Talk:Paul Wolfowitz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2005-2006

Wolfowitz's Early Education

He did not "win" a scholarship to Cornell. Free tuition for the children of Faculty (and staff) at Cornell is a normal employee benefit (although it has been cut back to tuition assistance for lower ranking staff in more recent years). To say he "won" a scholarship with his dad on the faculty is like saying the guy "won" a head of hair, or two legs. CherylF

That is absolutely true. No Ivy League schools give scholarships. Any aid provided is based on financial need or, as in this case, as a perquisite for a faculty member.

Actually, Wolfowitz did win a merit scholarship that payed for his room and board at Cornell, even though Cornell itself like the other Ivy leagues offer no merit based scholarships. The key to this puzzle is the Telluride Association, on the Cornell campus, and affiliated with Cornell but legally and administratively a separate institution. Telluride programs are among the most prestigious in the academic world. It would be hard to overstate the importance of Telluride to Wolfowitz's education. Annie06

Wolfowitz's political affiliation

I've read that Perle, Wolfowitz and Kirkpatrick (and possibly others in their circle) are still nominally Democrats, despite their close association with Republican administrations and hawkish views on foreign policy. Does anyone know for sure? CJCurrie 21:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no-one answered, I looked it up myself:

Finally, he will offer unusual energy and optimism. Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a "right-wing hawk", he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person.

Printed in The Times , 18 March 2005. I make no comment on the text itself. CJCurrie 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake! Sorry! Travb 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since I was so surprised about Wolfowitz still nominally a democract, I also did a search and found this at the Washington Post:

"After serving at the Pentagon during the Carter administration, Wolfowitz remained a registered Democrat until he joined the Reagan administration as head of policy planning at the State Department. He said it was not he who changed his political philosophy so much as the Democratic Party, which abandoned the hard-headed internationalism of Harry Truman, Kennedy and Jackson."[1]

This comment is key and deserves closer attention. Consider the 2nd chapter of E.J. Dionne's book Why Americans Hate Politics. It's called The Virtues of Virtue: The Neoconservative Revolt. Dionne makes it clear that the term neoconservative was invented by the late Michael Harrington to "make clear that a group including many who called themselves liberal was in fact a movement of newly conservative ex-liberals. The label eventually stuck because it was so apt -- and because over time, so many of the neoconservatives came to accept that they were conservatives after all." Suffice it to say, liberalism's right flank wanted nothing to do with the New Left. "[T]he Democratic Party's subsequent close association with the antiwar movement tarred it in the eyes of moderate and conservative voters as the party of military weakness, flag burning, and draft dodging." Indeed, that's a far cry from the Truman or Kennedy years. The current confusion about PW's political affiliation seems to represent a deeper confusion about the roots of neoconservatism. Best, MoodyGroove 01:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Incidentally, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a neoconservative, and a Democrat. MoodyGroove 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

This is clearly in contrast to what the London Times says so what should be included in the article? 00:46 22nd March 2006

It is certainly my understanding that Wolfie gave up his Democratic Party membership in 1980 at the same time he resigned as U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs following a warning from Ikle that he was considered too close to the Democrats for a post in the Reagan administration. Since he was appointed U.S. State Department Director of Policy Planning in 1981 I assume that he was no longer a Democrat as I find it very difficult to believe that the incoming administration would have changed their mind about him unless this was true. Since we now have a verifiable source with a quote from the man himself that supports this and everyone associates Wolfie with the Republicans anyway I support the proposal to change the political affiliation to indicate this, unless anyone has any serious objections? Mutt 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about this: it isn't unusual for US administrations to hire some "nominal" members of the other party. I'm fairly certain that Jeanne Kirkpatrick was still a registered Democrat during her tenure with the Reagan administration, for instance ... and I believe that William Cohen was still a Republican when he served in Clinton's administration. CJCurrie 01:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You have two conflicting news reports he has not ceased being a registered Democrat.--The Times and Wolfowitz remained a registered Democrat until he joined the Reagan administration Washington Post. I would tend to believe the Washington Post over The Times. The Times article was a glowing advertisement for Wolfwitz. Isn't the Washington Post considered more prestigious than the Times? I think we need a third source. I will dig around.Travb 01:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd normally trust the Post over the Times as well, but that may not be the point at issue. The Times reference seems to contain a more recent update as to his affiliation, while the Post reference could be based on an assumption. I agree that a third source would be useful. CJCurrie 01:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"may not be the point at issue" agreed, and I felt that way when I wrote this. That is why I did some searching and I now agree with your analysis, CJCurrie, that Wolfowitz is a democrat.Travb 02:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles about Wolfowitz's political affiliation

1

Dems should take cues from neocons University Wire February 9, 2006 Thursday

The "intellectual high priest of the Bush administration's hawks," Paul Wolfowitz, is actually a registered Democrat.

