Talk:Paul Bremer/Archive 1

message: This article is from a historical perspective and should reflect the truth based on facts not assertions.
Ariele 01:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Perspective 

message: Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joseph Yoswa said the CPA was satisfied with the quality of applicants. Some staffers may have been young and inexperienced, he said, but "we have people right out of college leading troops on the ground. Yoswa said the recruiting office had to hire quickly for the Madrid donors conference that fall and "turned to the Heritage Foundation, an educational facility, albeit a conservative one, but primarily a place where you can get good, solid people." He said this was a one-time event and that there was no organized effort to hire Republicans. In late October, he said, the Pentagon set up a job site on the Web. Eleven thousand people filled out an application and several hundred of them were hired. "Nowhere did we ask party affiliation," he said.
Geo Swan's persistence at placing the entire four ton weight on Bremer's shoulders is rather interesting.  She (presumeably this person is a "she") extracted this piece from an article.  I and probably others had been following events leading up to the transition on June 28, 2004.  It would indeed be intriguing to see what Amb. Bremer has to say in his book.
Curious, I went looking for the actual "hiring policies" used by Bremer, the former American administrator.  I discovered that the link to support Geo Swan's argument were none other than her own and about some Washington Post article.  The article is really about how the Defense Department selected the few who were sent to work there and about the experiences one such staffer had in Iraq.  Unless of course Geo Swan was there herself or himself.
:Could the subject of not hiring a certain "group" of people influenced the so called debate over "hiring policies" which Geo Swan was alluding to?  
----
Please explain what you mean by "Iraq War people"?   Ariele 20:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiring Policies

message: This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP.  Postdlf 16:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy/Paste from Archive

message: :Both rolling articles into larger articles, and spinning articles off from larger articles can make sense -- sometimes.  But not all the time.  A lot geographical articles will have sub-heading, with a paragraph or two on the history, or geography, or economy of the geographic entity, followed by something like: "See the article History of ..., or Economy of... for details.  That seems entirely appropriate.
:But there are lots of instances where it doesn't make sense.  And I don't think the idea of incorporating the articles you list in the Coalition Provisional Authority article makes sense, except perhaps in a couple of instances.  
:When considering rolling an article into a more general, or more important article, I would suggest that it is important to consider the articles that link to the roll-in candidate.  Will those article still make sense?  Consider, for example, Civilian Administrator of Iraq.  Take a look at the list of articles that link to it.  Among the articles it lists are: List of state leaders in 2003, List of state leaders in 2004, Proconsul.  Take a look at them.  Do you think the wikipedia would be improved if a reader who was reading the Proconsul article, and clicked on the Civilian Administrator of Iraq link, only to find themselves at the Coalition Provisional Authority article?  Don't you think that would be confusing?  Now, maybe a case can be made for the change you suggested, for some of those articles.  Am I missing the spot where you have put forward your consideration of the side-effects of the change you suggested?  I don't think you have made that case.
::Huh?  Are you implying that someone else other than yourself did this?  
:Concerning your suggestion that the "latter part" of the article on Paul Bremer be moved to the article on the CPA -- you said it would flow better if the article was just his bio.  Are you suggesting the section on his administration of Iraq be moved?  Or just the section currently titled "Terrorism and Politics"?  Personally, I think the section on his administration of Iraq should be expanded.  I have spent some time reading the details from the various audits of the expenditures made under his authority.  I have found it hard to write about because, frankly, it is so shocking.
::"...section on his administration of Iraq be moved?"  Yes, moved and assimilated into the article on the Coalition Provisional Authority.  If no one has volunteered to expand this section, then I think it should move.
::"Or just the section currently titled "Terrorism and Politics?" Yes, this too.  But this part is a bit tricky.  Originally titled "TRIVIA", several contributors added their information here, which since then have been edited several times.  The bits and pieces seem to imply ... let's see, there's mystery, cloak and dagger theme, intrigue, elements of action adventure, back-stabbing, and romance, ... all point to a possible made for TV mini-series (another rumor picked up from bloggers).  
:Bremer's failure to take even the most basic steps to ensure his expenditures were conducted in an open, transparent, secure manner is so shocking I don't know how to do the facts justice, without giving the impression of bias.  The facts do, largely, speak for themselves, if you take the time to read the details.  But those facts are so shocking that honest summaries of those details are likely to seem biased, unless great care is taken.  --  Geo Swan 16:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  How have you established evidence of "failure" with an old "to do" list?  Are we suppose to find this out from a "book"?  I scanned the KPMG audit report and its findings.  The report noted that under the former Saddam H's regime, oil smuggling was common and that the CPA did establish internal controls.  The report also pointed out that the problems it found were minor and that such discussions took place with the CPA.  What was the problem and so called "disastrous" results from using a single entry accounting method?  I saw the notation in the report.  Why did you not mention that the CPA had the department of defense internal auditors and IG at their disposal too?  I suppose there's more but I don't think there's room here.  Ariele 15:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rolling articles into a larger article, and spinning article off from a large article

