Talk:John Negroponte

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Negroponte article.
Article policies
John Negroponte was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: June 11, 2006
Peer review John Negroponte has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
SICA ZP
Latin America Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal

Contents

[edit] Will an admin PLEASE either tag this article for POV, or else edit it to neutrality?

I am neither a Wiki admin, nor a particular fan of Negroponte's. I don't know the man, and have not spent years researching his activities in Honduras or elsewhere. That said, however, I consider myself to be both rational and neutral, and I find this article to be highly POV, verging on character assassination. Indeed, the fact that a small but determined group of anti-Negroponte activists continues its campaign of layering on one-sided attacks, means that in the absence of Negroponte partisans (is there some rule that says every article needs champions as well as detractors?) this article represents a low point of Wikipedia, and a great example of the kind of stuff that Wiki-detractors point to with glee. "Good Article"? You've got to be kidding! [sigh] Yorker 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not spent years researching Negroponte either but I don't think the article is a hatchet job. It appears to report accurate and sourced information that is consistent with my memory of this material. There may be exculpatory material in the public record that you should include if you know of it, but I certainly never saw it in the 1980s when I read about him in mainstream newspapers. There are definitely places in the article where citations would be helpful, but I don't think this is made up or just a bunch of baseless attacks. If you think something is incorrect, by all means look it up and correct it!--csloat 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edited for NPOV/Reverted/Tagged

This article, as discussed in the archived peer review, is highly biased and inappropriate for Wikipedia. I removed the whole swath of attack detail, ALL of which is amply referenced in the external links, as well as the mention (which Kiaparowits had correctly questioned) about Skull & Bones, and re-edited the article back to neutral facts, which is what this is alll supposed to be about. As it is, there are four times as many negative external links as there are positive ones. 23 December 2005 NOTE: For procedural reasons, an Administrator reverted these edits, but has acknowledged the obvious bias of the article (and its clearcut violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View rules) by tagging it with a warning. Readers without an axe to grind are invited to continue editing the article to return it (or, more accurately, bring it for the first time) back to a Wikipedia-appropriate, objective piece. 31 December 2005

[edit] Ummm...reality check here?

I just happened across this page in search for some background information about Negroponte, and I must say that I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion or 'peer review' of this article. I've never met the guy, have no axe to grind, and don't know much about him (which is why I came here in the first place), but I can certainly tell a hatchet job when I see one. This article is so completely biased, and so obviously unfair, that it clearly violates the Wikipedia NPV guidelines. Frankly, I'm almost tempted to rewrite the whole thing from scratch as a community service! Isn't there someone around who knows something about this subject who could do a decent editing job on this piece of blatant character assassination? 28 November 2005

[edit] Skull and Bones

Some anon IP just added the following info to the :

At Yale, he was, like many members of the Bush family, a member of Skull & Bones.

Now, given the subject, this affiliation is certainly possible, but the Skull and Bones article has no mention of him. Does anyone have a reference to his membership? Also, the phrase "like many memebers of the Bush family" seems unneccessary. Thoughts? Kiaparowits 16:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

I added the {{npov}} tag because this article is too criticism-heavy. The Skull and Bones bit is completely irrelevant, and at least a couple of paragraphs do not have anything to do with Negroponte, but rather with the Honduras incidents. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether something is relevant or not is a POV, isn't it? I agree that criticism shouldn't be in articles unless it relates opinions/critisms of credible sources. --Rebroad 16:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "reality check" and this article being "too criticism-heavy"

Aside from the Skull and Bones issue, none of the claims are refuted, are they? Officially denied maybe, but not refuted. Negroponte had a significant role in worsening the human rights situation in Central America, particularly Honduras, in the 1980s. Should we leave that out? It seems to me we are aiming for balance when the facts are clearly not in Negroponte's favor. What if balance means leaving out enough facts so he seems like not quite such a bad guy? While Negroponte is not quite a Hitler or a Stalin, it makes me wonder if similar objections about neutrality would arise if someone were to tell the truth about those two individuals. What if the truth of Negroponte is as bad as this article or worse? Should we strive to moderate the article because the truth seems too extreme? Please tell me if I misunderstood the issue. - Ron Leighton, <email removed>

That is not my complaint. The Neutral point of view policy states that articles should not present any sort of accusatory bias, which this article has. Here's a relevant quote:
  1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.
I'm not asking for the article to be "moderated" by removing all criticism; I'm saying that a response to the criticism should be included in this article. Also, the article must not have any posture on the controversial issues; we're just reporting what happens, not taking a stance on it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If the critism is from credible sources it should stay. If you are aware of rebuttals to the critism also from credible sources, then please feel free to add these to the article. --Rebroad 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm re-adding the {{npov}} tag until at the very least the uncited material is removed, e.g. He is sometimes considered... - brenneman(t)(c) 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
So we have tried and failed to disprove that JN was all mobbed up with the death squads. Why is that a problem? A wiser course might be to explain why death squads and other forms of US intervention in other nations is so widely cherished by many Americans.

