Talk:Paul Wolfowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Wolfowitz article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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.)

Contents

[edit] Wolfowitz's political affiliation

I've read that Perle, Wolfowitz and Kirkpatrick (and possibly others in their circle) are still nominally Democrats, despite their close association with Republican administrations and hawkish views on foreign policy. Does anyone know for sure? CJCurrie 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no-one answered, I looked it up myself:

Finally, he will offer unusual energy and optimism. Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a "right-wing hawk", he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person.

Printed in The Times , 18 March 2005. I make no comment on the text itself. CJCurrie 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake! Sorry! Travb 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Since I was so surprised about Wolfowitz still nominally a democract, I also did a search and found this at the Washington Post:
"After serving at the Pentagon during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz remained a registered Democrat until he joined the Reagan administration as head of policy planning at the State Department. He said it was not he who changed his political philosophy so much as the Democratic Party, which abandoned the hard-headed internationalism of Harry Truman, Kennedy and Jackson."[1]
This is clearly in contrast to what the London Times says so what should be included in the article? 00:46 22nd March 2006
It is certainly my understanding that Wolfie gave up his Democratic Party membership in 1980 at the same time he resigned as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs following a warning from Ikle that he was considered too close to the Democrats for a post in the Reagan administration. Since he was appointed U.S. State Department Director of Policy Planning in 1981 I assume that he was no longer a Democrat as I find it very difficult to believe that the incoming administration would have changed their mind about him unless this was true. Since we now have a verifiable source with a quote from the man himself that supports this and everyone associates Wolfie with the Republicans anyway I support the proposal to change the political affiliation to indicate this, unless anyone has any serious objections? Mutt 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure about this: it isn't unusual for US administrations to hire some "nominal" members of the other party. I'm fairly certain that Jeanne Kirkpatrick was still a registered Democrat during her tenure with the Reagan administration, for instance ... and I believe that William Cohen was still a Republican when he served in Clinton's administration. CJCurrie 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
You have two conflicting news reports he has not ceased being a registered Democrat.--The Times and Wolfowitz remained a registered Democrat until he joined the Reagan administration Washington Post. I would tend to believe the Washington Post over The Times. The Times article was a glowing advertisement for Wolfwitz. Isn't the Washington Post considered more prestigious than the Times? I think we need a third source. I will dig around.Travb 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd normally trust the Post over the Times as well, but that may not be the point at issue. The Times reference seems to contain a more recent update as to his affiliation, while the Post reference could be based on an assumption. I agree that a third source would be useful. CJCurrie 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"may not be the point at issue" agreed, and I felt that way when I wrote this. That is why I did some searching and I now agree with your analysis, CJCurrie, that Wolfowitz is a democrat.Travb 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about Wolfowitz's political affiliation

[edit] 1

Dems should take cues from neocons University Wire February 9, 2006 Thursday

The "intellectual high priest of the Bush administration's hawks," Paul Wolfowitz, is actually a registered Democrat.

Analysis: not much weight, college newspaper, probably written by college student.

[edit] 2

Democrat hawk whose ghost guides Bush: Scoop Jacksons body is 20 years in the grave but his spirit goes marching on The Guardian (London) December 6, 2002

Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, the two leading strategists at the defence department, and Richard Perle, an unusual but influential Pentagon adviser, are all former Democrats who worked for Jackson in the 70s, and looked on him as their mentor.

Mr Perle still claims to be a registered Democrat, in honour of the late senator for Washington state, and Mr Wolfowitz has been known to describe himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican".

Analysis: no mention of Wolfowitz being a democrat--Wolfowitz describes himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican", but the article does not explain what party Wolfowitz is actual registered in.
Confusingly, the article also decribes Perle, a registered Democrat and Wolfowitz as "former Democrats"

[edit] 3

Tailor-made for the 21st century ; Nothing new about war plans. San Antonio Express-News (Texas) October 20, 2002, Sunday

Designers of this American imperialist strategy are a cadre of neo-conservative foreign-policy intellectuals, many with ties to the Reagan and Bush I administrations, who now hold key positions in the current administration. At the Pentagon, they include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who worked in the Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations, as well as Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. Wolfowitz served in the Reagan State Department, worked in the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy, and, according to the New York Times, has been focused on the Iraqi threat since 1979.

