Talk:Donald Rumsfeld/Archive 1

message: On June 17, 2004, Rumsfeld admitted during a news conference that he had personally ordered two prisoners to be concealled from the International Committee of the Red Cross, one at Camp Cropper, at the instigation of CIA chief George Tenet - in apparent violation of the Geneva Convention.
Where is the evidence that this violated the Geneva Convention?  Who was the prisoner and do we know if the Geneva Convention applied in his case, i.e., was he a legal combatant captured wearing the uniform of a signatory nation?  Because if he wasn't, the Geneva Convention explicity states he would not be protected under the Geneva Convention. TimShell 08:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumsfeld was widely criticized for the issue, that should be reported. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court ruled that the treatment of prisoners by the Bush administration violated US law. Get-back-world-respect 16:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Tim, I think you are misinformed about what, according to the Geneva Conventions, constitutes a protected person:
"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." -Part 1, Article 4, GCIV
Kevin Baas | talk 17:38, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
----
Perhaps the 'Articles' section should provide some sort of disclaimer or notification that some of the articles linked to are POV. -Fogger 22:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geneva convention 

message: Is it just me, but there is no mention of his military service, considered for both John Kerry, and President Bush there are extensive sections, shouldn't there be even a basic mention of Rumsfeld's Service in the US Navy? PPGMD
Mr Rumsfelds' Naval survice was "truncated". Therefore the original mention of "three Calander years of Navy service". It seems that he, Mr. Rumsfeld wast TAD on an U.S. Army Post. His personal actions toward a "femail U.S. Army person" was not appreciated. A complaint was made and Mr. Rumsfeld was then in "hac" for his personal actions to the young U.S.Army person. Should this complaint have gone to Courts Marshal, it was likely tolead to a conviction! So he used his influence and exited the Navy quietly through the side door. My source was a serving Army Person from that Army Base. I find no reason to believe that he lied or had anything to gain by such a disclosure. S// G.E. Anderson USMC Serial :1054898 FMF Korea 1950/51
:::Fine, if we are going to leave this unsubstantiated rumour on this Web site then I will comment upon it.  Why isn't this comment signed?  Who wrote this?  Why don't you come out and state who you are?  I will tell why you don't because you are lying.  This is a flat out BS rumour and you are using Wikipedia to put it on the Internet.  Step up and state who you are.  Step and state what information that you have to back this up  This is just simply misuse of the Wikipedia system to get a flat out bald-faced lie onto the Internet.   Why hasn't any respectable newspapers know about this allegation.  You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie.  Until you provide some type of hard evidence then this is a lie.  If it put into the article I will tear it immediately and if it is put back in then I will rip out the damn lie again.-----Keetoowah 02:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie" *Cough* *cough*  Rama 08:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Service 

message: :::::Hey Rama Kerry is a loser and so is Gore.-----Keetoowah 14:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you say "Kerry is a loser and so is Gore" without providing references, according to your initial statement, I assume you mean that they are great men, right ? But what does it have to do with the present topic ? Rama 14:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the fact that Kerry is a loser and Gore is a loser has nothing to do with the current topic--just like your previous *Cough* *Cough* comment has nothing to do with current topic.  If your comment did have something to do with the current topic then please explain what the heck that is and also Heinz Kerry is shrill pig.----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saying that something which is not documented is false is a trivial logical fallacy. I am sorry not to have made my remark more explicit. I also should say that I find your insistance to compliment these Kerry people extremely odd, but since it would likely draw us further from the topic of the article, I won't ask you what you mean by that :) Somebody is a dirty pig to you too and cheers ! Rama 14:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keetoowah, you should probably stop assuming that anybody who tries to develop Wikipedia articles following the policy of neutral point of view and adds content that is critical of the current US administration is necessarily a supporter of Kerry or Gore. Not everybody is interested in petty US political squabbling. David.Monniaux 14:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, exccccuuussee MEEEE!  Not!  Look if you don't like it you don't have to read it.  Also, the original point of this discussion was a rumour placed on this particular Talk page about Rumsfeld.  So if you have anything useful to add to that discussion let's hear.  What information do you have???  Do you feel better that you lectured me?  I haven't changed one bit, but I was just wondering if it gave you some kind of feeling of power???  Look if you have anything, I mean anything at all constructive to add to the discussion about the rumour that started this thread then let's hear it.-----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute.  I looked at your background and I see that you are French.  I'm so sorry for you.  What's it like living in a former world power that is nothing but an impotent, second-rate country with an inferiority complex???  Wait don't tell me, from your comment I already know.  It tees you off that no one and I mean no one pays any damn attention to you any more, so much so that you have to buy Saddam's oil off of the black market and invade third world countries like the Ivory Coast and then lecture Americans.  But Americans don't care!!!!  We just laugh at you and ignore you.  Have A Frog Day!!!------Keetoowah 15:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I did NOT attack you personally.  I did NOT violate any policy.  That is a figment of your imagination.  I attacked the country of France.  Now, back to the article.  You keep telling me to focus on the article but neither you, David.Monniaux or Rama have explained why the rumour, which is the subject of this tread, should be on the Rumsfeld Wikipedia page.  As far as I can tell I have asked both of you for your input on that topic at least two times each and I haven't got a respond to that topic yet. I have received is a lecture from David.Monniaux explaining his personal opinion that I should not refer to "Kerry is a Loser" and from Rama about logical fallacy of my argument.  But I haven't heard one comment from either one of you on the actual topic of discussion, the substance of the matter, which is the rumour listed above about Rumsfeld. Remember you really shouldn't lecture someone about sticking to the facts at hand unless you yourself actually comment on the facts at hand, which you haven't done yet.  I will repeat.  Unless there is some evidence provided for the Rumsfeld rumour then it will NOT go into the article and if anyone puts it in the article then I will rip it out.-----Keetoowah 17:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm afraid that this kind of attitude is unlikely to make you more popular: your statement was very clearly a personal attack against David.Monniaux ("Wait a minute.  I looked at your background and I see that you are French.  I'm so sorry for you. (...)"). In any case, racist and xenophobic rants are not more allowed than personal attacks. David.Monniaux already suggested that you refrained from making heavy allusion to other political personalities in an obvious attempt to annoy hypothetical supporting users -- which was your only response after I pointed a serious weakness in your initial argumentation. As for it, the unconfirmed piece of information will be investigated by users which would be interested before it will go into the article or be forgotten. Because the community in its entirety wants it this way; not because somebody entitles himself defender of the article. Rama 17:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text:  For some reason I doubt that he could have gone through without being dug up during this nomination process. And there are many errors with your little type up, among them being unsigned, which is a big red flag in Wikipedia. PPGMD 15:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant flame war about Kerry, Gore, France 

