out that citing an entire book for a fact (or quote), rather than the book and page number is a very poor citation style. It makes it extremely difficult to actually verify the fact because someone would have to read the entire book, without overlooking anything, in order to spot fabricated facts or quotes. Citing page numbers makes it much easier to verify facts and quotes. (As Bob Woodward said in Bush at War, "Paul Wolfowitz is a pacifist at heart.") --JHP 06:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Throughout this article some editor or some editors have lifted material that they say is from Mann's book and other sources (perhaps cited actually by Mann) and not identified the page numbers in the primary source (Mann's book) from which the material comes or the secondary sources quoting Mann from which the material comes. It is not clear what sources these editors were/are using. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Attribution for the guidelines for identifying and making "full citations" for sources actually being used in Wikipedia articles. --NYScholar 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys are absolutely right. For example, this section caught my eye as I was reading the article today:

"Wolfowitz chose the University of Chicago over Harvard University, since he wanted to study under Bloom's mentor, Leo Strauss.[citations needed] Wolfowitz enrolled in Strauss' courses, on Plato and Montesquieu, but, according to Mann, they 'did not become especially close,' before Strauss retired. Nevertheless, as Mann points out, "in subsequent years colleagues both in government and academia came to view Wolfowitz as one of the heirs to Leo Strauss's intellectual traditions.'[citations needed]"

The comment "according to Mann" obviously refers to a discussion about James Mann's book. I think this is a cut & paste job, not citing an entire book as a source. Sometime this week I'm going to go back into the history and see where these additions came from. I suspect I will find nothing but random IP addresses and various single purpose accounts. If that is the case, I will be summarily deleting unsourced commentary as probable copyright violations. If anyone wants to save a particular section, I would recommend re-writing it in your own words and providing a reliable source. Best, MoodyGroove 13:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Interesting factoid on plagiarism Shezen News, China has an article that is almost word-for-word identical to this in parts. Could be we plagiarized from the same source, more likely they pliagiarized from Wikipedia! Smallbones 14:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes that is the case. But it's obvious from the above captioned comments that parts of this article were transferred from some other article that was discussing James Mann's book. As I said, I will investiage to see who added these comments to the article. I suspect I will find nothing but random IP addresses and single purpose accounts. This problem is rampant on the Wikipedia, and I am finding that it is especially common in articles related to neoconservatives, the Bush administration, the War in Iraq, and anyone related to Leo Strauss. Everything in an encyclopedia should be reliably sourced. That is especially true of biographies of living persons. When we settle for less than that, we compromise the integrity of the Wikipedia, and allow opportunities for weasels to come along and insert half truths throughout an article. It's also why we have a policy with regard to burden of evidence. Best, MoodyGroove 15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I just spent the last couple of hours looking through the edit history of this article. Of note, there was a POV problem from the very first edit by Stevertigo (talk) contributions on 5 March 2003. Various unsourced narratives immediately followed, with any positive information (like a list of Wolfowitz's public service awards) removed at the same time. Wolfowitz was almost immediately identified as a member of the PNAC by User:BlackWidow contributions (confirmed sockpuppet of User:DW contributions) on 18 March 2003, and not to be outdone, User:Aloha (talk) contributions labeled Wolfowitz a "Straussian" on 4 April 2003. No reliable sources were referenced, as is the typical pattern of editors who attempt to stigmatize Bush administration officials or link together Leo Strauss, the PNAC, and the War in Iraq. As for the sections that make reference to Mann's book, User:Mutt (talk) contributions made 80 edits between 2 July 2005 and 18 July 2005. In several of his edits [11] [12] [13] he explicitly mentions that he is using Mann's book as a source in his edit summary. So there you have it. The good, the bad, and the ugly. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

ugly picture

don't you have another one, this one is really ugly... Paris By Night 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

WTF???? --JHP 05:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion proposal

"Naomi Klein has pointed-out the overall corruption of The World Bank regardless of the Paul Wolfowitz scandal, and has called for the organization's complete dissolution."

