Jump to content

Talk:Chas W. Freeman Jr./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Chairman of National Intelligence Council

A recent report (19 February, 2009) on Foreign Affairs magazine website, 'The Cable', mentions Charles Freeman will be nominated as Chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
Dean Armond (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reputed beliefs

Why no mention at all of Freeman's reputed antisemitism and belief in "Global Zionism" conspiracies?96.238.178.122 (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because of the policy on 'biographies of living persons'? Any such allegations would need to be sourced in order to avoid a charge of libel. Charles Freeman has many many public speeches clearly stating his opinions, if they were able to be identified as mentioned above this would have been raised already. Just because he made be considered controversial is not sufficient to label him a conspiracy theorist. His academic record and employment history suggest that he is considered competent by his peers and critics, but it would be interesting to see if there is any genuine information proving otherwise. Anything less could be construed to be a smear.
Dean Armond (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of smears: I think the article is unbalanced when it quotes The Nation (an avowedly left-wing publication) claiming that there has been an allegedly "thunderous, coordinated assault." There is no substantiation of this charge given in the Wikipedia article, other than the claim in The Nation. There is no space given to anyone who disagrees with this charge. Nor is there any space given to what these alleged opponents of Mr. Freeman actually said about him, if indeed they said anything. The Nation was clearly trying to score a political point against right-wingers. Wikipedia shouldn't let their point stand as if it's unassailable truth, which it isn't. Steve (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Citing personal attacks by bloggers is only WP:RS under limited circumstances, like high profile generally credible person who isn't making a living smearing people. I am going to update it with links to a few more stories, including WP:RS Jewish publication(s). Otherwise, there is as yet no mainstream coverage of this issue. However, writing about such attacks by a more neutral source may pass muster, like the Nation and Foreign Policy, which I'm going to ad. If you aren't happy with the results, bring it to WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep Quotations section

I think a couple quotations are appropriate here to make clear what he says that has some people so up in arms - and others in agreement with him. Quote sections are kept in articles rather frequently, including when the quotes may not be sufficiently noteworthy for a wikiquotes article. That last quote is a perfect example (note I originally confused Commentary with another publication and improved ref when realized what it was). CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any guideline that permits a quote section, especially one that is tailored by Freeman's critics. In addition, the quote you added -- one you say has people "so up in arms" -- is neither controversial nor notable, as Google News will demonstrate. [1] Dynablaster (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The important thing is there any guideline against it? Evidently not because it's found in a number of bios I've run into over the years.
Actually, I think his views are pretty much the majority views on the planet,except for most Israelis and a bare majority of Americans. (IMHO) So don't assume that only critics would list the quotes. :-) Others you consider less negative could be added.
Anyway, I'll wait for others to opine and looking for other opinions on the general rule, before bringing to WP:BLPN. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE says:

Hope this helps. Dynablaster (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are featured articles with stand alone quotes. By the logic above, we can put the quote into the body and then everything's copacetic. Is that really what you think? Kauffner (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
My personal opinion does not matter; what matters is Wikipedia policy, and on this issue the guideline is perfectly clear: No standalone quote sections. Dynablaster (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Try to work quotations into the body of the article" isn't the same as a ban. I'd work them in if I thought it was worth the effort. You're are in the minority here. Learn to be a team player. Kauffner (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said quotes are banned. A good article will accurately describe a persons political outlook in a balanced manner and have a small selection of quotes worked into the main body. The guideline is outlined above. What is there to object? Dynablaster (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Kauffman seems to be a simple edit warring / tendentious editor. I don't think it's worth trying to discuss policy or consensus - the editor has a tendency to keep reverting things. I've filed an AN/I report here. Wikidemon (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Integrating quotes into text seems like best idea. I'm not sure of importance of one quote so left it out. Plus have seen a number of interesting ones which are variously praised and criticized in various sources, most of which now linked. And what is the problem with one link to a pubication or other source? Over linking is repeatedly to same links or linking relatively trivial concepts, not one link to an important publication. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Viewpoints

This section does not appear to be a fair and balanced representation of Freeman's political outlook. The section is:

(a) Israel-centric
(b) Consists largely of quotes and lacks any real detail
(c) Crafted entirely from the standpoint of his detractors

Plus there is a faint whiff of WP:RECENTISM:


In addition to what is written above, WP:QUOTE also says:


