Talk:J. William Fulbright

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	This article is part of WikiProject Arkansas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arkansas.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

J. William Fulbright is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article.
This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

Stop trying to turn this into an op-ed on post-911 using Fulbright's words. Fulbright's words about events during his lifetime can be applied by the reader to modern events if they wish, they don't need you to guide them to the correct POV.Ark30inf 18:36, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fulbright anticipated the problems with post 9/11 US foreign policy remarkably well in those quotes. Why is unacceptable to make the connections? I didn't think the fundamentalism of Bush was an issue; I mean, the guy peppers his speechs with expressions from the Old Testament. Are we not allowed to call a spade a spade? -- Viajero 19:29, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article is about Fulbright, not George W. Bush and not the Invasion of Afghanistan. The remarks were about American interventionism generally and it is fine to mention that. But his remarks were not about 911 or George W. Bush. We do not know that Fulbright would consider going into Afghanistan "interventionism". I am pretty sure he would think Iraq was, but have my doubts that he would feel that way about Afghanistan. It is your opinion that the link between this article exists between Afghanistan. Separately, your link to Christian Fundamentalism as a reference to the Bush Administration's foreign policy is also your own POV and has nothing to do with Fulbright.Ark30inf 20:00, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I do not claim his remarks were about 911 or George W. Bush; I merely point out his prescience in anticipating the problems of the current situation. I see nothing wrong with pointing out this achievement of Fulbright. -- Viajero 20:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For your version to be NPOV we must assume that the US went into Afghanistan for the purposes Fulbright was talking about in the quote. That is disputed. The primary reason for Afghanistan was self-defense and to remove a haven for terrorists who had attacked the US (an opposing POV). Notice that I did not include MY POV in my version of the article. I made it "American interventionism" which should make you happy since you seem to think Afghanistan is American interventionism, while at the same time not assuming that my POV (that it isn't) is assumed wrong.Ark30inf 20:37, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fulbright anticipated the dangers of the fundamentalist worldview of George W. Bush, particularly as borne out in the rationalizations given for the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq:

The man died 6 years before Bush took office plus this is highly pov Smith03 20:30, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC) kinda of hard to think he foresaw GW as Pres.

The last version of the into to the first quote is something that I can accept. The other is still pov.Ark30inf 21:17, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok, let's leave out Afghanistan then. How about this:

Fulbright anticipated the danger of a fundamentalist worldview in US foreign policy, and this has been particularly borne out in view of the rationalizations given for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq:

or:

Fulbright anticipated the dangers of a fundamentalist worldview like that of George W. Bush, and this has been particularly borne out in the rationalizations given for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq:

-- Viajero 22:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

How about if we change it to say: "Fulbright anticipated the dangers of a chaotic foreign policy like that of Bill Clinton, and this has been particularly borne out by the rationalizations given for the attack on Serbia". This quote shows Fulbright's prescience and illustrates his quote quite nicely. NPOV? Nope. When you come up with a neutral statement that illustrates Fulbright's prescience without inserting POV judgment of any particular administration.....then its neutral.Ark30inf 22:43, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Now you are turning this into a partisan issue, Reps vs Dems, which doesn't do justice to the text. While much of what Fulbright had to say about the perils of foreign interventions and the breaching of international law might well apply to Clinton (or Kennedy for that matter), what the quote under discussion is referring to in particular is that "intolerant Puritanism", "the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor" which is a distinctive characteristic of GW Bush and is considered by many people in many parts of the world as a deeply troubling development, regardless of the party. Surely it must be possible to allude to this in neutral terms? -- Viajero 23:16, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, I just changed the names on your version to point out the POV. I do not favor the Bill Clinton one either because, like yours, it is POV just the other way round. Every President has quoted the Bible, many have been "born-again" (Bush has nothing on Jimmy Carter in this regard). The interventionism Fulbright was really basing the quote on was Vietnam and that was primarily Lyndon Johnson who was not particularly religious. The Puritan strain he refers to is not Christian fundamentalism or religion but more of the "white man's burden" strain of thought. That can be applied to Vietnam, Kosovo, the aftermath in Iraq, etc.Ark30inf 23:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I know this is not my "fight", but isn't a word like "danger" very POV? InanimateCarbonRod 22:19, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. In situations like this, I ask myself: how would a historian writing fifty years from now put it? At a certain point, perceptions become solidified into commonly agreed upon assumptions. IMO, it is safe to refer to certain characteristics of Bush's worldview as "fundamentalist" (he quotes the Bible) and likewise surely we can acknowledge that this may effect foreign policy. (No judgement passed on GWB's fundamentalism per se.) Fulbright intuited some of these problems 35+ years ago and I think it is worth pointing this out explicitly. We can soften a bit if you like:

Fulbright anticipated potential shortcomings of a fundamentalist worldview like that of George W. Bush, and this has been particularly borne out in the rationalizations given for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq:

Or perhaps you could suggest a different way of phrasing it? -- Viajero 23:00, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

IMO, it is safe to refer to certain characteristics of Bush's worldview as "fundamentalist" (he quotes the Bible)