The American imperialists also include Richard Perle, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, who now chairs the Defense Policy Board, a panel of Republican foreign policy thinkers who advise the secretary of defense. Known as the "Prince of Darkness" for his fierce opposition to arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, the immensely influential Perle is a protege of the late Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a long time Democratic senator from Washington. (Perle is still a registered Democrat out of respect for Jackson.)

Analysis: No mention of Wolfowitz being a democrat, despite mentioning the Perle is a registered democrat.

[edit] 4

Richard Perle Slate Magazine August 23, 2002, Friday

As a staffer for the fiercely anti-Communist Sen. Henry Scoop Jackson, D-Wash., in the 1970s, Perle established himself as the quintessential Washington operator, as the Washington Post's Robert Kaiser described him in 1977 in a nearly 3,700-word profile, an unusual amount of space to devote to a Senate staffer, even the right-hand man for the senator from Boeing. (Like some other neocons, Perle sometimes reminds reporters that he's a registered Democrat, though he's been associated with Republican administrations and candidates for two decades.)

Analysis: Article mention "other neocons" being registered democrats, but does not explain who.

[edit] 5

Congress To Debate Terri Schiavo Legislation Sunday Night; Democrats Threaten Filibuster Anti-Filibuster Legislation; Prime Minister Martin, Presidents Fox, Bush To Meet in Crawford Next Week. Fox News Network March 19, 2005 Saturday

MORT KONDRACKE, HOST: You know, there's some agitation, lots of agitation on the part of various Europeans and even some Americans about, you know, whether this guy, this warmonger, should be at, at the World Bank. The fact is that Paul Wolfowitz is a democrat, small D, he's a humanitarian, he's an idealist, he, he deserves a shot. And what's more...

FRED BARNES, HOST: He's a friend of yours.

KONDRACKE (ignoring statment/question): ... he's not going to be stopped by the Europeans...

[edit] 6

The Vietnam Continuum Newsweek March 13, 2004 Newsweek Web Exclusive

True, almost none of the Bush administration hawks who pushed hardest for war had served in Vietnam. But for them too, the Iraq debate was framed by the long reach of that war. Some war enthusiasts, so-called neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were Democrats who "came over [to the GOP] as a result of Vietnam in one form or another," disgusted by their party's mishandling of that war and the Cold War in general, as one old Republican lion, a veteran of the first Bush administration, said to me. Hence, of course, the "neo" in neoconservative, although a better term for them is neo-Reaganites: today's hawks are the intellectual heirs of the original Reaganite critique of GOP foreign policy, which of course was shaped by Vietnam.

[edit] 7

Conclusion

Wolfwoitz is a democrat, as per the Fox News show. As one of his friends, MORT KONDRACKE states.

signed:Travb 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow well done on the diligent research but I have to disagree with your conclusion. The fact that Kondracke clarifies his statement “Paul Wolfowitz is a democrat” by saying “small D” would seem to indicate that he is not a Democrat (big D) ie a member of the Democratic Party. While the fact that Wolfie describes himself as a “Scoop Jackson Republican” would seem to indicate his membership of the Republican Party. Mutt 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I've done a bit more research myself ...
Here's a Sunday Times summary, from 20 March 2005:
To Wolfowitz's critics, Riza is a perplexing counterweight to his sister Laura, a biologist who lives in Israel and is married to an Israeli, lending weight to suspicions that Wolfowitz is pursuing an agenda hostile to Arab regimes. In fact, she is reported to be a moderate with little enthusiasm for hardline Israeli policies. To confuse matters further, her hawkish brother serves a fiercely Republican administration but is a registered Democrat.
(I realize this is essentially the same source as before; still, it goes some way to confirming the point.) CJCurrie 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Riza is Wolfowitz's girlfriend right? So it is talking about Riza's brother, not Wolfowitz.Travb 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It's referring to Wolfie (i.e. Laura's Brother) it's just very badly formatted. Still it's the Times. Doesn't look like we're getting much closer to a resolution on this one. Anyone got Wolfie's phone number? Mutt 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at Wolfie's political donations on NewsMeat [2] you'll see that they are all to Republican candidates. Where as Perle has donated to Democrat candidates. Although again I know that this doesn’t prove anything. Mutt 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My opinion about his party affiliation is the same as for his religious affiliation; i.e. that we shouldn’t mention it unless we have verifiable evidence one way or the other. So I have added a paragraph at the end of the section on U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs that discusses what we do know and uses both quotes. I have also removed the mention on the table, this is commented out along with the footnote so that it can be quickly and easily reinserted if anyone disagrees or manages to find definitive proof. Mutt 11:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Times, UK

Rupert Murdochs News Corporation owns "The Times" in the UK Dean, Mar10, 2006

And...what?Rkevins82 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this book exist?