I think that what "Tito" (ironic name here, dude) wants is for us to include Rich Lowry's defense of the guy. But a point to note is that even Lowry doesn't deny that he was closely linked to the human rights abuses, Lowry just argues that though he was closely linked, he was neutral, and that such measures may have been necessary to defeat communism.--User:Zaorish

[edit] Skull & Bones Links

I just heard that he was in Skull & Bones on the radio and came here looking for the years to find fellow members. It is a left wing show, The Randi Rhodes Show, which I know has used Wikipedia to research in the past; so it could have used as its source the disputed line.

I don't think that the original author of the sentence: "At Yale, he was, like many members of the Bush family, a member of Skull & Bones." meant to show bias. It can be useful in drawing conclusions about how he was linked to people like the Bushs and Reagan. The wording comes across as expressing a POV, so that problem must be fixed before even thinking about putting it back into the text. Denis Diderot II 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'death squads'?

Any of y'all know wtf the newly added 'death squad' section is about? I have no idea or context, and am mulling its deletion, unless it gets cleaned up. --moof 07:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. Wikipedia is not a place for such apologetics. If Negroponte made such a statement somewhere, it is likely quotable here, but it is neither necessary nor desirable for wikipedia editors to make up arguments that we think Negroponte should have said.--csloat 07:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag?

The POV tag has been on this page for several months, but the explanation given for why it is here offers no specific suggestion for improving the page. "Too much criticism" is not a good reason for the tag -- couldn't we say the same of this page or this one? NPOV should not mean that we balance every "bad" comment with a "good" one. I think we should remove the tag unless someone can articulate a clear suggestion about what can be done to improve the POV issue.--csloat 07:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mostly right, but not totally. For example, look at the "Ambassador to the U.N." section. It contains criticism, which looks pretty accurate. But there is one thing that cannot be denied: It contains Zero information on what JN did as amb. to the UN. --User:Zaorish


For positive facts and perspectives, let's try to add from this article: http://www.pwhce.org/negroponte.html

--User:Zaorish

[edit] "irrelevant miscellany"

Unfortunately, my commit comment got accidentally truncated. If documents that previously weren't released have actually been released, please cite such, rather than just removing a big hunk of text. --moof 09:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

The article has no references and is not set out in wiki style which I personally feel makes it hard to follow.--Childzy 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Secret prisons" claim

Time magazine claimed that Negroponte

  • confirmed the existence of CIA "secret prisons" [1]

However, this was a case of creative misquoting, context manipulation and extrapolation. Actually, the interview cited as "confirming" the existence of the alleged "secret prisons" didn't mention them at all.

The journalists asked about some prisoners, and Negroponte refused to say where they were being held. Logically, this means either:

  • they are being held in regular (non-secret) prisons, i.e., prisons whose existence is on record - but Negroponte just won't say which ones!
  • or secret prisons exist, and that's where the prisoners are (the journalists' conclusion)

The following is clearly a misquotation by Time:

  • "Exclusive: John Negroponte says accused Al-Qaeda members will remain in secret prisons as long as 'war on terror continues.'"

What he actually say was:

  • "... These people are being held, they're bad actors, and as long as the situation continues, the situation with the war on terror continuing, I'm not sure I can tell you what the ultimate disposition of those detainees would be." [2]

Can someone help me go through Wikipedia and make sure the Liberal POV that there are "secret prisons" is not inserted "as fact", but is labelled the POV of Time or whoever it was who chose to interpret Negroponte's statement that way? --Uncle Ed 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that they don't exist? Can you show where Negroponte criticized Time's interpretation of his statement? Surely he would be all over such a blatant distortion of his words, if that's what it was? I haven't been following this closely enough to get involved here, but based on what I have seen in the media and what Ed Poor has pointed out here, I don't think it would be incorrect to infer that they do exist. Isn't there a whole section on them in James Risen's book? Has the Administration ever denied their existence?--csloat 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
No, and no. You'll note that I haven't edited the article based on the AIM report. I wanted to get a little discussion going first.
Perhaps what the article needs is a mention of the dispute over whether Negroponte confirmed the existence of the "secret prisons". By the way, is the a CIA secret prisons article? --Uncle Ed 14:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negroponte witnessed Kissinger Secret Beijing Meet

John D. Negroponte is listed as a NSA staffer in attendance of a secret meeting between Herny Kissinger and Zhou en-Lai, June 20, 1972, in Beijing. the NSA archives recently released a transcript of the meeting.

"Memorandum of Conversation with Zhou Enlai, 20 June 1972". (3.13 MB PDF File)

In the meeting, Kissinger laid out a proper timeline for a Decent Interval between US disengagement from Vietnam, and the North's continuation of hostilities.

Negroponte has been mum on this for over three decades.

--216.193.1.4


[edit] One important member of the US diplomatic delegation against Vietnam ?

Was Negroponte one important member of the US diplomatic delegation against Vietnam during the Vietnam war ( 1965-1975) ?

Thanks,

--Redflowers 19:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)