Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Walt

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


Untitled

[edit]

im thinking of adding a section which details his foreign policy positions, what does everybody think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


If you did that it would be excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.240.4 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

[edit]

In this section it appears that some sentences are repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.135.182 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed/sentence should be removed

[edit]

There is a sentence in this article under his views with respect to Israel:

"Noah Pollak has noted that while Walt calls himself a realist, his argument that Israel should accept a two-state solution is highly unrealistic.[18]"

1. Nowhere in the citation is there a mention of Noah Pollak. So, citation needed.

2. This sentence should arguably be removed, because it misunderstands/conflates "unrealistic" with the international relations paradigm "Realism". The latter has nothing to do with being "realistic". The sentence is just plain silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.162.243 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a problem with formatting of the ref, which I have now fixed. I agree with you and I can't see the relevance but as I have written here below, basically everything Stephen Walt has said about Israel is used to attack him by pro-Israelis. This is a POV problem that needs to be fixed and I have tagged it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about his views

[edit]

Basically everything here about Stephen Walt have said about Israel and other things is used here to attack his views by pro-Israelis such as CAMERA and ADL. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sheer number of criticisms of his views that have been included in his page are unbelievable, and many of them are from sources that are observably partisan. Someone with a very clear dislike for Stephen Walt has obviously had a major hand in writing this page. 64.150.193.2 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted some of the most blatant examples of the above mentioned errors, but someone should really give this page a full review. 64.150.193.2 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thread at BLP/N on violations here

[edit]

Just posted, here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the material in question has to do with Israel/Palestine, it is subject to the WP:1RR rule of WP:ARBPIA. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The material didn't strike me as relating to ARBPIA, but in case you are right that it should be interpreted as also encompassing that, I've self reverted.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it did, some of it didn't, I'd say. Then again, the motivation of an editor trying to smear him is likely rooted in views about Israel/Palestine and Walt's contributions to that field, so perhaps everyone here should be careful even when adding material not obviously about I/P. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading the Foreign Policy article, and it deals with accusations of COI, "dual loyalty", and members of AIPAC, etc. The quote closest to broaching ARBPIA deals with US relations with "both Israel and friendly Arab and Muslim states", not directly with conflict between them.
Walt at least has the gumption to stand up and make his McCarthyite case in his own name
Of course, "McCarthyite" is a term one should be reluctant to throw around, but I can think of no more accurate word for fact-free accusations designed to smear reputations with an appeal to patriotism. What else is one to make of Walt’s rhetorical question: "Isn’t it obvious that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular country in the region?"
I do wonder why Walt limited himself to smearing current and former employees of The Washington Institute. Given his argument about "conflict of interest," one would think anyone with any connection to the institute has been infected with whatever virus we carry.
Here the article asserts that Walt has a COI because Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government accepts donations from foreigners. There is also a different sort of "conflict of interest" that doesn’t seem to bother Walt. It’s the old-fashioned kind — the one about money. Absolutist that Walt is, one would think he would pursue the mother of all conflicts of interest before asserting, without argument or proof, that employment at the Washington Institute is prima facie evidence for disqualification for high public service. But that would get messy, especially because his employer proudly boasts of financial support from the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Italy, and Germany, as well as numerous foreign-owned corporations.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts
But what about getting directly involved as a government official, and in issue-areas where important interests are at stake? Instead of invoking phrases like "dual loyalty," a rhetoric that immediately invokes connotations of betrayal (or even treason), I suggest we frame the issue as one of potential conflicts of interest. Simply put, is it in the best interest of the United States as a whole to place U.S. policy on key issues in the hands of people whose even-handedness is not beyond question, and especially when there is evidence that they feel a strong personal attachment to a foreign country with whom the United States may have important disagreements?
To return to where we began: Isn’t it obvious that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular country in the region? The point is not to question their patriotism, which is not the issue. Rather, the question is whether an attachment to Israel shapes how they think about... Iran, and the extent to which U.S. and Israeli interests are congruent. Their patriotism can be above reproach, but their advice may still be advancing policies that are not in the U.S. interest.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little duller now, but maybe more encyclopedic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dull is better in this case. Good work. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the P violations are gone and the text much better.
The only concern I have is that this sentence, In that piece, Satloff wrote that Walt mistakenly believes the U.S. cannot simultaneously "advance strategic partnership both with Israel and with friendly Arab and Muslim states." doesn't appear to accurately (oe, perhaps adequately) represent the gist of the contestation between the two articles quoted above, which is basically Walt's arguments about COI-skewed policy advice, etc. The generalization about pursuing policies of alliance with opposed parties is spin by Satloff trying to divert attention from Walt's actual focus. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You call it Satloff's "spin" - but that is your opinion, nothing more. If you feel that text doesn't accurately represent what Sataloff said, we can always go back to the direct quote that was there earlier. To be clear: repeating what was published by a notable critic in a reliable source, verbatim, is not a BLP violation, as the text at WP:BLP makes clear: "In the case of public figures... BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." All Rows4 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've installed a link to a free copy of the Satloff article. Additionally, I've expanded the pertinent sentence:

