Jump to content

Talk:Richard Perle/Archives/2013

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


Political Party

Richard Perle is, contrary to common belief, not a republican, rather a member of the Democratic Party. This he mentions himself in his PBS Documentary: The Case For War: In Defense of Freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 23:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Richard Perle is a self-proclaimed neoconservative. See PBS Think Tank interview "Richard Perle: The Making of a Neoconservative" where he is interviewed by the host Ben J. Wattenberg.

So you can't be neoconservative and Democrat? Bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadel (talk • contribs) 00:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite refreshing

Quite refreshing to see an accurate portrayal of arguably the man most responsible for the USA's disastrous war in Iraq. - lc, usa

Hideous image is better than no image, no?

Think about it. Perle is not that well known considering his great influence over “defense” policy. But people I’m sure a lot of people have seen him on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and so forth not realizing who he was and not realizing that he was just another commentator. But they’ll download this site and realize, “oh yeah, that’s Richard Perle.”

You won’t be able to find a better photo either. It’s a hideous image for a hideous man.

Paektu


Can we fit in his nickname of "Prince of Darkness" anywhere? john 02:23 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

If you can find a reference to who coined that usage, sure.
I don't see that that matters. It seems to have been his nickname since the Reagan years, and looking through Google searches, he's called that all over the place. -- Zoe
Perle probably thought it up. har har.
[1] says Perle's "Pentagon friends" thought it up.
[2] calls him the "self-described" Prince of Darkness
[3] says Henry Kissinger gave Perle the name Kingturtle 04:59 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe in college he was the Princeton of Darkness, and then he shortened it :) Kingturtle 05:13 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
LOL Zoe
I vote we take the nickname bit out of the article until it can be properly attributed. I'm not saying it couldn't be true, but the three references you provided are from notoriously biased sources -- two left-leaning indy media outlets and one Democratic political action committee. We can do better on Wikipedia.
Nah, just do a Google search of "Prince of Darkness" "Richard Perle" and you see it in tons of articles. It is his nickname, not just some slur. -- Zoe
The National Review mentions the nickname [4], TIME magazine mentions the nickname [5], CBSnews mentions it [6], CNN mentions it [7]. I don't know who coined it, but it is common usage in the media. We don't know who coined the name Splendid Splinter for Ted Williams, but it is included in his wiki-article, because it is common usage. Kingturtle 05:38 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
That works for me. Chadloder 05:41 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

The "Prince of Darkness" epithet was a book title:

Prince of darkness, Richard Perle: the kingdom, the power and the end of empire in America By Alan Weisman Edition: illustrated Published by Sterling Publishing Company, 2007 ISBN 140275230X, 9781402752308 291 pages

Paul Abrahams (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chadloder, do you have a cite for saying that the nickname comes from the 80s? -- Zoe
Yup, look at all the URLs posted by Kingturtle. Chadloder 05:54 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

The article says:

He lost one of his positions after the FBI revealed that he had passed on classified information to Israel.

Which one of his positions? john 06:15 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

NeoCon

Perle is a neoconservative, not a conservative. --HowardJ87 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)




Darth Vader nickname

Cut from article:

In regards to the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative, he is sometimes known as "Darth Vader".

Okay, but WHO calls him this? Sentence should read something like

Opponents of SDI call him "Darth Vader"

or

Jimmy Zawindoes, a leftist who dismisses SDI as a "Star Wars" fantasy, dubbed Perle "Darth Vader" in a 1983 magazine article and has worked tirelessly ever since to make the appelation stick.

--Uncle Ed 15:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


The epithet "Prince of Darkness" is more commonly applied to Robert Novak. orthogonal 20:10, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought that "Darth Vader" was Dick Cheney, not Perle, though their places in the right-wing firmament are similar. Paul Abrahams (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Abrahams (talk • contribs) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I moved the "Prince of Darkness" slur down from the first paragraph to the Career section of the article.

Also, this phrase is puzzling at best:

...is a unilateralist who supports American foreign policy

I'm not sure what this phrase is supposed to add to the first paragraph. Is someone trying to call him a "unilateralist"? Note that unilateralism doesn't have an article yet.

Also, what's the big deal about "supports US foreign policy"? It's like saying Bill's dog wags his tail every time he sees his master.

It sounds like someone is trying to slam this guy:

  • Darth Vader
  • Prince of Darkness
  • unilateralist

Let's leave this stuff out, or attribute it to Perle's opponents or quote a journalist or something. --Uncle Ed 20:16, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think Ed's edit to attribute the "Prince of Darkness" title is a good balance. And, for the record, my colleagues and I were calling Perle that in 1986 -- if someone said "the Prince of Darkness" there was only one person it referred to -- Richard Perle. -- BCorr ? Брайен 20:22, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, B. My concern is not that we wouldn't know that Prince of Darkness was a wry reference to Perle, just that the Wikipedia shouldn't be seen as endorsing that nickname. *sigh* I guess we need a Wikipedia:nicknames policy page now... --Uncle Ed

I don't see why merely mentioning a nickname used by both his friends and foes should be considered a Wiki endorsement. -- Tchoutoye

This article is basically "he's eeeevulll", which is pretty slanted. Presumably in order to have been employed by Scoop for 11 years, he must have had some accomplishment. Ditto as assistant secretary. What policies did he help formulate? Did he support the B-1 or oppose it (note Washington senator suggests Boeing connection), and how about the B-2? WP is supposed to be a little better than a hatchet job on neocons we don't like - although I'm happy to see sleazy neocons exposed, this article is so biased that it tarnishes the credibility of the ones I usually work on. Stan 21:10, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Then edit it. Kingturtle 22:44, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can't add facts until I have a factual source to work from. This bio is unfortunately typical of those cobbled together from CNN sound bites; it's like the person doesn't exist between the lurid news reports. :-) Stan 00:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Stan -- Someone who agrees with the positions that are attributed to Perle in the article -- which indeed are his positions -- it doesn't read like a "hatchet job" at all. Perhaps it seems like someone as conservative as this would not have been is positions as important as his, but this is simply the case. Follow the links at the bottom of the article and see for yourself -- you can gather the facts and then decide what you think and edit the article accordingly. I, however, don't believe that this article is particlularly biased -- and I think the "CNN soundbites" simply back up the history of Perle's work. And he has been fairly controversial of late, perhaps a reflection of his relatively extremist views. Thanks, BCorr ? Брайен 00:23, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)