message: If I'm not mistaken, Donald Rumsfeld was a professor at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School during the late 70s. If correct, this ought to be taken up under privat career. Can anyone confirm. 
--Philopedia 30 June 2005 10:11 (UTC)
His biography on defenselink.mil fails to mention that. If he dropped out of law school and doesn't have a PhD, it's safe to say that he was probably never a professor at Princeton.
:Good catch, Philopedia!
::In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld left Washington, D.C., after some twenty years of public service and lectured at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and at Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management prior to entering business. 
:The School of International Affairs often has lecturers with backgrounds in public service, regardless of their academic credentials. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princeton Professor? 

message: What is the second from last quote in the list: 
"...or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon" (a possible slip up refering to the September 11, 2001 attacks)"
...supposed to mean. Am I, the reader, to believe that this is some kind of evidence of the truth of a wacko conspiracy proving the government actually shot down the plane and that the statement wasn't a simple gaffe in the same vein as when people inadvertently refer to the "9-11 WTC 'bombing'"? The quote is obviously simply one of Rummy's many phrasing flubs and is entirely non-notable. I will remove if there is no counter argument. --Deglr6328 07:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial pointless quote 

message: I did a little cleaning up and and added a "Controversy" section.  Can't believe there wasn't one before.  BTW, major kudos to whoever is maintaining this page.  Palm_Dogg 04:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  BTW, I am a registered conservative, still support the Iraq War, and am a big fan of Rumsfeld.  However, I'm also a NPOV nazi, so I may go overboard sometimes trying to present the other side. Palm_Dogg 01:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason Rumsfield is not tried is because the USA under the bush adminstation refused to participate in the International Criminal Court unless it was granted immunity.  No court is trying him because no court CAN try him.  your logic is invalid more than just the typical fallacy of deriving premises from conclusions. Kevin Baastalk 18:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  well...that and the fact that the Iraq War 2003 was LEGAL.  Seeing as how we used military action against Iraq in 2003 after Congress passed the AUMF in 2002 and we went based on the same basic WMD intelligence and under the same UN authority that Bill Clinton did when he took military action against Iraq in 1998. (why do people always seem to forget this fact??) Jeravicious 00:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that argument does presuppose that Clinton's bombings were legal too.  I suppose it might win you some arguments against Democrats. --Saforrest 05:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: why is his wife the former Joyce Pierson? is Pierson her maiden name? was she married before? to whom?
if it's her first marriage then maybe Joyce nee Pierson??? Wikipedia must have a style rule for this. But former sounds like she changed bodies
I was bemused by it as well, but took it as a synonym for 'late' as in deceased.
Can someone who knows what was meant by it please clarify that sentence. Far Canal 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it's so confusing suggests even without a style rule it would be wise to avoid. Either nee as suggested above (probably best option) or Joyce Rumsfeld formerly Joyce Pierson IMHO Nil Einne 12:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why 'former' 

message: sub-section proposed:
=== 9/11 – the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century===
Some critics say Rumsfelds conduct in the morning of 9/11 might be inadequate to the duties of a secretary of defense. The allegations reach from `criminal negligence` to complicity and cover his duties as a political leader and as a military commander. 
The criticism to the transition of the military and society (mentioned above, see chapter `G.W. Bush Administration) was to be expected. So Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director, before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities testified already in 1999
"One may conclude that, in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day “Pearl Harbor” of sorts—surmounting the barriers to transformation will likely prove a long, arduous process."  
`The expression `Pearl Harbor´was used by Rumsfeld himself too 9.August 2001: “Rumsfeld further gave the game way by warning of the "increasing vulnerability of the US" to a "Pearl Harbor in space".  
As Bob Woodward informed us in "America's Chaotic Road to War" (Washington Post), "Bush tries to keep a daily diary of his thoughts and observations. That night, he dictated:
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." 
 
In the morning of 9/11 Rumsfeld did not what his critics  judge as being adequate to "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century".  Documents show that Rumsfeld got the information about the ongoing hijackings and that he then decided to take his breakfast with Wolfowitz and Senator Cox.  
So he was not present in the `war room´(National Command Center, about 300 feet from his office), he did not confer with his generals, with the FAA, with NORAD. Critics point out that he did not care for the scrambling of the jet fighters of Andrews Airforce Base, 10 miles away from the Pentagon.  This missing of direct information of interceptors doing the so-called àir policing´ added up to the lack of information by his staff caused by his absense.
 