Propose to delete, 1st irrelevant critic, 2nd biased language ("overall corruption"), 3rd no relation to wolfowitz, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podmok (talk • contribs) 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted it (at least for meantime); it was placed incoherently out of chronological sequence in the article (see the date of source given--May 3, 2007) and not notable or relevant at that point in the article; its citation was not formatted correctly (needed full citation); its source was not identified as a reliable source. The use of double brackets in the phrase "Paul Wolfowitz scandal" to a non-Wikipedia article made it appear to be pushing a POV. Dubious material at that point in the article. See above for material that used to be in the article since removed (due to concerns about article length expressed by other(s) previously). --NYScholar 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC) [I restored my comment here, which was deleted either inadvertently or intentionally by someone (violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). Please see all the talk page tagged notices at the top of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes (UTC). Clearly the person who is deleting my comment is not "Open to dialogue on this" as the person deleted the previous dialogue. The editing history summaries make clear what the problems with this continual re-insertion of this dubious material are and why it should not be added in the article, especially at that point in the article and in the kind of POV language that the inserters of it are using. --NYScholar 03:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)]

NC is an influential WB critic and journalist and author of No Logo. To use the word "corruption" in this context is to state what is factually correct and often written about by reliable journalsts, human rights groups, trade analysts, diplomats and presidents. I really think this point should stay in the article. Open to dialogue on this.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstteevvee (talk • contribs) 21:49, May 19, 2007 (UTC)

This source has been deleted a few times now by more than one editor--It is placed incoherently in terms of chronology, not properly identified in terms of "full citations" (see tag at top of page re: WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Citing sources etc., and it makes no sense to include it at that point in the article. The red linking of an article that does not currently appear in Wikipedia indicates POV and should not be included, especially at that point in this article. There is no article on the so-called "scandal" that the adder/adders of this source imply. It is not within the guidelines of Wikipedia:NPOV. The date of its publication is earlier in May and it should not be placed in a paragraph discussing chronology in mid May and May 17 on. By May 17/18/19, its point of view is outdated, and placing it at that point in the article indicates pushing a POV: for related issues, please see WP:POV-PUSH. --NYScholar 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wolfowitz's residence

In response to your Paul Wolfowitz edit in which you said, "sources cited--he lived in Chevy Chase when married to Claire [Clare] Selgin Wolfowitz; reliable source not yet cited for his current resid. in Washington, D.C. (NW); current add. unr", I'm not sure how to use a constantly changing Newspaper website homepage as a source, but right now on the WashingtonPost.com homepage there is a photo of Wolfowitz with a caption that reads, "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaves his house in Chevy Chase, Md. on May 15, 2007. (Getty Images)" I can't find it now, but on May 16, NYTimes.com had a photo of Wolfowitz leaving his home. There was a caption that said something along the lines of "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaving his Chevy Chase, Maryland home this morning." The photo even showed his street address, "7104", on the side of his door. A quick google search for "Paul Wolfowitz" and "7104" confirms that he lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland. --JHP 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a photo with quote: "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaves his house in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland, May 17, 2007."[14] --JHP 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've moved this section from my personal talk page to this article's talk page, where I believe it is more relevant and more people can benefit from reading it. [I corrected my earlier misspelling of his wife's first name from the editing summary; it's "Clare" not "Claire".] --NYScholar 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC) [Just updated: I just took out the "near Washington, D.C."--which I had added earlier and left the city and quoted the caption in the citation, which I revised somewhat according to the prevailing note citation format used throughout the rest of this article so as to incorporate the quotation as well. --NYScholar 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)]

Chicago?

Took out the Chicago wikiprojects template; not sure why it is here. If it is legitimate, a registered user can add it as needed. Sorry if it is incorrect to delete it. It just seems unwarranted to me. --NYScholar 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to person who replied on my talk page; will move that expl. here in a moment.

Here it is:

Paul Wolfowitz {{ChicagoWikiProject}} tag

WP:WPChi tags all articles with Category:University of Chicago alumni. I have added the parameter values following our priority scale. If this is a problem let me know. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I see the U of Chicago conn.; at first I thought it was a city of Chicago and didn't see that conn. Will restore tag if you did not already; though I think it should be placed below the more general talkheader and WP:BLP tags. Will move this to talk page of article in a bit. --NYScholar 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The new way of tagging the article is, I think, much better as it doesn't not obtrude or interfere with the general talkpage header or trump other headers. --NYScholar 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)]

The user who deleted the tag apparently didn't realize that Wolfowitz is included in the project as a U of Chicago alumnus. Please read the comments above more carefully; please don't just delete the tag entirely again without some further discussion of the matter with the other user, TonyTheTiger, who explained its being on this talk page. I restored the tag in a different format so as not to obscure or interfere w/ the more important biography tags. --NYScholar 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct Name Above Picture