I think there is a valid point to be made about "sound bites". It can be quite POV to selectively choose several quotes made by a public figure, especially when focusing on quotes that were refuted by superiors or contained inaccuracies. It appears these quotes were selected to make Perle look bad rather than to be representative of his views. Daniel Quinlan 00:30, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
Good point, Daniel. I guess I distracted myself with that issue. I do believe that these are a fair representation of Perle's views, but they certainly aren't necessary for the article, and if they tend to lead people to think that it's an attempt ro make him look bad, I have no problems with someone editing them out. BCorr ? Брайен 00:38, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The quotes are fine, it's just that the context is missing. Neoconservatism (United States) for instance talks about liberals changing into neocons - the Scoop Jackson connection strongly suggests Perle must have been one of those. What do his books and articles say? Those are more likely to be balanced expressions of his views than a throwaway remark to some annoying interviewer (what, you mean people have been adding to this article without reading his books and articles first?? :-) ) Stan 02:30, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, why not try to find representative quotes of his politics instead of the best targets for criticism? Representative quotes would be neither positive nor negative, if accurate, and fewer editors could dispute their inclusion. Wikipedia specializes in producing negative hit pieces (with the occasional puff piece), but that's non-optimal. Quotes should not be trying to make people look bad nor good. They should be used to improve the article.
Also, the Neoconservatism (United States) article is very problematic. It's written from a very non-neutral POV and the stuff about liberals changing into neocons is opinion and rather speculative, more like an overly simplistic negative characterization. Perle is generally classified as a neo-conservative (by critics, at least, conservatives do not seem to use the term as often since it's often used pejoratively). I'm of the personal opinion that it's not a particularly good term as it's ill-defined and often misused. Maybe it's just the article that sucks and not the term... Daniel Quinlan 02:49, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I don't buy all the theories in the neocon article, but there's no doubt about the remarkable crossover of not-boll-weevil-Dems into the Republican camp; not something that happens every day! That's why they're called "neo"conservatives instead of "paleo"conservatives. :-) Stan 03:35, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"stuff about liberals changing into neocons is opinion and rather speculative" A number of neocons are former Marxists. That's not opinion or "speculative", it's documented - that's why they are "neo".AndyL 16:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The whole discussion seems ridiculous. The article is filld with subjective comments, comments you don't find in people equally responsible for the pursuant policies like for example Cheney. Either you should clean wikipedia up properly and debunk whoever you want to debnk or you are professional about it. What bothers me is this attitude of just destroying peoples reputations. People whop are assholes will display these characteristics to any sensitive and decent person. There is no need in taking your own political views on the matter and inserting them in the articles. If this will happen wikipedia will become a highly unreliabe source of information.

Richard Perle himself says he has been a neoconservative since his college days - see his interview on PBS Think Tank Richard Perle: The Making of a Neoconservative.

The Richard Perle Plan

What is the outline of the Perle Plan? Was it first to take Iraq, then Syria, and then which countries? I believe that this was written in the 1994 to 1996 time frame.

Thank you.


Perle's dream was a bit more confrontational

“All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now." (Richard Perle)[8]

Defense Policy Board

More recently hasn't Perle resigned entirely from the Defence Policy Board? Also, isn't he under investigation around the whole Conrad Black mess?AndyL 16:10, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Major Re-Write

I am glad I found this page, as it is in need of a serious rewrite. It looks like it was taken line for line out a Nation Magazine article. TDC 18:59, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Jewishness

I don't see any reason to include a reference to Perle's religion in the first line. Surely that would not be the practice in an article on any Christian political figure who did not hold a religious office.

I removed "who is jewish", though I think religion is very important in the context of Perles role in government, it isn't the formal language of an encyclopedic entry and as you said, his role in politics isn't primarily related to religion. I would suggest it to be written in relation to personal life, in part because it is important (in relation to his engagement with the neocons) but written elsewhere speculates a direct relation to his professional life.

Manjajman13 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find out more on his Jewish heritage on the Internet, and I dont have access to any bios on him elsewhere, as I live outside the US. Manjajman13 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard Perle's Jewishness is irrelevant to his role as a political advisor. Placing his religous identity in the first line is highly suspicious.

It happens repeatedly on this article. Just one of those things to watch. --Oakshade 15:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I do, particularly since he appears to be another stooge for Israel within the U.S. national security apparatus. It is important that all of this stuff is on record, after all.Ndriley97 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Israeli accusation

I noted the accusation that Perle is an Israeli spy being both added and removed. Has the charge been repeated seriously in any reputable source? VV 18:07, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No, that is why I removed it. There is an investigation into classified material bieng sent to Israel, but no names have been given. TDC 05:34, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

hit piece

I hate this guy probably more than Karl Rove, but after reading this about three times, I stuck a NPOV tag on the whole thing, because I'm sorry to say this whole article reads like a hit piece. The allegations of plagarism are fairly troubling as well .. anyone have a cite? Chuck Adams 22:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I've made edits to the article, but if you notice, each one is accompanied by a specific reference to a hardcopy publication (or in one case to the AEI website). Hit piece? Now that's pretty strong language. Please reconsider making specific suggestions for change. If you cannot make suggestions, I suggest we take it to arbitration.CSTAR 22:30, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oops, I meant mediation not arbitration.CSTAR 22:43, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration/Mediation ... you wouldn't happen to be a MOOer, would you? :) Anyway, I took off the NPOV tag since I don't have so much time to deal with it, and well, there's a dearth of material to actually defend his record ;) ... Seriously though, the selection of facts seems rather slanted, and one must imagine his imprimatur had to be on somewhat less contentious but important issues as well. I just didn't see a lot to that resolved the ongoing dispute regarding the overall tone, so I put it up out of pique, hoping it might draw some other critical eyes. My apologies if I misstepped. Chuck Adams 00:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You'll notice I tried to put nice things about him. I wish I knew more about his background in California, his residence in Provence (strange, for somebody like him that seems to hate the French so badly), but this guy is pretty secretive. Anyway if somebody can find something nice, please put it in (He did write a novel, but I have heard it wasn't very good and also was controversial) CSTAR 00:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A little unclear

At the end of the section about the Iraq war, this sentence is incredibly unclear:

"After the war, he admitted in a public forum in London that it violated international law."

