Talk:Paul Wolfowitz/Archive 3

message: The article says he is separated from his wife, and dating one of his workers. It doesn't say he is divorced. MoodyGroove is censoring discussion of whether he is dating while married? We're not even allowed to ask if he is publically in adulterous relatinshiop, even though it is world headline news about ethics probes on him? What are the rules on this censorship? Are we not allowed to comment on ongoing ethics scandals? 
Really, all I wanted to know, is whether he is actually divorced, in which case it is just a matter of a swinging bachelor screwing a subordinate -- and we'll all admire him for it, right?  and this is common, and ok. But if he is a married man screwing a subordinate, that is going over the line, right? Surely most agree in the West? (This unsigned comment was left by  17:27, 12 May 2007)
:*This isn't a tabloid. It's an encyclopedia. Any controversial material must be reliably sourced, in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons, which also applies to talk pages. You can comment on ongoing ethics scandals, as long as you do so in a responsible manner. MoodyGroove 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This question does have an accessible answer. I Wiki-linked the relevant Wikipedia editing guidelines in my previous reply. The Wikipedia is not a place for irresponsible speculation about the personal lives of living persons. It is also not a place for original research or connect-the-dot narratives. Feel free to locate a reliable source (in the mainstream print media for example) that discusses this issue, and quote it here to make your point. But this is not the place to engage in gossip. There are plenty of other websites that encourage that sort of thing. MoodyGroove 11:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is he divorced???

message: The article doesn't say whether he was supposedly ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Also, I've read elsewhere that ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove*** Is that generally believed, or scurrilous, or...? Interested in any clarification, especially as the ethical questions appear to have gotten worldwide publicity...  
Hi John, I think there has been some rumor that Mr. Wolfowitz ***DELETED BY MoodyGroove***. Whether or not this is true, we can only speculate. - Dick's Chenney (Unsigned comment left by  08:04, 10 May 2007)
*:You can speculate all you want, but please don't do it here. This is exactly the kind of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information that Jimmy Wales explicitly disapproves of, especially when discussing living persons. The fact that this is a talk page is not an excuse. Please use more discretion or provide a reliable source. MoodyGroove 14:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Marital status?

message: I removed the photo of Wolfowitz with holes in his socks.  Although the caption says that it generated "many opinions in the news media," the article didn't cite any of them.  Unless the opinions are more substantive than Joe Blogger saying "lol wolfy needs new sox" they have no place here. White 720 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, everything is sourced and ready. Please don't delete it anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ltimur (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats. WP has descended into the absurd with this issue. Holes in his socks and how he combs his hair are irrelevant. Jtpaladin 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holes in Socks Photo 

message: A lot of seemingly political minded vandalism and alterations going on, particularly adding vandalism about 9/11, I'm sure that anti-vandal users won't mind and I hope admins won't mind that I jumped ahead and semi-protected this page for a few hours until things cool off and AIV catches up with the IP's involved (a couple have been reported already) SGGH 20:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection has expired. If vandalism resumes on a large scale, please feel free to contact me and I'll re-protect it. SGGH 10:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: "Almost immediately upon confirmation he leapt into action in May 2001 during the height of Sino-American tensions that surrounded the U.S.-China Spy Plane Incident. Wolfowitz defused a very tricky situation when he ordered the recall and destruction of 600,000 Chinese-made berets that had been issued to troops stating "U.S. troops shall not wear berets made in China""
While I did found it funny, I don't know if sarcasm should be a part of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.34.211 (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sarcasm

message: I recently reverted a big change in the "africa and corruption" section, from the title of the section it seemed to me that everything there should be strongly cited, and the most recent change removed a citation and didn't provide any of its own, so I reverted it. Apologies if it was a helpful change, but you can understand why biography articles (particularly rather volatile ones) must be carefully changed. SGGH 11:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: recent revert

message: The following quotation does not cite the Wall Street Journal.  Rather, it cites an article that cites the Wall Street Journal.  This makes it difficult to legitimize the quotation; the WSJ article may have been an opinion piece, for example.
"The Wall Street Journal commented:
'Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power. He saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein.'[22]
[22] is a CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/BUSINESS/03/17/worldbank.wolfowtiz/
-128.12.108.147 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: insufficient citation

message: the article refers to "kampfner" (john kampfner of the new statesman?) over a dozen times without ever stating who kampnfer is, nor is he (or she) cited in the references anywhere.  for all we know, kampfner could be some random opinionated barfly, but a whole lot of information herein is presented "according to kampfner".  can the author please give a more complete reference? --155.104.37.17 18:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kampfner? 