Analysis: not much weight, college newspaper, probably written by college student.

2

Democrat hawk whose ghost guides Bush: Scoop Jacksons body is 20 years in the grave but his spirit goes marching on The Guardian (London) December 6, 2002

Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, the two leading strategists at the defence department, and Richard Perle, an unusual but influential Pentagon adviser, are all former Democrats who worked for Jackson in the 70s, and looked on him as their mentor.

Mr Perle still claims to be a registered Democrat, in honour of the late senator for Washington state, and Mr Wolfowitz has been known to describe himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican".

Analysis: no mention of Wolfowitz being a democrat--Wolfowitz describes himself as a "Scoop Jackson Republican", but the article does not explain what party Wolfowitz is actual registered in.

Confusingly, the article also decribes Perle, a registered Democrat and Wolfowitz as "former Democrats"

3

Tailor-made for the 21st century ; Nothing new about war plans. San Antonio Express-News (Texas) October 20, 2002, Sunday

Designers of this American imperialist strategy are a cadre of neo-conservative foreign-policy intellectuals, many with ties to the Reagan and Bush I administrations, who now hold key positions in the current administration. At the Pentagon, they include Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who worked in the Ford, Reagan and Bush I administrations, as well as Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. Wolfowitz served in the Reagan State Department, worked in the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy, and, according to the New York Times, has been focused on the Iraqi threat since 1979.

The American imperialists also include Richard Perle, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, who now chairs the Defense Policy Board, a panel of Republican foreign policy thinkers who advise the secretary of defense. Known as the "Prince of Darkness" for his fierce opposition to arms control treaties with the Soviet Union, the immensely influential Perle is a protege of the late Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a long time Democratic senator from Washington. (Perle is still a registered Democrat out of respect for Jackson.)

Analysis: No mention of Wolfowitz being a democrat, despite mentioning the Perle is a registered democrat.

4

Richard Perle Slate Magazine August 23, 2002, Friday

As a staffer for the fiercely anti-Communist Sen. Henry Scoop Jackson, D-Wash., in the 1970s, Perle established himself as the quintessential Washington operator, as the Washington Post's Robert Kaiser described him in 1977 in a nearly 3,700-word profile, an unusual amount of space to devote to a Senate staffer, even the right-hand man for the senator from Boeing. (Like some other neocons, Perle sometimes reminds reporters that he's a registered Democrat, though he's been associated with Republican administrations and candidates for two decades.)

Analysis: Article mention "other neocons" being registered democrats, but does not explain who.

5

Congress To Debate Terri Schiavo Legislation Sunday Night; Democrats Threaten Filibuster Anti-Filibuster Legislation; Prime Minister Martin, Presidents Fox, Bush To Meet in Crawford Next Week. Fox News Network March 19, 2005 Saturday

MORT KONDRACKE, HOST: You know, there's some agitation, lots of agitation on the part of various Europeans and even some Americans about, you know, whether this guy, this warmonger, should be at, at the World Bank. The fact is that Paul Wolfowitz is a democrat, small D, he's a humanitarian, he's an idealist, he, he deserves a shot. And what's more...

FRED BARNES, HOST: He's a friend of yours.

KONDRACKE (ignoring statment/question): ... he's not going to be stopped by the Europeans...

6

The Vietnam Continuum Newsweek March 13, 2004 Newsweek Web Exclusive

True, almost none of the Bush administration hawks who pushed hardest for war had served in Vietnam. But for them too, the Iraq debate was framed by the long reach of that war. Some war enthusiasts, so-called neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were Democrats who "came over [to the GOP] as a result of Vietnam in one form or another," disgusted by their party's mishandling of that war and the Cold War in general, as one old Republican lion, a veteran of the first Bush administration, said to me. Hence, of course, the "neo" in neoconservative, although a better term for them is neo-Reaganites: today's hawks are the intellectual heirs of the original Reaganite critique of GOP foreign policy, which of course was shaped by Vietnam.