There are four "hims" in the previous paragraph and two "its" -- and I'm frankly not sure which him is admitting what it was a violation.

Help?

On Thursday, November 20, the former lead conspirator of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and long-time accused Israeli spy, Richard Perle, proudly admitted Bush's invasion of Iraq was illegal. "I think international law stood in the way of doing the right thing," he brazenly told a London audience. [9] --A human 06:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Summary is a Whitewash

While there's plenty on both sides in the body of this article, the summary reads like something you'd find in "who's who". Things like saying Perle predicted the war would be over in two months makes him sound prescient, but the equally -- or more -- important facts like the falacious reasons Perle propounded for going to war are absent. Other than saying that Perle has spent considerable time in Israel, which is only obliquely negative, there isn't a dime's worth about the controversy surrounding Perle, including the ongoing investigation of embezzlement/financial mismanagement (or whatever it is called), or that he resigned the presidency of the DPB in disgrace. His famous and apt nickname "Prince of Darkness" is also left off the summary. Wikipedians that aren't interested in getting into a poorly organized body of an article are really getting the short shrift if they come to this one and just get the bitesize version.

Reply

his famous and apt nickname "Prince of Darkness" is also left off the summary.

Hmm, I thought it was already in the article. At least it was at one point in the article's history. It's really hard to keep up with revisionist edits, unfortunately.

important facts like the falacious reasons Perle propounded for going to war are absent.

Well put these facts in. I certainly won't object.

there isn't a dime's worth about the controversy surrounding Perle, 'ncluding the ongoing investigation of embezzlement/financial mismanagement

Again at one point there was something in the article about this. --CSTAR 16:55, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there any information on how much Perle has made from Trireme? If he's one of the principals, theoretically he must've made a fair amount of $$ but because it's closely held is that info not available? Wasn't it his work w/Trireme (and bucks he was making) the "scandal" that persuaded him to resign from chairmanship of Defense Board? And eventually resign altogether?

"Evil of international law"

TDC, you said that the quotation is factually incorrect and a "bastardization" of a different quotation. I cited a source; might I trouble you to cite yours? Al-Jazeera says that Perle's remark came "at the start of the Iraq war", so it's unlikely to be a misquotation of something he said in November 2003 (whether November 13, as in the article, or November 19, as in your ES). Is the pronouncement that it's "factually incorrect" simply a TDC opinion? JamesMLane 17:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I searched for "the greatest triumph of the Iraq war is the destruction of the evil of international law" and it appears to have originated from someone named Adam Porter in Perpignan, France and first published on Aljazeera. No other news agency reported it. No one else heard it. Aljazeera didn't state where or when exactly it happened, only vaguely attributing it to. Considering its similarity to this Perle quote: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing”, I think it is either a translation issue (from French to Arabic to English) or a deliberate twisting of the original quote. If you can find an independent verification of this, I have no objection to its conclusions. TDC 17:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
With most quotations, I just insert the quotation and give the source in an inline link. In this instance, because the many online repetitions of it all seemed to flow from the Al-Jazeera story, I thought there was an issue about the quotation. It's not our place to decide what we think is The Truth. I didn't want to follow the normal quotation style because doing so would resolve the issue in favor of authenticity. On the other hand, deleting the quotation, as you've done, would resolve the issue in favor of your "bastardization" hypothesis. Given that the point isn't clear, the best approach is to tell the reader what we know -- that Al-Jazeera said it -- without forcing our conclusions on anyone. Different readers will have different opinions about whether everything from Al-Jazeera requires independent verification. (I personally think that everything from Judith Miller requires independent verification, but you probably wouldn't bat an eyelash if I cited one of her Times articles slamming Saddam.)
One thing that struck me in my search was that, although the quotation has been extensively repeated on the Net, I didn't notice anything debunking it, nor did I find a Perle denial. That's not dispositive proof, but it's notable. If the quotation were a mistranslation or a deliberate twisting, I would expect there to be a source that could be cited to that effect. Did you find one? JamesMLane 07:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is the most appalling diatribe I have ever read. Shame on wikipedia for this article. It is a disgrace that a man never convicted of anything at all, who has served his country in various high positions - and who is widely respected by many has an article - 90%+ of which merely details unproven allegations. I have put a NPOV tag on, and if it is repeatedly removed without any major changes, I will put this article up for review. jucifer 02:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Once you take out all the "allegations" and "controversies" and various lines that try to make him look dumb or paint him as having dual loyalties to Israel this is what is left:

Richard Norman Perle (born September 16, 1941 in New York City), is an American political advisor who served the Reagan administration as an assistant Secretary of Defense and served on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 1987 to 2004. He was Chairman of the Board from 2001 to 2003 under the Bush Administration. Perle was a strong advocate of the 2003 invasion of Iraq He is a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and was one of the signers of the January 26, 1998 PNAC Letter sent to US President Bill Clinton. Perle was raised in Los Angeles and attended the University of Southern California, earning a B.A. in English in 1964. He also studied at the London School of Economics and obtained a M.A. in political science from Princeton University in 1967. From 1969 to 1980, he worked as a staffer for Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson of Washington. Perle was considered as an extremely knowledgeable and influential person in the Senate debates on arms control. Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson offered Perle a position on his staff, working with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Perle was considered a hardliner in arms reduction negotiations with the Soviet Union. From 1981 to 1987, Perle was Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy in the Reagan administration. Perle is currently a resident fellow at the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. His cited research interests include defense, national security and the Middle East. Perle married Leslie Joan Barr on July 31, 1977, and has a son, Jonathan, by her. He owns a vacation home in Provence in France where he spends much of his time. When in the U.S., he resides primarily in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, with his family.

All the rest is a POINT OF VIEW diatribe. jucifer 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Those who use wikipedia for their own political motives must realize that they destroy the crredibiotlity of this forum. The above is a normal summary of the man's life and achievements. This attitutde of digging into people's life is a scam and each and everyone that sits comfortably, secretively and isolated behind their computers without any consideratiobn for life in the real world should try to think back to their high school years and realize that it sucks if you're being stereotyped. The UN- of which teh article explicits mentions richard perle's antipathy- has in its charter as one of our fundamental human rights to rtespect the reputation of others. I will equally put this article up for review if it is not changed. Frederik H. april 27th 2006

Some minor issues

" Sullivan and Perle became close friends and co-conspirators, and together established an informal right-wing network which they called "the Madison Group," after their usual meeting place in--you might have guessed--the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop."