Please change his name above his picture from Wolfotitz to Wolfowitz. 75.185.66.16 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone corrected it. Apparently, the article has been semi-protected due to such vandalism. (See above.) --NYScholar 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Hi everyone. I have some comments about the pictures on this page. All of the pics are small, and I think that making them larger would be good, for they are hard to see. Also, there is a substantial lack of photographs before the "Deputy Secretary of Defense" section, with only one pic being present, besides the main pic in the infobox. I have tried to fix this problem with resizing many of the images, but my edits were undone, as far as I can tell. I also added a pic of Wolfowitz and former First Lady Nancy Reagan, but the image size was lowered on that pic too. Is there any reason why? Happyme22 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the earlier comments on the overly-long length of this article (as tagged) and earlier complaints by earlier users that there were too many photos in the article. Also, some of the photos do not seem consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Anyone can click on a photo and see a much-larger version of it. The photos are just meant to be small versions of larger jpg or even smaller files. An encyclopedia is not a "picture book"; and the emphasis needs to be on the text not on the photos. The larger-sized photos slow down (lengthen) the loading and reading of the text. --NYScholar 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[Deleted unsigned inappropriate comment. See editing history of talk page. --NYScholar 23:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)]

WP:1RR: Discuss first

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles: removed to talk page: problematic passage being added in reverts by other user:

On the other hand, there is a very long tradition of interpretation of Article 51, going back to the founding generation of the United Nations itself, that supports Wolfowitz's more expansive interpretation. [see e.g. Clark M. Eichelberger, "The United Nations Charter: A Growing Document," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1947.] (added by 20:10, May 22, 2007 Annie06) (editing history)].[15]

(Note the source that user is citing w/o a link is dated 1947!) The invasion occurred in March 2003. The controversy about it occurred for two years before and for the 4 years after that: about six years. Other sources needed: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV, and WP:BLP#Public figures. --NYScholar 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How is adding that passage improving this article on Wolfowitz? (See tagged notice at top of this page re: need to focus on discussing improvements to the article; this is not a message board about the subject or related subjects. Statements need "full citations" and to be pertinent, reliable, and verifiable by all readers of the article. --NYScholar 00:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I don't find the other user's editing history summary (linked above) clear at all. I don't see any "error" in what I wrote as that user claims. If the user wants to cite Wolfowitz's own point of view, cite a documented quotation in which he expresses it or a source that explains what Wolfowitz's point of view is. (Already cited earlier in the paragraph anyway?) What the user is adding violates WP:NOR. The user is expressing the user's own point of view about matters relating to 2003-2007 and citing a source from 1947 that appears both outdated and no longer pertinent to the paragraph in this article itself. It goes off the topic of the paragraph, which is criticism of Wolfowitz's already cited view about "pre-emption" and "pre-emptive strikes". See the larger contexts of the section. It follows earlier sections. --NYScholar 01:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [Moreover, the cross-referenced article section on 2003 invasion of Iraq already discusses the topic in more detail; discussing it further here will unduly lengthen the article and take it further off the topic of Wolfowitz's views (already cited at start of para.) --NYScholar 01:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)]

Note: When I have some more time, I may try to look for the article cited by the other user and see if I can find an online version of it to link to (if someone else does not supply it here (in talk) first), perhaps adding some appropriate transition. I still think however, that it may be that such an historically-dated article is better placed in one of the already-cross-linked articles dealing more directly with the history of/perspectives on preemptive war and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Iraq war. --NYScholar 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry--it's not a free source: here's a link to the subscription-based version from archives of the journal: the notice says that it requires an individual or library (log-in identity) subscription to The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Online (or a user's fee). --NYScholar 02:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on preemptive war includes some sources; e.g., "The American Strategy of Preemptive War and International Law", which links to the online abstract of a published paper by Dietrich Murswiek, of the Albert Ludwigs Universität Freiburg - Institute of Public Law, dated March 2003, which is a source contemporary with the invasion. --NYScholar 06:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving unsourced passages from article to talk page

Further information: § Plagiarism? Sources?

Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, wrote Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2006). This book details the behind-the-scenes decision-making that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq during the initial months of the Bush Administration (before September 11th). In this book, they wrote: "Wolfowitz sought to enlist the Joint Staff's support to develop a strategy for aiding an anti-Saddam resistance. Saddam had drained the southern marshes in Iraq to deprive Shiite rebels of a sanctuary, so Wolfowitz wondered if the dams could be bombed to re-create them. The Pentagon lawyers challenged whether such a strike would be consistent with the rules of war. Wolfowitz's view was that it would be more humane than leaving the Shiites to Saddam's mercy. Wolfowitz also wanted to know what it would take to arm and train Iraqi insurgents."