message: The article says: "On January 30, 2007 the pictures of Paul Wolfowitz's socks after his visit to Selimiye Mosque in Turkey were released. BBC criticized the influence the World Bank President can make over the poverty as he cannot afford a pair of socks without holes."
Is it worth mentioning in an encyclopedia ? As far as I can see, there's no mention of pretzels in the article George Bush. :p Régis Lachaume 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article I can find from the BBC doesn't seem to suggest anything like what you say . One would argue that the fact he doesn't waste money on new socks when his old ones are good enough makes him better able to fight poverty. In any case, this seems to be one of those things which are fun to laugh at, but not suitable for the article unless the issue garners enough attention that the article would be incomplete without it (which it hasn't). Bush has many, many similar issues, some like the pretzel incident gained a fair amount of attention, others like the numerous bike incidents and the toilet incident less so. (I still feel that the pretzel incident should be very briefly mentioned in the Bush article proper but that's not for discussion here) Nil Einne 04:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Socks with holes ?!

message: Many missing sources throughout this article; lifting of whole parts of unsourced POV material from unidentified souces.  Plagiarism from sources creates additional violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Needs much more clean up so as to supply the missing citations and to created a more consistent format in notes, references, and external links throughout the article.  Started but have not got time to finish.  Please see interpolated editorial comments in editing mode in the article. --NYScholar 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After all that debate in Talk, you left out the identification of his family as Jewish from Goldenberg's Guardian profile, and the only mention of Wolfowitz being Jewish is in the quote from the NYT article (which is way down and might get deleted some day). Do you think that the fact that his family is Jewish is significant enough to be mentioned further up in "Early life and education"? Nbauman 06:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the arbitration going on, I'll let someone else add however much else of those quotations that they want to add.  I provided the additional sources [See the ext. links to the NYT Topic articles, e.g.] [I quoted the phrase that I think you refer to now.]  People can read it and decide what they want to do.  His family's being Jewish is mentioned in [several of the] the articles cited in the notes.  I'm not adding categories or anything else.  I just corrected all kinds of erroneously-cited sources and indicated where a lot of POV material is not sourced.  Other people can work on this.  I did not "leave out" anything [intentionally].  I provided quotations and sources that other people can read to decide what else they want to add.  It's up to others to do this work. I've done all that I want to do.  There are many sources that are still cited in incorrect format and that still need correction; many missing sources that need to be added. --NYScholar 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I updated this article through May 9, 10:40[-10:53 or so] p.m. (EST).  It is no longer on my watch list.  I hope others will carry on in being vigilant about providing missing reliable and verifiable source citations (W:Citing sources, WP:Attribution, W:Reliable sources, following WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles in the course of updating it.  It is no longer on my watch list.   --NYScholar 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone removed the cleanup tag; I've added a more specific message tag re: missing citations; someone has also added at least seven external links to a section and I tagged the section; the external links need to be converted properly to notes in a full citation format following the current prevailing citations format.  I do not have time to do these conversions.  I suggest that the person or people who are adding such external links take their time to make proper citations.  See the other notes for examples (in editing mode).  Also, someone has been added a blog to the section of other related external links; such a blog is not permissible and violates WP:BLP.  Such insertions need to be deleted on sight according to WP:BLP and W:Reliable sources.  I provided an additional reliable source from Newsweek (Hirsh).  I do not want to take any more of my time to work on this article.  I hope others will perform the cleanup needed. [For further help, see Wikipedia:Citing sources.]--NYScholar 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up tag

message: What do folks think about using the National Names Database as a source on this page? The article on Wolfowitz seems poorly written and has zero sourcing. The Talk:NNDB page raises serious issues about using it as a source (the only editors that endorse it there appear to have connections to the NNDB itself). An editor claims that Jimbo Wales is against using it as a source (but without sourcing this claim). It's true that other Wikipedia pages cite this, but if it is not a WP:RS, than we shouldn't repeat that error here. What do others think? Notmyrealname 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[NNDB]] reliable source?