Does anyone else think the line "you might have guessed it" is irrelevent? In my opinion it just adds the voice of the editor for no apparant reason. I took it out so that the sentence read :

" Sullivan and Perle became close friends and co-conspirators, and together established an informal right-wing network which they called 'the Madison Group,' after their usual meeting place in the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop."

Someone then edited it back to the original. Could they explain the reason for doing so? Also, "right-wing network" seems bit imprecise. Does anyone with more knowledge on the subject know of a better way of chracterizing the group?

I also take issue with this line in "Optimistic views on the iraq situation":

"'And a year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they've been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.'

This prediction turned out to be completely wrong. As of 2005 no such square existed and U.S. armed forces remained bogged down in conflict."


The use of the term "bogged down" seemed completely out of place in a neutral article, so I took it out. I also added the Mayor of Baghdad's suggestion of a statue for Bush (widely cited on the right and sourced, as far as I could tell, to WorldNetDaily and New York Post)since it seems relevent to this quotation, and added balance. Unfortunately, someone also removed all this, re-inserted "bogged down" and even added "This prediction turned out to be completely wrong". I personally do not think this helps the neutrality of the article. Thoughts?

Oh, and in the opening to the article, "allegedly" should go before "behaved", not several words after. It sounds a little odd because you're essentially saying that it's a fact that Perle has behaved in a particular manner several times, whilst it is alleged that his behaviour was unethical. I just think it makes more sense my way round. I did make this change, but it too has been reversed.

This article is so bad that I have a good mind to start the whole thing again

I might well take the NPOV biographical details, add more info on his activities and then add a "controversy section".

This article paints him deliberately as "criminal, Jew-loving, Zionist, Machiavellian, sinister, lying, evil, capitalist pig, asshole who likes to club baby seals." or that's what anyone who read this article would think of him when they had clicked on the number one Google hit for Richard Perle! This is borderline libel. jucifer 17:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • And by the way those up up on the talk-page explicitly trying to find a pre-text to include the "Prince of Darkness" nickmane. Shame. Prince of Darkness is the devil as you are aware. Saying that someone is called "the devil" by many people (who don't like him) is very crude and not NPOV. The way it should be done is to mention in the critisism section that some people don't like him and they consistently refer t ohim that way. jucifer 17:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As for Machiavelli and the Devil: In a debate with Noam Chomsky, Perle began with a very poor telling of the following joke: "It was said that on his deathbed, a priest visited Machiavelli and asked him to renounce the Devil, to which Machiavelli responded "Father, this is no time to be making new enemies". Perle is clearly comfortable with actions that cause people great harm - he just seeks to justify it with an end-justifies-the-means ideology. 32.97.110.142 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think something is 'borderline libel', then refute it, giving sources for specific instances. It is worth noting that despite being free to do so, contributors to this article have not complimented Perle on his selfless and generous contribution to society and to others. If he is as widely respected as you say, the contributions would reflect it.

Your suggested rewrite is not NPOV - to include the opinion 'Perle was considered as an extremely knowledgeable and influential person in the Senate debates on arms control' without including the wide range of criticisms of him would be laughable.

Whatever one's view of Perle, this is an encyclopedia, and the historical significance of the man is that he has been involved in numerous controversial episodes, and his integrity has been questioned time and time again - it is important to refer to this in the article's summary as it is what sets him apart from so many other, less high-profile neocons who have not been impugned for their self-interest in the same way. His critics would point to numerous instances where his political activities in the USA (in your words, when he 'served his country in various high positions') would result in great advantages to himself and to Israel. Even the most ardent neocon might consider Perle a liability to their cause because he seems so inclined to attract controversy.

He IS nicknamed 'the Prince of Darkness' - it is widely used and is simply not the same as calling someone 'the Devil'. If that was the case, he would be nicknamed 'the Devil'. His nickname is relevant in any analysis of his significance as it points to how he is perceived by others over a long period, just as it would be significant if he had a more complimentary nickname. Hippo43 08:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


Mr. Hippo 43, I think you're talking, but you are not listening. An article this subjective destroys wikipedia's credibility. You say "whether you like perle or not......", but the fact is that you do not like him and that is your reason for keeping the content of this article. Prince of darkness might be an adequat description of his manipulative actions, but it doesn't mean you can use a term in your description. I dare you to change the article on president bush and add all the elements that have been written to the article. You wouldn't do that because it is unfair, disrespectful and dishonest. Moreover, you would probably be scared knowing that your contactinformation will be known. Fact of the matter is that articles should reflect a societal consensus on someones performance and curriculum and not some ones left wing radical or nationalist racist political agenda. Start taking responsiblity. Frederik H. 27 th april 2006

Rewriting 'Office of Senator Henry Jackson'

I will redo this section when I have more time - help would be appreciated. It seems to be lifted wholesale, and unattributed, from Stephen Green's article 'Serving Two Flags: Neo-Cons, Israel and the Bush Administration' ([10]), which itself cites no sources.Hippo43 09:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

removing NPOV tag

the editor who added it has not made any recent change to the article

Justforasecond 16:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Failed Prediction?

The article contrasts Perle's prediction of a quick defeat of Iraqi forces with the current situation in Iraq being still very deadly:

...predicting that Iraqi forces could be defeated in no more than months...as of early 2006, United States armed forces were still in Iraq suffering daily casualties.'
Saddam is much weaker than we think he is. He's weaker militarily... it isn't going to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either.
As of late 2005, the war continued -- years beyond the end Perle had predicted

I don't really see Perle's statements as being all that wrong. As far as I can tell, the continuing conflict is not a result of "Iraqi forces" which the only quote seems to be talking about, but an insurgency made up partly of foreign fighters as well as people unrelated to the pre-invasion government. Although he didn't anticipate such a large-scale and enduring insurgency, his statements about the strength of the Iraqi army and quickness of toppling the government were not all that incorrect. AEuSoes1 09:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article is pretty poor from a POV standpoint. This sentence, "Though President Bush declared just a few months after the war started that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, as of early 2006, United States armed forces were still in Iraq suffering daily casualties." is largely irrelevant. The difference between the insurgency (largely led by Al Qaeda) is sometimes considered seperately from the overthrow of Hussein's government, which actually happened even faster than Perle predicted.