message: I can imagine various ways to choose where to add new link to an external links section.
It seems to me that the most obvious place should be chronological, by date of publication.
The only trouble with this is that a lot of web-sites, as opposed to press-releases or newspaper articles don't have dates.
Can we get some kind of agreement on the placement of new links?  --  Geo Swan 17:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to add new links to the external links section?

message: :::::And what point was it that you were trying to make when you compared me with this con-artist?  How is this insulting comparison supposed to be helpful, meaningful or useful?
:::::You seem to think my comments are all about you?  Your contributions does portray this man in a very contradictory fashion.  Why?  What do you have against this person?  Ariele 20:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Your apparent accusation of blackmail remains unexplained

message: Ariele, I know you have had it explained to you before that massive deletions, and rearranging  of talk pages is considered disruptive.  Yes, I know that change was made from an anonymous IP number.  But, since you used that IP number for other edits it is pretty clear you made this edit too.
I think it is absurd to call me a "teenage vandal".  I keep trying to move the discussion here on the talk pages to the substance of the article.  Instead of engaging in a discussion of the substance of the article, which is really the only way we can arrive at a compromise, you ignore those discussions.  You have made some absurd accusations, and called me names.  
Can you please engage in a discussion of the substance the article, rather than making unexplained changes?
I did a lot of reading of the audit documents.  I made a sincere effort to give a fair summary of those documents.  You edited the article to represent established facts as in dispute.  I explained why I thought those facts were not in dispute.  I quoted official documents, where the CPA acknowledged those facts that you represented as in dispute.  I called on you to either engage in a civil, reasoned discussion of our conclusions about these facts, or reverse the edits where you represented those facts as in dispute, or invite me to revert those edits.
There is nothing stopping you from agreeing that I have established that those facts are not in dispute, but suggesting alternate wording if you feel my wording is too harsh.  We aren't going to reach a compromise unlsee you show more cooperation.
Removing my questions, and calling them teenage vandalism, won't work.  FWIW I am not a teenager, and I don't live in DC.  --  Geo Swan 23:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting a greater effort at discussion, less unilateral unexplained edits

message: I've asked Ariele to discuss the substance of the article, rather make accusation, call me names, and make unexplained edits.  Yesterday they responded to one of those questions with this comment.
:Geo Swan, your hatred of me is certainly obvious. But to transfer that hatred towards L. Paul Bremer in your writing is certainly not a good idea. Take my advice, quit while you're ahead or else someone else may think your behavior may be a bit too unusual for that of an ordinary Wikipedia contributor. Wikipedia is a lot more forgiving. Ariele 01:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's such a shame that Amb. Bremer has to be subjected to so much criticism for his extraordinary service. We should be grateful that Amb. Bremer agreed to take on the job (however thankless it appears to be).
The wikipedia is not the place for unbalanced biographies, that only report the complementary details of the subject's life.
I am motivated by a regard for the truth.  I want the article to fairly represent Bremer's true performance of his duties.  If the evidence shows his performance was not extraordinary, but extraordinarily terrible, the article should say that.  Hatred of Bremer is not required to want the article to reflect the truth.
As to whether I hate you?  I just wrote a couple of paragraphs explaining why I don't hate you.  But since you have shown a very poor ability to understand what I really mean, I am not going to inlcude that explanation now.  
If you want it, you will have to ask for that explanation.
I realize I said something that triggered your animosity.  It was inadvertent.  The animosity it triggered is massively unbalanced.  I don't think it reflects well on you that you did not accept my apology, and that you do not accept all the attempts I have made to get our exchanges to focus back on agreeing what the article should or shouldn't say.  --  Geo Swan 01:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Answering Ariele's questions about my motivation