Please now examine and consider the section in question. I am placing 2 tags on the page ('unbalanced' and 'quotefarm'). Dynablaster (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you just add relevant info that you think will balance it? (Frankly, because some people love things that other people hate, some of his subjects hard to "balance.")
There's a lot out there, starting with what's recently referenced in the article, not to mention what you have to search around in the past for. Not everyone has time to go through it all, at least today. And don't remember many of his supporters agree with statements which his detractors consider negative, so that subject is very subjective. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgable enough to do so, but I'm sure there are many contributors who can help correct the situation, once they see the tag and read this talk page. Dynablaster (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps then you are not knowledgeable enough to know what is or is not unbalanced? to reply to your three points above:
  1. Obviously the main reason he is criticized is his criticism of Israel; we don't white wash what he said or that others note that fact.
  2. More info can always be added from the quotes to present context. Like noting that Jim Lobe is delighted by what he quoted.
  3. Yet again, since you admit not being knowledgeable, let me assume you that just because a detractor quotes him, doesn't mean supporters won't agree with his quote. And a quote from a supporter can be used against him by detractors. Some people support Israel, others criticize it harshly. Others don't want to ever see any criticism at all of Israel in articles about critics of ISrael, only slams against them for being antiSemites. But that would just be too POV.
  4. While I don't think 9/11 comment is important enough to include if it is his only comment on the topic, it seems like something a "9/11" truth person would put in.
  5. The allegation about the email on Tianamen Square remains questionable until better proven and if it isn't I'll move to have it removed per WP:BLP. So unless you can come up with some arguments against what I said, I don't see how you can support keeping those in, especially after a bit more info and other quotes are added, esp. since you admit you don't know much about the topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
My knowledge (or lack thereof) concerning the detailed work of Charles W. Freeman has no bearing this poorly structured section. One need not read any of his papers to understand it is largely a quote section in disguise, with not nearly enough detail. Read WP:QUOTE and see if I'm not wrong. Guidelines exist for a reason and are not to be ignored. Nor are tags mere decorative ornaments. They are provided to alert editors to a problem, so that those who know more about the topic can do something about it. On the other point, surely you can see the problem with elevating only those quotes that have been cherry-picked by his critics? One cannot possibly hope to construct an accurate picture in this way. Let's be fair. Dynablaster (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
We both agree it needs improvement, so let's leave it at that unless tags remain when others agree it's OK. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some possible sources that could help balance the article out (in either the "Viewpoints" or "Chair of National Intelligence Council" sections): Joe Klein, Jim Fallows, Andrew Sullivan, and Lawrence Korb. Also, seventeen former ambassadors wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal arguing that the "free exchange of political views is one of the strengths of our nation. We know Chas to be a man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments. We categorically reject the implication that the holding of personal opinions with which some disagree should be a reason to deny to the nation the service of this extremely qualified individual." Khoikhoi 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, adding additional info is one way to go, but another method is to trim the recentism so that it complies with Wikipedia policies. Also see WP:COATRACK. Khoikhoi 23:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The debate about his getting the job probably should be cut after we find out if he gets booted or not, then it will be clear what is most relevant. There also have been a few more developments like complaining senators and an internal investigation that's part of the unfinished background check which I'll put in when have some time - unless someone beats me to it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Finalizing Nomination Section

Obviously it is too long now, however, obviously it will remain a contentious issue. I suggest we wait a week or so to see how things shake out before cutting it, perhaps leaving in all the refs to follow brief summary sections. (OF course having had Freeman on my google alerts, I know there were a bunch of others left out.) I am going to add some more view points in general as I did today, but I'm on a 1 hour a day Wikipedia diet :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That than allow this important controversy to be gutted I am cutting it sensibly now. Fix it if I cut TOO much! Here's stuff that needs some work:
  • Some criticized the fact that the Middle East Policy Council received one twelfth of its funding from the Saudi Arabian government.REF:Eric Fingerhut, The Freeman fight: Was it all about Israel?, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 10, 2009. Want to get info on other sources before bring it up in bio section since otherwise prejudicial.
  • Tianamen Square comment criticism and his response. Where to put?
  • AIPAC's role - there's some interesting WP:RS info that I might insert later
  • Washington TImes allegations have to be vetted; I just noticed myself.
  • etc as continue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from personal talk page

