Talk:Harlan K. Ullman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Harlan K. Ullman, has edited Wikipedia as
Harlan ullman (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] Ambiguous reference

Reference 1 is ambiguous. It links to the most recent Ullman article, and, though there are 10/6 and 10/18 articles, there doesn't appear to be a 10/16 one.

The Washington Times links to his most recent article. need to go back and link to the archive. i will work on it. Or update. guess the reference is outdated. Thanks Godspeed John Glenn! Will 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is he a neoconservative?

Ullman's theory of Shock and Awe places him in the group of thinkers known as Neoconservatives whose intellectual efforts have underpinned the Iraq War.

No, it does not. "Rapid dominance", aka "Shock and Awe" is a military approach to winning a war by applying overwhelming force as a way to demoralize the opponent and therefore destroying their willingness to fight, not a political agenda. The only thing it says about the people who came up with it is that they are trying to figure out effective ways to win wars.

Furthermore, the concept was introduced in 1996 (as described in the rapid dominance article), long before the Neocons became a factor in the US's foreign policy. Calling this guy a neocon because someone in DC decided to use a military strategy he promoted is very weak, by that standard, pretty much anyone involved in the 2003 invasion or subsequent occupation would be considered a 'neocon' for no other reason that they have helped carry out a policy advocated by neoconservatives.

Is there any evidence that Mr. Ullman has made any explicit statements on neoconservatism as such? If not, the point should be removed as unsupported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.168.62.202 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Allegation by "D.C. Madam"

Without prejudice to the allegations, there is a somewhat of a problem with this quote.

"The allegations do not dignify a response," Ullman told CNN, "I'm a private, not a public, citizen. Any further questions are referred to my attorneys."

He did make the statement, but it is not true. Ullman is a public person/figure. He is a media personality and author. 72.75.4.244 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tabloid

Way to go, Wikipedia. You've succeeded in making a page about an important person (he originated the Shock and Awe doctrine) a play-by-play of what sex acts he committed with a prostitute.

I'm sure Jimmy Wales is real proud that his "child in africa" can look this shit up.

Bravo. 69.143.136.139 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme bias

This article has obviously been "scrubbed" by someone close to the subject, attempting to conceal the truth about this person and therefore make the current version of this article extremely biased. Just look at the lead paragraph: it lavishes praise on the subject of the article without any attempt at balance. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.177.234.34 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)