Talk:Shaha Riza
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| 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. | ||
Contents |
[edit] dating or adultery?
I'm still not sure; was he just dating her, or was he still married and committing adultery? I mean, isn't that kind of relevant to whole question of how ethics are involved? 209.8.184.20 21:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
===Jewish or Muslim=======????
Muslim. [1]
[edit] I'm confused
She works for the US State Department but is still drawing a salary from the World Bank? Corvus cornix 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- the information I added should clear this up. @ state not for. She was forced to leave her longstanding Job at WB when Wolfowitz was hired because they had been linked "romantically" in some tabloids. This was determined by an Ethics Committee. Her boyfriend or whatever got a job where she worked, which meant that she had to go. Very very Ethical. They gave her a promo and a raise and shipped her off to state to get rid of her for a few years. ( It is some kind of liaison work) Not what she wanted however as she likely would have been officially promoted for the job she was already doing before they hired him. She is getting shafted for it now both ways because people want to get to Wolfowitz (I am not even sure she still is "linked" personally to him.) They might both be the worst humans on the face of the planet but this story is B.S. Thats how it works - "alls fair "as they say.68.60.68.203 10:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The source of the controversy is not so much Riza herself, as it is Wolfowitz personally intervening in the negotiations for her new salary and then apparently not giving all the facts when later asked about it. Yes, Riza is getting crapped on by association: with a polarizing figure like Wolfowitz, it's going to happen whether it's fair or not. It won't be the first time a person's career got destroyed because of who he or she hooked up with. --Saforrest 13:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
When did she born? In 1968/1969 or in early 1950's? Nbrunner 17:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm confused too
I'm confused by the timing. Articles say she was dating Wolfowitz, and he was besotted by her, but he is married. Did he date her before he was married, or were involved in (public?) infidelity? Especially as the charges involve ethics, it seems quite relevant to ask whether or not infidelity is involved, or just regular dating -- the latter is hardly unethical? John furspire
I did more reading, but, got more confused -- Wolfowitz has already been dumped by his wife for cheating with someone else he was teaching?? John furspire
Some victim, she has gotten an over $60,000 raise to $193,590 tax-free, automatic 8% annual increases and when Wolfowitz leaves a guaranteed transfer back with another guaranteed raise. Maybe she is mad that Wolfowitz got two other GOP operative friends of his $250,000 tax-free annual contracts despite no banking or development experience.Elemming 22:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- she is probably mad because they forced her out - screwed her career at the bank (eight years) - gave her a promotion she should have been given at least 2 years earlier, supposedly because it would have looked bad if they kept her after they hired her boyfriend as the president, Mistake on her part to go along but it was that or she was out in the cold with six months pay. Now she is portrayed in the press as Wolfowitz's dumb BIMBO. What she got was a RAW DEAL. Look at her freakin resume' IMO any ethics committee that tells a woman she has to go- in order to make room for her boyfriend- should be up on charges. 68.60.68.203
[edit] timeline of facts
this story has been misreported - for those too lazy to read through the released memos. I hate this kind of office slander mongering, which is what is going on here, and hate it worse when the press does not vet the available facts on any story. The same press that brought us Wolfowitz's lies, uncut, are now bringing us his enemies lies the same way.
The documentation released by the Bank, 100 pages. I linked it in the article. at bicusa.org/proxy/Document.10080.aspx
Wolfowitz told the board about Riza before he was hired. The board took him on knowing the situation w/Riza.
July 21 memo to Ethics Board
Proposed Recusal Language
In order to avoid any conflict of interest, real or apparent, ...I recuse myself from any personnel decisions or actions with respect to Ms. Shaha Riza. To further insure any personnel action or decision bearing on Ms, Riza's employment is consistant both with her rights as an employee and with my recusal and that no influence real or apparent, has been implied or assumed, I direct the Human Resources notify the Ethics Committee of any personnel action or decision concerning Ms. Riza and provide the Committee with any information to insure all appropriate Bank standards, rules and regulations have been properly upheld and enforced.
July 27
"the EC has noted the proposed recusal. At this point the EC does not consider recusal sufficient...