The United States invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003 and victory was declared on May 1, 2003 but this was only the beginning of Wolfowitz’s problems. During the reconstruction work that followed "[t]he American planners portrayed a mixture of supreme confidence and woeful lack of preparation." Kampfner states "[t]hese clean-cut young Americans … were adherents of the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld school of ‘revolutionary transformation’. They believed that, with goodwill, they could resurrect Iraq in a matter of months." This did not prove to be the case. Kampfner goes on to say that while "Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Cheney had also invested considerable hopes in Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress," these would also prove to be ill-founded.

Although he may have had considerable influence in the Administration's decision to invade Iraq, in Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor depict Wolfowitz as having little influence on the actual implementation of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. For instance: "At the Pentagon, Wolfowitz and his aides had taken the idea of Iraqi assistance a step further. Dusting off his proposal, made during his years out of office, to arm and equip Iraqi insurgents, Wolfowitz's initial goal was to raise an indigenous opposition army. As first imagined the plan was bold: there would be thousands of Iraqi freedom fighters who would battle Saddam's forces alongside U.S. and allied troops. Abizaid, who had served on the Joint Staff before moving to CENTCOM as Franks' deputy supported Wolfowitz's concept. Like Wolfowitz, Abizaid wanted to put an Iraqi face on the invasion force. Most of the administration were skeptical, if not opposed, to Wolfowitz's plan … [General Tommy Franks] thought that an Iraqi force would just get in the way and gave no weight to the benefits such a unit might provide in terms of local knowledge and language." According to Gordon and Trainor, money was poured into the idea but it never got the necessary backing or planning: "Franks turned to Feith in a Pentagon corridor, letting him know where he stood: 'I don't have time for this fucking bullshit.'....Rumsfeld was not pushing the idea very hard and Franks was not shy about taking on the defense secretary's subordinates....The Defense official blamed bureaucratic obstacles and lack of enthusiasm on the part of CENTCOM. White House officials and CENTCOM said that the fiasco showed that Feith and his team were better at drafting conservative policy manifestos than instituting programs."

In Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor also state that, "Wolfowitz and his aides suffered another setback when the White House rejected their proposal for the establishment of a provisional Iraqi government." The State department favored "internals" whereas Wolfowitz had proposed exiles. Rumsfeld was also opposed to the idea because he believed that an Iraqi provisional government would "get in the way". When the US announced that it would be running the country for a year and that Iraqis would only have an advisory role, Iraqi opposition groups futilely objected. Activist and academic Kanan Makiya, who supported regime change and had ties to the Iraqi National Congress, wrote an op-ed piece denouncing the decision. Gordon and Trainor also believe that one of the crucial mistakes of the administration was initially sidelining Zalmay Khalilzad and bringing in Paul Bremer instead. The move was criticized by Colin Powell and it's unclear if Wolfowitz supported Rumsfeld's decision to sideline Khalilzad since Khalilzad had in the past been closely associated with Wolfowitz.

There are no [full citations to] sources [given in the above passage(s) and many others in this article, which probably also need to be deleted until they can be properly and fully sourced]; the material is not clearly relevant to this article (see last sentence); and the cross-linked articles amply cover the time period. Without full citations (Wikipedia:Citing sources), this material violates WP:BLP. See tagged notices at top of this talk page and my own and others' comments on plagiarism throughout this article. --NYScholar 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 19:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)] [Added earlier passage(s) too; as I and other editors state earlier in this talk page, page citations are needed to document quotations from a book. Just saying that the material comes from a book is not enough. "Full citations" are required. See WP:BLP. --NYScholar 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC) --NYScholar 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)]

[Please see editorial interpolations in the edit mode of this article throughout. They also explain the problems with missing citations throughout this article. See above sections re: plagiarism problem in this article. --NYScholar 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Further information: § Plagiarism? Sources?

Some or all of the above material appears to have been plagiarized from Random House's own online excerpt from the book Cobra II: See Excerpt posted on randomhouse.com. Accessed May 26, 2007. Such problems of plagiarism need correction throughout this (and other) articles in Wikipedia. Previous editor(s) did not identify this as a source in any "full citations" ("proper citations") to the material being copied from the source (with and without quotation marks). Quotation marks do not suffice; actual page and reference source citations are necessary to document sources of material in Wikipedia articles, especially those on living persons: WP:BLP; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Attribution; Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Contribution to Wolfowitz Bio

[....] [Deleted poorly sourced and potentially libelous material posted to talk page by Public Service (talk · contribs) 19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC). Please see the comments added below by NYScholar. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]