message: [Comment by another user moved here from my own personal talk page.  Seems more relevant here.  --NYScholar 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For information about how frequently and in what ways the template for the NNDB is currently being used in various Wikipedia articles, one needs to click on "what links here" in Template:Nndb name (the template page), not simply the article page for the NNDB: i.e.,Template Nndb name: What links here.  (Also see the editing history of the template page, for previous decision to "keep.")  The template is very frequently used throughout Wikipedia in "External links" sections and as an external link in References sections.  When possible, it is useful to provide clear annotations of problems in such sources being listed as "external links" in Wikipedia articles: e.g., see Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#The inclusion of the NNDB article on Libby in external links, which makes this point; scroll down that page to Talk:Lewis Libby/Archive 3#Section deleted by another editor.  I think that it is useful to cite the "Beta version" message posted in the NNDB, as I have tried to do [in the current version of Lewis Libby, n. 18 [cf. n. 5 in the earlier talk page discussion],] and to alert other Wikipedia users to its problematic reliability due to unclear or lacking documentation.  Thank you. --NYScholar 21:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the more recent comment cited by FCYTravis above, when that article on Libby is unprotected, it would be better (in my view) to move the template information in n. 18 to the references section (just as an external link [in "Selected annotated bibliography"]), with the accompanying qualifying annotation.  I suggest that by way of example, because I think a similarly-annotated template link to the NNDB article on Wolfowitz is useful in this article on him, also not in a specific note citation but in the references section (in the other biographical accounts sec.).  --NYScholar 21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As an example, here's the annotation currently in n. 18 of the Libby article; I've removed his name and added "add name" by way of a kind of format: [Some details about (add name) listed here may be of questionable reliability ("This is a beta version of NNDB"; corrections and comments are requested).] --NYScholar 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NNDB link(s) in Wikipedia

message: The removal of relevant, factual, and fully valid categories is considered vandalism. Please desist from vandalizing this article. The categories that are consistently removed include:
*:Category:American bankers
*:Category:Jewish Americans 
*:Category:Jewish American politicians
*:Category:Jewish businesspeople
--Wassermann 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please desist from violations of WP:CIVIL; removal of WP:BLP#Use_of_categories violating material is not "vandalism". See also WP:CAT: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Jayjg (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've removed Category:Designated terrorist organizations from Hamas, since it arguably (and apparently) violates WP:WTA. Nbauman 13:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism -- the removal of valid categories 

message: There appears to be some vandalism occurring: 68.184.46.189 appears to be inserting profane material [... then deleted by 68.192.166.39 (see correction below)...]:
 .  Some of the unsourced statements in the article also need either deletion or the provision of reliable verifiable sources pursuant to WP:BLP and related Wikipedia guidelines and policies.  I tried to provide some additional reliable verified and verifiable sources for some of the statements; I have been unable to do so for others, which remain unattributed.  I've run out of time.  I've indicated at least some places where they are still needed.  This article still needs considerable cleanup, particularly regarding verifying sources placed in it and also attributing currently still-unsourced statements with full citations.   See the guidelines and policies linked at top of this talk page, especially Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:Attribution, as these pertain to WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Public figures.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 02:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be getting confused. User:68.184.46.189 indeed vandalised this article, twice. One of these was reverted by User:68.192.166.39, but not the other. As 68.192 belongs to Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems) and 68.184 belongs to Charter Communications, I doubt this is the same person, despite the coincidentally similar IP... Nil Einne 04:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the second anon. IP address in brackets above pursuant to your comment.  My point is that whoever it is who is inserting profane material into this and other Wikipedia articles really should not be doing that.  Thanks for your pointing out the differences between the two IP addresses.  I hadn't noticed that.  I did wonder why the same anon IP user would insert and then delete such material, but I do not speculate about the motives of vandals.  Their conduct  violates Wikipedia guidelines; WP:BLP asks responsible users to remove such material on sight, that is what I did, explained the deletion in my editing summary, and then also posted about it here.  Sorry for the error in mistaking the two similar anon IP addresses for one.  --NYScholar 04:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately vandals don't care about what should and shouldn't be done and tend to be attracted to controversial articles like this one. If it get's out of hand, then you might want to request semi protection but so far, it seems just run of the mill stuff Nil Einne 10:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: For all of the effort to fill in notes and references, the article is ever more over-written, and consequently less and less useful to most users.  No Wikipedia article should be this long; very few should even be half as long.  If you want to say this much about Wolfowitz, you should expand on it in a series of pages.
Someone tried to at least begin to pare down the enormous verbiage.  His edit was reverted, as if the article is a hydra.  I have to ask whether some of the editors are obsessed with this page and have no real concern for brevity.  Greg Kuperberg 23:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matter of length of article again