I think this is a fair characterization of what Satloff wrote. As to any nasty language used by Sotloff or Hitchens, I am skeptical that WP:BLP bars us from repeating it with attribution, but still good Wikipedia writing sometimes is substantive rather than sensationalist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@All Rows4:That reading of BLP policy is incorrect. Gratuitous insults are a BLP violation, and you are the only editor claiming otherwise here.
Walt makes no claims related to the so-called "realists" referred to by Satloff. He does say
Identifying potential conflicts of interest can be tricky, however, which suggests we ought to proceed carefully. It would be inappropriate, it seems to me, to disqualify anyone from public service in a particular policy area solely on the basis of their ethnic or religious background or even their family ties. It would be wrong to exclude someone from work on South Asia policy simply because they were a Pakistani-American or an Indian-American. Similarly, I would not exclude a Muslim American, Arab-American, or Jewish-American from involvement in U.S. Middle East policy simply because of their background, or exclude someone who happened to be married to a Korean from working on U.S. policy in East Asia.
But when an individual’s own activities or statements give independent evidence of strong attachment to a particular foreign country, is it a good idea to give them an influential role in shaping U.S. policy towards that country? If disagreements arise between that country and Washington, won’t this place these officials in a difficult position, and raise questions about their ability to conduct policy in a wholly objective manner? And even if they are sincerely attempting to advance the U.S. interest, won’t their sense of identity with the foreign country in question incline them towards certain approaches that may or may not be optimal?
What he does not say is that he believes that

the U.S. cannot simultaneously "advance strategic partnership both with Israel and with friendly Arab and Muslim states."

That statement has nothing to do with what Walt said; thus, it is spin. Do you have another interpretation?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, no, I am not the only one reading WP:BLP this way (which is a literal reading of it, BTW). @Anythingyouwant: has said pretty much the exact same thing below. I am Ok with the way he reworded things , to avoid the the explicit language, but if you dislike the parapharse, we can go back to a direct quote - there is nothing in WP:BLP that precludes it. Indeed, Wikipedia articles are littered with far worse - properly attributed to their notable authors.
Seconds, yes I do have another interpretation, but I have no intention of getting into a lengthy argument with you over our differing interpretations, because it doesn't matter. My interpretation doesn't matter, and neither does yours. What matters is that a notable commentator made an argument which was published in a reliable source - and we are free to repeat it here. You may think the argument is poor, invalid, "spin" or whatever - but that does not matter one bit. 21:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, adhering to WP:BLP and not being sensationalist are distinct concepts, and I was trying to do the latter by omitting gratuitous insults from the article. It also seems to me that it's possible Satloff sincerely believes Walt views simultaneous good relations with Israel and Arab nations as impossible, even though Satloff understands Walt did not say so in this specific Foreign Affairs article by Walt. If we can find an explicit statement to the contrary by Walt then either we could include both statements or delete both of them, but for now it seems okay to leave Satloff's statement in the Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The overall tone of the article is a smear campaign against Walt. Per WP:BLP, the Satlof and Hitchens gratuitous insults should be removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is nothing in WP:BLP that requires this. All Rows4 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing the LA Times is a BLP violation?

[edit]

Would someone (like User:Gouncbeatduke) please explain this edit which did lots of things willy-nilly, including deletion of a reliable source from Foreign Affairs (magazine). There was no BLP violation, contrary to the edit summary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This editor has made it a habit to revert without discussion, and appears to be following @Plot Spoiler: around, mindlessly undoing all their edits. I've restored your version. All Rows4 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Maybe cyberspace was a bad idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Consider escalating to ANI if there's solid evidence of POV editing or hounding. Yes, cyberspace may have been a bad idea, though not as bad as drones or allowing Joe the Plumber to comment on every damn thing in the world. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While y'all are at it, consider pruning this article and its linkfarm...think long-term... Drmies (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drmies. We have the makings of a compromise: drones and cyberspace can go away together. The Plumber stays.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is now pending at ANI.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peck

[edit]

This edit installed stuff including this: "Former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck wrote 'The expected tsunami of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors...." Was Peck really an ambassador? His BLP doesn't say so. Maybe "diplomat" would be a better word. Also, I thought we were going to remove gratuitous insults like "rabid". Not saying it's a BLP violation, but I thought we agreed to omit stuff like that by Hitchens and Satloff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think terms like "rapid" should be applied to a living person in their biography. Applying the term to a "lobby" seems okay to me, I am not aware of any BLP-like guidelines for lobbies. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080369/t/msnbc-analysts/ has a Peck bio, he was "chief of mission" Ambassador to Iraq from 1977 to 1980. In all interviews I have seen he is addressed as Ambassador. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, "Ambassador" is legitimate but it still looks weird because a reader will say "Ambassador to what?" Can't it be rephrased somehow without turning it into Peck's CV? As for rabidity, the term was "rabid responses" which obviously refers in this Wikipedia article to responses like those of the late Mr. Hitchens. So let's be nice and rephrase, please? It's not a BLP violation regardless of whether Hitchens is alive or dead, but it's still sensational and Wikipedia is not a tabloid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What if we deleted the first quote and just left the second? As for Ambassador of what, can't the reader just click his hyperlink if they care? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, thanks. I would prefer "diplomat" instead of "ambassador" but it's no big deal. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Walt&oldid=1207131247"