I'm a bit surprised by your undoing my substantial revision - you yourself said on the talk page "The debate about his getting the job probably should be cut after we find out if he gets booted or not". And the debate on the talk page as I understand is about the views section, which I acknowledge remains a problem, but my version didn't fundamentally alter. Rd232 talk 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ByCarolMooreDC (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
See notes above and changes I just made. Let's give others a chance to opine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: sometimes reading diffs instead of text can mislead one (confusing refs interfere) and because you removed the sectioning and so many refs, I thought you had removed more editorial comment than you actually had, as I discovered last night on re-reading your diff. Will look at your wording again for reintegration of a few things not in now. Putting controversy in logical order does make sense, I just think it should keep its own section title, so put it that way. (As Anon IP, Didn't notice not logged in.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research

A reminder that this is a WP:BLP, and we need to rely on secondary sources, not WP:OR conducted through cherry picking quotes out of anything the subject has happened to say over his lifetime, or that has merely been quoted on someone's blog. I've removed several examples of such material. -- Kendrick7talk 16:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about material published on the Web by a notable think tank. The is no blanket ban on primary sources. The idea is to avoid things like public records and archival material. Kauffner (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is cherry picking. Who says these particular quotes are notable? -- Kendrick7talk 16:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree Kendrick is removing material that accurately reflects Freeman's views - and without adequate explanation. He calls it cherry picking, but it actually is referring to quotes used one or more times times in WP:RS. Yes, a more systematic exploration of everything Freeman has every written or said could be done, but one starts with what is most frequently out there on the topics he speaks most about. 9/11 quotes might be the most questionable, but since there are now two of them, I don't find that section WP:UNDUE
Please tell us how to find quotes that are not cherry picking in your opinion.
Also I hope you are not assessing for yourself WP:OR style whether a quote itself is somehow "negative" when in fact many of the same quotes are used by both opponents and supporters, some of whom disagree with them and some of whom agree with them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't even read the quotes. They are simply improperly sourced and this is a WP:BLP. If whatever he is saying is notable, then it should be no problem to find him quoted in a reliable secondary source (and not simply someone's blog). -- Kendrick7talk 17:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS and WP:BLP says they can be used if carefully. You will have to explain why NOT used carefully in detail. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
How is picking quotes all but out of the air "careful"? Again, if the subjects views on these topics are notable, find a secondary source which says so. It shouldn't be that hard. If you can't find such sourcing, you are filling a WP:BLP with indiscriminate information, and that's never a good idea, don't you agree? -- Kendrick7talk 17:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
CarolMooreDC wrote: "[A] more systematic exploration of everything Freeman has every written or said could be done, but one starts with what is most frequently out there on the topics he speaks most about."
In which case, the 9/11 stuff should be reduced to 1 or 2 small lines, because this is not what Freeman talks most about. Dynablaster (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally don't care that much about 9/11 stuff, though they do go along with his being outspoken on causes of terrorism. Plus I have a feeling if it gets taken out the 9/11 person (who for some reason I assume agrees with the quotes) will put them back in.


<---
I don't see anything in WP:IINFO that seems to apply to this article. Again you have to be very specific here about which quotes you have problems with and why so we can discuss them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The ones that are original research or simply come from someone's blog. Do you want me to tag them for you? Again, how are you determining which things the subject has said are notable enough to be included in his biography? -- Kendrick7talk 17:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you only talking about viewpoints section?? That's all you cut. Or all of it? Not clear. Some blogs more credible than others, so they do have to be discussed on case by case basis. Blogs are ok to quote if you also quote something like the primary source.
In the controversy section, it is obvious blogs were used to attack and defend Freeman. There are lots of news stories that mention them, after which it can be ok to link to them. I'm leaving links in for now til get better overview. I don't want to see article used to trash him; but also don't want a white wash of what happened to his nomination. That's called NPOV. However, like most editors I'm not getting paid and can only devote a certain amount of time to this. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Carolmooredc undid my substantial revision, which cut the recent controversy to 1 para (under career) and moved some bits to views (which remains a WP:COATRACK problem I don't immediately know what to do about. If anybody has an opinion on my edit, please comment here. I'm loathe to lose an hour's work because 1 editor thinks it too radical - 2nd and 3rd opinions please! Rd232 talk 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Carol, for being difficult; I believe your heart is in the right place. I can humbly suggest the following RS's on this matter. [2] including a sidebar noting one quote by Freeman as a favorite of his critics [3], as well as [4], [5] and [6]. -- Kendrick7talk 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The only difficulty is putting comments out of order so they interupt other comments and/or are more easily missed or misinterpreted, so I moved it. There's been a of good stuff written that might be ref'd so it's a matter of ploughing through it. And I've been trying to stay away from Israel Lobby stuff... sigh... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Saudi, Chinese money