So no decisions were taken by him untill about 10:30. When Bush -25 minutes after getting the information "America is under attack" finally spoke to the press at 9:30, Rumsfeld still had breakfast with Senator Cox. 
Defenders of Rumsfeld argue
-	he was not informed about the hijackings. (This is not true proven by fact, logic and law.)
-	he was not responsible: as a political leader he had not to care for military duties (This is false again. If the standard operational procedures to scramble fighter jets fail it is the job of the superiors to ask why. In case of a `normal´ hijacking Rumsfeld would have to take decisions about release of prisoners, sending money, saving atomic plants, phoning Castro or whatever. Together with the president and vice-president or alone. His first duty is to be well informed in general and especially by the inspection of the hijacked plane by `his´ interceptors.)
-	it was a police job to care for hijackings or a military job on low, local level (completely wrong: how could anybody know that the attacks were not the preliminaries of an all out war ?)
-	he was misjudging the situation ( like the statement of Wolfowitz "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately"  .But the opportunities to act otherwise are already pointed out. A misjudgement of a leader in this position by being not informed can be called criminal negligence)
-	he was so shocked and unprepared that he could not act appropiately to the crisis (the MASCAL plan  shows how exactly Pentagon officials were prepared. The PENREN Pentagon Renovation  ptrogramme was to be finished five days later for the wedge where AA77 plugged in. Hundreds of firefighters, police, paramedics and camerateams knew exactly what to do after the first impact, without having any foreknowledge about hijackings. Hundreds of millions of TV watchers knew already that the situation is critical and asked if the impacts must happen completely unhindered. `Jumpers´ knew what to do. They chose death when Rumsfeld chose breakfast.)
-	he did not know how to react since the impacts of the four planes were so fast.
( This statement implies a thought from the aftersight: the knowledge of the attacks ending with Unuted 93. How could any commander know that ? At least after Andy Card stated “Amaerica is under attack” the plausibility check was done that hijacked planes – 3 at that time – impact into symbols of the U.S.A. –2 at that time. But should we not assume that the staff of Bush and the Pentagon officials had no foreknowledge that there was no more attack was to come ? How did they know: that`s all ?)
Critics and defenders both agree that the skies over the U.S.A. were full with interceptors in the afternoon and the following days. But this is not the subject of this argument. 
----
I want to add that Rumsfeld didn't sign the cards for dead soldiers families in Iraq and that he had a machine do it. I don't know if I can find it considering this was 1-2 years ago and briefly showed on the news. Can someone find and add it?
JJstroker 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a thought....put it on your personal blog, put it on your "I hate Rumsfeld" website...but leave it out of a NPOV factual encyclopedia website. Thanks! Jeravicious 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, the fact that Rumsfeld used a writing machine to sign letters of condelence is a well-supported matter of public record, see  and .  I believe he has even apologised for it. --Saforrest 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  controversy... 

message: Some critics say Rumsfelds conduct in the morning of 9/11 might be inadequate to the duties of a secretary of defense. The allegations reach from `criminal negligence` to complicity and cover his duties as a political leader and as a military commander. 
The criticism to the transition of the military and society (mentioned above, see chapter `G.W. Bush Administration) was to be expected. So Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director, before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities testified already in 1999
"One may conclude that, in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day “Pearl Harbor” of sorts—surmounting the barriers to transformation will likely prove a long, arduous process."  
`The expression `Pearl Harbor´was used by Rumsfeld himself too 9.August 2001: “Rumsfeld further gave the game way by warning of the "increasing vulnerability of the US" to a "Pearl Harbor in space".  
As Bob Woodward informed us in "America's Chaotic Road to War" (Washington Post), "Bush tries to keep a daily diary of his thoughts and observations. That night, he dictated:
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." 
 
In the morning of 9/11 Rumsfeld did not what his critics  judge as being adequate to "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century".  Documents show that Rumsfeld got the information about the ongoing hijackings and that he then decided to take his breakfast with Wolfowitz and Senator Cox.  
So he was not present in the `war room´(National Command Center, about 300 feet from his office), he did not confer with his generals, with the FAA, with NORAD. Critics point out that he did not care for the scrambling of the jet fighters of Andrews Airforce Base, 10 miles away from the Pentagon.  This missing of direct information of interceptors doing the so-called àir policing´ added up to the lack of information by his staff caused by his absense.
 
So no decisions were taken by him untill about 10:30. When Bush -25 minutes after getting the information "America is under attack" finally spoke to the press at 9:30, Rumsfeld still had breakfast with Senator Cox. 
Defenders of Rumsfeld argue
-	he was not informed about the hijackings. (This is not true proven by fact, logic and law.)
-	he was not responsible: as a political leader he had not to care for military duties (This is false again. If the standard operational procedures to scramble fighter jets fail it is the job of the superiors to ask why. In case of a `normal´ hijacking Rumsfeld would have to take decisions about release of prisoners, sending money, saving atomic plants, phoning Castro or whatever. Together with the president and vice-president or alone. His first duty is to be well informed in general and especially by the inspection of the hijacked plane by `his´ interceptors.)
-	it was a police job to care for hijackings or a military job on low, local level (completely wrong: how could anybody know that the attacks were not the preliminaries of an all out war ?)
-	he was misjudging the situation ( like the statement of Wolfowitz "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately"  .But the opportunities to act otherwise are already pointed out. A misjudgement of a leader in this position by being not informed can be called criminal negligence)
-	he was so shocked and unprepared that he could not act appropiately to the crisis (the MASCAL plan  shows how exactly Pentagon officials were prepared. The PENREN Pentagon Renovation  ptrogramme was to be finished five days later for the wedge where AA77 plugged in. Hundreds of firefighters, police, paramedics and camerateams knew exactly what to do after the first impact, without having any foreknowledge about hijackings. Hundreds of millions of TV watchers knew already that the situation is critical and asked if the impacts must happen completely unhindered. `Jumpers´ knew what to do. They chose death when Rumsfeld chose breakfast.)
-	he did not know how to react since the impacts of the four planes were so fast.
( This statement implies a thought from the aftersight: the knowledge of the attacks ending with Unuted 93. How could any commander know that ? At least after Andy Card stated “Amaerica is under attack” the plausibility check was done that hijacked planes – 3 at that time – impact into symbols of the U.S.A. –2 at that time. But should we not assume that the staff of Bush and the Pentagon officials had no foreknowledge that there was no more attack was to come ? How did they know: that`s all ?)
Critics and defenders both agree that the skies over the U.S.A. were full with interceptors in the afternoon and the following days. But this is not the subject of this argument. 
----
I want to add that Rumsfeld didn't sign the cards for dead soldiers families in Iraq and that he had a machine do it. I don't know if I can find it considering this was 1-2 years ago and briefly showed on the news. Can someone find and add it?
JJstroker 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's a thought....put it on your personal blog, put it on your "I hate Rumsfeld" website...but leave it out of a NPOV factual encyclopedia website. Thanks! Jeravicious 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, the fact that Rumsfeld used a writing machine to sign letters of condelence is a well-supported matter of public record, see  and .  I believe he has even apologised for it. --Saforrest 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 – the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century

message: Is there ANY basis for this claim?  I can't find confirmation of it anywhere...  ka1iban 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no...i'm saying I can't even find anywhere it's even been said originally.  I could write he has three testicles and is from the planet Gleemorp but that would be fantasy; just something I made up.  With out even a "Soandso Magazine said..." or some kind of sourcing, this appears to be just that: fantasy, and it should be deleted. ka1iban 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Nine Angles 