message: <<
Gaouette observes:The controversy has added fuel to anger at the bank over Wolfowitz's management style and his involvement in two unusual and large pay raises given to his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a bank employee on loan to the State Department.... Wolfowitz's problems have been compounded by revelations that Defense Department officials told one of their contractors to hire Riza for a short-term contract while Wolfowitz was the deputy Defense secretary.  The Pentagon announced Wednesday [April 18, 2007] that it was looking into the matter.... These issues will be on the table as the bank's board of directors meets today [April 19, 2007] to debate Wolfowitz's future."Nicole Gaouette, "World Bank May Target Family Planning: Repeated Absence of References to Birth Control in Internal Reports Alarms Women's Health Advocates", The Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2007, accessed May 1, 2007.>
On April 19, 2007, on the website of Fox News, Richard Behar posted his exclusive interview with Roberto Danino, the bank's former general counsel, who claimed that Wolfowitz froze him out of the loop because he "'didn't like my advice'" on the Shaha Riza compensation matter in 2005, which led to Danino quitting his post at the bank altogether several months later.Qtd. in Richard Behar, "Alleged Key Players Distance Themselves From Wolfowitz Scandal", Fox News, April 19, 2007, accessed May 10, 2007.
BBC News and other media outlets reported on the meeting in which Wolfowiz "faced" the World Bank's board of directors: he and his lawyer Robert Bennett continued to assert that he had engaged in no "conflict of interest" regarding "bogus charges" concerning the "promotion and pay rises" of his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, who was "seconded to the State Department" from the World Bank when he became its president in 2005, and that he had consulted the Bank's "ethics committee" about the matter before proceeding; he even "won a fresh endorsement from his former boss," President George W. Bush, who argued that Wolfowitz "should stay" head of the Bank and be "given a fair hearing.""Wolfowitz Faces Bank's Board", RealMedia and Windows Media Player video clips of updated news report.  BBC News, April 19, 2007, accessed May 2, 2007.  Attending a conference on education for the poor in Brussels, Belgium, amidst news reports that the World Bank ethics committee members disputed his claims,Steven R. Weisman, "Wolfowitz Challenged by Two Former World Bank Top Officials", International Herald Tribune, May 2, 2007, accessed May 2, 2007. Wolfowitz insisted in a press conference that the controversy would not be "distracting" from the work of the World Bank."Wolfowitz Says Allegations Not Distracting", United Press International, May 2, 2007, accessed May 2, 2007. Yet, others are focusing on how "wary" Europeans are of potential international financial instability resulting from the continuing controversy affecting the World Bank president:So guarded was the reception for Wolfowitz that Gordon Brown, Britain's chancellor of the Exchequer, canceled plans to appear on the podium with him at a news conference. British officials said publicly that Brown had decided to leave early to campaign in the Scottish elections. But privately they admitted that appearing side by side with Wolfowitz had become a political liability.
Wolfowitz initially escaped the hoard of reporters waiting to greet him at the entrance of the conference, held at the European Commission's headquarters, by entering the sprawling building through an underground garage. But at a news conference where former African child laborers discussed the importance of going to school and where Wolfowitz himself spoke movingly about his grandfather's lack of education, his discourse was disrupted by recurring questions about his stewardship.
Asked if he would resign and whether he was concerned the allegations against him were distracting from the bank's development goals, Wolfowitz stressed that the work of the bank was continuing.
"The work of the bank goes on," he said. "There are millions of poor people who depend on us, and we will continue that work. It's a matter of keeping promises made. We're talking about the long term, it goes beyond me."
But he sidestepped questions about his future, referring journalists to his testimony to a panel investigating his role in promoting Riza, for whom he helped arrange a pay raise, promotion and transfer to the State Department after he arrived at the bank in 2005. "The board is considering the issue," he said.
On Tuesday [May 1, 2007], two former top officials at the bank issued new statements disputing the contention of Wolfowitz that they and others knew about his actions on behalf of the woman, who had been employed at the bank for seven years when he joined. The officials' testimony exposed the extraordinary discord at the highest levels of the bank after Wolfowitz became president.Dan Bilefsky and Steven R. Weisman, "Europeans Wary of Wolfowitz", International Herald Tribune, May 2, 2007, accessed May 2, 2007.
After some delay, the World Bank board's decision on Wolfowitz's future with the organization was at first expected within a week.  In their "Communication" of May 1, 2007, the executive directors of the World Bank Group state:Following the April 16 statement of the Development Committee, the ad hoc group has continued its work, taking it forward in an orderly manner, with fair process and careful deliberation.
The ad hoc group has completed an additional round of interviews with the people involved and received a number of statements. It will now draw its conclusions from the information obtained from the documents and during the course of the interviews. It will then expeditiously prepare its report and submit it to the Executive Directors for their decisions.
The Executive Directors remain very concerned about the impact on the work of the Bank Group and are committed to the earliest possible resolution of the matter."Communication from the Executive Directors of the World Bank Group", online posting, World Bank Group, web.worldbank.org, May 1, 2007, accessed May 5, 2007.