...The EC advises
a) that the staff member will be relocated...and therefore withdraw from the current selection procedure for job promotion within the MENA department... b) ...disruption of the staff members career prospect will be recognized by an in situ promotion... c) the President, with the General Counsel, communicate this to VPMENA and VPHR so as to implement a) and b) with immediate effect.
Everybody understand this???
1) The ethics board would NOT ALLOW wolfowitz to recuse himself.
2) The ethics board would NOT ALLOW to keep her job at the bank because they hired her boyfriend, (to me this is a complete outrage)
To compensate her for INVOLUNTARY removal and completely screwing her career.
3) The ethics board advised the in situ promotion which is what everybody is squealing is so wrong. I would like to point out that Riza had been carrying out the duties as "acting manager" for THREE YEARS without the benefits of the GRADE Level Promotion that she obviously deserved if they kept her in that position for that long. Anyone who has ever worked in any type of bureaucratic situation understands this very well, wherein the powers that be - screw you for as long as possible, making you do duties above your formal level, before finally getting up off a promotion (usually when you point out to them that you have another job offer).
august 8 from head of EC to President
I have approached Xavier Coll [VPHS] ... to meet.. the staff member.. The EC cannot interact directly with staff member situations, hence Xavier should act upon your instructions....
so 4) the ethics board told Wolfowitz that they couldn't get their hands dirty with the business and that He would have to tell Xavier (vp of human resources) how to get rid of Riza.
Xavier Coll to Shaha Riza
I have been instructed by the president to meet with you.
The President has instructed me to agree to a proposal ...
- Accept immediately your offer to be detailed to an outside institution...while retaining Bank salary and benefits.
- Offer you a promotion at level GH at a net ...of S180,000 (over the mid-point in the salary range of the grade)
apply salary increases equivalent to a mid-point salary rating of 5 (which would approximate 8% .... or b) to offer you a financial settlement that would compensate you for the lost opportunities related to promotion and the pain suffering and damage to your professional reputation that has been involved in the forced departure.
12 aug
Wolfowitz (president) to Melkert (chair Ethics)
....Mr Coll and Ms. Riza have reached an agreement. Since she has agreed to be detailed outside the bank group, there is no further conflict of interest. I ..view this matter as closed.
Oct Chairman Ethics Committe to president
Thank you for your memo dated 12 August...because the outcome is consistent with the Committee's findings and advice above, the Committee concurs with your view that this matter can be treated as closed.
OK ETHICS BOARD SIGNED OFF ON THIS DEAL. 1ST time
John Smith email of 1/21/2006 .... First Issue: the salary Increase of Shaha Riza.....
Ok so an e-mail is sent to Ethics Board requesting investigations of Wolfowitz including Shaha Riza deal.
Feb
Melkert (chairman of ethics board) to Wolfowitz
...to inform you that the Ethics Committee has recieved two e-mails from "John Smith"...sent to the Bank's Investigations Hotline and copied to the Executive Directors. The emails allege ethical lapses by the President...
...the Committee reviewed documents ...pertinent to an understanding of the basis for the allegations....
On the basis of a careful review of the above documents ...the Ethics Committee decided that the allegation regarding appointments of Bank staff do not appear to pose ethical issues...The Committee also decided that the allegation relating to a matter ...previously considered did not contain new information warranting any further review...
OK ETHICS BOARD SIGNED OFF ON THIS DEAL A SECOND time. Further this was in response to formal allegations of misconduct.
Now it is over a year later and the so called Ethics Board can't take the heat and claim they never approved anything, BS!!! In fact the whole story is BS. I personally think it is low to attack someones girlfriend (falsely) when you can't find another way to bring the man down. 68.60.68.203 02:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the entire Wolfowitz scandal portion of this article has so little to do with Shaha Riza that it ought to be elsewhere. That section deals so little with what she actually did, and focuses so much on the actions of those around her. Might it be more appropriate to put this in its own article?