This material (as I say in the editing history summary) violates WP:BLP. It is unsourced [parts are still unsourced; other parts still poorly sourced--see MoodyGroove above, who deleted it from talk page --NYScholar 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]. See the tagged policy (at top) of this page. It is not appropriate to include such unsourced potentially-libelous material in articles on living persons, including articles on living persons who are public figures: WP:BLP#Public figures. I'm moving my reply to this passage also put on my personal talk page to this talk page, where the discussion is appropriate. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[Moved from my personal talk page. Not moving whole passage [it appears above]; the citations are not "full citations" (see the tagged notices above); there are not enough of them to make the whole passage properly sourced according to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Citing sources and it does not adhere to guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:POV, which include policies pertaining to Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --NYScholar 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]] [Updated: Please see the tagged notices to WP:BLP with linked policies and guidelines and also WP:NOR. Thanks. ---NYScholar 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)]

Wolfowitz Bio

I am willing to work with your to meet you editorial requirements for my posting that you removed. The intention is to complete the biographical picture. I have re-added the refs that had gotten removed when someone before you removed the contribution last night. Let me know how you want to proceed. Would you like to first post it to the Discusion section? [Posted by Public Service on my personal talk page.--Public Service 19:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Public Service Have moved here later. --NYScholar 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]

It would be a very good idea to keep this deleted due to WP:BLP until and unless proper and "full citations" (not just external links) are added with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view transitions identifying sources of information (see WP:POV.) Right now, as it is, the above passage requires deletion due to WP:BLP, which requires removing on sight such potentially libelous and unsourced and/or improperly-sourced (insufficiently-sourced) material concerning living persons. I suggest that you work with other editors (not I) on whether or not such material is appropriate in this biography of Wolfowitz. See the talk page of the article and the tags on the top of the talk page. This reads like gossip. It does not seem appropriate content for an encyclopedia article. (Please do not post material relating to discussion of how to improve articles on my talk page. Please post it on the talk page of the article on the subject. Thank you.) I am moving this discussion to the appropriate talk page: Talk:Paul Wolfowitz. My editing history summary in the article on Paul Wolfowitz already cited WP:BLP. It is Wikipedia policy to remove material like what you [Public Service] added (above passages) "on sight". (I do not have time to work on the above passages. Such development of what appears to be very gosssipy and potentially-libelous material about a public figure is not of interest to me.)--NYScholar 20:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. (Qtd. from the policy tagged in WP:BLP notice at top of this page.) [See WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Added link.]--NYScholar 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC) [updated w/ link. --NYScholar 23:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]

[Added q. from the warning (above): --NYScholar 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)]

In my view, the passages added first to the article (which I deleted on sight, citing WP:BLP) and then re-added to this talk page and my personal talk page by the above user) should be removed, deleted, on sight, not only from the article but also from this talk page (see notice w/ links in WP:BLP as tagged on top of this page). See the tagged notice re: other editor's concern about length of this article (on article page): scroll up; read whole history of this article in talk. Passages like these have been deleted before out of already-stated concerns. I leave it to other editors to deal with this matter further. --NYScholar 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deleted poorly sourced and potentially libelous material posted to talk page by Public Service (talk · contribs) 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC). The cited source is completely unacceptable and contains numerous weasel phrases such as "Influential members of staff at the international organisation have complained to its board that..."; "Critics say it would be impossible for Wolfie - as he is nicknamed by Bush..."; "...a Washington insider said..."; "...According to one Republican Administration insider..."; "...A friend of Wolfowitz insisted last night...". Please consult the relevant Wikipedia editing guidelines recommended by NYScholar. MoodyGroove 12:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Recent Controversies: The Wolfowitz biography as currently posted in the section under Recent Controversies contains the following statement regarding Shaha Ali Riza:

"The reported relationship created further controversy concerning Wolfowitz’s nomination to head the World Bank, because the organization's own ethics rules preclude simultaneous employment of couples if one reports to the other even indirectly through a chain of supervision. Sharon Churcher and Annette Witheridge, in The Daily Mail, quote one World Bank employee's statement that "Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest"; the observation of "a Washington insider": "His womanizing has come home to roost … Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha, but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress"; and Wolfowitz's response: "If a personal relationship presents a potential conflict of interest, I will comply with Bank policies to resolve the issue."[11]

In the submitted clarification (which was deleted), the identical accepted source was cited: Sharon Churcher and Annette Witheridge, in The Daily Mail and, a second, respected source (author Sidney Blumenthal) was added (that source, in turn cites a third source: Chris Nelson Reports):