message: The article currently reads:
:"He served in this capacity from May 11, 2003 until the dismantling of the coalition on June 28, 2004."
This sentence has been rewritten many times, by many contributors.  Yet it remains factually incorrect.  The coalition, ie, the "Coalition of the Willing", was not dismantled.  It was the Coalition Provisional Authority whose term of responsibility came to an end.
Speaking of the end of the coalition -- missing from both this article, and the CPA article, is any mention that the date of the handover had originally been months later.  It was moved forward.  The original date, the date the decision was made to move forward the limited handover of sovereignty, and the role, if any, of Bremer's job performance, deserve mention here.
::Geo Swan, the wording was changed to "...ceased to exist".  Who deleted it?  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The history mechanism can tell you when a change was made.  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: end of the coaltion

message: The article currently reads:
:Bremer, a "staunch" Roman Catholic, took the nickname Jerry from a renown Bible translator and religious historian known today as St. Jerome[4], his patron saint. While in Iraq, Bremer became famously known for wearing tan desert combat boots with his tailored suits. Although well-respected and liked by most Iraqis, there were those who were more critical of his presence and even threatened him with physical harm.
Does it really matter what his nickname was, and where it came from?  Do the sentences about Bremer's Catholicism really belong in the section on his administration of Iraq?
::Yes it does because the information only points to the fact that Bremer is a man of faith.  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should his proclaimed faith be mentioned in the section on his administration of Iraq?  Was leading prayer sessions part of his duties?  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Why not?  Bremer has made a fashion statement.  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So what?  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: GEO SWAN, based on the information I've found to prove to readers how absolutely wiley you are, it doesn't seem like Bremer (AKA: Abu Haider) blew anything with his decrees.  And you know that there were no serious personal attacks from me.  So stop making things up.  Your credibility is somewhat "wanting".  Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: FYI:  As explained by a blogger of "Iraq the Model", the Arab name just stuck.  Similar to other Asian cultures, a person's name usually has a meaning.  Unfortunately, this name also belongs to a fella who was charged for illegal wire transfer(s)  ).  I don't think it was intentional.  This has to be purely coincidental.  Ariele 21:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Can be found in one of the linked press releases - Newseek's maybe.  Ariele 05:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Not Newsweek.  I remain skeptical.  --  Geo Swan 20:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proclaimed Faith:  This part was not in the section on Bremer's administration of Iraq before.  The latter part of this article was re-written by none other than GEO SWAN and the flow changed.  Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: GEO SWAN, I know the reference is there.  Here is another from a blogger expressing gratitude for Bremer's efforts in Iraq.  Bremer's farewell speech was very touching and here is a sample of one such show of admiration and affection from an Iraqi.  I'm certain you already know the answer to your skepticism. Ariele 01:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Staunch" Roman Catholic paragraph

message: Amb. Bremer's book 'My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope' will be published on January 1 2006. .
:Publication in January 2006.  Ariele 01:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bremer's Book 

message: Edits made:
*  Deleted link to "Victory of Freedom" award given on or around 2/3/2005.  Article was either removed or archived.  If found again, feel free to edit it back in.
*  To replace, added quote and link to Harry Walker's bio of Bremer.
*  Updated link to American Rhetoric's speech bank.
*  ....
Ariele 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Updates 