On May 2, 2007, FoxNews.com posted a detailed news analysis complaining that the World Bank scandal had "morphed into a full-blown battle of prepared statements" -- with no reporters permitted to ask follow-up questions.  Fox listed some key unanswered questions for all the major players in the Riza saga --  including Danino, Melkert and Wolfowitz.  The analysis concluded that "everybody involved in the saga still has things to reveal."Richard Behar, "News Analysis: Gloves Come Off in Paul Wolfowitz Saga", Fox News, May 3, 2007, accessed May 14, 2007.
On May 5, 2007, Reuters reported that More than 700 World Bank staff have signed a letter expressing concern and calling for a resolution of a crisis involving bank president Paul Wolfowitz as a decision over his leadership looms.
In a rare move, the 718 employees asked to add their names to a letter first circulated on April 26 by 46 World Bank officials working to implement the bank's anti-corruption strategy. The surge of signatures, on a public letter on the bank's website, reflected signs of increasing discontent.
The next 72 hours will be critical for the former No. 2 Pentagon official accused of violating staff rules by directing a high-paid promotion for his companion Shaha Riza, a World Bank Middle East expert, as an investigating panel prepares to announce its findings."World Bank Expresses Wolfowitz Concerns" (Reuters), The Age May 5, 2007, accessed May 5, 2007.
In the edition of New York Times of Monday, May 7, 2007, Steven R. Weisman reported from Washington, D.C. that by the weekend ending Sunday, May 6,The World Bank committee investigating misconduct charges against Paul D. Wolfowitz, the bank president, failed to complete its review on schedule...but bank officials said the panel would eventually find that he violated bank rules barring conflicts of interest.
The committee, made up of 7 of the 24 members of the bank’s board, indicated last week that it would reach a conclusion about Mr. Wolfowitz on Saturday [May 5], and would transmit its findings to him to allow him to prepare for a rebuttal this week.
But no results were transmitted by early Sunday evening, though some officials said it was theoretically possible for the panel to finish later Sunday night.
Bank officials said the committee was also preparing a recommendation on what the full board should do in light of its finding but would not be disclosing that to Mr. Wolfowitz.
The committee is considering whether to recommend an outright removal or some kind of no-confidence vote that may persuade him to resign. That part of the conclusion is not likely to become known until later, bank officials said.Steven R. Weisman,"Panel to Find That Wolfowitz Broke Rules, Officials Say", The New York Times, May 7, 2007, accessed May 7, 2007.
Later, on Monday, May 7, 2007, news media reported that Kevin Kellems, "director of strategy in external affairs and senior adviser" and "the right-hand man of embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz," has "resigned," which some commentators regarded as a "blow" to the embattled World Bank president and some analysts as "likely an effort to save his boss."Leslie Wroughton, "Wolfowitz Aide Quits World Bank Amid Controversy", The Boston Globe, May 7, 2007, accessed May 7, 2007.Greg Hitt, "Top Wolfowitz Adviser Resigns", The Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal Online, May 7, 2007, Washington Wire, accessed May 8, 2007.Emad Mekay, "Politics: Kellems, First Head to Roll in Wolfowitz Scandal", Inter Press Service (IPS), May 7, 2007, accessed May 7, 2007.Announcement by Marwan Muasher, "Kevin Kellems, Director of Strategy in External Affairs and Senior Advisor", "Press Release No:2007/362/EXT", World Bank, May 7, 2007, accessed May 8, 2007.
By Tuesday, May 8, 2007, according to Lesley Wroughton reporting for Reuters, amidst ostensible support for Wolfowitz from the United States and increasing concerns from the European community, the World Bank Group's ethics panel had already given Wolfowitz three days to respond to their findings (by Wednesday, May 9), eliciting a request from Bob Bennett, Wolfowitz's lawyer, that the Bank grant Wolfowitz at least the five days prescribed by its policies to respond to "such allegations," and, preferably, a full week, and the United States Treasury "urged" that the Bank accommodate Bennett's request for more time to respond.  "European board sources" said that "Wolfowitz was unlikely to quit even though the panel's findings further damaged his credibility."  Not attributing Wolfowitz's situation to his being an American, Dutch Minister of Finance and deputy prime minister Wouter Bos appeared less concerned about the process of how the World Bank selects its presidents, who are by tradition American, and more about the dubious "integrity" of this particular incumbent.Lesley Wroughton, "U.S. Digs in As Europe Queries Wolfowitz's Command", Reuters, May 8, 2007, accessed May 8, 2007. [Note: Reuters revised headline at cited URL to "Democrats Urge Bush to Resolve World Bank Crisis", May 9, 2007, accessed May 9, 2007.]
According to more recent press reports, the World Bank Group then gave Wolfowitz until Friday, May 11, 2007, to respond to the "report by a special bank panel that accuses Wolfowitz of circumventing bank rules when he arranged for the compensation package."  Whereas "[c]ritics - including many European countries, many on the bank's staff, aid groups and others - want Wolfowitz to resign," as they "contend that the controversy has tarnished the bank's reputation and could hobble its ability to raise billions of dollars from countries around the world to bankroll financial help for poor nations," Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow continue the Bush administration's call for a "fair hearing" for Wolfowitz, "still" expressing "full support" for him.Jeannine Aversa, "White House: Give Wolfowitz Fair Hearing", The Guardian, May 10, 2007, 2:10 a.m., accessed May 9, 2007, 10:22 p.m. (EST).
>>
===Notes===
The above material (between <</>>) has been updated.  Cut out the portions that could be summarized more briefly or deleted; other very lengthy sections of the article in the Career section, especially those apparently plagiarized from or insufficiently attributed to books and articles need shortening as well. --NYScholar 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article (notes embedded in it for verification/documentation)