7

Conclusion

Wolfwoitz is a democrat, as per the Fox News show. As one of his friends, MORT KONDRACKE states.

signed:Travb 01:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow well done on the diligent research but I have to disagree with your conclusion. The fact that Kondracke clarifies his statement “Paul Wolfowitz is a democrat” by saying “small D” would seem to indicate that he is not a Democrat (big D) ie a member of the Democratic Party. While the fact that Wolfie describes himself as a “Scoop Jackson Republican” would seem to indicate his membership of the Republican Party. Mutt 03:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done a bit more research myself ...

Here's a Sunday Times summary, from 20 March 2005:

To Wolfowitz's critics, Riza is a perplexing counterweight to his sister Laura, a biologist who lives in Israel and is married to an Israeli, lending weight to suspicions that Wolfowitz is pursuing an agenda hostile to Arab regimes. In fact, she is reported to be a moderate with little enthusiasm for hardline Israeli policies. To confuse matters further, her hawkish brother serves a fiercely Republican administration but is a registered Democrat.

(I realize this is essentially the same source as before; still, it goes some way to confirming the point.) CJCurrie 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Riza is Wolfowitz's girlfriend right? So it is talking about Riza's brother, not Wolfowitz.Travb 04:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's referring to Wolfie (i.e. Laura's Brother) it's just very badly formatted. Still it's the Times. Doesn't look like we're getting much closer to a resolution on this one. Anyone got Wolfie's phone number? Mutt 05:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at Wolfie's political donations on NewsMeat [2] you'll see that they are all to Republican candidates. Where as Perle has donated to Democrat candidates. Although again I know that this doesn’t prove anything. Mutt 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion about his party affiliation is the same as for his religious affiliation; i.e. that we shouldn’t mention it unless we have verifiable evidence one way or the other. So I have added a paragraph at the end of the section on U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Regional Programs that discusses what we do know and uses both quotes. I have also removed the mention on the table, this is commented out along with the footnote so that it can be quickly and easily reinserted if anyone disagrees or manages to find definitive proof. Mutt 11:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

8

[Note someone posted in article for consideration]

1. ^ "Finally, he will offer unusual energy and optimism. Mr Wolfowitz is not a cynic about outside financial backing for developing nations. In the right circumstances, he believes it can be transforming. For that reason, perhaps, despite a caricature as a "right-wing hawk", he has not ceased being a registered Democrat. The World Bank needs a man who can think unconventionally. Mr Wolfowitz is that person." Editorial (18 March 2005). "Crying Wolfowitz A controversial but astute choice for the World Bank". The Times.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
   *See also Talk: Paul Wolfowitz

[I don't know who put this in the article; I'm moving it to the talk page. People can consider it and decide what to do with it. (Examine in editing mode please.)--NYScholar 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)] [moved up to this section as referred to by the person who placed it in the article. --NYScholar 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)]

The Times, UK

Rupert Murdochs News Corporation owns "The Times" in the UK Dean, Mar10, 2006

And...what?Rkevins82 10:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this book exist?

Has anyone actually read the book "The Brain" ? I can find it at amazon.com but there it says that it won't be released until 2007! [Martin]

I can find no reference to this book in the British Library Catalogue so I have deleted it. Mutt 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fix punctuation

Will someone try to fix the punctuation around all the quotations?

"I am" Bob said "a human."

should be

"I am," Bob said, "a human."

etc. Hopefully someone else will fix this so I won't have to, because there are a lot of quotes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Finkelstein (talk • contribs)

Please sign your post J. Finkelstein. I have learned that putting something on the talk page, asking others to do something, never works for me. I suggest correcting the problem yourself. Travb 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

===Israeli-Palestinian conflict===

Despite his support for Israel Wolfowitz is one of the few neoconservatives associated with Bush administration to have endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state. Wolfowitz has acknowledged the sufferings of the Palestinian people in their conflict with Israel, and in 2002 was heckled for expressing such views at a pro-Israel rally.

I will add this back but with a {{fact}} Travb 02:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry I should have explained that I have placed a paragraph about the National Solidarity Rally for Israel under the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense section. I felt it appropriate therefore to remove it from the Political Views section as I believed that the duplication was unnecessary and the conclusions it gave were taken out of context. Have a look and see if you agree. Mutt 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry. If you don't delete the double passage I will.Travb 04:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jew

Paul wolfowitz's religion was deleted for this reason:

"why is the fact that he's a jew or of judaism in this template? should not be here... this an anti-zionist crusade?"