Has anyone actually read the book "The Brain" ? I can find it at amazon.com but there it says that it won't be released until 2007! [Martin]

I can find no reference to this book in the British Library Catalogue so I have deleted it. Mutt 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix punctuation

Will someone try to fix the punctuation around all the quotations?

"I am" Bob said "a human."

should be

"I am," Bob said, "a human."

etc. Hopefully someone else will fix this so I won't have to, because there are a lot of quotes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by J. Finkelstein (talk • contribs).

Please sign your post J. Finkelstein. I have learned that putting something on the talk page, asking others to do something, never works for me. I suggest correcting the problem yourself. Travb 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

===Israeli-Palestinian conflict===

Despite his support for Israel Wolfowitz is one of the few neoconservatives associated with Bush administration to have endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. Wolfowitz has acknowledged the sufferings of the Palestinian people in their conflict with Israel, and in 2002 was heckled for expressing such views at a pro-Israel rally.

I will add this back but with a {{fact}} Travb 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops sorry I should have explained that I have placed a paragraph about the National Solidarity Rally for Israel under the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense section. I felt it appropriate therefore to remove it from the Political Views section as I believed that the duplication was unnecessary and the conclusions it gave were taken out of context. Have a look and see if you agree. Mutt 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry. If you don't delete the double passage I will.Travb 04:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jew

Paul wolfowitz's religion was deleted for this reason:

"why is the fact that he's a jew or of judaism in this template? should not be here... this an anti-zionist crusade?"

I think the reason is bizarre, but i won't fight something so peity. If anyone else wants to revert it, be my guest.

signed.Travb 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been going on as far back as I can remeber. My stance has always been that we should NOT mention his religion unless we have verrifiable proof that he is a practicising Jew. His ethinc background is mentioned in the body of the article. But I have yet to see any evidence relating to his active religous practices. If this evidence can be found then I think that the statement about his religion becomes valid and important with regards to his opinions and beliefs. Mutt 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it should be there either, it seems an unusual precedent to set. --Zleitzen 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I have more personal comments about the whole "Jew" issue on my talk page, not relating to Paul Wolfowitz. If you people care to read them.Travb 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it as setting a precedent. Just to clarify I am actually agreeing with Travb in principle on this one. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning someone's religious beliefs in the article. Any article on George W. Bush for example would be incomplete without mentioning his religious belief. A person’s religious beliefs have a huge impact on their thoughts and actions so of course they should be mentioned in an article. My problem in Wolfie's case is that in all my readings about him I have never come across any evidence that he is a practicing Jew (unlike Dov Zakheim for example who religious beliefs are mentioned in his article). Therefore I don't believe that it should be mentioned unless that evidence is forthcoming. Mutt 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
No evidence=no listing. I agree with Mutt.Travb 14:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I disagree that one's religious heritage implies belief or influence. It's possible to be born into a religion or belief system nominally and live a life completely independent of it. My thinking is, unless a figure specifically cites his or her religion as being a major influence in a particular action/decision/event, or has a history of acting in a significant capacity (elder, deacon, rabbi, etc.) then that person's ethnicity/religion is not encyclopedic. We don't list his height, weight, and hair color, for example. I'm guessing there's a policy on this. Ojcit 07:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The article in its current form states that Wolfowitz is Jewish in the first sentence. I don't think this belongs here. It's entirely appropriate to list his religion elsewhere in the article, but it's not substantive enough to list in the first paragraph, just as one wouldn't start an article with "Bill Clinton, who is Christian, was Presdent of the United States..."