message: The above material (between <</>>) has been updated.  Cut out the portions that could be summarized more briefly or deleted; other very lengthy sections of the article in the Career section, especially those apparently plagiarized from or insufficiently attributed to books and articles need shortening as well. --NYScholar 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: don't you have another one, this one is really ugly... Paris By Night 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTF???? --JHP 05:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ugly picture

message: "Naomi Klein has pointed-out the overall corruption of The World Bank regardless of the Paul Wolfowitz scandal, and has called for the organization's complete dissolution."
: Propose to delete, 1st irrelevant critic, 2nd biased language ("overall corruption"), 3rd no relation to wolfowitz, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Podmok (talk • contribs)  18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted it (at least for meantime); it was placed incoherently out of chronological sequence in the article (see the date of source given--May 3, 2007) and not notable or relevant at that point in the article; its citation was not formatted correctly (needed full citation); its source was not identified as a reliable source. The use of double brackets in the phrase "Paul Wolfowitz scandal" to a non-Wikipedia article made it appear to be pushing a POV. Dubious material at that point in the article. See above for material that used to be in the article since removed (due to concerns about article length expressed by other(s) previously). --NYScholar 19:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion proposal 

message: In response to your Paul Wolfowitz edit in which you said, "sources cited--he lived in Chevy Chase when married to Claire [Clare] Selgin Wolfowitz; reliable source not yet cited for his current resid. in Washington, D.C. (NW); current add. unr", I'm not sure how to use a constantly changing Newspaper website homepage as a source, but right now on the WashingtonPost.com homepage there is a photo of Wolfowitz with a caption that reads, "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaves his house in Chevy Chase, Md. on May 15, 2007. (Getty Images)" I can't find it now, but on May 16, NYTimes.com had a photo of Wolfowitz leaving his home. There was a caption that said something along the lines of "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaving his Chevy Chase, Maryland home this morning." The photo even showed his street address, "7104", on the side of his door. A quick google search for "Paul Wolfowitz" and "7104" confirms that he lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland. --JHP 04:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a photo with quote: "World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz leaves his house in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Maryland, May 17, 2007." --JHP 04:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I've moved this section from my personal talk page to this article's talk page, where I believe it is more relevant and more people can benefit from reading it.  [I corrected my earlier misspelling of his wife's first name from the editing summary; it's "Clare" not "Claire".]  --NYScholar 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wolfowitz's residence

message: WP:WPChi tags all articles with :Category:University of Chicago alumni.  I have added the parameter values following our priority scale.  If this is a problem let me know. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the clarification.  I see the U of Chicago conn.; at first I thought it was a city of Chicago and didn't see that conn.  Will restore tag if you did not already; though I think it should be placed below the more general talkheader and WP:BLP tags.  Will move this to talk page of article in a bit.  --NYScholar 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new way of tagging the article is, I think, much better as it doesn't not obtrude or interfere with the general talkpage header or trump other headers. --NYScholar 21:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The user who deleted the tag apparently didn't realize that Wolfowitz is included in the project as a U of Chicago alumnus.  Please read the comments above more carefully; please don't just delete the tag entirely again without some further discussion of the matter with the other user,  TonyTheTiger, who explained its being on this talk page.  I restored the tag in a different format so as not to obscure or interfere w/ the more important biography tags. --NYScholar 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Wolfowitz {{tl|ChicagoWikiProject}} tag 

message: Please change his name above his picture from Wolfotitz to Wolfowitz. 75.185.66.16 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone corrected it.  Apparently, the article has been semi-protected due to such vandalism.  (See above.) --NYScholar 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Name Above Picture 