I think the reason is bizarre, but i won't fight something so peity. If anyone else wants to revert it, be my guest.

signed.Travb 15:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been going on as far back as I can remeber. My stance has always been that we should NOT mention his religion unless we have verrifiable proof that he is a practicising Jew. His ethinc background is mentioned in the body of the article. But I have yet to see any evidence relating to his active religous practices. If this evidence can be found then I think that the statement about his religion becomes valid and important with regards to his opinions and beliefs. Mutt 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it should be there either, it seems an unusual precedent to set. --Zleitzen 18:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have more personal comments about the whole "Jew" issue on my talk page, not relating to Paul Wolfowitz. If you people care to read them.Travb 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as setting a precedent. Just to clarify I am actually agreeing with Travb in principle on this one. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning someone's religious beliefs in the article. Any article on George W. Bush for example would be incomplete without mentioning his religious belief. A person’s religious beliefs have a huge impact on their thoughts and actions so of course they should be mentioned in an article. My problem in Wolfie's case is that in all my readings about him I have never come across any evidence that he is a practicing Jew (unlike Dov Zakheim for example who religious beliefs are mentioned in his article). Therefore I don't believe that it should be mentioned unless that evidence is forthcoming. Mutt 02:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No evidence=no listing. I agree with Mutt.Travb 14:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I disagree that one's religious heritage implies belief or influence. It's possible to be born into a religion or belief system nominally and live a life completely independent of it. My thinking is, unless a figure specifically cites his or her religion as being a major influence in a particular action/decision/event, or has a history of acting in a significant capacity (elder, deacon, rabbi, etc.) then that person's ethnicity/religion is not encyclopedic. We don't list his height, weight, and hair color, for example. I'm guessing there's a policy on this. Ojcit 07:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The article in its current form states that Wolfowitz is Jewish in the first sentence. I don't think this belongs here. It's entirely appropriate to list his religion elsewhere in the article, but it's not substantive enough to list in the first paragraph, just as one wouldn't start an article with "Bill Clinton, who is Christian, was Presdent of the United States..."

Porlob 14:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very strange argument indeed, that his religious affiliation should be omitted from his biography! What on earth would compel someone to suggest something like that? I do understand the suggestion that it might not be mentioned in the first sentence, but to suggest that mentioning his Jewishness equates an anti-zionist crusade? Absolutely preposterous! I've read that Wolfowitz holds dual citizenship with the U.S. and Israel. Can anyone verify it or has anyone else heard this? It seems popular on blogs, but not many official sources.--Laikalynx 17:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the first thing you should ask yourself is 'if he were Christian (or of any other religion), would it be relevant to mention the fact here?' If the answer is no, don't add it (there). 84.53.74.196 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer is yes. So yes. If someone is a practicing satanist, we'd probably mention it in his biography. LOL If he was christian, same thing, buddhist, same thing, hindu, same thing, muslim, same thing, jewish, SAME THING.-Laikalynx 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that he is not Jewish. His father, not his mother, was a Jew, and there are no references indicating that he converted or otherwise considers himself Jewish. I have removed the mentions of him being Jewish from the article _si»abhorreo»^T 01:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, Wolfowitz is Jewish:

[3]The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter, By ALAIN FRACHON and DANIEL VERNET, CounterPunch, June 2, 2003. "Jewish and from a family of teachers, Wolfowitz is for his part a brilliant product of East Coast universities."

Furthermore, the Jerusalem Post referred to him as Jewish, in describing him as a victim of anti-Semitism:

[4]BRET STEPHENS: Man of the Year, Jerusalem Post, ROSH HASHANA, 2003

"There's a downside. Earlier in the year, the notion took hold that the president was taking the country to war at the urgings of his Jewish advisers, themselves shills for Israel. "Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol [are]... the clique of conservatives who are driving this war," wrote New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. She may as well have written "the clique of Jews," some felt."

Besides, Wolfowitz has dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship. How did he get dual citizenship if he's not Jewish by definition of the law of return?

