Talk:Wolfowitz Doctrine

This article was nominated for deletion on December 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have moved the text below from the article--Doc ^ask? 20:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new article and will be expanded upon and will be linked from this section of the Bush Doctrine article Bush_Doctrine#Paul_Wolfowitz_and_the_Defense_Planning_Guidance_text_of_1992 and will include the full text of the original document.

Why is this marked for deletion?

Can somebody help a newbie understand why it's marked for deletion? I have read most of the material on this and I can't see why. The material is objective, verifiable, not the result of independent research and not copyrighted. It does need to be expanded and refined however. It should also mention that the document was superceeded by another policy document (I need all of the details for this) even though most of this doctrine has re-emerged and become actual policy in the Bush 2 administration following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. This is covered some in the link that is listed in the previous post.

Also, these two article should be linked, correct? Any opinions on how to link them are appreciated.

Thanks --Daniel Santos 22:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Daniel_Santos[reply]

Was anyone out there able to find a copy of the actual text of the DPG document?

Still need full original text document

We still need the full original text for the the "final draft" of the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance that was leaked March 7th, 1992 (as opposed to the version that was released later that month after revoking the controversial content). We need this to make a link to it and also so I can study it to fill out this document more. Please post if you find it.

Thanks --Daniel Santos 01:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found the excerpts of it, which is all that was published of the document. It seems to have been published in tandem with the other NYT article. I added it to the Bibliography but don't know how to handle the citation since it's from the same author as an already existing citation.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-pentagon-s-plan-prevent-the-re-emergence-of-a-new-rival.html BattleKuri (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mutt!! You're Beautiful!!

Nice work! =) I haven't yet had time to read through it all and I'm really happy some others joined in on this. I still wish I could find the full text of the original "draft".

Daniel Santos 19:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate I've had no luck finding the original text for this either. I'm very busy at the moment but I wanted to expand it a bit and I'm looking forward to working on this one with you further in the future. Mutt 19:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I rolled back a few edits on the intro that removed text. However, If somebody has some better wording to clarify who "denounced" the initially leaked version (this is supposed to tell you that the Bush Sr administration denounced it) that will help. Also, please post any opinions on Prester John's edits from July 2007. I don't believe that he's wrong about journalists coining the term "Wolfowitz Doctrine," although I don't know if it's important enough to mention, since it's commonly referred as such now (26,700 googles at this time). However, describing the initial public reaction as being "criticized as imperialism" is accurate and shouldn't be outright deleted with no replacement. Daniel Santos (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]