message: ::As for the allegation..., that surfaced from a transcript dated August 23, 2003.  A [inaudible name] Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty female reporter asked Bremer:
::Q: We heard a rumor that you are going to leave Iraq. Is that right? And the -- and there is another question, sir. They say that Paul Bremer is going to marry Iraqi girl. Is that right? (Laughter.)
::And I have --
::Bremer's response:  
::MR. BREMER: That's enough. That's enough. No, you only get four. You only get four [questions].
::Let me answer the last one first. I have answered it before. I have the maximum number of wives permitted under my religion. (Laughter.) I have no intention of leaving Iraq, either. [i.e. before the scheduled June 30th turnover].
::REFERENCE:   available until June '06
::Geo Swan, is this the allegation you're referring to?  ,,,,Ariele 03:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although Bremer's personal security issues were not specifically mentioned, Al-Hayat's English version of the rumor suggested Ambassador Bremer left his Iraqi lover behind.  But the Arabic version pointed out that the Iraqi woman was having an affair with a top U.S. official.  There were more than one top U.S. official in Iraq at the time.  If you have the actual Arabic to English translation, please clarify if my theory of "mistaken identity" is incorrect.  Geo Swan and Brian1975, please don't re-arrange this again. Thankyou.,,,,Ariele 03:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumor for Early Departure 

message: User:Kade made an excision earlier today, of a quote they didn't like, with the explanation that the quote came from Indymedia.  But they didn't say why they considered Indymedia a source so suspect that articles posted there were not worth quoting.  I reverted their edit, and in my edit summary invited them to engage in a dialogue on the talk page.
When I took a closer look at the section they clipped, and its surrounding context, I saw that they had clipped one reference from Indymedia, but left another.  I found that inconsistent and hard to understand.  I left a message on their talk page.  In their reply, on their talk page, they said they hadn't actually bothered to try to read the article that was being cited.  They said it was "too long".  In my opinion, before one clips a quote one has an obligation to follow the link to its source.  
Kade also responded here, by placing an {npov} tag on that section, with the edit summary:
 Fine. Let's just put a little boilerplate here since you 
 don't seem to be interested in calm discourse.
I don't know where Kade got the idea I am not interested in calm discourse.  They left a couple of replies on my talk page, where they said I accused them of "jingoism".  (I didn't.)  And accusing me of being "anti-American".
What they haven't done is explain their edit, or explain why they feel that L. Paul Bremer#Post-Iraq section should be tagged with an {npov}.
Kade I am calling on you to engage in a calm discourse, and explain yourself.  The {npov} tag directs readers to the talk page for discussion.  Surely Kade, applying this tag obliges you to initiate a section, here on the talk page, where you explain why you applied the tag.  --  Geo Swan 17:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calling on Kade to engage in "calm discourse" over the {npov} tag they applied... 

message: Dear User:Kade:
What aspect of the quote merits a NPOV tag?  This tag should be removed.  And User:Kade's excessive use of certain four-letter metaphors is not helping his/her effort to disqualify the reported information.  If there's no response to this suggestion, I will assume consensus and will remove the tag.,,,,,Ariele 20:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag:  Post-Iraq

message: Dear User:Fat pig73
:Is it June 28 or June 24 for the handover?  ,,,,Ariele 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading

message: I added the "staunch" which I copied from a press release for Ave Marie.  I, personally, don't really care how you folks end up portraying the ambassador -"staunch" or not; "roman empire proconsul" or not.....  Frankly, this debate is really getting very old and a waste of my spare time (time which I would rather spend verifying articles in Wiki's backlog).  If you User:Geo Swan know of some mysterious and dark secret about Bremer, then say so instead of dropping inuendos - making your readers sit on the edge of their seats wondering if the other shoe (boot) will drop.  It's no secret that his "sex appeal" has captured the attention of Iraqi females (and at least the heart of one Iraqi woman that we know of).  The photos of him illustrate that.  Or at least the readers are led to believe there was some romance involved - New England boy meets Iraqi girl and finds love instead of WMD.  If you're in the deletion mode, then go ahead .... have fun!  chop away!<<<<<lots and lots of laughs!,,,,,,,Ariele 21:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staunch, Proconsul,....whatever