However, many people feel that the term "Jew" is pejorative, and prefer "Jewish". Nbauman 03:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon examining your links and doing some research on my own, I concede the point. I couldn't find anything from Wolfowitz himself, but it'd be a pretty widespread misconception for so many sources to have it wrong. _si»abhorreo»^T 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing the way people are forced to dance around this issue at the risk of being labeled 'anti semites'. The guy is Jewish. He has an AMAZING amount of baggage regarding his 'Israel First' stance. And it just seems to be verboten to in any way, shape or form to even discuss these two facts. How politically correct of us. Now everyone turn to face Jerusalem and beg forgiveness for your sins (and send more US Tax dollars). (German language and anti-Israeli comments included for the sake of provocation....you people disgust me).

Just be sure to distinguish between those Jews, Israelis and Zionists who support the Israeli government's illegal policies and killings, and those who do not. Ich bin ein Deutscher wie du gerechtes so gutes. Nbauman 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it would be even better to remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please keep your prejudiced personal views to yourself, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You could best teach that lesson by example. Nbauman 13:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't stated any prejudiced personal views. You, on the other hand, have been quite free with your opinions about what separates a good Jew from a bad Jew, along with your irrelevant extremist political opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You are violating WP:NPA and I will not respond any further. Nbauman 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Quote the section of WP:NPA that I am allegedly "violating". Jayjg ^(talk) 14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the links above directly state he is Jewish, and CounterPunch isn't a reliable enough source for this anyway. Per WP:BLP, he must self-identify as a Jew, and there must be "a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." I'm removing it, again per WP:BLP. Also, even if he were an ethnic Jew, that's no guarantee his religion is Judaism. Perhaps he's an atheist, Christian, Buddhist; who knows? By the way, according to whom does he have Israeli citizenship? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed these issues and reached consensus on them already. You shouldn't change it without asking us first in Talk.

According to The Forward, and The Hill, Wolfowitz is Jewish. Lawmakers on list of leading Jewish-Americans That should be reliable enough.

How does WP:BLP prohibit mention of Wolfowitz' religion? is it "malicious" to say that somebody's Jewish?

WP:BLP says, "The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life." The Forward decided that his religion was relevant.

It doesn't make any difference whether Wolfowitz is religious or not. Albert Einstein was an atheist, but he still identified as Jewish. Nbauman 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources that mention his religion. You have provided one source that mentions his ethnicity. For all you know he could be Buddhist. And the fact that The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, is interested in Wolfowitz's ethnicity, does not mean that his ethnicity is in any way "relevant to his notable activities or public life". You also left out the other part of WP:BLP; "The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question." Where has Wolfowitz done so? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

His religion was put in the infobox and categories were added. Is he a religious Jew? Does he self-identify as Jewish? WP:RS please. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Forward said Wolfowitz was Jewish. Do you believe that The Forward is a reliable source? Nbauman 14:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be fatuous. The relevant information was already in the article. Repeating it ad nauseam serves no purpose. This is heritage-trolling, and should be reverted on sight. Abe Froman 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is "heritage-trolling"? Nbauman 17:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is an idea that ethnic/racial heritage gives a person certain traits of character, e.g. greediness, chicanery, etc. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that if a person is accused of greediness, chicanery, or whatever Wolfowitz is accused of, we have to delete the identification "Jewish" from his biographical template? Nbauman 14:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of control. I was under the impression that one could be considered Jewish in an ethnic sense. Aren't there atheist and secular Jews who are still listed as Jewish American or American Jews? It seems that people are trying to launch a PC battle, and the fact that he is either half Jewish or full Jewish is NOT a POV but a fact. Please maintain NPOV and place him in either of the above mentioned categories. --CommonSense101 13:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See previous discussion pertaining to anon. user's addition of "Religion" and "Judaism" to infobox of this article to understand my deletion of it. It is still a highly-contested matter, and, subject to contentious disagreement; I don't think one can add it to the infobox due to lack of consensus; see WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures. I have deleted the entry in the infobox due to ongoing unresolved disputes re: that matter. If the issue is unresolved as to whether or not the information can be listed as a "category", then how can it be listed in an infobox in a biography of a living person? If this kind of apparent anon. IP user vandalism (if that is what it is) continues, the article may need semi-protection again. --NYScholar 04:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There are sources cited in the article that indicate that Paul Wolfowitz is Jewish; but that does not mean that the information belongs in an infobox headed by "Religion." I am not sure what is to be done, given ongoing disputes; but sticking it in the infobox does not seem to be proper [either at this time or ever]. I think that the matter needs additional civil discussion by others. --NYScholar 04:49, 26 June 2007 (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)