It seems the discussion is ignoring the issue what would make this article worth reading. The most likely reason a typical reader might come here is to figure out why Freeman was rejected as NIC chair. The number one reason for this is probably the money Freeman received from the Saudi and Chinese governments, apparently to lobby for their points of view in Washington. The letter from the Republican senators is all about the money he received from Saudi Arabia through the Middle East Policy Council. There is only a hint of this in the current version of the article ("alleged ties" and "ties"). I have repeatedly added details about the amount of money involved and so forth and I hope this information can be put back in. His support for the Tianamen Square massacre was a major issue as well, said to have turned Pelosi against him. There a subsection concerning his views on China, but no hint that holds any controversial opinions. Kauffner (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there is a conflict between those who want no details as "recentism" and others who think more details are needed, which means not just what is charged against him but equal number of defenses of him, to be fair ala BLP.
I don't remember the specifics that money was received by Freeman personally or organizationally to lobby - as opposed to educate like WINEP also does, but obviously if it was it would be relevant chronologically in the Biographical section.
Tianamen should be dealt with carefully cause we do only have one email out of many, he says it was taken out of context, etc. As I mentioned as an issue to work on above. In time the whole thing should be seen in better perspective. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not that it was taken out of context, it's a misreading: he was arguing the govt shouldn't have allowed things to get to the point where such violence appeared the only option. (Also, it's not that I want "no details", it's that details should be limited to the salient facts, avoiding excessive quotation about people's opinions. The article should, today, be written as if it will be read without change in ten years' time (hence drop details no-one will care about then). Rd232 talk 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You are focusing on a minor aspect of the quote and ignoring the part where he endorses the use of violence against the Tiananmen protesters. That's certainly the interpretation of Jeffrey Goldberg at the The Atlantic. This quote itself is, well, not remotely diplomatic or ambiguous and really needs to be read to be believed. Kauffner (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that Freeman was a ever registered lobbyist. China and Saudi Arabia paid him large amounts of money for no obvious service. The Chinese oil company hired him as a director, although he attended meetings only once a year. The implication is that he was selling his Washington contacts rather than his oil business expertise. Kauffner (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP we do not deal with "implications" but with reliably sourced, relevant facts. Rd232 talk 03:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rd232 on implications not being what matters but facts.
Disagree that most content about recent events must be deleted immediately. People still will be coming to wikipedia trying to figure out what happened. And it could turn out this is a more important event than we might appreciate this month - but might appreciate next month. I probably removed too much, in fact. I'm sort of in the middle ground between the two of your positions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note correction that the $1 million from Saudi Prince went to MEPC not Freeman personally as your sentence inferred; not to mention that Saudi money only 1/12th of income. So be careful of wrong facts leading to wrong implications. Considering that an ex-AIPAC leader under indictment for espionage led the charge against Freeman for alleged disloyalty, and that there's lots of evidence AIPAC was deeply involved, there's a lot of relevant facts that might end up being important to this article. Time will tell :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course the implications matter. There is a reason commentators have found these particular facts to be relevant are put them in a certain relationship. If he is paid money by the Saudis and then makes pro-Saudi statements -- well, I shouldn't have to spell this out any further. Freeman isn't notable for anything other the NIC nomination, so this is rightly the focus of the article. Kauffner (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is that this was spearheaded by a former AIPAC operative - as well as current AIPACers - now under prosecution for espionage and lots of WP:RS say so and present evidence; that an American was driven from a job by agents of foreign powers. Who knows, maybe this will get Obama to enforce the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which might end up being its major implication. I'm getting so many alerts I'm going to put all together before add new stuff. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

