Talk:Peter Galbraith

message: E.g., what was his formal status at the National War College?  An adjunct professor?  A lecturer?  That is *far* different than being a "professor", as anyone in academia knows.  (Adjuncts are treated as part-time, temporary workers who are paid something like $5k/course. Professors are tenured or on a full-time tenure-track, teaching 4-6 courses, and with other obligations including *peer-reviewed* publications, not popular-press books.)  Why are his lobbying contracts not documented here, surely they are relevant -- especially during an Obama Administration, that has made it a point not to hire lobbyists.  Etc.  Let's look a little under the surface. FakaraSalik (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs balance -- reads like a promo/ad/CV 

message: There's no evidence that he's going to announce, and with Gaye Symington now in the race it's pretty unlikely. Shouldn't this mention be deleted now? Bill Jefferys (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: no - his interest is only in Iraqi Kurdistan - at least in so far as I can tell.  Zalali (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No evidence he's going to announce for governor of VT 

message: This section has been added in the main article; there is a citation, but the citation reads much more tentatively than the article does. The article says that Galbraith "has been exposed" as "having steered..." and later that he "influenced" ...
However, the cited article is much more tentative, and specifically says that "the realities were probably much different," and "If proven correct, these revelations..."
This seems too tentative to me to warrant inclusion in an article about a living person. It trades too much on rumor and inference, and certainly does not warrant the baldfaced statement, made as a statement of fact, in the article.
I believe that this section should be deleted, unless and until a source can be found that supports the strong statements made in this section. Bill Jefferys (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the New York Times and Salon have today published adequate articles in the English language to support the claims of financial benefit; So I no longer think that this section needs deletion. Others have put the citations into the article. Bill Jefferys (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All mention of this has been removed a couple times now as libellous, which is too much, as it certainly was appropriate and well supported from the time it was first added.  The language in some versions veered too much to criticism, but it certainly belongs in the article - it has been just readded without cites.  So I'm restoring and neutralizing the earlier version.John Z (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think it was mentioned as the most important part of his career apart from the mention in the lead. Many (most or all?) (reliable) sources do see a conflict of interest, the version I wrote treads very lightly on this matter and just reports the facts and the reports of Galbraith's financial interests. It did not say hundreds of millions but just quoted the Times figure of 100 or more - I don't see how we are disagreeing here.  Whether or not the Norwegian article was revenge, we cannot imply it was unless a reliable source makes this connection.  The current version has no cites and IMHO is less compliant with wikipedia policy.John Z (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's worth getting into whether or not there was a conflict of interest (there certainly wasn't a legal conflict interest).  the issue for me is a moral one - the fact is that he did not mention his financial involvement in Kurdish oil to people that obviously needed to know when he was participating in the drafting of the constitution.  For example, American drafters and american officials (including Paul Bremer himself) had no idea of this, and have now said that they are outraged that Galbraith did not ever disclose this.  It is undeniable that Galbraith was presenting himself to everyone at the time as an independent adviser to the Kurds when in fact he had a direct financial interest in the outcome.  This is a big deal.  Zalali (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

text: if you aren't informed about his role, then it means that you haven't read his book. he discusses it at length.  also - the moral issue if very clear - he didn't tell people that would have wanted to know what his person interest in the outcome was.  this includes US officials in the embassy, british officials, Iraqi (non-Kurdish officials), etc.  you obviously don't think that this is an issue, but you will at least have to admit that many people disagree with you.  these references deserve to be in the article, albeit i agree with as neutral a tone as possible.Zalali (talk) 19:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: He was involved in drafting the constitution.  The conflict of interest lies in the appearance that his political activities, positions and writing could have been motivated by a desire for personal enrichment, rather than an interest in the welfare of Iraq and the Kurds.John Z (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree.  participating in the drafting of a constitution is very delicate and galbraith concealed some very important information from just about every participating party.  this should be mentioned in the article.Zalali (talk) 19:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: this isn't part of the article, but what you say is wrong.  Iraqi kurdistan has the beginning of an oil industry but they aren't actually making any money out of it yet.  all of Iraqi Kurdistan's oil revenue actually comes from Baghdad.  a pipeline hooking up oil fields in Iraqi kurdistan to the national grid, allowing for oil from those fields to be exported, was only online for a short while, and even when it was, revenue was not going straight to kurdistan.  also - i think you are attributing way too much to galbraith here.  all he did in relation to the oil industry was help negotiate one contract.  there are other contracts that iraqi kurdistan has signed without him being involved.  finally - it's certainly possible that the kurds were aware of his interests, but even if they did, no one else knew.  not the rest of the iraqis, and not the americans.  Zalali (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galbraith Financial Benefit from his Support of Iraqi Kurdistan 