As a technical point, I think "Perle has spent considerable time in Israel" needs to be elaborated on or made more specific. Currently, it is way too vague.

On more than one occasion Perle has behaved in an allegedly unethical manner to his own financial gain. His behavior in both the public and private spheres has been investigated and the board of Hollinger International singled him out in a report citing diversion of profits from shareholders to executives."

Certainly Perle, his lawyers, and his supporters have a different view of the situation or some sort of explanation. If one exists, it should be given as much of a voice as the accusations listed.

Overall, it was transparently obvious to me that the article was written from a leftist POV.

Thanks for your time and efforts.

Please remember to assume good faith and remain civil, anonymous editor. It's not appropriate to say this was written from a "leftist" POV. If Perle is a crook saying so doesn't make one a communist. Justforasecond 02:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Just for a second, I would appreciate if you life up to your own words and write an article in good faith. If someone is in your words "a crook", than this should be established by the only forum approriate to label someone a crook, a court of law. Stop acting morally superior and be resposible. Take out the garbage or I will do it.

To explain what I mean lets analyse a small piece from the article. My comments are added in paranthese in ca[ital letters.

"Other

Perle advocates first-strike bombing of North Korean nuclear facilities. [5] He has also at times advocated preemptive attacks on Syria, Iran, Libya, and a number of other countries.(NO CITATION) He is known to have a negative opinion of the United Nations and of multilateralism, and supports maintaining the military superpower status of the United States.(THIS APPLIES TO MOST REPUBLICANS, AND THE SECOND PART ALSO APPLIES TO ALL DEMOCRATS; COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND IN COMBINATION WITH ALL THE NONSENSE ADDED TO PORTRAY A NEGATIVE VIEW OF THE PERSON) Perle has long been a target of criticism from the left, who view him as being a key force pushing US foreign policy in a militaristic direction.(SAME SENTENCE AS PREVIOUS ONE AND METIONED NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE ARTICLE) He has also been a target of criticism from paleoconservatives, who believe him to be pro-Israel and pro-Likud to the detriment of the United States.(TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE US IMPLIES US POLICY SHOULD NOT BE PRO-ISRAEL AND REFELCTS THE AUTHOR'S OWN POLITICAL VIEWS;) Perle chaired a study group that included Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others, that produced a strategy paper for the incoming Likud Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" [6], declared that "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" was an "important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." Perle married Leslie Joan Barr on July 31, 1977, and has a son, Jonathan, by her. He owns a vacation home in Provence in France where he spends much of his time. When in the U.S., he resides primarily in the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, with his family." (HERE THE DOUBLE IMPLICATION IS MADE THAT PERLE IS RICH, SPENDS HIS MONEY ABROAD, APPARENTLY HAS A LOT OF FREE TIME THAT HE SPENDS ABROAD, IS SELDOM IN THE US AND IN COMBINATION WITH THE ABOVE THE UNFERENCE IS MADE THAT HE DOES NOT TRULY REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE US)

CONCLUDING: THIS ARTICLE CONCSIOUSLY BASHES RICHARD PERLE, AND DOES SO IN A POLITICAL NASTY MANNER. MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT I COULD CARE LESS OF MR. PERLE, BUT WHAT BOTHERS ME AFTER STUDYING WIKIPEDIA FOR NUMEROUS DAYS IS THAT IT HAS BECOME A POLITICAL RATHER THAN A JOURNALISTIC FORUM. OF COURSE NO ONE HAS TIME AND MONEY FOR FACT CHECKING, BUT THE FLAGRANT MANNER IN WHICH POLITICAL AGENDA'S ARE BEING PURSUED MISDEMEANS THE SPIRIT OF WIKIPEDIA.

Well, I've just added a whole lot more facts. I've got clear references for quotes from Perle, and clear references for all the *MANY* corruption allegations that surround him, and a reference for the house in Provence. You're at war with reality on this one. You don't seem to understand how the WIKIPEDIA works. Articles are supposed to be based upon *VERIFIABLE* information. If the information is verifiable, from reputable written sources, then its fine. Timharwoodx 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Article lacks even a footnote citing Richard Perle as the epitome of the Chickenhawk phenomenon.


What about Perle's spying activites for foreign governments?

Notable, surely? How many high level officials in the American government have been caught spying for foreign governments and stayed in power?

.......... and so on. I've read the NPOV whines. But the article still seems to avoid several well referenced claims of improper behavior by Mr Perle. I must question the motives of the NPOV advocates. Perle has been widely stated to be an agent for Israeli intelligence, and to have improperly profited from contracting deals. These are externally verfiable facts. There should be no grounds for reasonable dispute here. Timharwoodx 10:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Perle thinks the lives of US troops are not important

Tom Clancy wrote Battle Ready in collaboration with a war critic, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni. In a press conference held to promote the book, Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time, and a longtime advocate of the invasion. "He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin L. Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me." Associated Press, 24/05/2004, 19:04

How can anyone defend this man? Thats from an Associated Press article! Timharwoodx 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Timharwoodx,
You've just quoted an anecdote from a name-dropping, publicity hound, third party (Clancy) who puts words in Perle's mouth (e.g. "wuss"?). And we are to accept this as evidence that Perle thinks "the lives of US troops are not important"?
In any case, if you consider that Perle's remarks, assuming he made them, were in the context of a discussion about military operations, they are quite reasonable. A military commander who is "overly concerned" with the safety of his troops can easliy jeopardize a mission. Military operations are hardly risk free and invariably involve the advance calculus of casualties.
This is an excellent example of a slur based on speculative and probably out of context hearsay. But it does fit well with the character assassination underlying the entire Perle article.
JR 24.108.149.69 19:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like legitimate, cited info to me. Perle's policy has been an utter failure (at least from the U.S. point of view). Is it too late to draft him and drop him off in Sadr city? Justforasecond 00:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Cited - for sure. Legitimate - maybe. But it certainly doesn't justify the conclusion stated in Tim's heading. JR 24.108.149.69 02:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This article needs a picture

--P-Chan 17:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The guy was a public figure and NO ONE can find not one picture of him in the public domain? Unbelievable.207.172.166.181 (talk) 06:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Down the memory hole

Items deleted recently:

During this period, Perle is stated to have been investigated by the Justice Department, and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel. "An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)." So far as can be determined, despite allegedly being caught spying for a foreign government, in the process undermining American national security, no action was taken against Perle at the time or later.