"Following Clare Wolfowitz's letter to the President (http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/05/24/wolfowitz_aftermath/), lawyers for Wolfowitz presented Clare Wolfowitz with a non-disclosure agreement that was directly linked to financial support for her and their three children. She accepted the agreement--which also required that she not disclose it. Clare Wolfowitz alluded to her inability to reply honestly about the non-disclosure agreement in her responses to a 2005 interview for an article by "Mail on Sunday" reporters Sharon Churcher and Annette Witheridge: "On the claim that she wrote a letter to Bush, she said: "that's very interesting but not something I can tell you about." [1]

It is noteworthy that, as currently edited, the section on Paul Wolfowitz's period at SAIS contains no reference to the reported affair at SAIS and the circumstances of his departure. In contrast, the Wikipedia entry on his spouse, Clare Selgin Wolfowitz, cites the affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clare_Selgin_Wolfowitz (the whole entry has two sources).

The current Wikipedia biographical entry on Paul Wolfowitz makes no reference to the same cited source ("Mail on Sunday" reporters Sharon Churcher and Annette Witheridge) that Clare Wolfowitz wrote President Bush concerning her husband's affairs. In consequence, the Wikipedia biography is devoid of any context on the circumstances of Paul Wolfowitz's 2001 departure from SAIS and his 2007 departure from the World Bank.

In contrast, in the section on Wolfowitz's tenure at SAIS, the editors of the Paul Wolfowitz biography accepted the following statement and posted it without attribution:

"He was instrumental in adding more than $75 million to the university's endowment, developing an international finance concentration as part of the curriculum, and combining the various Asian studies programs into one department."

Including the unsourced "positive" material would seem a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy (and in do doing, biases the article). Furthermore, the statement is factually incorrect--he made no "instrumental contribution" to the "university's endowment" and the initiatives on international finance and Asian studies were not his, but other faculty (they occured during his tenure as Dean, he was not the intellectual author or initiator).

It is not easy to deal with the personal foibles of public figures (see the entries on Lucy Mercer and FDR and Monica Lewisky and Bill Clinton). However, the current Wolfowitz narrative fails in every respect to coherently address the personal context of Wolfowitz's career.

This is a serious subject, with serious consequences. Serious subjects may be controversial.

Wikipedia discussion policy also appears to be being violated. If one is going to have a discussion, it requires that the conversation not be one-sided. (The preceding unsigned comments were left by Public Service (talk · contribs) 14:40, 28 May 2007)

You cannot point out problematic edits on the Wikipedia to justify more problematic edits. This is a high volume, disputed article, with POV problems and tendentious editing. Poorly sourced edits with weasel phrases will be dealt with in due time. In the meantime, I think you would benefit from reading Wikipedia's editing guidelines, particularly Reliable sources, Verifiability, Neutral point of view, Biographies of living persons, and Guidelines for controversial articles. The fact that you are editing from a single purpose account is not helping your case. MoodyGroove 15:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere. Further, many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone.

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with single-purpose accounts (Wiki discussion policy cautions against personal criticism).

If you are going to assume the mantle of editorial arbitor and enforcer, then it is your responsibilty to ensure the article is accurate. Controversial subjects are by definition controversial. That is the nature of Paul Wolfowitz. The article as presently edited is biased in two respects: a) through its uncited inclusions, including the one noted above and b) through its omissions. There is a direct relationship between Wolfowitz's 2001 departure from SAIS and his 2007 removal from the World Bank. Readers would not gain that information the way the article is currently presented. You are invited take the factual material that you deleted and to conform it, but there needs to be a context to the section entitled "Recent Controversies." Public Service 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been several single purpose accounts pushing this POV in the past couple of months. Harvard yarrd (talk · contribs), Paulo48 (talk · contribs), John furspire (talk · contribs), Wolfie.dick (talk · contribs). Yours is only the most recent. I do find it strange that your alleged area of expertise is Paul Wolfowitz's personal life, and that you're so anxious for people to believe that he may have still been married while he was dating Shaha Ali Riza. That seems to be your sole purpose for editing the Wikipedia. You speak of Wikipedia's editing guidelines like you're familiar with them and yet you're incredulous about WP:BLP. You continue to place poorly sourced, controversial material on this talk page, and now you're trying to make it look like the problem is my failure to assume good faith. Any Wikipedia editor can delete any poorly sourced, controversial material about a living person on sight. Period. End of story. It does not create an additional obligation on my part to delete other poorly sourced, controversial material from this article or any other, although I have no problem doing so. Regrettably, this article is edited so frequently that I cannot keep up with it, which is one of the reasons I placed a POV tag on it. MoodyGroove 01:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Recent additions to this article appear to be pushing various points of view of editors making them. Please maintain adherence to Wikipedia's most central editing policy and guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cross-links to articles on related subjects provide detailed information about them. Those articles also must conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Many of those articles are controversial and contentious; in editing them (and this one), please consult Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles [and linked/related guidelines and policies]. See editing history summary comments and earlier talk page discussions (scroll up). Editors should not be interjecting their own points of view into this or other Wikipedia articles. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC) --[clarified in brackets. --NYScholar 00:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)] [[Updated: as added above: please also review WP:NOR and other related Wikipedia policies and guidelines linked therein. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)]

