Talk:Paul Wolfowitz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

I was unhappy with the Opinions section as it just seemed to be a series of quotes relating to Wolfie's appointment to the World Bank, so I have moved most of these to a new section on his World Bank Presidency which I hope we can expand at a later date, and have added a couple of more general quotes about him to the opinions section.Mutt July 2, 2005 16:07 (UTC)

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)

In this transcript of an interview with Paul Wolfowitz doen by Janine Zacharia, the Jerusalem PostDeputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with the Jerusalem Post, September 22, 2003 Paul Wolfowitz seemingly states himself that he is an observing "reformed jew". Excerpt; Q: So what are you doing for Rosh Hashanah? Wolfowitz: Probably spending most of the time in synagogue. {Laughter} Q: Can I say a reformed synagogue? Wolfowitz: Yeah Q: But are you generally observant or how would you characterize yourself as? Wolfowitz: I guess observant as a reformed Jew. Q: In a reformed kind of way? Wolfowitz: Yes, yes, I mean I do take it seriously.

Wether or not it should be included in the article or not, i have no opinion on, but it may help in stopping speculations. Bjorn.Persson 06:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Straussianism

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

Hmm nowhere, Strauss is infamous for never actually writing what he means and as such is very difficult to sum-up concisely. My attempt to do so was based on my readings of commentators on Strauss and as such I accept that I was probably editorialising, so I have removed to comment. Instead I have created a new section under political views in which I have attempted to explore Strauss's influence on Wolfie in more detail. Mutt July 2, 2005 16:42 (UTC)

Albert Wohlstetter was a far greater influence than Strauss, and yet there is no picture of him. Why the two pictures of Bloom and Strauss? Wohlstetter "returned from a trip to Israel with a number of Hebrew language documents on the program" that "would form the basis of Wolfowitz's doctoral dissertation" (the title of which is Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East: The Politics and Economics of Proposals for Nuclear Disarming). Why is there more about the influence of two teachers that taught Paul Wolfowitz about Plato and philosophy and not more about a teacher who "instilled in his students the importance of maintaining US supremacy through advanced weaponry"? There is still much, much debate in the community of Straussian scholars whether or not Strauss himself wrote esoterically. The Straussianism section is an interpretation of an interpretation which doesn't give any supporting quotes from Leo Strauss' writings.

Okay, I would agree that Wohlstetter probably was a bigger influence and I think in the text of the article he is actually mentioned far more often, there's no picture of Wohlstetter simply because I couldn't find one, I hope this doesn't distract from his importance, and if anyone has a picture please put it up.

I think that it is obvious that both Bloom and Strauss did have a major influence on Wolfie and I would love to have included some quotes from Strauss himself on foreign policy but as far as I'm aware there aren't any. In fact I think you could put forward a fairly convincing argument that the beliefs of Leo Strauss have very little in common with the modern concept of Straussianism, just as you could differentiate between the beliefs of Marx and the concept of modern Marxism and the beliefs of Christ and the concept of modern Christianity, but I don't think that this is the place for that argument.

As such in the text of the article it never actually accuses Strauss of esoteric writings as I'm aware of how contentious that is and believe that it would distract from the true purpose of the section. Which I think is an attempt to try and explore Wolfie's relationship to the concept of Straussianism as it has come to be applied to modern politics. In doing this it is necessary to rely on credible secondary sources such as Shadia Drury of the University of Calgary and Robert Pippin of the University of Chicago. If you think that the text fails in that task then please improve upon it. Mutt 23:35, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're only relying on James Mann, Shadia Drury, and Robert Pippin for this interpretation of Strauss' writings. Drury and Pippin read Strauss as an esotericist, and saying that Wolfowitz believes “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them” (basically, lying to the American people) is quite a serious claim to put into an article. In Drury's Straussian reading of Strauss, he is "nihilistic, Nietzschean, of a postmodern conservatism that advocates the need for 'supermen' to fabricate salutary lies for the consumption of the many." Shouldn't we write that into the article? Perhaps it was the exoteric teaching that influenced Wolfowitz. Does the exoteric teaching say anything about perpetually deceiving "the masses"? Of course, if it did, there'd be quotations from Strauss and Bloom in this section. I don't think I understand what you're saying about Strauss' beliefs having "very little in common with the modern concept of Straussianism". The modern conception of Straussianism is... ? Also, is Wolfowitz a Straussian of the West-coast or East-coast persuasion? Is Wolfowitz' Straussianism the same Straussianism as Richard Rorty's, Harry Jaffa's, Allan Bloom's, or Bill Galston's (a student of Allan Bloom, Joseph Cropsey, and Leo Strauss; and former domestic policy advisor to President Clinton)? Is there anything Straussians agree upon? Is there even such a thing as Straussianism?

Thanks for your comments, as usual you make some very good points, and I apologise for not fully grasping them the first time around. I have attempted to reword the text to take your comments into account, although this is obviously a work in progress and I would appreciate any further suggestions that you have.

As I have said I don't think this is the place to talk about the beliefs of Strauss, I think what we need to address here is the critical interpretations of Straussianism as they have been related to Wolfie. As we have seen from recent anonymous edits there is a widely-held opinion amongst some people that Wolfie did indeed lie to the American people and this has been linked to an interpretation of Straussianism.

So I think we would be remiss if we did not find someway to cover this within the article, and this is what I am attempting to do. I greatly appreciate your help with this and if you can recommend any further sources on this I would appreciate it, oh and yes I might write in your fabulous Nietzschean quote when I get more time. Mutt

Why has this section been deleted? As you can see from this discussion we spent a long time trying to get to an acceptably NPOV text. I still feel that it has something important to say, so can someone explain the reason for its removal.

Pictures

I like pictures in articles, but I think there are too many in this article. Pictures of Donald Rumsfeld, who doesn't know what he looks like? Seriously tho, a few choice pictures is better than many pointless ones. I will start getting rid of some, if there aren't any objections. I also think this article should be a featured article one day. --Mrfixter 17:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't. Not sure I want to. Rich Farmbrough 21:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there probably were to many pictures in the article before, but I think we have gone to the other extreme now. The article now looks long, wordy and uninteresting and really doesn't appeal to browsers anymore. I would like some of the pictures put back in, what does everyone else think?