Talk:Paul Wolfowitz

Contents

1 Too Laudatory 2 Military Service 3 Photos 4 Vandalism 5 Neoconservative 6 Response to my edits 7 Jewish ancestry 8 criticism section 9 Leo Strauss

Too Laudatory

I hate to complain, but this reads more like a resume than an encylopedia article. Specifically it needs to include his involvment with the massacres in East Timor (well over 200000 dead). One cannot seperate Wolfowitz from the Reagan policy towards Indonesia. The one sentence on the subject isn't enough and the article doesn't even include the words "East Timor."

141.213.175.149, you are welcome to boldly make additions as you see fit. Please make sure they are encyclopedic and NPOV. —thames 04:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In responce to your complaint, I did add a paragraph on Suharto's crimes but this was recently deleted. I accept the criticism that it was too polemic and appologise. However I feel that removal of all mention of these crimes and changing the word "dictator" to "president" and "regime" to "government" goes far beyond the users stated aim of "making the Suharto bit a bit less polemic". I feel that it is essential that we at least mention these crimes to put the following paragraph about Wolfowitz's lack of criticism into some sort of context. So I have inserted a paragraph on these crimes (including the invasion of East Timor) but I have attempted to tone down the language and to use quotes from Wolfowitz wherever possible. I also Made a minor correction to Trey Stone's excellent submission, the quote about Suharto's departure being 10 years to late was made in the Wall Street Journal article written in 1998 not in Wolfowitz's farewell speech in 1989. I hope this is all satisfactory for everyone and would appreciate any feedback. Mutt 18:17, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Military Service

what is Wolfowitz's military experience? Kingturtle 07:11 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

From what I've read, he managed to avoid military service.

Wolfowitz avoided the draft to Vietnam by enrolling in college, to be fair to him I would have probably done the same thing, but on the other hand I don't advocate military action around the globe. Any way I've added a brief line about this to the early life section along with a link to the chickenhawk (politics) article where these ideas are explored further. Mutt 18:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Photos

Where are all the photos gone which I saw some days ago? I wanted to store one or two in my computer ;-) Just a short comment. It is one point to be convinced that a regime like Saddam's is a weapon of mass destruction in itself. But it will become dangerous if one works out strategies to overcome such states. You will be confronted with unforeseen and uncalculable effects of your action. I doubt whether one could be ever successful in changing the world by means of political action or steering (even as president of World Bank)--Ennia 19:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some vandalism (quite funny) has taken place. I know almost nothing of the subject soI am loathe to change anything (who knows which bits of his character are real and which are made up). smcgrother March 17th 2005

Neoconservative

slw2014 If the term "neoconservative" is an acceptable label to the labelled why not use it? To say that Wolfowitz' support of a Palestinian state and being Jewish and being neoconservative is rare is a fair assessment; it may well be an understatement. These two assertions do not detract from NPOV in my view and should stand.

I do not have the highest opinion of Mr. Wolfowitz, but the article seems quite fair and balanced to me. And despite his being "wildly off the mark" on manpower and monitary estimates for Iraq the article does not make him out to be a monster. Frankly the inclusion of "Wolfowitz is also one of the few neo-conservatives to have endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state..." has given me a much better impression of, what until now, I considered to be an armchair quarterback who enjoys watching others bathe in blood. --Wjbean 22:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok could we remove the non NPOV tone of this article. Using words like "ultra-zionist" and largely grouping members of the bush administration as "neoconservatives" lays out a political tone could easily be construed as "unsupportive" or "anti-wolfowitz," and those of us who know him probably wouldnt describe him in exactly this fashion. - slw2014

I agree with your statements and I think that your edits to the article were good. However, I don't understand why you removed the statement, "Wolfowitz is also one of the few neo-conservatives to have endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state..." Is Wolfowitz' uniquness among neoconservatives in this respect not an important piece of information? Are you disputing the statement or its inclusion in the article?

Thanks,

Acegikmo1 20:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do believe this is pretty non-POV. Is he a neoconservative? Yes. Did he endorse the idea of a Palestinian state? Yes. Is that rare for neoconservatives? Yes. What's the issue?

• • This matter was resolved some time ago. The original poster's problem was with the term "neoconservative" (which can have more than one meaning). "one of the few neoconservatives in the Bush administration" was chosen as an acceptable compromise; to the best of my knowledge, no-one has any complaint with the current wording. CJCurrie 01:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I was the one who originally wrote "Wolfowitz is also one of the few neo-conservatives ..." (this was before I acquired a login name). It was intended as a statement of fact, not a political POV or value judgement. I'm fully supportive of removing the non-NPOV parts of this page; I just don't think my contribution should be considered in that category.

Given the controversial nature of the subject matter, I'm willing to give the person who removed the line a chance to explain him/herself before I put it back in. If I don't receive such an explanation by tomorrow, the line returns.

(For now, I've corrected the grammar.)