National Intelligence Council appointment controversy

The National Intelligence Council appointment controversy section states "Freeman then issued a full statement on his reasons for withdrawal..". He did a bit more than that surely ? His comments in the statement about the Israel Lobby (i.e. "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths..etc") are notable. I'm not sure that they have their due weight at the moment given that the lobby isn't mentioned by name. Perhaps simply changing "which he identified as Israel" to "which he identified as the Israel Lobby" is enough to fix this. The details belong in the Israel lobby in the United States article I guess and that's where they are but it seems odd not to explicitly state here in this article what he singled out by name for the sake of clarity if nothing else. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this "material" even be in the lead? I now it is current news, and the lead should summarize the article , yadda, yadda, but maybe do a recap of why he is notable and leave the rest in the main body of the article? Thoughts? TIA --Tom 14:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Two sentences from the statement are at end of the current section on the appointment. For the time being it belongs in lead only because people will keep putting it back in if it isn't! Once story dies down in a month or eight, then it will be clearer what belongs there. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
As any editor good knows, things happen; what most average readers do not know, however, (because they only read the articles, not that talk pages) is what happens in the 'back-story', to use an expression from CNN(I). In this specific realm, lots of 'things' happen and all inclined, pov'd editors rush to document and push their helpful 'things'. I am not necessarily taking sides here, but I do note that it is very difficult to present NPOV in an article that is current, happening now, and emanating from a highly pov'd front. Personally, I am more interested in Wiki-presenting the different sides of the issue behind the story, rather than the heat and illusionary glimmer of light that the initial headlines that story-mongers initially try to sell. Though I may suffer from that bias, my edits attempt to point out this difference. Personally, I try to stay away from current events; it is so much easier to deal with history than the immediate pattern of shit on the journalistic wall. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much agree which is why am stepping back for a few days anyway and watching the shakeout through alerts and just dealing with anything too untoward anyone adds or plays with here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
If I had my way, ANYTHING, I MEAN ANYTHING, less than 6 months old would not be allowed into this project. Maybe I should start a campaighn to see that happen :) I have a good shot at that, right? :) Cheers! Tom 18:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Then the encyclopedia would be totally out of date since people usually lose interest and stop researching/editing after a while, no matter what happens. Steve J. Rosen being a prime example of a hot topic seriously degraded over time, with only scatter shot recent minor cleanups, even as remained newsworthy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are his statements being deleted?

"The aim of this lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favours."

This part of his statement is being constantly deleted although it is part of his full statement as to why he refused the position.

Although AIPAC donates large amounts of money to the Wikipedia project (and thank you for the donations!) I do not believe that because of donations anything that is critical of them should be removed from the historic/encyclopedic records.

All lobbies have their good and bad sides -- stop deleting his statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.162.14 (talk) 03:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please put new sections at bottom of page. If you have WP:RS about AIPAC donating large amounts of money, stick it in Wikipedia#Wikimedia_Foundation_and_the_Wikimedia_chapters where funding mentioned or start a controversies section. They are good and relevant quotes. Hey, if it's not copyrighted, his whole statement should be a wikisource :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope the IP is joking about AIPAC and Wiki although frankly it would explain a lot. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 13:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tianamen Statements only in controversies?

Since the Tianament statements only came to light as a leak from a private list because he was nominated, it seems they only belong in the controversy section and, because we don't have the full context, with all his explanations. Teasing out what he said as an explanation of China's views as opposed to his own views on what Americans would do in a similar situation is difficult so has to be handled carefully for BLP reasons. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the entire "Views on issues" section would be better titled as "Views on issues according to critics" to make clear the filter they've gone thru. -- Kendrick7talk 19:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you there, but I haven't found much at all concerning his stated views that haven't been sieved through a screed. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Some people end up being defined by their critics; Celsus is the classic example. I don't think it's an WP:Undue issue, I just think it's less POV to say where this comes from if it's not an over-generalization (?). -- Kendrick7talk 01:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I deleted that new part of the section title as WP:POV and/or WP:OR:
  • Remember we can use his Primary Source material carefully and NOT quote just those sections quoted in various sources, some criticial, some neutral, some positive. (If people bother to read the sources.) However, just to shut up those who will yell primary sources I myself stuck in some of the secondary sources.
  • Just because a critic thinks the quote makes him look bad, it is POV and/or WP:Original research for us to assume it is critical' many of these same quotes are found used by people who agree with him! I have made this point repeatedly but people don't bother to respond to it.
  • Finally, why not just do the work to read the primary sources or find other sources with other quotes you consider more appropriate. I'm working on doing that myself, but busy with other things too. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Wolf Statement under "National Intelligence Council appointment controversy"

Dubious? Why? It simply reports what Wolf, himself, had written in regard to the issue. The link is even provided. As that whole section stands right now, it's pretty one-sided, painting Freeman as the victim of some secret conspiracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.126.39 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I put on the tag, some editor who agreed removed it. This was said after the fact; there is no indication Wolf had any impact on the resignation, even if he signed on of letters about him. Just non-notable and gratuitous. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Press Release