[***deleted section heading with offensive slur*** --NYScholar 02:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)]

Jumping the gun?

Someone jumped the gun by adding Robert Zoellick as "successor" in the bottom box in article; the dates didn't post right for Wolfowitz when that user added them as "incumbent"; reformatted that part of the box; added ref. to the World Bank Group's press release; unfortunately, the date of posting on the site is in error; it was posted on May 30, 2007 (not June 30, 2007); the Spanish language version has right date; the French version has no date; the English version has erroneous date. Don't know how to incorporate that in any other way right now. I really don't think the box should be changed until a "successor" to Wolfowitz is actually approved. Wolfowitz is still holding that office until June 30, 2007, the effective date of his resignation: see the sources cited in the article and in that box. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blog posts?

Generally, blog posts are not permitted in biographies of living persons: WP:BLP; WP:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources; the blog cited is by Eric Alterman, in his blog called Altercation, who at the time cited (March 8, 2005) was describing himself as a professor of journalism at two institutions Brooklyn College and City University of New York (CUNY); but [his current description on the Media Matters for America website (current host of Altercation)]Staff Advisors: Eric Alterman describes him as a professor of English (which is not necessarily inconsistent, since in many institutions journalism is taught in English departments; one can be a professor of journalism and housed in the English department, e.g.) [See current personal website EricAlterman.com: "A senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at New School University, and former Adjunct Professor of Journalism at NYU and Columbia professor of journalism."] Anyway, I just happened to see some discrepancies in the material added recently (calling Alterman an "historian," which he is not [more accurately: he may be an "historian," but he's not currently an "academic historian"; i.e., he's not teaching in a department of history in an academic institution]; I added some comment in the editorial interpolation in the text (visible only in editing mode), and I moved the material from the text to a note. I also wonder whether, since Alterman is writing that blog post as a media commentator/media critic, whether the material might be placed more appropriately in the section on perspectives in the media (if a blog post is permissible in this article at all). There are exceptions in Wikipedia (when the blogs are written by the subjects of the articles themselves; or when the blogs have been given official media credentials--as in the situation relating to court reportage in United States v. Libby and, thus, re: Lewis Libby (cf. also WP:BLP#Public figures). Both Wolfowitz and Libby are public figures (due to their roles as public officials and the subsequent legal case and World Bank controversy, relating to each of them, respectively). I don't know whether or not Altercation (a political blog) is permissible in this article. I do think that the material is more appropriately placed in a note than in the main text, though that is also something to be discussed and debated perhaps. I myself don't have time to discuss this matter any further than posting this comment and making the typographical and factual corrections. Perhaps others want to discuss this, however. I was not planning to edit articles in Wikipedia (due to time constraints involving my own non-Wikipedia work), but I did see this error while checking the article very late tonight after being offline all day and thought I had better just make the minor corrections and raise the more major question here for others to consider. If one wants to revert the material from a note back to the text, I can understand that, but I myself still think the qualification by Eric Alterman in this particular section is either more appropriately placed either in a qualifying note citation or more appropriately placed in the other section on "perspectives" in the media. --NYScholar 04:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read the more-current Alterman self-description on his website, and I see where the description "historian" came from. Though he has undergraduate and graduate degrees in history and apparently also writes books on historical subjects, his current (or more current) academic affiliation ("academic expertise") is as an English professor who focuses on media criticism and journalism and as being a practicing journalist (media commentator) in his political blog himself. I am going back to the article to restore "historian" but will keep in professor of English (journalism) professor. --NYScholar 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I also moved the material originated by previous editor back into the main text from note and updated my editorial interpolation and used strikeout feature above. Sorry for any confusion. I do apologize. Going back offline. --NYScholar 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[After going offline, I decided to double check Alterman's personal website yet again and noticed that it has "former" before his (past) academic affiliations; I've added a q. in brackets in my earlier comments. The description of him in this article on Wolfowitz may still need some further updating, since it is written in the present tense. (The 2005 description of him is obsolete. [I updated the external links in the article on Eric Alterman and added a Wikified link to him in the Wolfowitz article text.]) --NYScholar 06:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)] [Updated. --NYScholar 07:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)]