Quoting the Bible does not make one's worldview "fundamentalist" you know. You should not be assuming that your judgments of current events will be what historians accept 50 years down the road. We cannot ask ourselves what historians 50 years from now will be saying because we cannot know.Ark30inf 23:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

<sigh>, no, of course not, FWIW, it is just an intellectual exercise. -- Viajero 23:27, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey, Viajero....take a look at the American Exceptionalism article. Do you think we could reach a compromise by saying "dangers of American Exceptionalism and then you adding the Iraq/Afghanistan stuff to that article in some form?Ark30inf 05:14, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure I want to get involved in that article right now. I propose the following:

A firm multilateralist, Fulbright was opposed to the ideology of American Exceptionalism, and many people think his fears have been vindicated, particularly apropos of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq:

How about "particularly in light of". I still think my version is more neutral, but I won't revert that text. Can we get the protection removed?Ark30inf 22:46, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it, it is better. I still don't see why the article should try to make a point about disputed current events (twice) in a biography about someone who died well before 911 when a generic reference to American interventionism would make the same point (and for all time). It makes me think that the effort is to have to Mr. Fulbright criticize George Bush rather than make a point about his writings. A few years down the road when President Hillary Clinton launches cruise missiles into Kosovo or something then I guess we will have to change it to make it up to date. Till then, I guess this will have to do...for me at least.Ark30inf 18:00, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I completely agree with Ark30inf here. It's very inappropriate to interpret Fulbright as talking about things that happened after his death here, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, Iraq, Serbia, or Sudan. DanKeshet

First: I simply don't understand why one is not allowed to point out continuity in history, that the events of today have their roots in the past, that things repeat themselves, that the past can speak to us, and that at times human affairs are predictable, and indeed events and developments have been predicted. Fulbright was analyzing US foreign policy in the 1960s, and it turns out that his observations offered profound insights into the way the United States is run, and they are highly germane today. This is an impressive achievement and it deserves to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. Perhaps this implies a point-of-view, in which case a constructive solution might be to try to formulate a critique of Fulbright's ideas.

Second: Ark30inf, you make your political affiliations abundantly clear, not least of all on your user page, which is entirely your right. But as I am sure you are aware, people from many countries around the world are contributing to the English wikipedia (including myself, I don't live in the US) and your repeated insertions of partisan politics into such discussions as this is parochial and unproductive. I personally am not the interested in mutual Rep/Dem bashing; I am perfectly capable of appreciating that the comments of Fulbright (a Dem) were directed at the policies of JFK (another Dem) but may also apply to Clinton or Bush or some other administration in the future, regardless of their party. I look forward to discussing American politics with you here and in other pages , but please keep in mind that this is an international forum and that we can't resolve such matters by falling back on US party politics. -- Viajero 20:20, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, my version kept all party politics out of the article completely. You are the one wanting to put in "George Bush" and his "fundamentalist foreign policy". I am not the only one who has noticed this. Insinuating that I am the one trying to insert party politics is outrageous....anyone can go and look at the edit history and compare our two versions and see who tried to do what. I tried to reach a compromise, I tried to wikilove, I even decided to let you keep some of your inappropriate POV to make peace. I see that wasn't good enough for you.Ark30inf 21:13, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Viajero, 1) about arkinf30: that's precisely why I chimed in, because my politics are different from ark30inf's, to point out that his point is not a partisan one. 2) about the "continuity" stuff: In an article about US foreign policy, it would be fine to talk about the issue of multilateralism vs. unilateralism and what Fulbright, JFK, Clinton, and Bush each brought to this debate. But the context of this article should be Fulbright and Fulbright's life, not our hindsight as to whether what Fulbright wrote in his day applies today. DanKeshet

Good luck, all I got was a personal attack for my trouble.Ark30inf 00:44, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Why do we honor Fulbright, ever, in name or deed?

Isolationism and appeasement are not grounds for a lasting legacy, yet he is celebrated as a god by liberals and those in Arknasas in particular. What, given the rank liberal failures of the 1960's and 1990's that have again put the West and our nation in peril, is the attraction? User:216.152.10.216

We honor Fulbright for his achievements as a Senator, for his long service to the government of the United States, for his courage in opposing Senator McCarthy, and for his lasting legacy in the form of the Fulbright Scholarships which have helped American students the world over. Seems to me good reason to study and admire this fine gentleman, despite his "failures." Just because he has a viewpoint that you may not agree with doesn't mean we should ignore his service to this nation and his lasting legacy.

Citation for 'my mentor and friend, Senator Fulbright", White House Office of the Press Secretary, June 5, 1996 Nobs 02:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear friends, I respectfully suggest that it is inappropriate to begin this article by reciting the positions of JWF on complex and volatile issues which modern readers in another age interpret differently. Articles on people such as this typically begin with a short bio so the reader has some background about the man.

Second, please, let's tone down the discussion here. Please refrain from all this "liberals" and other vague and undefined terminology. Wikipedia is not the venue for nationalist sentiment of any nation, whether the article is written in English or not. Nationalist, and certainly ultranationalist sentiment it wholly out of place in this forum, which is and should be intended as a source for Internet users seeking a genuinely objective source of information. Gunnermanz 12:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)