[edit] "neither the Board nor the Ethics Committee was aware "
the Washington Post may have reported this but it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE as I pointed out above. Just read the memos of the chairman of the Ethics Board to Wolfowitz. Because the Washington Post misreported the facts does not mean it should be given equal weight in a biography of a living person. Same is true of the London Financial Times. I will leave this post for a day - for response. 68.60.68.203 02:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that you are entirely wrong in these matters. However, I think that your position is kind-of fanatical. The question is not simply whether the Ethics Committee did or didn't know what happened with Riza, it's exactly what they learned, when they learned it, and from whom. The dossier doesn't completely answer these questions. Greg Kuperberg 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Straighter narrative
Somehow the narrative of the Wolfowitz scandals was confusing and convoluted. The prose was convoluted and so was the timeline. There were also attributions that were permuted from what is actually in the dossier. (For example, the Ethics Committee's answer that the specific terms of Riza's settlement were consistent with its earlier findings came only after the anonymous e-mail from Yahoo, not in 2005.) I rewrote most of it in plainer English and put it more in order. However, the new version needs page references. Greg Kuperberg 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- (for example Oct is in 2005 for most people i believe) Oct Chairman Ethics Committe to president
Thank you for your memo dated 12 August...because the outcome is consistent with the Committee's findings and advice above, the Committee concurs with your view that this matter can be treated as closed. ---- that would be on page 91 68.60.68.203 05:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
One would think that you might be able to use it, since it comes from the World Bank, but sadly, that is not the case. Just want to save somebody's time. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 06:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, I was referring to this one. Abeg92We are all Hokies! 06:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- That page is a blanket statement for their "photo collection" which is their PR showcase. Some images on the site are less restrictive, though. I took Image:Shaha Riza.png from http://www.worldbank.org/springmeetings/photos041103-mna.htm which specifically says "These photographs are in the public domain. They are free to use for publication purposes." I assume the difference is because they want the press conference photos to be used as widely as possible. In any case, this image is public domain, as is this one, if anyone's inclined to use it. ··coelacan 00:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date/age discrepancy
In 'background' it is stated that she married a much older man.
Yet the dates given indicate that he is, at the most, two years older than her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.114.139.222 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Ruth Wedgwood LA times editroial
added link to fellow "fanatic" Ruth Wedgwood La Times Editorial
"the scandal-mongers have recklessly ignored a written record of bank documents that serves not to condemn but to exculpate Wolfowitz.'
Moreover, the case reveals the bank's executive board and its ethics committee as organs of haphazard judgment. In 2005, the ethics committee surprisingly denied Wolfowitz's written request that he be allowed to recuse himself from all decisions touching on Riza's status because of their relationship. Then it disqualified her from remaining at the bank yet insisted that she be compensated for this disruption to her career. Next, it insisted that Wolfowitz re-enter the chain of command to execute its advice concerning Riza. And now, board members apparently have criticized Wolfowitz for doing exactly what the ethics panel directed." ........It is hard to square the record with the entertaining claim that the World Bank's president somehow concocted a do-nothing job for his girlfriend. It's a bum rap, and one that women professionals in dual-career families might worry about. 68.60.68.203 08:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do op-ed pieces meet wikipedia's reference guidelines? 71.119.92.75 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Limit Quotes to the Source, not Op-Ed
I have read many articles on Riza, Wolfowitz and the World Bank over the past weeks and due to highly unfavorable editing of virtually all opinion from many sources (Those tending to oppose anything to do with the Bush Administration), I think that references should be limited to quotes from official documents. --Tobyw 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, that's not how we do things here. Anything sourced from Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources can be used, and that includes a great deal more than "official documents". WP:NPOV demands that we don't give undue weight to scandal, but also that we don't whitewash. And we can use op-eds if they are used to say "soandso said this about whatshername". ··coelacan 00:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with tending to oppose anything to do with the Bush Administration? If you excluded people who oppose Bush, you'd have to exclude most Americans, in fact even most human beings. Many more people oppose Bush than support him, because he's done an absolutely horrible job, and lies all the time. Even birds express their opinion by shitting on him during press conferences! Bush made your bed, now you sleep in it. Stop whining that it's not fair he's not popular, and join the rest of humanity in opposing that horrible fraud.
[edit] Cleanup tag
The citations throughout this article and the way passages are quoted are incorrectly formatted throughout. "Full citations" needed for this article on a living person--see Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidance. External links do not suffice; full citation format needed throughout. Quotations can be reformatted as block quotations; it needs to be clear where the quotations begin and end; use of quotation marks for short quotations of four lines or less; for longer quotations, block quotation format useful. --NYScholar 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