This article looks to be copied verbatim from the official biography from the MEPC of which Mr. Freeman is the president.
—joeFriday— {talk}  02:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That was true as of Feb 23rd but a lot of work went on after that so the tag is now irrelevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

The kerfluffle over his failed appointment to a subcabinet post was a 9-days wonder, and probably of small significance to his overall life. This is supposed to be a biography. Let's leave the political news/advocacy to the blogs and the newssites, and focus on his life. I'm sort of surprised his life and work gets barely a quarter of the space here. RayTalk 03:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it would need a link for 'kerfluffle' to be sure, I tend to agree. There are thousands of faceless government bureaucrats, who have done many things with positive (and negative) impact, however, in the real world and the Wiki-world, it is a question of notability; specifics of what they have done, how sources report them and what results. On recent, hot-topic pages like this, it is also how editors play with those. It would be appropriate to add more about Freeman's work, particularly prior to his notability; it might even give him some documented heft concerning why he was nominated in the first place, other than the average documented blurb, which currently exists. Please do try to do that, I agree, and you shouldn't have much trouble with other editors, about notability.
Other aspects of notability, which also would be of benefit to the readers, might include which specific parts and organizations within the currently-split pro-Israel lobby contributed to the allegations related to his nomination, his withdrawal and his notable reaction afterward. Any RSs on who supported his nomination? I will note that charges of being called 'anti-Israel' in America, generally revolve around two different definitions of 'Israel' held by their left-leaning and right-leaning components. Simple put these are, the State of Israel and the Land of Israel, respectively; subtract the two and it equals Land for peace, the two state solution, or Palestine. The widely used catch-all 'anti-Israel' is therefore an inappropriate characterization. Based on the included links above, I would characterize Freeman as supporting programs held by the left-leaning component of the lobby; I believe he is opposed to those right-leaning, since these are generally not accepted by the US Gov't either[7] (see summary). It might also be informative to note that pro-Israel campaign donations for the period of 1990 - 2008 collected by Center for Responsive Politics indicates a general increase in proportional donations to the Republican party since 1996.[8]; I guess one may say those would be right-leaning (and with a particular bent), while most Jewish voters tend to be left-leaning. This too is indicative of the ideological split. I suspect he is particularly opposed to Neo-Zionism, but that, thus far is OR, though highly informative. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
A couple editors complained section suffered from "recentism" after he withdrew and cut back severely. I helped make sure important stuff remained. Here is version before cutting that has some good stuff. Gradually much of same material re-added. Your arguments make me wonder if what we need is to make a separate fuller article on the controversy since it I still get lots of google alerts about its importance, etc. and then just have a couple paragraphs in this article. That or just allow it to be a longer section with couple subsections... CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is supposed to be a service to the reader, not a tribute to the subject's life. It should answer that are likely to be foremost to the reader, like why was this nomination controversial and why was Freeman nominated? The charges of "undue weight" and "recentism" imply that a year from now we'll remember Freeman, not because of the NIC nomination, but because of his service as ambassador to Saudi Arabia or head of MEPC. Does anyone really believe this? Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Good one :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I took out the whole fourth graf that was there under "Israel" in his "Views on Foreign policy Issues" because it completely mischaracterized as being Freeman's views the title of a post on Mondoweiss that was written by the folks at Mondoweiss, not by Freeman himself. (Also, previous footnote 38 there was unintelligible and misedited.) Actually, I believe Freeman will be remembered most for his long (30-year) service to the American nation including his role in U.S.-Chinese affairs which was overwhelmingly positive from the POV of world peace and also his role as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during Opns desert Shield and Desert Storm. I can't help but wonder whether his detractors wish he had failed in that period and Saddam Hussein had continued to hang onto Kuwait (as Israel continues t hang onto its occupied territories of the West bank, Gaza, and Golan, for more than 40 decades after it took them under military occupation? Supercarpenter (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal life

I'm removing the entire personal life section. Some of it's verfified, but most is not. I'm notifying the editor who added the section, who doesn't seem too active at the moment. If someone knows where to find more verified info, please add it. I just spent too much time verifying that the info from this section was not referenced. Tapered (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles W. Freeman, Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chas_W._Freeman_Jr./Archive_1&oldid=1145435408"