message: Interestingly evcen the discussion is vandalized. But whoever does it: you will never stop the information: ANDREWS AFB is existing 10 miles from Washington. 2 squarons of fighters there. 2 fighters have ben in QRA mission (24h a day alert, ready to scramble within 10 minutes). And
RUMSFELD KNOWS THAT AND DID NOTHING to ask why the SOP to scramble these fighters failed.
Besoides: even unarmed fikghtes would have been able to provide informations. If they got scrambled.84.159.87.12 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  perhaps you don't understand the point of this Wiki entry for Donald Rumsfeld.  It's not to explain the factual details of his life and career...but rather to provide the reader with criticisms and bias regarding his life and to cast him in the worst possible light as possible.  "Good acts" by Rumsfeld have no place here.  Wikipedia = "The Blog for Liberals" Jeravicious 00:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just hurry up and go from your blatentroll to blatentvandal phsse, so we can get this over with, and you can wind up back on the indefblocked list, and you can go start on sock#35325--205.188.117.10 05:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely you're not talking to me...I've never vandalized an entry nor have I ever been blocked from editing in Wikipedia.  This is a "Talk" section, where opinions/ideas are discussed.  Jeravicious 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 

message: I think we should have a little more on his congressional career. What committees did he serve on? Did he vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for example, etc. --Blue387 08:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional career 

message: Other people without an academic background in any subject that would suit them for work as Secretary of Defense have fulfilled their responsibilities adequately. However, Rumsfeld has been very active in pushing his own strategic decisions on the Joint Chiefs. Is there anything in his academic background that would have prepared him for performing this function? The article does not even say what his undergraduate major was, and it seems his only post-grad work was a brief stint in law school.  P0M 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this relevant? I don't believe most people would care about his academic background. More important is "can he do the job?". My opinion is yes. He managed to defeat a whole country with a minimum of troops. I would say that makes him a great leader. Wallie 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe his academic credentials are irrelevant to his qualifications to hold high office. If he has qualifications of that sort then they ought to be mentioned. P0M 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  He went to Princeton.  He served in the Navy.  He served as U.S. Secretary of Defense in 1975.  He was a CEO in the private sector.  He served in the U.S. House of Representatives.  That seems like some pretty decent credentials to me.  One's qualifications don't just necessarily come from school...it comes from real world experience. Jeravicious 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic qualificationf for current job 

message: I like the layout of the table, which details the reasons given by the six Generals as to why they would like Mr. Rumfeld to go. Very professional indeed! Wallie 13:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the concern for space here?  Wikipedia is not paper.  I thought the layout was helpful too (if difficult to edit).-csloat 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes sense then, to remove the table, but your implication that the discussion of eight generals calling for his retirement should be removed entirely or shortened even further is silly.  It is true that his current disgrace is but one moment in a long line of accomplishments and/or other disgraces (depending how you look at some of his career), but it is nonetheless one of the most significant, no matter what side of the political fence you sit on.  Defenders of Rumsfeld are quick to note that this is the first time in history generals have called for the resignation of a SecDef so publicly.  Some have even claimed it is tantamount to a military coup!  I don't agree, of course, but my point is that both sides consider this significant.  Whether it withstands the test of time is another question, of course, but it seems pretty obvious to me at this point that historians and biographers will definitely mark this moment as a key moment for Rumsfeld's career as well as for the Bush Administration in general.--csloat 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (quite the opposite), but I must weigh in with Anastrophe on the relevance of quoting the generals in an encyclopedia article on Rumsfeld's career.  I feel the quotes are relevant, but in a different article.  A more appropriate article might be on controversies surrounding the conduct of the war.  I do not feel strongly enough to remove someone else's contributions, but I suspect that in a few year's time those quotes will seem excessively detailed and replaced with a simple sentence such as "Numerous retired generals publicly criticized Rumsfled's conduct of the war and called for his resignation or replacment."--Mikebrand 04:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice job 

message: I wanted to add this but I don't understand the table formatting.  Wesley Clark is actually General #7 to come out in support of Rumsfeld's resignation, giving us 8 total.  Can someone add Clark to the list?  See here for details.-csloat 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to add the 4000+ retired Generals names to the table who haven't come out against Rumsfeld and even the names of the 4-Star Generals who've already publicly expressed their support for Rumsfeld like Tommy Franks, Richard Meyers, etc.
table removed. took up too much space for seven quotes. Anastrophe 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wesley Clark 

message: This section should be removed or moved to Ray Mcgovern's own page becouse of its irrevelence to donald rumsfeld, and its obvios non-NPOV --MadDogCrog 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? Ray Macgoverns allegations are valid and Mr Rumsfelds response was very weak: "Why men and women in uniform , when they went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits?" Well, of course they did, because he ordered them to do so. Raphael1 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  His allegations may, or may not be valid, that is a POV which is not a Pillar of wikipedia. What is Ray Mcgovern's revelence to Donald Rumsfeld. there is none, So they do not belong on Donald Rumsfelds wiki page. Maybe on ray Mcgoverns own page, Critic of Iraqi War page, and a link to those pages in the See Also section, Ray Mcgoverns was not a major milestone in Donald Rumsfeld's life to warrent anything but a See Also. --MadDogCrog 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try a google news search on Rumsfeld: Ray McGovern's critique is the fifth result. Raphael1 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So that still does not mean it belongs, why dont you answer my reason why I think it should be moved or removed. just becouse you can google it. lol--MadDogCrog 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is certainly relevant, if it's still major news about Rumsfeld after more than two weeks. It is not POV, because not only McGoverns question gets cited but Rumsfelds response as well. Though I wouldn't mind adding the whole interview. Raphael1 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no policy, that Wikipedia should not include current information. On the contrary it is one of this encyclopedias strengths. Raphael1 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ray Mcgovern 