[11]

However, allegations of improper conflicts of interest, have nonetheless led to Perle's resignation from various positions. While serving on the Defense Policy Board, he was hired as an advisor for Global Crossing. It is stated "Even as he advises the Pentagon on war matters, Richard N. Perle, chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board, has been retained by the telecommunications company Global Crossing to help overcome Defense Department resistance to its proposed sale to a foreign firm, Mr. Perle and lawyers involved in the case said today." Mr. Perle's fee is $750,000, but he will receive an additional $600,000 if the sale is approved. [12]

Perle maintained that he had not violated any ethics rules, but decided to resign his position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board on March 26, 2003, [13]. In an effort to save face, he wrote in his resignation letter that he would refuse any compensation with his deal with Global Crossing and "any fee for past service would be donated to the families of American forces killed or injured in Iraq." There was also a report that "The communications company, Global Crossing, also announced that Mr. Perle had decided to sever his ties with it."[14] [15]

As a former Clinton adviser observed with admiration, Perle “enjoys all the benefits of being an insider without any of the constraints.”[16]

The Global Crossing affair started a more critical look into Perle's business affairs. On March 29, 2003, The New York Times reported that Perle was involved with Loral Space and Communications in 2001 as an advisor while it faced accusations that it transfered rocket technology to China. [17] It is worth noting that the Global Crossing affair was also due to Global Crossing trying to overcome Defense Department opposition to be sold to a venture with ties to China. In February 2004, Perle resigned entirely from the Defense Policy Board. [18] The full text of Perle's resignation letter may be found at the website for the public relations firm Benador Associates. [19]

===SEC singles out Perle for criticism===

On August 31, 2004, a special committee of the Board of Directors investigating the alleged misconduct of the controlling shareholders of Hollinger International submitted the 512-page Breeden Report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In the report, Perle is singled out as having breached his fiduciary responsibilities as a company director by authorizing several controversial transactions which diverted the company's net profit from the shareholders to the accounts of various executives. Perle received over $3 million in bonuses on top of his salary, bringing the total to $5.4 million, and the investigating committee called for him to return the money. Top Hollinger executives dismissed the report and have filed a defamation lawsuit against the head of the investigating committee, former SEC chairman Richard C. Breeden.

In a 513-page report shot through with sarcasm and disgust, a special committee of the publishing company Hollinger International Inc. concluded that the former officials Conrad M. Black and F. David Radler ran a "corporate kleptocracy," diverting to themselves virtually all the company's $400 million in earnings over seven years. The report, which was filed as part of Hollinger's effort to recover $1.25 billion from Lord Black and others, also criticized certain directors as being "ineffective and careless" in stopping the "systematic looting" of the company. And it reserved some of its harshest criticism for Richard N. Perle, the former Reagan administration official and current board member, calling on him to return $5.4 million in pay after "putting his own interests above those of Hollinger's shareholders."


...But its most scathing comments about a board member are aimed at Mr. Perle, singling him out for his "flagrant abdication of duty" as a board member. It said Mr. Perle, who headed Hollinger Digital, a unit of the parent company, while he was a board member, rubber-stamped a large number of deals that benefited Lord Black and others at the expense of Hollinger. According to the report, Mr. Perle admitted to the committee that he never read many of the documents or understood the underlying transactions before signing off on them.

For example, in 1997, Hollinger International lent its Canadian parent $42.5 million on terms that were "unfair" to Hollinger, in part because the interest on the loan was only 1.25 percent, the report said. Mr. Perle told the committee that "he did not remember anything about the loan or the consent he signed authorizing it." The report particularly criticizes a bonus plan related to various investments by Hollinger Digital that let Mr. Perle earn $3.1 million, even though the investments lost $49 million over all. "He should have resigned from the executive committee or the board should have replaced him," it said.

Hollinger Files Stinging Report On Ex-Officials, By GERALDINE FABRIKANT; FLOYD NORRIS CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FOR THIS ARTICLE. (NYT); Business/Financial Desk, Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 1, Column 2, 1942 words

===Perle may face SEC suit over Hollinger role===

March 23 2005 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has warned former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle that it may sue him for his role in the alleged looting of Hollinger International Inc., the Chicago-based media company once controlled by Conrad Black. Perle, 63, a Hollinger director, said in a telephone interview that he received and responded to a so-called Wells notice, a formal warning that the agency's enforcement staff has determined that evidence of wrongdoing is sufficient to bring a civil lawsuit. [20]

==Israeli influence on US foreign policy under GWB==

Perle has long been a target of criticism from the left, who view him as being a key force pushing US foreign policy in a militaristic direction. He has also been a target of criticism from paleoconservatives, who believe him to be pro-Israel and pro-Likud to the detriment of the United States. For example, in his 2004 book Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency, Pat Buchanan compares Perle to Fagin from Oliver Twist.

===A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm===

Perle chaired a study group that included Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others, that produced a strategy paper for the incoming Likud Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" [21].


The paper called for a "break” from policies of the past stated to have failed, such as “land for peace,” and a new concentration on the realities of “balance of power” in the region. The objectives stated "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq" was an "important Israeli strategic objective in its own right as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

Aspects of the strategy, such as the removal of Saddam from power in Iraq, were later adopted by the neocon led Bush administration post 2001. Stated objectives to "Challenge Arab countries as “police states” lacking in legitimacy," also seem to have strong rhetorical echoes of President Bush's drive for democracy and freedom in the middle East, post 9/11.

===Implementing the Perle / Feith Israeli security strategy===

The objectives given for the Israeli state are striking for the fact they could only be achieved with the actions, resources, and co-operation, of the U.S. government. Something Perle seems confident could be procured. To this end, it is notable that while at the Pentagon under the G.W. Bush administration, Perle brought in Pro-Likudnik radicals Frank Gaffney and Douglas Feith.

Feith of course then went on to staff the Office of Special Plans, which played a key role in manufacturing the bogus intelligence reports that led America to go to war with Iraq, mistakenly thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. This 'happy accident' of course completed the vision set out for Israel in 1996 by Feith and Perle, as set out in the A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" [22] policy document.

===Indictments for espionage at the Pentagon===

Notably, Larry Franklin, an analyst and Iran expert in the Feith office at the Pentagon, has been charged with espionage, as part of a larger FBI investigation (see AIPAC espionage scandal), and Feith has been investigated[23]. Questions remain over the extent of Israeli influence on American foreign policy during Perle's time at the Pentagon.

