Talk:Kenneth Adelman

message: The quote from the article "He also claimed that the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq would be a cakewalk: 'I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.'" sounds to me like he is speaking of the invasion being relatively easy versus the occupation being easy, but the website pointed to merely points to another website. The quote (and much of the other material) was added by an anonymous editor. Can anyone speak to this? (Also, I dislike the use of "cakewalk" to describe a quotation that uses the same word, but that's easy to fix once the meaning of the quotation is clarified.) Pawl 19:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [ is a 2002 Washington Post news article that quotes the cakewalk and no need for 'inky-dink nations as "coalition partners" '. It does not say the occupation would be a cakewalk - because this foreign policy expert does not appear to have given any thought to the subsequent occupation at all.  Herne nz 06:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - how did I miss that link in the article before? Reading the entire editorial, I see that two separate quotes were stitched together to give a misleading impression about what was being said. The "we don't need partners" quote isn't about "we don't need partners to defeat Iraq" but "we don't need partners to concvince the Democrats that we need to invade". I will try to fix it. -- Pawl 15:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: [ is a 2002 Washington Post news article also quotes at the last paragrah that 
"Measured by any cost-benefit analysis, such an operation would constitute the greatest victory in America's war on terrorism.". 
-- Did this cost-benefit analysis include the occupation cost? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.123.222.216 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion or Occupation a cakewalk? 

message: The article was only on the Vanity Fair website. The article itself says it's a preview of the issue being delivered in December 2006.
Pgrote 04:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that! --Oakshade 04:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It was eventually published in the magazine and it was just adjusted in the article.  --Oakshade 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It wasn't an article in the Vanity Fair magazine 

message: What languages does Adelman speak?  The article says he was a translator (for Ali at Rumble in the Jungle).  Superm401 - Talk 02:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly French, since that was/is the official government language of Zaire/Dem. Rep. of the Congo.  Don't know for sure. --Oakshade 03:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would be my guess, too.  However, it's just a guess and I haven't found any info, so I'm removing the line for now.  No one should add it back without a full citation that shows he was a translator, and indicates which languages he translated between. Superm401 - Talk 05:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  While I agree a citation is good, I don't think it needs the specific language, although that would be more informative.  The notable point would be him being a translator for Ali during the time of a legendary bout.  --Oakshade 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translator 

message: Would an interview with Kenneth Adelman from 1989 be useful here as an external link? Focus of conversation is nuclear weapons policy. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_6C4E2DA442BA45D0BDE00362D7C68640 (I helped with the site, so it would be conflict of interest for me to just add it.) Mccallucc (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to interview on nuclear policy? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Adelman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018044931/http://cla.calpoly.edu:16080/~smarx/Shakespeare/draftingshakespeare2006/DawsonOthello.htm to http://cla.calpoly.edu:16080/~smarx/Shakespeare/draftingshakespeare2006/DawsonOthello.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Reagan & Gorbachev. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 27#Reagan & Gorbachev until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reagan & Gorbachev" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]