message: In the Private career section:
:"Rumsfeld has also served in executive responsibilities of various local charities across the United States. From 1986 to 1989 he was appointed to serve as United Way Inter-governmental Affairs Director in Washington, D.C..
:As a result of his foreign policy achievements as Inter-governmental Affairs Director, he was asked to serve the U.S. State Department. Given the title "foreign policy consultant", he held the role from 1990 to 1993."
I think I cleaned that up correctly. In doing the clean-up I tried to verify the information — but I could not! Any pointers that lead to citations would be welcome. --Charles Gaudette 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: I think for most people it goes with out saying that "Rummy" is not suitable for Wikipedia articles. It does appear on the Nixion Tapes. Elsewhere on the Intrernet and print media it is used either derogatory, or in levity, or both. Led "I'm a dude" Zeppelin321295 added "Rummy" to the lead identifier, I am reverting it back. I think, anyone placing "Rummy" — outside of a verifiable quote — should present their argument for including it on this Talk page first. --Charles Gaudette 17:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname: "Rummy", not suitable for Wikipedia articles 

message: :One of the most significant controversies involves Rumsfeld's role in the preemptive action of invading Iraq. A Freedom of Information Act release revealed that on September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld instructed the military to, in the notes of one of Rumsfeld's aides, "Judge whether good enough hit S.H." (Saddam Hussein)
The above was removed by someone else, I just wanted to make sure it was on the talk page. If someone can find reliable citations, it can go back in the encyclopedia article. If it was revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, then citing shouldn't be a problem. --Charles Gaudette 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted, statement does need citation 

message: Does anyone know why refs are showing up more than once? I can't figure it out. Rlevse 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dupe refs 

message: Can those persons who have a distaste for Rumsfeld's being please refrain from vandalism in the main page. It ill becomes those of us who disagree with his politics to resort to statements such as 'RUMSFELD IS A WAR CRIMINAL'. Arguable, but belongs on the discussion page with accompanied facts. --The Three Jays 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that we have a lot of activity here, please restrain from throwing "controversial" comments in the article. If you won't to dispute the article, take it from here… thx… -- Lovelight 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is he lying about his age? 1932 is a very long time ago. --Soothsaya 09:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.answers.com/topic/donald-rumsfeld -Patstuart 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: *John Boyd of OODA Loop fame.
What is the source linking this to Rumsfeld? Pgc512 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectual heritage

message: The "Calls for resignation" section was deleted because some editors did not think it was notable enough that a number of retired Generals publicly called for his resignation (something that has never before happened in US history). Now that the main newspapers of America's servicemen and women is also openly calling for his resignation, isn't it about time Wikipedia acknowledged the significance of this fact?  Here's the editorial.--csloat 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well then there should also be a section quoting others saying they don't think he should resign.  also, the newspapers are all owned by the same company and don't necessarily reflect the views of the armed forces.  216.69.46.237 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly anyone notable defending Rumsfeld at this point could be quoted as well.  As for your attempt to minimize the significance of the editorial in the top newspapers of each of the four armed services by claiming that they "don't necessarily" reflect someone's views, that's really not relevant to anything here.  This is huge.  It was huge back then (absolutely unprecedented in US history, in fact; perhaps in world military history), but now even bigger.--csloat 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If it becomes an issue in the article: "The newspapers belong to the Military Times Media Group, which is owned by Gannett, and focus exclusively on military issues. They have wide credibility among their military readership."csloat 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to resurrect "Calls for Resignation" 

message: Where is this being reported? TacoDeposit 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Rumsfield's resignation effective immediatley? or is it effective upon the Senate confirmation of the Secy of Defence nominee? If it's the later; then that should be edited into the article. GoodDay 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh above; I was frustrated at the constant edit conflicts. My bad. Anyway, I did a bit of research, and the sources I read seemed to be saying he planned to step down when there was a successor. This makes sense as well; as much as anyone doesn't like Rumsfeld, I doubt he's do the country the disservice of leaving it without a Secretary of Defense. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Rumsfeld's resignation hasn't taken effect yet, (He's to be Secy of Defence, until Gates is confirmed by the Senate). Therefore he can still break the record (of Longest serving Secy of Defence). GoodDay 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  But, on another note: it looks like someone has deleted my clause (he/she probably thought I am a liberal, which I'm not).  So, maybe I should just rearrange the 'Calls for Resignation' section. REscano 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "months of criticism that effected Rumsfeld's decision to resign" could be worded differently -- it is worth noting, perhaps even in the article, that Rumsfeld had previously "twice offer his resignation to the president" (I recall testimony from himself stating this as well, cannot locate it however)... perhaps this was not purely Rumsfeld's decision.--John Hubbard 03:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resignation 

message: This needs much expansion, especially for Rumsfeld's first term of Secretary of Defense. This was the immediate post-Vietnam period and a hugely important time for the US military. At the moment, the "swine flu" episode gets double the text coverage of the post-Vietnam military reforms (which also may be key to why Rumsfeld was given the highest civilian award for his service in this period), and the insinuating/"suggestive" text about the mysterious scientist death gets almost as much prominence (claim about Rumsfeld's involvement in "response" comes across as possible OR too). The section current reads as if Rumsfeld did this sinister coverup and then this swine flu screwup and my god! he was awarded the highest honour despite this!. This section is too small and out of balance. (No, I am not a Republican or a conservative or even American) Bwithh 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ford Admin section 

message: This article needs to be locked until further notice.  I just took some nonsense out of it.  Check the history.
can you clean up the resignation part of the article if you are going to lock it and keep people from removing POV 69.140.73.128 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been locked, due to high vandalism rates. Unless you can specifically say which part you think is POV, and wha changes you think might help, I'm not sure I can help you on this one. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever locked it should have checked for misspellings beforehand...the opening paragraph contains a reference to "President Geore W. Bush"... 137.21.66.203 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That happened after the lock. BTW, Sorry that you are unable to edit the article; articles are only locked on a rare basis for intense vandalism that can't be sufficiently watched. In this case, this article was getting maybe 150 edits per hour (literally), and 15 of them were vandalous; but no one had any time to fix them because they went so quickly. Even after it's been semi-protected (i.e., IP users, new users can't edit), it's still receiving maybe 40 edits per hour. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock 

message: Hi, newbie here, just want to correct a typo:
>>ABB is a European engineering giant based in Zürich, Switzerland; formed through the merger >>between ASEA of Sweden and Brown Boweri of Switzerland.
That should read "Brown Boveri" of Switzerland (v, not w).
Nick
: Done. JoshuaZ 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private career 