message: Hi everyone. I have some comments about the pictures on this page. All of the pics are small, and I think that making them larger would be good, for they are hard to see. Also, there is a substantial lack of photographs before the "Deputy Secretary of Defense" section, with only one pic being present, besides the main pic in the infobox. I have tried to fix this problem with resizing many of the images, but my edits were undone, as far as I can tell. I also added a pic of Wolfowitz and former First Lady Nancy Reagan, but the image size was lowered on that pic too. Is there any reason why? Happyme22 21:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see the earlier comments on the overly-long length of this article (as tagged) and earlier complaints by earlier users that there were too many photos in the article.  Also, some of the photos do not seem consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Anyone can click on a photo and see a much-larger version of it.  The photos are just meant to be small versions of larger jpg or even smaller files.  An encyclopedia is not a "picture book"; and the emphasis needs to be on the text not on the photos.  The larger-sized photos slow down (lengthen) the loading and reading of the text. --NYScholar 23:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles:
removed to talk page: problematic passage being added in reverts by other user:
On the other hand, there is a very long tradition of interpretation of Article 51, going back to the founding generation of the United Nations itself, that supports Wolfowitz's more expansive interpretation. [see e.g. Clark M. Eichelberger, "The United  Nations Charter: A Growing Document," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1947.] (added by  20:10, May 22, 2007 Annie06) (editing history)].
(Note the source that user is citing w/o a link is dated 1947!) The invasion occurred in March 2003.  The controversy about it occurred for two years before and for the 4 years after that: about six years.  Other sources needed: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; WP:POV, and WP:BLP#Public figures. --NYScholar 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: When I have some more time, I may try to look for the article cited by the other user and see if I can find an online version of it to link to (if someone else does not supply it here (in talk) first), perhaps adding some appropriate transition.  I still think however, that it may be that such an historically-dated article is better placed in one of the already-cross-linked articles dealing more directly with the history of/perspectives on preemptive war and the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Iraq war. --NYScholar 02:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry--it's not a free source: here's a link to the subscription-based version from archives of the journal: the notice says that it requires an individual or library (log-in identity) subscription to  The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Online (or a user's fee). --NYScholar 02:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article on preemptive war includes some sources; e.g., "The American Strategy of Preemptive War and International Law", which links to the online abstract of a published paper by Dietrich Murswiek, of the Albert Ludwigs Universität Freiburg - Institute of Public Law, dated March 2003, which is a source contemporary with the invasion. --NYScholar 06:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:1RR]]: Discuss first

message: Michael R. Gordon, chief military correspondent for the New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general, wrote Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2006). This book details the behind-the-scenes decision-making that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq during the initial months of the Bush Administration (before September 11th). In this book, they wrote: "Wolfowitz sought to enlist the Joint Staff's support to develop a strategy for aiding an anti-Saddam resistance. Saddam had drained the southern marshes in Iraq to deprive Shiite rebels of a sanctuary, so Wolfowitz wondered if the dams could be bombed to re-create them. The Pentagon lawyers challenged whether such a strike would be consistent with the rules of war. Wolfowitz's view was that it would be more humane than leaving the Shiites to Saddam's mercy.  Wolfowitz also wanted to know what it would take to arm and train Iraqi insurgents."
The United States invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003 and victory was declared on May 1, 2003 but this was only the beginning of Wolfowitz’s problems. During the reconstruction work that followed "[t]he American planners portrayed a mixture of supreme confidence and woeful lack of preparation."  Kampfner states "[t]hese clean-cut young Americans … were adherents of the Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld school of ‘revolutionary transformation’. They believed that, with goodwill, they could resurrect Iraq in a matter of months."  This did not prove to be the case.  Kampfner goes on to say that while "Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Cheney had also invested considerable hopes in Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress," these would also prove to be ill-founded.
Although he may have had considerable influence in the Administration's decision to invade Iraq, in Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor depict Wolfowitz as having little influence on the actual implementation of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. For instance: "At the Pentagon, Wolfowitz and his aides had taken the idea of Iraqi assistance a step further. Dusting off his proposal, made during his years out of office, to arm and equip Iraqi insurgents, Wolfowitz's initial goal was to raise an indigenous opposition army. As first imagined the plan was bold: there would be thousands of Iraqi freedom fighters who would battle Saddam's forces alongside U.S. and allied troops. Abizaid, who had served on the Joint Staff before moving to CENTCOM as Franks' deputy supported Wolfowitz's concept. Like Wolfowitz, Abizaid wanted to put an Iraqi face on the invasion force. Most of the administration were skeptical, if not opposed, to Wolfowitz's plan … [General Tommy Franks] thought that an Iraqi force would just get in the way and gave no weight to the benefits such a unit might provide in terms of local knowledge and language." According to Gordon and Trainor, money was poured into the idea but it never got the necessary backing or planning: "Franks turned to Feith in a Pentagon corridor, letting him know where he stood: 'I don't have time for this fucking bullshit.'....Rumsfeld was not pushing the idea very hard and Franks was not shy about taking on the defense secretary's subordinates....The Defense official blamed bureaucratic obstacles and lack of enthusiasm on the part of CENTCOM. White House officials and CENTCOM said that the fiasco showed that Feith and his team were better at drafting conservative policy manifestos than instituting programs."
In Cobra II, Gordon and Trainor also state that, "Wolfowitz and his aides suffered another setback when the White House rejected their proposal for the establishment of a provisional Iraqi government." The State department favored "internals" whereas Wolfowitz had proposed exiles. Rumsfeld was also opposed to the idea because he believed that an Iraqi provisional government would "get in the way". When the US announced that it would be running the country for a year and that Iraqis would only have an advisory role, Iraqi opposition groups futilely objected. Activist and academic Kanan Makiya, who supported regime change and had ties to the Iraqi National Congress, wrote an op-ed piece denouncing the decision.  Gordon and Trainor also believe that one of the crucial mistakes of the administration was initially sidelining Zalmay Khalilzad and bringing in Paul Bremer instead. The move was criticized by Colin Powell and it's unclear if Wolfowitz supported Rumsfeld's decision to sideline Khalilzad since Khalilzad had in the past been closely associated with Wolfowitz.
There are no [full citations to] sources [given in the above passage(s) and many others in this article, which probably also need to be deleted until they can be properly and fully sourced]; the material is not clearly relevant to this article (see last sentence); and the cross-linked articles amply cover the time period.  Without full citations (Wikipedia:Citing sources), this material violates WP:BLP.  See tagged notices at top of this talk page and my own and others' comments on plagiarism throughout this article.  --NYScholar 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some or all of the above material appears to have been plagiarized from Random House's own online excerpt from the book Cobra II: See Excerpt posted on randomhouse.com.  Accessed May 26, 2007.  Such problems of plagiarism need correction throughout this (and other) articles in Wikipedia. Previous editor(s) did not identify this as a source in any "full citations" ("proper citations") to the material being copied from the source (with and without quotation marks).  Quotation marks do not suffice; actual page and reference source citations are necessary to document sources of material in Wikipedia articles, especially those on living persons: WP:BLP; Wikipedia:Citing sources; Wikipedia:Attribution; Wikipedia:Reliable sources.  --NYScholar 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving unsourced passages from article to talk page

