Talk:Stephen Walt

message: im thinking of adding a section which details his foreign policy positions, what does everybody think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123465421jhytwretpo98721654 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In this section it appears that some sentences are repeated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.135.182 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy 

message: There is a sentence in this article under his views with respect to Israel: 
"Noah Pollak has noted that while Walt calls himself a realist, his argument that Israel should accept a two-state solution is highly unrealistic.[18]"
1. Nowhere in the citation is there a mention of Noah Pollak. So, citation needed. 
2. This sentence should arguably be removed, because it misunderstands/conflates "unrealistic" with the international relations paradigm "Realism". The latter has nothing to do with being "realistic". The sentence is just plain silly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.162.243 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a problem with formatting of the ref, which I have now fixed. I agree with you and I can't see the relevance but as I have written here below, basically everything Stephen Walt has said about Israel is used to attack him by pro-Israelis. This is a POV problem that needs to be fixed and I have tagged it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed/sentence should be removed 

message: Basically everything here about Stephen Walt have said about Israel and other things is used here to attack his views by pro-Israelis such as CAMERA and ADL. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about his views 

message: Would someone (like User:Gouncbeatduke) please explain this edit which did lots of things willy-nilly, including deletion of a reliable source from Foreign Affairs (magazine).  There was no BLP violation, contrary to the edit summary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. This editor has made it a habit to revert without discussion, and appears to be following  around, mindlessly undoing all their edits. I've restored your version. All Rows4 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Maybe cyberspace was a bad idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider escalating to ANI if there's solid evidence of POV editing or hounding. Yes, cyberspace may have been a bad idea, though not as bad as drones or allowing Joe the Plumber to comment on every damn thing in the world. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

text: While y'all are at it, consider pruning this article and its linkfarm...think long-term... Drmies (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Drmies.  We have the makings of a compromise: drones and cyberspace can go away together.  The Plumber stays.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Italicizing the LA Times is a BLP violation?

message: This edit installed stuff including this: "Former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck wrote 'The expected tsunami of rabid responses condemned the report, vilified its authors...."  Was Peck really an ambassador?  His BLP doesn't say so.  Maybe "diplomat" would be a better word.  Also, I thought we were going to remove gratuitous insults like "rabid".  Not saying it's a BLP violation, but I thought we agreed to omit stuff like that by Hitchens and Satloff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think terms like "rapid" should be applied to a living person in their biography. Applying the term to a "lobby" seems okay to me, I am not aware of any BLP-like guidelines for lobbies. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080369/t/msnbc-analysts/ has a Peck bio, he was "chief of mission" Ambassador to Iraq from 1977 to 1980. In all interviews I have seen he is addressed as Ambassador. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, "Ambassador" is legitimate but it still looks weird because a reader will say "Ambassador to what?"  Can't it be rephrased somehow without turning it into Peck's CV?  As for rabidity, the term was "rabid responses" which obviously refers in this Wikipedia article to responses like those of the late Mr. Hitchens.  So let's be nice and rephrase, please?  It's not a BLP violation regardless of whether Hitchens is alive or dead, but it's still sensational and Wikipedia is not a tabloid.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What if we deleted the first quote and just left the second? As for Ambassador of what, can't the reader just click his hyperlink if they care? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better, thanks.  I would prefer "diplomat" instead of "ambassador" but it's no big deal.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Peck

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion