Jump to content

Talk:Ralph Peters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unnecessary to continually update article with occasional quotations from periodicals

[edit]

It seems that periodically people are fleshing out the "Opinions on the Middle East" section with snippets that Peters has written in his opinion column. I think this is unnecessary, unless he says something particularly noteworthy or unique (as in the middle east map with the borders redrawn). Otherwise, his opinions can be summarized rather succinctly: he is a strong supporter of American policy in Iraq, he believes that the surge is working, and that the American media are being lax in reporting this story. Most of the quotations in that section don't add much to the story. Jkp1187 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Edited"

[edit]

I corrected numerous inconsistencies and mistakes in this article. A better photo should be used of him.

Please correct any errors, but understand that it may be difficult to find a higher-quality photo that meets Wikipedia copyright guidelines. --Jpbrenna 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Map source?

[edit]

I glanced through Never Quit the Fight and did not see any map included. Admittedly, I have N O T read it in its entirety. Is the map on this page from a source, or just an estimation by the cartographer based on policies advocated by Peters? If it is the latter, could someone please give a chapter/page (if from a book) or article citation showing where Peters says that these border changes should be made? Thanks. Jkp1187 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the same topic, in order for the fair use claim for using this map to be valid, the map (or at least the borders it shows) actually has to be discussed in the text. Otherwise it's "purely decorative" and violates Wikipedia's fair use policy. —Angr 13:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The map is shown here --Astrokey44 12:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read his book in its entirety, and can confirm that image does NOT appear within. I'll change the credit appropriately. Jeodonnell 03:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist posting

[edit]

Want to include this? http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/rnr/240226520.html It's signed Ralph Peters and sounds a lot like his writing. Perhaps before referencing it we might verify (to make doubly sure) it's not someone claiming to be he. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above url no longer works. Ekotkie 09:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

advertising

[edit]

this article reads like an ad for ralph peters. It tactfully avoids opinions but it seems like it was written by a big fan.

I don't really think it reads too much like an ad for Peters, and to a degree I think avoiding going into Peters' opinions may be a good thing. Peters is capable of expressing his own opinion and they can be found in his works. Attempts to portray his opinions could lead to bias, both in how they are presented and which opinions are selected as relevant. I knew Peters opinions before I came to this page, I came here to learn more facts about the man himself.

The "New Middle East"

[edit]

The concept that Ralph Peters writes about is analysed by a Canadian political science researcher based in Montreal or Ottawa in depth. I think that elements of it can be added to the article. Very intriguing

Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” -from Global Research center. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061116&articleId=3882

-Russian review of article http://inosmi.ru/translation/231223.html

-Another good paper on Ralph Peters is by a German army think-tank. The Canadian researchers work is also used. http://www.imi-online.de/download/IMI-Analyse2007-06.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.98.235 (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Link to article on Petrodollar Warfare

[edit]

At the bottom of the Nonfiction section, there's a listing of a controversial quote from Peters' article, "Constant Conflict." Part of that qoute, "The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy." is hyperlinked to the wikipedia entry on Petrodollar warfare. I believe that this is inappropriate.

There's nothing in Peters' quote which explicitly specifies petroleum nor anything which would limit his understanding of economy to just that. The purpose of militaries has long been to protect economies. An understanding of US military history and its early wars always shows a economic component. One of the first missions of the US Marine Corps was to protect US shipping from piracy. Foreign powers have often attacked US shipping (too many instances to mention) and much "intervention" in Latin America surrounded protecting US economic interests, frequently facilities or properties owned by US companies. The Marine general Smedley Butler, author of WAR IS A RACKET, famously said that he was a muscle-man for Wall Street. Limiting Peters comments to oil, as important as oil is, is misleadingly incomplete.

Europe the killer continent

[edit]

Ralph Peters has stated that Europe will either expel its Muslim population or engage in genocide/ethnic cleansing against them.

"For me, the question isn't whether Muslims will take over Europe, but whether Europe will simply expel them or kill any number of them first. Sound far-fetched? How would the Holocaust have sounded to an educated German (or Brit, or American) in 1932? Europe is a killer continent. When the chips are down, it will kill again." From: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29209

"The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys. In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds. Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica." From: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11262006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_eurabia_myth_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0

It is unclear to me whether Peters is simply warning of a coming catastrophe in Europe or whether he is actively encouraging it. Can someone who is more familiar with Peters' viewpoints research this and add it to the main page? Ndvanderhoofven 07:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure how you can find this to be "unclear." Is there anything in those qoutes which implies that he's "actively encouraging" it? It's like saying you're unclear as to whether or not NBC-TV's Al Roker is actively encouraging next week's weather. Or that Scientific America's coverage of climate change is encouraging global warming. Peters is known (deservedly so, IMO) for his directness. I've never read anything from him calling for genocide., even when he clearly states that SOME people (not entire ethnic/religious groups) should be or may need to be killed. His writings on the muslim world seem to make a clear distinction between the minority of what he feels to be zealots and the majority which he feels are threatened by them. I would regard his above quotes as being a warning and not a prayer. Kielland 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing military history

[edit]

"He was commissioned in 1980.[3][4] He spent ten years in Germany working in military intelligence. ... After returning from Germany, Peters attended Officer Candidate School and received a commission"

This is confusing as it first implies that he was commissioned before spending 10 years in Germany working MI. But in the following paragraph it clearly states that he was commissioned after returning from Germany. Perhaps the "he was commissioned in 1980" needs to be moved so that the history flows chronologically. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections from Ralph Peters

[edit]

To all and sundry (and sundried), This is from Ralph Peters. After an editor's comment, I finally checked my Wikipedia page. While most of the postings seem well-intentioned, there are a number of inaccuracies.

