Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
:Indeed. This editor has made it a habit to revert without discussion, and appears to be following {{ping|Plot Spoiler}} around, mindlessly undoing all their edits. I've restored your version. [[User:All Rows4|All Rows4]] ([[User talk:All Rows4|talk]]) 23:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
:Indeed. This editor has made it a habit to revert without discussion, and appears to be following {{ping|Plot Spoiler}} around, mindlessly undoing all their edits. I've restored your version. [[User:All Rows4|All Rows4]] ([[User talk:All Rows4|talk]]) 23:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks. Maybe [[cyberspace]] was a bad idea.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 23:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
::Thanks. Maybe [[cyberspace]] was a bad idea.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 23:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::{{done}} 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, [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:10, 7 May 2015
![]() | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Chicago Start‑class | |||||||||
|
Untitled
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)
If you did that it would be excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.46.240.4 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
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)
Citation needed/sentence should be removed
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)
- 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)
Questions about his views
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)
The sheer number of criticisms of his views that have been included in his page are unbelievable, and many of them are from sources that are observably partisan. Someone with a very clear dislike for Stephen Walt has obviously had a major hand in writing this page. 64.150.193.2 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I just deleted some of the most blatant examples of the above mentioned errors, but someone should really give this page a full review. 64.150.193.2 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Thread at BLP/N on violations here
Just posted, here.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- To the extent that the material in question has to do with Israel/Palestine, it is subject to the WP:1RR rule of WP:ARBPIA. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- The material didn't strike me as relating to ARBPIA, but in case you are right that it should be interpreted as also encompassing that, I've self reverted.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Some of it did, some of it didn't, I'd say. Then again, the motivation of an editor trying to smear him is likely rooted in views about Israel/Palestine and Walt's contributions to that field, so perhaps everyone here should be careful even when adding material not obviously about I/P. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- I'm reading the Foreign Policy article, and it deals with accusations of COI, "dual loyalty", and members of AIPAC, etc. The quote closest to broaching ARBPIA deals with US relations with "both Israel and friendly Arab and Muslim states", not directly with conflict between them.
Walt at least has the gumption to stand up and make his McCarthyite case in his own name
Of course, "McCarthyite" is a term one should be reluctant to throw around, but I can think of no more accurate word for fact-free accusations designed to smear reputations with an appeal to patriotism. What else is one to make of Walt’s rhetorical question: "Isn’t it obvious that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular country in the region?"
I do wonder why Walt limited himself to smearing current and former employees of The Washington Institute. Given his argument about "conflict of interest," one would think anyone with any connection to the institute has been infected with whatever virus we carry.
- Here the article asserts that Walt has a COI because Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government accepts donations from foreigners.
There is also a different sort of "conflict of interest" that doesn’t seem to bother Walt. It’s the old-fashioned kind — the one about money. Absolutist that Walt is, one would think he would pursue the mother of all conflicts of interest before asserting, without argument or proof, that employment at the Washington Institute is prima facie evidence for disqualification for high public service. But that would get messy, especially because his employer proudly boasts of financial support from the governments of Dubai, Kuwait, Italy, and Germany, as well as numerous foreign-owned corporations.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Some of it did, some of it didn't, I'd say. Then again, the motivation of an editor trying to smear him is likely rooted in views about Israel/Palestine and Walt's contributions to that field, so perhaps everyone here should be careful even when adding material not obviously about I/P. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- The material didn't strike me as relating to ARBPIA, but in case you are right that it should be interpreted as also encompassing that, I've self reverted.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Link to Walt article criticized above On “dual loyalty”, Foreign Policy, April 2, 2010.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Excerpts
But what about getting directly involved as a government official, and in issue-areas where important interests are at stake? Instead of invoking phrases like "dual loyalty," a rhetoric that immediately invokes connotations of betrayal (or even treason), I suggest we frame the issue as one of potential conflicts of interest. Simply put, is it in the best interest of the United States as a whole to place U.S. policy on key issues in the hands of people whose even-handedness is not beyond question, and especially when there is evidence that they feel a strong personal attachment to a foreign country with whom the United States may have important disagreements?
To return to where we began: Isn’t it obvious that U.S. policy towards the Middle East is likely to be skewed when former employees of WINEP or AIPAC have important policy-making roles, and when their own prior conduct has made it clear that they have a strong attachment to one particular country in the region? The point is not to question their patriotism, which is not the issue. Rather, the question is whether an attachment to Israel shapes how they think about... Iran, and the extent to which U.S. and Israeli interests are congruent. Their patriotism can be above reproach, but their advice may still be advancing policies that are not in the U.S. interest.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a little duller now, but maybe more encyclopedic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Dull is better in this case. Good work. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, the P violations are gone and the text much better.
- The only concern I have is that this sentence, In that piece, Satloff wrote that Walt mistakenly believes the U.S. cannot simultaneously "advance strategic partnership both with Israel and with friendly Arab and Muslim states." doesn't appear to accurately (oe, perhaps adequately) represent the gist of the contestation between the two articles quoted above, which is basically Walt's arguments about COI-skewed policy advice, etc. The generalization about pursuing policies of alliance with opposed parties is spin by Satloff trying to divert attention from Walt's actual focus. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- You call it Satloff's "spin" - but that is your opinion, nothing more. If you feel that text doesn't accurately represent what Sataloff said, we can always go back to the direct quote that was there earlier. To be clear: repeating what was published by a notable critic in a reliable source, verbatim, is not a BLP violation, as the text at WP:BLP makes clear: "In the case of public figures... BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." All Rows4 (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's a little duller now, but maybe more encyclopedic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I've installed a link to a free copy of the Satloff article. Additionally, I've expanded the pertinent sentence:
“ | Satloff wrote that Ross's connection to WINEP is innocuous, and that Walt mistakenly believes the U.S. cannot simultaneously "advance strategic partnership both with Israel and with friendly Arab and Muslim states." | ” |
I think this is a fair characterization of what Satloff wrote. As to any nasty language used by Sotloff or Hitchens, I am skeptical that WP:BLP bars us from repeating it with attribution, but still good Wikipedia writing sometimes is substantive rather than sensationalist.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Italicizing the LA Times is a BLP violation?
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)
- Indeed. This editor has made it a habit to revert without discussion, and appears to be following @Plot Spoiler: around, mindlessly undoing all their edits. I've restored your version. All Rows4 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. Maybe cyberspace was a bad idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)