message: Devotedamerican - you deleted my section on Galbraith's op-ed pieces while I was in the middle of drafting it.  I am going to put it back in.  Please let me finish.  I will be including a few paragraphs about his positions on Kurdistan and Afghanistan.  If you think that it needs more information, please feel free to add.  Please do not just delete it, as this is an important part of Galbraith's career.Zalali (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i see that you have deleted this again on the basis that it doesn't deserve more space than his work on croatia, etc.  i agree, but the proper response to that should be to include more information about his role in croatia, rather than just deleting my contribution.  i will now undo your undo.  please let me finish my contribution.Zalali (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i've deleted the reference to the NYT and the NYRB in the "other activities" section, so as to avoid repetition.Zalali (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: sounds good.  i've already added a few references to Iraq and to Afghanistan myself.  also - if there is information about his time in Croatia somewhere, then we should more information as well.Zalali (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to revert Devotedamerican's addition, one quote was much too long, so presented copyright problems.  We have to selectively quote, paraphrase or summarize.John Z (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Copyright is a problem.  Another problem is the way the paragraph is now presented, which obviously isn't right.  I will pick out some good parts from Devotedamerican's quote.Zalali (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life as a political commentator 

message: devotedamerican has been deleting a paragraph that i wrote on the articles that have been published recently on galbraith's interest in iraqi oil.  i will put it back on the basis that (in my view) the article accurately summarizes what has been said in the press, and even gives galbraith the last word.  devotedamerican - please stop deleting all new additions to this article and be a little more constructive. if there is something specific that you think is missing from this paragraph, then please add, instead of deleting it. also - i disagree that this paragraph is not related to the passage on the iraqi constitution.  that is why every article in the press about this issue has mentioned his oil interests and his involvement in the constitutional process in tandem. Zalali (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it is in the appropriate place.  the issue directly relates to the constitutional process in iraq.  also - the paragraph that i drafted is much more detailed that the paragraph that you have in the "other sections".  also - your passages on galbraith's commentary was just a copy paste of an entire article from the internet.  john z deleted it - not me.  what i did is find some good parts of the article that you put it, and put those back in the wiki article, which i think is very accommodating.Zalali (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph with quotes from recent articles on galbraith's interest in iraqi oil 

message: there is so little in the section on vermont politics that i will merge it with "other activities".  the paragraph just says that he decided not to run. Zalali (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge section on Vermont politics with "other activities" 

message: i propose that we create a new section that covers all his academic appointments, instead of having a series of one or two line sections on different sections.  what do u think?Zalali (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating new section on academic appointments? 

message: both of these sections are very short and could easily be merged.  what do u think?Zalali (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging early life with personal life 

message: Devotedamerican - Dagens Næringsliv is not a tabloid.  it's a financial newspaper in the same way that the financial times is a financial newspaper.  indeed - that what's wikipedia's own page about it says.  if you insist that it is a tabloid, please provide a solid reference for this.Zalali (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is not if DN's article on Galbraith/DNO was well balanced. The point is what type of source DN is. In Norway (where I live) nobody questions the quality of DN, particularly in the context of investigative journalism. It is clearly and absolutely misleading to classify DNs journalism as "tabloid". Editors are free to use other reliable sources to make a complete, balanced picture of the Galbraith/DNO affair. Regards Nutty Professor (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

text: PS: see WP:IRS for criteria. Nutty Professor (talk) 12:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dagens Næringsliv is a tabloid 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Peter W. Galbraith. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090904194405/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/vermont/articles/2008/01/22/former_ambassador_testing_waters_for_gubernatorial_bid/ to http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2008/01/22/former_ambassador_testing_waters_for_gubernatorial_bid/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is very dishonest in terms of its description of events in Croatia in 1995. What happened is that around 100,000 people were driven from their homes and turned into refugees. The area was ethnically cleansed. At the time, Peter W. Galbraith made statements to the press denying that there was any ethnic cleansing going on in the face of an entire population fleeing an army. Contrary to the article, he worked against the cause of those driven from their homes and offered them no "U.S. Support" at all. He participated in a photo opportunity where he drove along with a convoy of people fleeing their homes, but to say he or the US offered any support to those people is the worst sort of dishonesty. Croatia ethnically cleansed its territory and got away with it. Its an incident that should bring shame on Galbraith and the United States. How the article could come to portray him as a protector and to claim that the U.S. was offering support to those people is just sick. Is there at long last no conscience and no shame? Science would be better than the outright misrepresentation of event that is in the article now. 75.17.126.104 (talk) 05:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your perspective. We can definitely include it, but we have a policy—WP:Biographies of living people—which strictly forbids us from including negative information about Mr. Galbraith unless we can find a reliable source, such as a respected history book, which supports this interpretation of the situation. Do you know of any books or mainstream news articles (in any language) which discuss your perspective? FourViolas (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I see there's a good deal more to the story than has been presented. Is this an appropriate place to post this article?: http://vtdigger.org/2016/06/09/devotedamerican-sounds-like-a-politicians-best-friend/ Activist (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in a box at the top, along with an update, thanks. I've been working on expanding the article for balance (e.g. with Peter W. Galbraith#Oil controversy), but remember we must work carefully within the bounds of WP:BLP. FourViolas (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Spin on his time in Croatia