After re-reading the full blog post with its actual contexts ("cocktail party banter"), I revised the passage as follows: (embedded note citation and revised editorial interpolations also visible here in editing mode):

[See NYScholar's interpolated comments below. MoodyGroove 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove]

According to Eric Alterman, however, in some "cocktail party banter" in which he engaged Wolfowitz during a "book party" hosted by Tina Brown and her husband Sir Harold Evans (which Alterman reports as "on the record," citing Wolfowitz's not specifying that it was "off the record"): "I asked if he thought it was important that so many people associated with the ideas behind U.S. foreign policy were Straussians. He definitely demurred. Wolfowitz does not consider himself to be a Straussian. He says he does not find political philosophy all that exciting and Allan Bloom found him to be a disappointment in this regard, but a 'successful disappointment,' which appealed to Bloom. He says when he gets together with real Straussians he becomes impatient with the level of abstraction of the discussion. He does not think Strauss is in any way important to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy."

Notes

[.... Deleted by NYScholar; my own editorial interpolation is already, as I said, visible in editing mode. I do not want my words copied and posted here. They are clear in both the editing history summary and in show preview in editing mode. Editorial interpolations are just what they are called "editorial interpolations." There is no reason for copying and pasting my words from the editorial interpolation here. [Threaded the comment added below.] --NYScholar 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)] Instead, I'm moving my own (earlier) editorial interpolation from the article to this talk page; it was posted beginning on June 4, 2007); since I first posted it, I updated some of the article's references in subsequent changes and also in comments in the editing history summaries (see above bracketed comments in talk and also editing history summaries; the context of Eric Alterman's remarks in his blog post need to be very clear; otherwise, readers may be misled by them. It was an ongoing process to find out more about Eric Alterman, which led me to add some external links to the Wikipedia article about him for others to consult as they wish]:

Blog=dubious source? Is this blog post (and the inclusion of all the other blog posts along with it) a reliable source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which does not generally permit blog posts in biographies of living persons? WP:BLP? Altercation is a blog reposted on its own site by MSNBC.com (2002-2006). Alterman has undergraduate and graduate degrees in history (U.S. history and international relations) and is a journalism professor according to the self-description in another blog post by Alterman above the one cited (the one dated March 10, 2005 that is a memo); see the "From" info.: "From: Eric Alterman, Professor of Journalism, Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Media Columnist, The Nation, Altercation 'Weblogger,' MSNBC.com, senior fellow, Center for American Progress and World Policy Institute (New School University), author, six books, Jew." His current website says that he is a professor of English at both Brooklyn College and [of] CUNY [Actually, Brooklyn College is a senior college of CUNY; sometimes he lists his affiliation as CUNY, sometimes as Brooklyn College.] (In Wikipedia "Straussian" redirects to "Leo Strauss"--added the link.) I also moved the material from a note citation back to the text, where it was placed originally by prev. editor. See talk page for discussion. The Wikipedia link to Eric Alterman defines who he is, his various areas of expertise, and what his current postion(s) are.

[Updated a bit in brackets. --NYScholar 22:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)]

I have added another reliable source that cites Alterman's conversation with Wolfowitz. MoodyGroove 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Wolfowitz Sox

Stores are now selling subscription based sox.[16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.205.35 (talk • contribs) 15:07, June 5, 2007 (UTC)

Please Split this article!

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a biography. I recommend splitting off the Career section into its own article as that seems to be the largest subsection. --Rajah 05:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need to be split, just shortened. IMO one of the big problems with WP is that sometimes so much information is given that the article becomes difficult to get through. But then, most of us are not professional writers. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"Neutrality" Tag

The tag was added by MoodyGrove (Talk | contribs) in this edit on May 28, 2007. There have been several edits since and, while there's been lively discussion on this talk page, it's hard to ferret out any actual, current neutrality disputes. If there are any current concerns about the NPOV nature of this article, let's hear and resolve them now, and dispatch the tag, if possible.--HughGRex 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BLP discussion

Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Wolfowitz.E2.80.8E Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exact quotes

To me it looks a little strange to have 2 exact quotes in the intro section. I'm not sure I've ever seen that on WP. Steve Dufour 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)