message: can someone tell me what rumsfelds religious faith is? Keltik31 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the article says presbyterian; [this source] says protestant. a quick online search seems to not turn up a lot though; perhaps he doesn't practice as much as some figures like Bush. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Presbyterianism is a form of Protestantism. Bwithh 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: he's definitely not Jewish, most of his ancestry's German christian. Arniep 22:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion 

message: The introduction should begin defining what Rumsfeld is, the secretary of defense. The fact that he submitted his resignation is important, but not the defining factor of who this person is. I've changed the intro to reflect this. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that Secretary_of_defense would be used to define that.  Seeing has how most biographies include times of tenure within the introduction, why doesn't this belong here? --Mangler 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is there. But earlier the article literally opened with something like "Rumsfeld tendered his resignation as SecDef...". That is not a proper way to begin a biographical article. The current version is much preferred. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Well he isn't secretary anymore, and someone who is unblocked from editing needs to change that. It still says till present. Superbowlbound 22:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from the top 

message: I am just concerned about protection of the article that currently appears on the main page in "in the news section". With featured articles on the main page there is a recomandation not to protect them so that new users can actually try the whole of Wikipedia. Is it not the same with other articles on the main page. I know the vandalsim is heavy right now, but still it always is with articles that appear on the main page. --Jan.Smolik 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism was way beyond heavy.  Since the resignation was announced yesterday, semi-protection has been lifted two or three times; each time, the article has been vandalized several times per minute, so much that it's impossible to distinguish good edits from random garbage.  The article needs to be semi-protected just to maintain a level of sanity. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. However big part of vandalism was done by people who added information he is not Secretary of Defense anymore. This cannot be considered as vandalism per WP:AGF and WP:Vandalism, unless the same editor repeatedly ads the same information after being warned it is not true. But it is only an academic discussion, reality is sometimes very different.--Jan.Smolik 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page article protection 

message: It seems that the article could be cleaned up to flow more chronologically.  For example, the part dealing with ABB and North Korea, which deals with an event from 1990 to 2001, is followed by his Reagan years, 1983-1984.  Any one else agree? LinuxSneaker 01:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jumps Around 

message: I removed this anon edit. It occured just before the page was sprotected so I guess it snuck through. From a brief look throught the edit history, this anon had made numerous reverted edits, most apparently not backed up by reliable sources and which appeared to violate NPOV. This particular edit is similar, without sources (disputed by who? etc) and is probably not NPOV either (to what end - are you implying they have sinister motives in saying they were tortured). Also, it doesn't make much sense in context of the paragraph either. As far as I can tell, the case is still ongoing and we don't mention it has been settled... Nil Einne 04:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged overseas torture 

message: I readded some coments which were removed by an AOL proxy anon here, hopefully by accident. As there had been no new sub-headed comments, I simply added them to the bottom Nil Einne 12:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-added comments 

message: Hart Seely in today's (Fr Nov 10 2006) LA Times: "Of course, ex-dentists and off-season lawn-care experts will spend the next 30 years warring over Rumsfeld's rightful Wikipedia entry." Rather condescending for someone whose main claim to fame is the  challenging scholarly project of adding line breaks to Rumsfeld's press conference transcripts and presenting them as haiku. Definitely some warring in this talk section but who is the ex-dentist and who is the lawn-care expert? David Watson 23:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hart Seely Op Ed Comment re Wikipedia 

message: Someone put him under Worst Supporting Actor Razzie. Probably vandalism. Someone should remove it. --66.218.13.156 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vandalism since he did win it 2004 Golden Raspberry Awards. However I don't think it's appropriate since he's not an actor and so it's not particularly noteable 'achievement'. I assume this issue has been debated to death for GWB so if you want to discuss further you might want to look there. Nil Einne 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One more businessman to be added to this WikiProject. Contributions welcomed. 201.19.180.73 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actor? 

message: I removed this line from the awards section: Royal Order of the Intare, awarded by King Kigeli V of Rwanda.http://www.king-kigeli.com/monarchy.html
*Rwanda has not been a monarchy since 1962. 
*Sole source for this award is the official website of the Rwandan king which states the award is to Rumsfeld as the 21st US Defense Secretary.. There are no other google hits for this award than this website other than wikipedia mirrors and blogs (about 108 hits in total).
* Zero hits for Rumsfeld and this award in the Factiva news database. 2 hits total for a general Factiva search on the award on news articles going back decades. Both hits are about Edward J. Von Kloberg (who is described by Associated Press as a "flamboyant American lobbyist for infamous tyrants") who received the award from exiled King Kigeli V in 2001. Kigeli's website states that the Royal Order award ceremonies take place in Washington DC, yet there is no news coverage or any other official coverage about other awardees apart from his website and the two stories about the dodgy lobbyist.
*I will look into this award further, and may bring the Royal Order of the Intare article for afd discussion Bwithh 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rwandan award 

message: I am not sure if Rumsfeld was a founder of the PNAC as stated in the Clinton Years section.  It is true that he cosigned a letter, but I have heard Kristol on a Colbert Report show distancing himself from Rumsfeld stating that Rumbsfeld was never a part of the PNAC.
:I don't know if he can be consider a founder as such since the PNAC doesn't mention him as a founder. It does seem like he was an active member from the PNAC article and it appears he was probably a founding member. It isn't uncommon that people and groups will try and distance themselves from unpopular members at a later date so I don't think the fact that Kristol (whoever he is, sorry don't know much about American politics) distances himself from Rumsfeld is very relevant when it comes to whether he was a active member and perhaps founding member. I guess there might be some merit to mention the group now distances itself from him, if a reliable source can be found Nil Einne 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNAC 

message: I rewrote and re-referenced the swine flu section (the previous reference used did not mention Rumsfeld at all). I'm having trouble finding authoritative, substantive sources showing that Rumsfeld should take a major part of the blame for the decision. I found a single book source which recounts the accusation but not convincingly (comes across as rumour/insinuation, and does not provide sources). I will look further to see if there's any substance to this or if this should be removed entirely Bwithh 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: can't find any relevant hits in a Factiva news database search for Rumsfeld and swine flu Bwithh 23:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove this section completely. All mentions on blogs, forums etc seem to be derived or referenced from two or three unsourced lines in one book. Cannot find any reliable news articles or books or scientific papers backing up this accusation. Ford was advised by CDC, large group of scientists including leading vaccine experts who supported the vaccination program. A few vague accusing lines in one book is too flimsy a sourcing to make such a major accusation. Book does plays down advisory role to Ford of CDC or and does not mention key role of Salk and Sabin (eminent vaccine experts) - appears biasedBwithh 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swine flu episode 