message: [....] [Deleted poorly sourced and potentially libelous material posted to talk page by  19:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution to Wolfowitz Bio 

message: Recent additions to this article appear to be pushing various points of view of editors making them.  Please maintain adherence to Wikipedia's most central editing policy and guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Cross-links to articles on related subjects provide detailed information about them.  Those articles also must conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  Many of those articles are controversial and contentious; in editing them (and this one), please consult Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles [and linked/related guidelines and policies].  See editing history summary comments and earlier talk page discussions (scroll up).  Editors should not be interjecting their own points of view into this or other Wikipedia articles.  Thank you.  --NYScholar 23:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]

message: Someone jumped the gun by adding Robert Zoellick as "successor" in the bottom box in article; the dates didn't post right for Wolfowitz when that user added them as "incumbent"; reformatted that part of the box; added ref. to the World Bank Group's press release; unfortunately, the date of posting on the site is in error; it was posted on May 30, 2007 (not June 30, 2007); the Spanish language version has right date; the French version has no date; the English version has erroneous date.   Don't know how to incorporate that in any other way right now.  I really don't think the box should be changed until a "successor" to Wolfowitz is actually approved.  Wolfowitz is still holding that office until June 30, 2007, the effective date of his resignation: see the sources cited in the article and in that box.  Thanks.  --NYScholar 02:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jumping the gun?

message: [.... Deleted by NYScholar; my own editorial interpolation is already, as I said, visible in editing mode.  I do not want my words copied and posted here.  They are clear in both the editing history summary and in show preview in editing mode.  Editorial interpolations are just what they are called "editorial interpolations."  There is no reason for copying and pasting my words from the editorial interpolation here.  [Threaded the comment added below.] --NYScholar 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added another reliable source that cites Alterman's conversation with Wolfowitz. MoodyGroove 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a biography. I recommend splitting off the Career section into its own article as that seems to be the largest subsection. --Rajah 05:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably doesn't need to be split, just shortened.  IMO one of the big problems with WP is that sometimes so much information is given that the article becomes difficult to get through. But then, most of us are not professional writers. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Split this article!

message: The tag was added by MoodyGrove (Talk | contribs) in this edit on May 28, 2007. There have been several edits since and, while there's been lively discussion on this talk page, it's hard to ferret out any actual, current neutrality disputes. If there are any current concerns about the NPOV nature of this article, let's hear and resolve them now, and dispatch the tag, if possible.--HughGRex 13:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Neutrality" Tag

message: Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Wolfowitz.E2.80.8E Cool Hand Luke 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP discussion

message: To me it looks a little strange to have 2 exact quotes in the intro section. I'm not sure I've ever seen that on WP. Steve Dufour 04:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exact quotes