Portrait

Lead image should be current portrait as President of World Bank not old shot as Deputy Secretary of Defense. Image is fair use and copyright holder World Bank encourage its use. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The World Bank may encourage reuse, but only for "personal, non-commercial use" and without "any right to resell, redistribute or create derivative works". [5] Images with a free license, such as the official DoD portrait of Wolfowitz, are thus given precedence. Furthermore, I doubt the World Bank image even meets fair use policy (item #1), especially because the World Bank website strictly forbids noncommercial/derivative useage. Besides, the DoD picture isn't that old. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The page form which this image is taken states "Journalists are encouraged to use these images in their reports; any use should include copyright to the World Bank and credit the photographer."[6]. This in my opinion means that this is a publicity photo and therfore we can use it freely. I won't change the image back for now as I don't want to start an edit war but would like your opinions on my comments. Mutt 18:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There are several points I should make here. First of all, template:promophoto clearly states that an image can only qualify as fair use "in the absence of a free alternative". Furthermore, the very first sentence of the first bullet point of the fair use policy (that I linked to above) states an image can only be used if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." There is a free alternative which adequately portrays his picture, which is the DoD photo of Wolfowitz. The World Bank image may indeed be deleted some day in the future. --tomf688 (talk - email) 17:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don’t feel that the 5 year old image of Wolfowitz in a different role really does give the same information. The World Bank image gives a very different portrayal to the DOD one as Wolfowitz can be seen as older and more relaxed than the very serious previous image, which I think is very informative as to his state of mind. Also as the DOD image is blatantly an old DOD image it makes the article look out-dated. I would not use this image on in other articles that discuss his time at the DOD such as Wolfowitz Doctrine or The Vulcans but for this article I think it is essentially informative. For these reasons and since the World Bank image is a publicity photo that the copyright holder encourage journalists to use in their reports I really think that we should use it. Mutt 18:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, can it be argued that some gray hair and a few extra wrinkles means the Wolfowitz picture of 5 years past is inadequate? I could understand if the image was 10 years old, but otherwise I don't think that argument can be made. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue that he has changed that much physically, my argument is that the 'feel' of the picture is wrong. He is in a different job and that does change things. Would a picture of Bush as govenor of Texas do for the lead picture in his article. I don't think so but I also don't think he has changed that much physically. I think as an encyclopedia we should be providing as much up to date information as we can and I think that that world bank picture is up to date info and the dod one isn't. Mutt

That situation is the opposite, however. Bush's more recent photo is in the public domain, while his photo as Texas Governor is fair use more than likely. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Have removed NPOV tag as no explanation was given for its placement. If you believe article to be NPOV please explain here why when tagging. Mutt 13:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Disputed

Kudos for removing the NPOV status. At length the article casts Wolfowitz as a hypocrite and as an enabler in Suharto's plundering of his own nation. The article is clearly not neutral. On the contrary, the few statements in defense of Wolfowitz are followed by much lengthier condemning quotes containing the opinion of a few people. Although these are presented as opinion, the preponderance of the same type of information clearly evinces the agenda of those contributing to the article. Would that instead of a little green checkmark, the article were labeled with a stopsign.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectard (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the whole article not NPOV? Or just the Ambassador to the Republic of Indonesia section? I would be in favor of removing "peanut gallery" statements in favor of well-considered critiques. Thanks, GChriss 13:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Unintential Political Joke?

the caption for the last picture in the article reads: "Paul Wolfowitz stands far right". Seemingly referring to his politics, i chuckled as i realised it was referring to where he stood in the picture itself. lol wiki, nice one. Roidroid 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Media Portrayals

I deleted the following from the tail end of the Media Portrayals section:

With its post-modern collage techniques of mixing lectures, policy papers and diary entries with traditional narrative, Homeland provides a uniquely entertaining way of acquiring a detailed, thoroughly well-researched and factual account of US history from Jimmy Carter's presidency to that of George W. Bush.

This has little to do with Wolfowitz. The whole paragraph about Paul William Roberts' book may be insufficiently NPOV, but I'm content with moving the most glaringly biased sentence here in case someone wants to do something with it. Lowerarchy 00:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)