message: "and stands to become the longest-serving Secretary of Defense if he remains until December."
This quote is not true since Robert McNamara was the longest serving Secretary of Defense serving from January 21st 1961 until February 29th 1968, which is seven years and one month, and by December Donald Rumsfeld will have served from January 20th 2001 until December 2006 which would only be five years and 11 months. So Robert McNamara would still be the longest serving Secretary of Defense. Also, Casper Weinberger would be the second longest serving Secretary of Defense serving from January 21st 1981 until November 23rd 1987, which would be six years and 10 months. So to correct the quote you would say that by December Donald Rumsfeld will become the third longest serving Secretary of Defense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkluge (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 November 2006  (UTC)
:Odd. I wonder if it's including part of his tenure from the 1970s. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little calculating of dates using Excel and came up with McNamara at 2,595 days.  If we include Rumsfeld's time in the 70's, he will have 2,596 days on 29 Dec.  I edited the article to clarify this. Roachmeister 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Quote that Donald Rumsfeld is going to be the longest serving Secretary of Defense is wrong. 

message: Per , he will remain in the office until the official swearing-in ceremony.  The date for that has not yet (as of Dec 6) been announced.  Who knows, maybe it will be after December 29?  I know lots of folks want him gone, myself included, (heck, they've already started taking his pictures down at the Pentagon ), but let's not jump the gun in the encyclopedia.  A little decorum, perhaps?
I'll change the page back. 216.46.98.249 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe (now that Gates has been confirmed by the Senate), the date for swearing-in is December 15, 2006. GoodDay 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that, December 18th, 2006. GoodDay 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's hold off on giving his term an end date until Gates is actually sworn in -- you never know what could happen to Gates between now and then - a media scandal, an injury delaying his swearing-in or anything more dark -- so Rumsfeld's term doesn't have an Encylopedic end date until it actually ends. Editor Emeritus 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 6 is not his last day 

message: On 911 Rumsfeld said: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not. He also said: "Judge whether good enough hit S.H." (Saddam Hussein)… I've noticed that his misconduct on that day was pointed before… I'm not sure why this isn't reflected in the article? Lovelight 23:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 11, 2001 

message: Even if you hate the guy and don't care about objectivity, it's actually counterproductive to writes stuff like this: 
"Astroturf Generals
In 2008 the New York Times reported that Rumsfeld responded to the Generals Revolt by using a number of high ranking retired members of the Military as puppets."
The whole article has too much the tone of a college dorm room writing an argument.  This is not something that you would see in Brittanica or a real magazine or newspaper article.  The word choiceage and just lack of giving the subject of the biography some dispassion is eVIDENT.  People coming to this and reading it WILL SEE IT.  So all you're really doing is writing articles amongst yourselves to express and crystalize and evaluation.  Rather than a description.TCO (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tone of the article 

message: Honestly, all you people aren't paying attention to the evolution of news media these days.  News outlets are decidedly slanted in our time.  Note that news outlets endorse candidates.  Note Fixed News (oops, I meant Fox News is slanted right (no matter what they say) and all of the NBC nets are decidedly left.  I could go on with the Washington Post and the New York Times.  They all pick sides.  The article, as I see it, presents facts with quotes and factual information.  If the writer has a dog in the hunt, it's almost impossible these days to keep that dog from barking.  It's just the way it is.  But to say that the news media is objective is a fairy tale and no longer applies to American news media.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleavetoo (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tone of the article 