Porlob 14:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very strange argument indeed, that his religious affiliation should be omitted from his biography! What on earth would compel someone to suggest something like that? I do understand the suggestion that it might not be mentioned in the first sentence, but to suggest that mentioning his Jewishness equates an anti-zionist crusade? Absolutely preposterous! I've read that Wolfowitz holds dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel. Can anyone verify it or has anyone else heard this? It seems popular on blogs, but not many official sources.--Laikalynx 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portrait

Lead image should be current portrait as President of World Bank not old shot as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Image is fair use and copyright holder World Bank encourage its use. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The World Bank may encourage reuse, but only for "personal, non-commercial use" and without "any right to resell, redistribute or create derivative works". [3] Images with a free license, such as the official DoD portrait of Wolfowitz, are thus given precedence. Furthermore, I doubt the World Bank image even meets fair use policy (item #1), especially because the World Bank website strictly forbids noncommercial/derivative useage. Besides, the DoD picture isn't that old. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The page form which this image is taken states "Journalists are encouraged to use these images in their reports; any use should include copyright to the World Bank and credit the photographer."[4]. This in my opinion means that this is a publicity photo and therfore we can use it freely. I won't change the image back for now as I don't want to start an edit war but would like your opinions on my comments. Mutt 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
There are several points I should make here. First of all, template:promophoto clearly states that an image can only qualify as fair use "in the absence of a free alternative". Furthermore, the very first sentence of the first bullet point of the fair use policy (that I linked to above) states an image can only be used if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." There is a free alternative which adequately portrays his picture, which is the DoD photo of Wolfowitz. The World Bank image may indeed be deleted some day in the future. --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don’t feel that the 5 year old image of Wolfowitz in a different role really does give the same information. The World Bank image gives a very different portrayal to the DOD one as Wolfowitz can be seen as older and more relaxed than the very serious previous image, which I think is very informative as to his state of mind. Also as the DOD image is blatantly an old DOD image it makes the article look out-dated. I would not use this image on in other articles that discuss his time at the DOD such as Wolfowitz Doctrine or The Vulcans but for this article I think it is essentially informative. For these reasons and since the World Bank image is a publicity photo that the copyright holder encourage journalists to use in their reports I really think that we should use it. Mutt 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, can it be argued that some gray hair and a few extra wrinkles means the Wolfowitz picture of 5 years past is inadequate? I could understand if the image was 10 years old, but otherwise I don't think that argument can be made. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that he has changed that much physically, my argument is that the 'feel' of the picture is wrong. He is in a different job and that does change things. Would a picture of Bush as govenor of Texas do for the lead picture in his article. I don't think so but I also don't think he has changed that much physically. I think as an encyclopedia we should be providing as much up to date information as we can and I think that that world bank picture is up to date info and the dod one isn't. Mutt
That situation is the opposite, however. Bush's more recent photo is in the public domain, while his photo as Texas Governor is fair use more than likely. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Have removed NPOV tag as no explanation was given for its placement. If you believe article to be NPOV please explain here why when tagging. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Disputed

Kudos for removing the NPOV status. At length the article casts Wolfowitz as a hypocrite and as an enabler in Suharto's plundering of his own nation. The article is clearly not neutral. On the contrary, the few statements in defense of Wolfowitz are followed by much lengthier condemning quotes containing the opinion of a few people. Although these are presented as opinion, the preponderance of the same type of information clearly evinces the agenda of those contributing to the article. Would that instead of a little green checkmark, the article were labeled with a stopsign.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hectard (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Is the whole article not NPOV? Or just the Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia section? I would be in favor of removing "peanut gallery" statements in favor of well-considered critiques. Thanks, GChriss 13:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unintential Political Joke?

the caption for the last picture in the article reads: "Paul Wolfowitz stands far right". Seemingly referring to his politics, i chuckled as i realised it was referring to where he stood in the picture itself. lol wiki, nice one. Roidroid 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Media Portrayals

I deleted the following from the tail end of the Media Portrayals section:

With its post-modern collage techniques of mixing lectures, policy papers and diary entries with traditional narrative, Homeland provides a uniquely entertaining way of acquiring a detailed, thoroughly well-researched and factual account of US history from Jimmy Carter's presidency to that of George W. Bush.

This has little to do with Wolfowitz. The whole paragraph about Paul William Roberts' book may be insufficiently NPOV, but I'm content with moving the most glaringly biased sentence here in case someone wants to do something with it. Lowerarchy 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

    • 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).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/u/Talk%7EPaul_Wolfowitz_1268.html"