- CJCurrie

Response to my edits

my main reason for removing that comment revolves around the term neo-conservative. While I do not clain that this lable is not applicable to Mr. Wolfowitz, the term is one that is less easily defined than, say, Republican and Democrat or Conservative and Liberal. If one were asked to list all of the "neo-conservatives" in politics, many on that list could easily be contended, especially given the history of the term and its changing meaning over time. So saying that Mr Wolfowitz is "one of the few..." might be difficult to quantify. Also, and I take this directly from the wikipedia article, "one should note that many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish, such as Michael Novak, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Gaffney, and Max Boot." My point is, sentiments against the formation of a palestinian state are not a necessary staple of neoconservatism, even though many NC's are pro-israel. If neo-conservatism were defined as such I would say ok, but it is a rather ambiguus term in my view and should be replaced where it is not absolutely necessary. I would not be against somehow describing him as one of the few staunch supporters of israel in US government who also supports a palestinian state, again it was the "neoconservative" wording that bothered me. ~Slw2014

---

To slw: I've also had some difficulties with the use of the term "neoconservative" as exclusively applied to Perle, Wolfowitz, Kirkpatrick et al, given that the term had a much less specific meaning during the 1980s and 1990s. I think that the wording would still be appropriate here, but I could find a neutral term if "neoconservative" would cause too many problems. (I'll think of something, in any case ...)

---

good deal, that certainly seems appropriate. It looks good to me slw2014

---

slw2014 what is a nice term for the "dual loyalty" Likudnik cabal. Traitor seems over the top and agent of influence is a bit too generic. "Neoconservative" or "NeoCon" seems very generous. Many prominent neoconservatives are not Jewish so it is not a Jewish thing. How do you know Wolfowitz?

Jewish ancestry

In my view the reference to the religious beliefs of Wolfowitz or his ancestors suggests that they motivate his political beliefs and actions. This cannot be substantiated, is non-NPOV and I therefore removed it.

Alban 2005-03-17 11:16 UTC

The truth can NEVER be non-neutral. He IS Jewish, and many Arab leaders have expressed concern over the matter due to this fact. Perhaps they are wrong, but the man is a Jew and this has a tremendous impact on world events as they are happening at this very moment.

The article does mention that he is a Jewish-American politician, and that he is pro-Israel. Adding "He is a jew" doesn't really add anything to the article, and doesn't help further understanding of the man. —thames 20:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually thames just removed the reference to Wolfowitz being of Jewish-American background. In fact there is no reference to his Jewish ancestry anymore. Why edit this information out? We agreed that there should be at least 1 reference to this fact. Where shall we put this fact? Thanks! - Jeff, 3 May 2005 UTC

Perhaps Wolfowitz's religious and ethnic background is relevant in the scheme of things, but should it be in the first sentence? If so, I guess we should begin other articles by saying things like, "Sandy Koufax is a retired Jewish-American baseball player" or "Bob Dylan is a Jewish-American musician." Mwalcoff 15:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mwalcoff, basically. See the record for a similar discussion regarding Bill Kristol on Talk:Bill Kristol. For all I know, Wolfowitz is an atheist american. Is this relevant information? The fact he is jewish may be relevant, but its relevance would need to be backed up by something he said to that effect. Otherwise, it seems baseless innuendo and should be left out. --CSTAR 20:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I feel that it is important that we mention this important piece of background information I have a number of concerns about the current text, which reads "Despite his support for Israel (Wolfowitz, who is Jewish, has family, including a sister, in Israel)".

Firstly do we know if Wolfowitz is a practicing Jew, if not I think we need to stick to the more neutral "of Jewish-American background" which we know to be true rather than stating "He is a jew".

Secondly I have worries about mentioning it in context of Israel as this implies a conection between the two that I don't think is ours to make.

I would prefer to revert to the previous version which mentions the factual background/ancestory information in the summary paragraph at the beginning and leaves it to the reader to draw there own conclusions from there on. Mutt 18:22, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well, before, it had his Jewishness in the very first paragraph, which I thought was inappropriate (see my comment above). I certainly didn't mean to inflame tensions any more. Perhaps Wolfowitz's heritage should go in the "Personal Life" section? Mwalcoff 20:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to sound too critical there, it's just that we really seem to be going around in circles with this one. Anyway I've tried to come up with a compromise. I'm going to add a new paragraph to the early life section which explains what we know about Wolfowitz's religous/ethnic background without trying to draw any conclusions. What does everyone think? Mutt 18:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Mwalcoff 19:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

criticism section

I removed the "criticism" section because it was clearly POV in intention. There are plenty of critical remarks already in the text. To be fair we'd also have to have a section of quotes entitled "Praise of Wolfowitz" which could include cites to Corazon Aquino, and various Indonesian and Malaysian dissidents. But to have competing quote sections is both asinine and too informal in style. (posted by 65.223.172.115; originally unsigned)

hmmm. I added the section because I noticed something similar on the chomsky page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Criticism_of_Chomsky.27s_political_views) but agree with what you've said. Wondering how to strike a balance.

I agree with the anonymous poster's removal of the section. The current "Opinions" heading is better, but I think still might lead to an edit war of different sides just listing more and more quotes in favor and against Wolfowitz. --BaronLarf 17:02, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Leo Strauss

Does anybody know where in Leo Strauss' work he "espoused the necessity of myth building to pursue the political destiny of the U.S."?