message: How notable are these, they seem like political theater? The German case was dismissed as soon as it got in front of the judge. I would like to remove all but a sentence or two about these lawsuits. Any objections? CENSEI (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me. The lawsuits seem like a classic case of WP:UNDUE. The man was secretary of defense to two presidents, a major domestic figure in the Nixon White House, a tremendous player as Ford's Chief of Staff, and we have a whole section on post-resignation lawsuits? The day a major US defense figure can leave office without being accused of war crimes will be the day hell freezes over. We might as well have an exhaustive list of every protester who's ever confronted him. RayAYang (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, get some reliable sources supporting this claim please.  This is not about random protesters; the reactions to Rumsfeld are unprecedented and certainly notable enough for comment here despite your nonsensical claim that they are "theater."  Get a grip, or at least get reliable sources. csloat (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprecedented? As far as war crimes, they've accused Colin Powell of war crimes for the First Gulf War , Wesley Clark of war crimes for Haiti and Kosovo , heck, they even threw in Norman Schwartzkopf (see first article). The volume is a little higher, because Rumsfeld's more recent. As far as more legitimate lawsuits, Rumsfeld is named in lawsuits against the US government (rather than personally) in his official capacity of US Secretary of Defense, and those mentions no more belong in Rumsfeld's article than lawsuits against the TSA back in 2002 or so belong in Mineta's article. RayAYang (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to add your information from reliable sources to the Powell and Clark pages; meanwhile, unless you find some reliable sources that have information relevant to this article, there is no need to get excited about it.  And, yes, what has happened with Rumsfeld is certainly unprecedented (when did more than half a dozen generals publicly call for Powell's resignation??) csloat (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  All of the lawsuits against Rumsfeld were thrown out because they are garbage. That they occupy such a large space here is clearly NPOV. You have not yet given a reason that they should be included here at such great length (I certainly don’t think they should be deleted, just significantly paired down). CENSEI (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: csloat, you're not listening to me. Do we include a student criticism section behind every math professor who's ever taught calculus? Do we include a "bad parenting" section behind the bios for every person who has children? Some things are inherent in the job description, and being called a war criminal, baby killer, fascist, etc., is expected for being a major US official in wartime, in this day and age. At most, lawsuits against Rumsfeld should get a brief mention. Otherwise, we might as well strike WP:UNDUE altogether, and make Wikipedia much poorer for it. RayAYang (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think there is an undue problem let us know what it is.  Yes notable lawsuits against the SecDef should be included here; I don't see an UNDUE problem with what is included. csloat (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry; I thought I was clear. I consider the existence of an entire section of lawsuits to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Let me itemize. Bear in mind that the post-9/11 period (prior to the Iraq war), which includes the kinetic phase of the Afghan war, gets maybe 8 sentences in this biography, although the internal organizaiton of the article is messy enough that I would hesitate to say for sure. 4 sentences are devoted to a single lawsuit against the government over a database, which is purely incidental to Rumsfeld's role as SecDef. Next, a similar amount of space is given to a publicity stunt by political advocacy organizations which was speedily dismissed due to official immunity. Next, we devote another 4 sentences to a single disgruntled contractor who sues because mistreatment in a war zone. Following, we have two sentences devoted to another publicity stunt in a failed case of forum shopping by US political advocates. We then have 5 sentences devoted to a similar publicity stunt invoking a novel legal theory, sparing a sentence for the almighty and reliable opinion of the Berkeley city council on the matter. We next devote an amount of space greater than that to a filed suit in France which never came to court. We then have a blatant paragraph of POV-pushing, which goes on to state "human rights advocates ... are concerned that politics will trump the legal obligation of countries to prosecute torturers." So I count the balance of time space paid to spurious lawsuits against Rumsfeld over which no court has moved past preliminary proceedings, to the amount of space devoted to the Afghan war, at a ratio of about 3:1. That's what I call undue. The entire section is a mishmash of lawsuits which are harassing and speedily dismissed, with one or two possibly legitimate suits which are purely incidental to his official capacity and do not merit mention. At the most, a sentence is merited, noting that Rumsfeld has been subjected to repeated lawsuit efforts in various jurisdictions; until one of these lawsuits actually moves to the stage where any figure with real legal authority tries to arrest Mr. Rumsfeld or summon him to appear, I do not see that they merit individual notability. RayAYang (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  These are notable lawsuits that are directly relevant to this page.  Your opinion that they are "spurious" is something you are welcome to, of course, but it has no bearing on this page. csloat (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you feel that the Afghan war, and Rumsfeld's reforms at the Pentagon, are of less importance than forum-shopping publicity stunts? If not, please explain how the length at which these lawsuits are discussed can *possibly* not be a violation of WP:UNDUE. "Replying" to my statements without providing any explanatory logic whatsoever, or any attempt to appreciate my contribution to the discussion, strikes me as rather unhelpful to the discussion. RayAYang (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  We're not talking about wars, reforms, or "publicity stunts."  We're talking about lawsuits against a secretary of defense.  They are quite notable and have been discussed in reliable sources.  UNDUE is not an issue here -- I'm not opposed to cutting down long redundant paragraphs but that is not what is being proposed. csloat (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text:  All of the suits were thrown out as soon as a judge saw them. They are frivolous suits, and deserve nothing more than a passing mention here, not 8 paragraphs. CENSEI (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false. csloat (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which suits were not thrown out? CENSEI (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing in the article about any of the following being thrown out: the database suit, the torture suit, the French suit, one of the German suits (which was apparently endorsed by a U.S. city council), or the charges in Sweden and Argentina (the section on the latter two should actually be expanded as it's not clear whether these are criminal or civil actions).  Some of these are joined by notable organizations (e.g. the NYCLU or the FIDH). In fact, there seems to be only one thrown out by a judge, and another rejected by the prosecutor.  Clearly further research is necessary on some of the others, but I'm just going by what is here. csloat (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The database suit was against the Department of Defense and named Rumsfeld only in his official capacity; I've tracked down an ACLU press release that confirms that and the conclusion of the case. Much as I am dislike seeing my own work deleted, I think I can, without a doubt in my mind, recommend wiping the database case from the article -- the Department of Defense engages in thousands of lawsuits at any given time, and it is customary to name the lawsuits for the sitting defense secretary in his official capacity. The torture suit is ongoing in discovery but it is currently unsourced; I may work on fixing that at some point, but it has not, as of January, proceeded past the evidentiary stage (see ), so it is definitely going slowly and does not appear to have attracted much press attention in the past year or so. As far as coverage by independent reliable secondary sources go, it seems to have been a 10-days wonder (i.e. news). The French suit was thrown out, as is noted in the article. Both German suits have been thrown out (I have found a source to confirm the failure of the second attempt). The sole sourcing for efforts in Sweden and Argentina is a press release, so I don't know how much we can say about them, but I would be very surprised if they went anywhere; the organization issuing the press release is one of the plaintiffs, and they have not been shy about advertising their efforts. In fact, the most interesting discovery of my research into the international lawsuits listed here is that they are all being driven by the same set of activist organizations -- the NY-based CCR, FIDH, et alia. In other words, this seems to be a concerted campaign to get some official, any official, to press charges against Rumsfeld. Thus far, I have not been able to uncover any evidence of any success on their part; unless their goal is to create publicity, in which case they have been somewhat successful, as this section of the article attests. RayAYang (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: You think the lawsuits are "stunts," not even worthy of mention here, yet you want to create a separate article for them?  Wouldn't you then support an AfD for such an article?  Again, I think shortening the longer paragraphs here might be worthwhile, but I would object to deleting them.  And I don't think a POV fork is the right approach. csloat (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are publicity stunts and unworthy of the amount of space they get in the current biography, and would delete them on that basis. However, "notable" has a broader tent than "more important than the Afghan War." It is reasonably settled in AfD debates (see the recent one on John Edwards paternity allegations) that content forks enacted to prevent WP:UNDUE are not easily deleted. Forking existing content is not a POV fork -- a POV fork is a content fork created so that a POV can be pushed using material that would not pass muster on the original page. But if you should agree that the lawsuits don't merit that amount of space, I'll be happy to slim it down myself. I'll put my proposed version here before editing the main page, since this seems to be an area of some intense concern. RayAYang (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one comparing them to the Afghan war is you.  I never said they were more important than that and I will ask you again to kindly not put words in other people's mouths (or keyboards).  If you want to expand the Afghan War section go for it.  I don't think a fork is appropriate but I'm willing to take a look at what you propose.  By all means propose a shortened version f you think some information is redundant; I am not opposed to it in principle. csloat (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: Substituted at 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment