Talk:George Shultz

message: What is the rationale for removing this article from Category:Cold War people? --HK 15:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Cold War people was deleted, so the category is being "depopulated". It's not about Shultz. -Willmcw 19:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold War people

message: The article appears to be oddly structured for an encyclopedia entry.  It starts with Mr. Schulz's "Background" then after a brief description of his activities as Secreatary of State jumps to his "Retirement"; as if the writer were suggesting that the most significant part of his career has somehow occured in retirement as opposed to his decades long service to three different administrations.  Anyone reading this article would have certain expectations that are placed there by the writer; something needs to be inserted between "Background" and "Retirement".  Otherwise I would have to say that the writer had not made an honest attempt to flesh out this prominent individual in our history.
_____________________________________________________
I agree with the above. The article needs a lot of work.  Secretary Shultz served in the Marine Corps not Navy...this is a HUGE mistake if you ask any Marine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.108.154 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're completely right. I changed it to reflect this. You can do this sort of thing yourself, you know :) RayAYang (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Article Needs Work 

message: The Neocons are a group of liberals who crossed the aisle following the cultural/political wars of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly associated with proteges of senator Scoop Jackson. (see our article on Neoconservatism). Shultz has been a conservative economist and a strong proponent of a robust foreign policy since before the neoconservative movement was more than a misgiving in its founders' eyes. If the term is to have any meaning other than an epithet for "people associated with George W Bush" (also not a neocon), then it doesn't belong here. I'm removing the category and making changes associated with the meaning of the term. RayAYang (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neoconservative? Shultz!? 

message: In July 2010, PBS broadcast the three-part series, "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Shultz Years," which raised various issues as discussed at:
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2010/07/turmoil_over_turmoil.html
The "Afterward" at the end of the last hour made the glaring omission of the fact that Shultz played such a central role among the establishment Republicans who handpicked George W. Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate.
On 25 February 2011, I added the following in the Later Life section, but it was reduced to one sentence by Fat&Happy. In my opinion, this was unwarranted:
George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/
1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html
If I remember correctly, more than $70 million had been raised by the time W announced his candidacy. It is high time that Shultz and the establishment Republicans be held accountable for their disastrous selection. Italus (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Two remarks. First, every candidate goes forth to try to find support. While Bush was talking to Shultz, he was undoubtedly also talking to every other person who was willing to listen, particularly in Iowa or New Hampshire. You need to make a case that Shultz's support was somehow major and significant; otherwise, while it undoubtedly belongs in an exhaustive chronicle of the 2000 campaign, it doesn't belong here (see our policy regarding undue weight). I don't see such a case there yet, although I can be convinced. Second, your closing sentence betrays a bias which you would do well to keep from your Wikipedia work (see WP:NPOV). RayTalk 02:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My last two sentences had not been included in the article. According to the Frontline program, in April 1998 Bush was not considering running for president. Shultz was one of the prime operatives to encourage Bush's candidacy and to start the fundraising campaign for him. I just found the full transcript of the Frontline program at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/etc/script.html , where the Shultz quotations in my first ref can be found. Italus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I am underwhelmed. Shultz, a guy at Hoover, wanted to expand Hoover's influence by getting Bush to meet with experts. He butters him up some, being impressed. No causal link is drawn between Shultz and Bush choosing to run; in fact, Shultz explicitly says something like "I know you're thinking of running already...." Certainly nothing like "prime operative"- Shultz is a senior statesman, not a daily operations person. RayTalk 19:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Shultz Years" 

message: Why is there a "common assumption" that Shultz is "a member of the Pratt family associated with John D. Rockefeller ".  Pratt and Shultz are not the same name!203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pratt" and "Pratt", on the other hand, are very similar if the entire paragraph is read from the beginning. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family 

message: The entry lacks a section concerning the controversies and questionable stances taken by Schultz both in and out of office.  The entry is too hagiographic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.35.130 (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any missing but reliably sourced information to suggest as additions to appropriate sections of the article, or is this just a morning kvetch session? 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies?