I did not "graduate" from Penn State University. I may have been the worst student in its history, and I squandered my opportunities with great enthusiasm. I finished my BA in the Army and went on from there (MA from St. Mary's University in San Antonio, a terrific little school; the degree was earned on weekends while I was stationed at Ft. Hood). I claim no serious academic credentials, nor do I seek any.

As an enlisted man, I served in the 8th Infantry Division in Germany, not the 1st Armored Division (that was as a lieutenant and captain). My service with the 1st Battlion, 46th Infantry--a superb unit at the time--was as a lieutenant. I never again served with such an impressive collection of peers.

I later became a Foreign Area Officer, specializing in the dying Soviet Union. In good Army fashion, that led to missions in SE Asia, Latin America, Pakistan, etc. The Army was wonderfully good to me, giving me amazing opportunities, although I was not always sufficiently grateful at the time.

I did NOT attend the Army War College. Intent upon writing without restrictions, I left the Army shortly after my promotion to lieutenant colonel, before I was eligible for consideration for selection to attend the War College. On September 11, 2001, I deeply regretted my earlier decision to retire.

These points--especially the fact that I did not attend the War College--are important to me, since I never want to appear to claim any "achievements" I didn't actually achieve. I think we've all had enough of that sort of thing. I'm perfectly content with the things I did, or did not, do.

I'm a bit disappointed that one or some contributors are obsessed with Iraq, which occupied a relatively small part of my work over the decades (much of which focused on military reform long before it was fashionable). The Iraq citations, largely out of context, do not fully represent my views, or the complexity of the situation. Having published over 700 columns, essays, articles and reviews across the years, I find it amusing that those with a political bias cite the same few non-representative paragraphs over and over again. But Wikipedia's a democracy, so I must be content to let contributors have their say.

I'm proud of my military service and of my work as a novelist. My work in the field of journalism, which I regard largely as a public service, given that so few pundits have real-world credentials of any kind (to say nothing of military experience), comes a distant third. Were the times less grave, I would sit on my backside and just write fiction. But we must all do what little we can for our country at present.

Oh, and I don't live in New Baltimore.

My thanks to those who have sought to be accurate. A man or woman of integrity does not seek flattery--but accuracy is the primary virtue of any encyclopedia, on-line or in dead-tree format. My advice to contributors with their own political agenda: Go out and achieve something yourselves. America won't hold you back. You may find that the world is more complex and difficult than your favorite professor told you.

And may God bless America! --Ralph Caninusmaximus (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a credible source? You basically got most of his background wrong...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.223.120 (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat President

[edit]

There is a hidden comment in the page saying:

<!-- PLEASE do not insert 'sic' following Democrat in the following paragraph. The word is used as a noun, not an adjective, and is used correctly. -->

The comment referes to the quote "Determined to elect a Democrat president ....". I have to disagree. The quote is grammatically incorrect. Had Peters rephrased his sentence to either of the versions below, then it would have been correct:

  1. Determined to elect a Democrat as president ......
  2. Determined to elect a Democratic president .....

Therefore, inserting [[sic]] is appropriate. Dems on the move (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Is the phrase "elect a black man president" equally in error? It gets hundreds of hits on Google, many from journalistic sources. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your analogy is completely inappropriate. Black is an adjective. Democrat is a noun. Dems on the move (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. "elect a black man president" is gramatically incorrect because "black man" is a noun, rather than an adjective. To be grammatically correct, you'd have to say "elect a black president" or "elect a black man as president". Dems on the move (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Elect a Democrat president" is well within the modern idiom, with the "as" being implied. Editorial comment on Peters' writing is the sort of thing up with which Wikipedia should not put. RayTalk 21:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Wiki-idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.123.236 (talk) 01:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

[edit]
  • I added the "Like resume" template to this article in the hope that some energetic editor sees it. The Personal, Military career, and Writing career sections are basically bullet points, and read horribly. The Views section is at least written more like an encyclopedia, however skewed and unrepresentative. Somebody previously suggested cleanup (see advertising below), but the emphasis was on POV, rather than style. Nathanm mn (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killian documents

[edit]

The following unsourced material was cut from the article: "Years later, during the 2004 Killian documents controversy (also known as Memogate or Rathergate), Peters pointed out that in his front-line division in 1977, five years after the memos in question were allegedly written, only the general's secretary had an electric typewriter." Besides being unreferenced, it is hard to see how to properly incorporate it into the BLP.--S. Rich (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)04:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why a photo of Bowe Bergdahl??

[edit]

This article is about Ralph Peters. Nearly startling to see photo of subject of one of his editorials. Why? Tempted to remove it as it has no bearing on this article. Opinions? Avaghnn (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ralph Peters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ralph Peters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Russian"?

[edit]

As a military intelligence officer Peters specialized in Russia and the Soviet Union. As such, he has said various negative things. Does this make him "anti-Russian" as per Anti-Russian sentiment? Unless reliable sources say Peters himself is "anti-Russian", as opposed to simply criticizing Russia, the category "anti-Russian sentiment" is inappropriate. Such characterizations are merely POV identity-political labeling. – S. Rich (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ralph_Peters&oldid=1245381968"