Richard Perle has been a fundraiser speaker for a front group for the ultra-violent Mossad backed terrorist group MEK or Mujeheddin-e-Khalq. This odd association appears to be a result of the MKO Mossad alliance after Iraq fell and Sadam Hussein was no longer able to protect the MKO.

== Noted advocate of war with Iraq ==

Perle was a leading advocate of the US-led invasion of Iraq (see also: U.S. plan to invade Iraq). He believed that Saddam Hussein's control of the Iraqi government was weak, and that an invasion of Iraq would remove Saddam from power within weeks.


"If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Richard Perle, quoted by John Pilger, about PNAC-AEI in "Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was 'a new Pearl Harbor'": http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

===On France===

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday.

Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally', By Martin Walker, UPI Chief International Correspondent

From the International Desk, Published 2/4/2003 8:43 PM

===On discredited intelligence===

In the leadup to the war, Perle also complained that C.I.A. officials were so hostile to defectors brought out of Iraq by the Iraqi National Congress that they refused to interview them and even tried to discredit them. "But ultimately, the flow of information was so vital and so overwhelming that they could no longer ignore it", he is quoted as saying. One such defector was Ihsan Saeed alHaideri, who claimed that chemical and biological weapons laboratories were hidden beneath hospitals and inside presidential palaces (New York Times, January 24, 2003, Judith Miller). If such weapons or evidence ever existed they were never found. Judith Miller has since retired from the New York Times in disgrace.

===On international law===

Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution."....."It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added.

Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally', By Martin Walker, UPI Chief International Correspondent From the International Desk, Published 2/4/2003 8:43 PM

On November 19, 2003, Perle said "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." [24] Tom Clancy wrote Battle Ready in collaboration with a war critic, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni. In a press conference held to promote the book, Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time, and a longtime advocate of the invasion. "He was saying how (Secretary of State) Colin L. Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said, 'Look ..., he's supposed to think that way!' And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me." Associated Press, 24/05/2004, 19:04

=== Iraq war in hindsight ===

"I would be the first to acknowledge we allowed the liberation (of Iraq) to subside into an occupation. And I think that was a grave error, and in some ways a continuing error," said Perle, former chair of the influential Defense Policy Board, which advises the Pentagon......We didn't have to find ourselves in the role of occupier. We could have made the transition that is going to be made at the end of June more or less immediately," he told BBC radio, referring to the U.S. and British plan to transfer political authority in Iraq to an interim government on June 30.

Published on Wednesday, May 26, 2004 by the Toronto Star, US War Policy 'Grave Error', Ex-Rumsfeld Aide Admits Occupation of Iraq a Failure, by Sandro Contenta

== Current activities ==

Perle's many business interests have been a source of controversy during and after his tenure in government. Among other engagements, he is co-chairman and director of Hollinger, Inc., a partner of Trireme, a non-executive director of Autonomy and a director of the Jerusalem Post (which is owned by Hollinger).

Perle has served as a Director of Hollinger International since June 1994 and is the only outside director on the executive committee. He is also Co-Chairman of Hollinger Digital Inc. and a Director of Jerusalem Post, both of which are subsidiaries of the Company. He has served as a director of GeoBiotics. Today he is a Patron of the Henry Jackson Society.

Perle is reported to have attended every Bilderberg group meeting from 2001 to 2006.

Perle is currently represented by the EB Benador Associates [25].

During a trip to the United Kingdom in June, 2006, Perle advocated a US war of aggression against Iran. Perle made public comments on the BBC 4 Today programme where he was interviewed by John Humphrys as well as before an audience at the Oxford Union.[26]

<!--*[http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L0494245.htm Perle: Iraq errors show West must act fast on Iran], [[Reuters]], [[February 4]], [[2006]]. Is it broken?-->

Signed: Travb (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with re-inserting this info. Justforasecond 05:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)



Jeez, parts of this article are as messy as they were when I last checked several months ago...

Anyway; I have a problem with this passage:

"In the leadup to the war, Perle also complained that C.I.A. officials were so hostile to defectors brought out of Iraq by the Iraqi National Congress that they refused to interview them and even tried to discredit them. "But ultimately, the flow of information was so vital and so overwhelming that they could no longer ignore it", he is quoted as saying. One such defector was Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, who claimed that chemical and biological weapons laboratories were hidden beneath hospitals and inside presidential palaces. (New York Times, January 24, 2003. Judith Miller) If such weapons or evidence ever existed they were never found. Judith Miller has since retired from the New York Times in disgrace."

Whilst I understand that the editor is trying to defend the CIA from Perle's accusations by listing an apparantly discredited defector, there appears to be no explanation as to why that particular defector has been listed. Does he have some kind of connection to Perle? Did Perle cite him as an example of a defector allegedly smeared by the CIA? The section says nothing of this. In other words, there appears to be no justification for linking the two other than to attack Perle. Similarly, the line "Judith Miller has since retired from the New York Times in disgrace" is both blatantly POV and lacks any meaningful association with what she wrote in the cited article. I'm removing everything after "quoted as saying" until someone gives an explantion as to why this information merits inclusion. Edders 10:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor clean up

Removed "...and war criminal" from the introduction. Whoever did this; grow up. Edders 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Some help here?

I'm trying to clear up this article as best I can, but the whole thing is just terrible. It's full of POV statments, is regularly vandalized and is completely unbalanced in favour of criticisms (a number of them based on original research), all of which violate Wiki policy on biographies of living persons. To be blunt, the whole article needs to be restructured from the ground up. Anyone who wishes to help, PLEASE read the wiki guidelines on living persons to prevent this kind of situation happening again. Edders 10:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Still very messy, but I think I've got rid of the most blatant examples of POV. A lot of stuff still needs to be sourced, whilst some existing stuff need to be either dropped or replaced with a reliable source (see wiki policy on reliable sources). For example; the New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation etc. are examples of acceptable sources for an article on a living person. Indymedia, random political blogs, minor activist websites and the like are not. Edders 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Some more cleaning up. Had to remove "...Islamic World" section as all the links seem to be broken. Also removed the "ummah news" link, (whatever that is) as it was broken. This was the sole source cited for the claim that Perle was called the "Prince of Darkness" because he was opposed to arms control, therefore this claim has also been removed. To be fair, this entire section of the article is unsourced, but I'm not really prepared to remove another two whole paragraphs so hopefully someone can find some more references for it. Edders 11:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Removed the line about Perle threatening to sue Hersh as it was unsourced. Edited and moved some stuff into a new section: "Views on the United Nations".