message: 尖閣の問題について、朝日新聞（Asahi）で発言したことは、事実誤認があります。インタビュアーの朝日記者が、「日本は尖閣問題で中国の強硬姿勢に苦しんでいます」と発言したところ、「日本が尖閣を国有化したことで、中国は公船を派遣するようになった」と言っています。しかし実際は、中国が尖閣に最初に公船派遣と領海侵犯をしたのは2008年12月です。2012年9月には漁船衝突事件が起き、それ以降中国は毎月の頻度に公船派遣を恒常化させました。日本が尖閣を国有化したのはその2年後の2012年9月です。シュルツ氏の発言は事実誤認であり、今も朝日新聞では訂正記事が書かれていません。ここにその事実を記します。--110.66.55.130 (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  尖閣についての朝日新聞での発言について 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on George P. Shultz. 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/20120322164850/http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/108/publ479.108.txt to http://ftp.resource.org/gpo.gov/laws/108/publ479.108.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201091809/http://www.ustreas.gov:80/education/history/secretaries/gpschultz.shtml to http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/secretaries/gpschultz.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050910225904/http://www-hoover.stanford.edu:80/bios/shultz.html to http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/shultz.html
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) 04:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Lyndon LaRouche seems to be a person with very strong opinions on some issues and persons. If this article wants to describe criticism of Shultz, I think it should be described in more general and neutral terms and include not only LaRouche but also other people criticising Shultz. --Coffee leaf (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Shultz by Lyndon LaRouche 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on George P. Shultz. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ustreas.gov/education/history/secretaries/gpschultz.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/shultz.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911183222/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F09%2F06%2F1412242 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07%2F09%2F06%2F1412242
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080429230312/http://www.charlierose.com/guests/george-shultz to http://www.charlierose.com/guests/george-shultz
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) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Latin America section is confusing in two ways. First, because it discusses things out of sequence: the Iran–Contra affair started August 20, 1985, but after mentioning that event it jumps back to 1983. Second, someone who was strongly critical of the Sandinista government and Daniel Ortega might be expected to be more likely to support undermining it, and there's no text involving "however", "even though", "in spite of", or any similar expression that helps the reader with the contrast. I would have expected this section to be along the lines of "He strongly opposed the Sandinista government and said in 1983 ... However, he also was well known for outspoken opposition to the 'arms for hostages' scandal that ..." —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America 

message: As of 2019-10-31 this article said, "Along with Elliot Richardson, he is one of two individuals to serve in four different Cabinet positions."  However, this article currently only lists three.  
I've changed that number to three.  If you think it's four, please document the fourth.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  four different Cabinet positions? 

message: Between  2022-07-19T07:26:51‎ and ...T08:02:12‎ User:76.71.176.207 made 5 questionable edits.  User:Arado Ar 196 reverted the first 3, saying, "Non-constructive edit".  I checked the source for a comment that Arado Ar 196 reverted and concluded that User:Arado Ar 196 was correct in doing so:  I wondered if the deletion in question might have been an attempt to discredit Shultz for his support of Theranos.  
With the most recent 2 edits, User:76.71.176.207 inserted the following at the beginning of the lede:  George Pratt Shultz (; December 13, 1920February 6, 2021) was
:a prominent and hands-on board member of Theranos, which defrauded more than $700 million from its investors before it collapsed. He was also ...
First, this does not belong in the lede:  Shultz is famous for many things, and the Theranos affair was a relatively minor issue in a long and distinguished career.  
Second, the comment may belong later.  However, I have no access to that book and do not feel a need to pursue this further.  
Thanks to User:Arado Ar 196 for the earlier reversion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem edits by an anonymous user 

message: the accusation that a grandson had anything to disclose as a " whistle blower" is libelous, slanderous, and patently falsely. Those accusations were just that, and long ago proven unfounded . 2600:100F:B1B7:EBA9:9447:65FF:FE81:E30A (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not slanderous and the term is used by the sourced linked. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with User:ZimZalaBim: The term Whistleblower may be a negative to you.  However, to me, and to those who have supported legislation protecting whistleblowers, a whistleblower is a person of principle, willing to risk their career and even incarceration or death (as in the cases of Satyendra Dubey and Sergei Magnitsky) to expose wrong doing by others in an organization.  See also List of whistleblowers.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, not sure how whistleblower can be construed as a negative unless your worldview is wedded to the obfuscation of the truth in defiance of clearly overarching moral imperatives. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slander