Try this link:

You are removing factual comments that can be verified with 20 seconds work. Try google 'perle sue Hersh ' Works fine. Before you go around deleting other people's work, and arrogantly dismissing it, please take 20 seconds to try and verify it in future. Thankyou. Timharwoodx 19:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Totally removed the quote concerning Iraqis erecting a square/monument/statue for Bush. It was originally placed there as an editor's attack on Perle and constituted original research. Remember, if it doesn't rise to the level of a full-blown controversy, criticisms of living persons must be sourced to relevent and reputable sources. Edders 18:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to visit this article but I think your adjustments seem a little POVish. It is well known that Perle has been called the "prince of darkness"[27]. It's hard to believe that you haven't come across this nickname, but I guess it is possible. Justforasecond 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Re:the quote concerning Iraqis erecting a square/monument/statue for Bush.
How could this possibly constitute original research? It was clearly documented by the accompanying link to a webpage maintained by the American Enterprise Institute no less, which is certainly a reliable source for a quote.--CSTAR 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for taking the time out to help improve this article. Okay, first things first:

1: I'm not sure what you're getting at with the 'Prince of Darkness' thing. That information remains in the article, and is sourced. The only changes I made concerning this information was A: Removing it from the opening paragraph and B: Removing a paragraph that stated he picked up the nickname because he was a hardliner, as the cited source was a dead link. When you say you havn't visited the article yet do you mean you've not seen it before today? Much of the article is still POV/unsourced etc., which is what I'm trying to fix.

2: Justforasecond - You miss the point: I am not disputing that the event took place. However; there is no explanation as to WHY that quote should stay in the article. Originally it was left there with POV statements following it; for example "This was completely false" or "This turned out to be completely wrong". The only justification for keeping the quote would be either A: It was so well known that it could be considered a genuine controversy (which it was not) or B: The quote formed part of a criticism from a relevent/reputable source (which nobody has yet cited).

Edders 08:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I made the comment about the quote Bush Statue. I don't object to your removing "This was completely false" or "This turned out to be completely wrong". However, your claim that no justification was provided (or even exists) for why the quote was there, I don't believe is correct. Perle is frequently cited as one of the Iraq war proponents who claimed that the Iraq war would be easy and continued to claim this even after the August bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Whether that optimism was justifiable or not, it was (and continues to be) controversial.--CSTAR 14:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I keep mixing up users. Anyway, the problem with the Bush statue quote is that, assuming you put it in, how are you going to present it? Returning it to its' original form is problematic, because your average user will come across this quote in the article and wonder why it's here - on its' own it makes little sense. However, to justify it you need it to be a major controversy, which it is not. Being spread all over the blogs does not constitute a controversy: articles on political figures would be insanely long if it were. The most attention it recieved (at least that I'm aware of) was being publically criticized by leaders of anti-war groups in London, (I'm basing this on the Guardian article, which has dissapeared into the archives thanks to this revert) none of whom most people will have ever heard of. Give me a bit to go back and check out that link (if I can find it again, lol). Edders 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Also reversed the, er, revert done by an anonymous user who gave no justification for the revert. Edders 19:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that "Perle was one of the proponents of the Iraq war that controversially claimed that it would be relatively easy" is hardly controversial; it is reported on by the press in this country (as well as in blogs). Stated in other words, "that there was (and is) a controversy about Perle's formerly optimistic views about the Iraq war is not a controversy." The sourced quote you deleted provided evidence that Perle continued to hold optimistic views about the short term outcome of the war, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The quote records a fact, a fact which is relevant to Perle's political life. Removing that fact seriously distorts the image that this article gives of him. --CSTAR 21:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; I seem to have made an error. The link I was referring to is actually controversy involving a completely different matter - Perle opinion of the War's legality, which I added to the article during earlier edits. Therefore the George Bush statue/square quote is an even less appropriate subject for the article. The only reliable source we have here merely confirms that he said these words - it has nothing to do with criticism or controversy. Look, at the end of the day until you can find sources confirming that Perle's words were widely controversial there's no justification for retaining the quote.

P.S. Whoever (usually an anonymous user) keeps reverting the line about Perle being called 'POD' because of his position on Nuclear arms reduction - stop it. The source for this claim is a DEAD LINK. Edders 10:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your assertion: Look, at the end of the day until you can find sources confirming that Perle's words were widely controversial there's no justification for retaining the quote.
No justification based on what principle? Certainly not based on anything in WP:BLP, since Perle is quite a public figure and he made these statements in a public venue and there is nothing "out of context" in the quoted segment.
The relevant questions are the following
  • Was Perle's optimism vis a vis Iraq war controversial?
  • Is this quote relevant to that controversial view?
I believe I have argued that the answer to both those questions is yes. Unless you show that there is something fallacious in my premises or my argument, the quote should go in the article.--CSTAR 13:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems as if you're making the same error each time you try to justify the edit. So far nobody has provided any reliable sources criticizing Perle's statement beyond activist websites and left wing blogs. These constitute neither a controversy or relevent criticism. Read the 'Reliable sources' section of the WP:BLP; it makes it clear that:

"Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)."

Similarly, in the 'Critics' section it is stated that:

"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Criticism should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association."

Removed 'kitten rape' claim.

............. Edders 20:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (Emphasis mine)

Edders 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

Does wiki use American or U.K./Canadian spelling? I used "defence" and it was corrected, so now I'm not sure. Edders 17:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is externally referenced material being systematically removed from this page?

I can't be bothered to find out who mangled this page, but externally referenced comments are clearly being systematically removed. Perle did threaten to Sue Hersh. It took me all of 20 seconds to find mainstream news references to the incident, yet Edders calls it POV. How can something that takes 20 seconds to locate in google under the keywords "Perle sue Hersh" be POV? I'm now going to have to put back much of the material Edders has removed. Look, its not my fault Perle is an Israeli spy. The FBI caught him doing that, not me. Thats just reporting the externally verifiable facts about the man. The fact the facts seem to offend the feelings of some folks, is not the point. If this removal of externally referenced material continues, I'll have to ask for some external moderation. Its ridiculous. Does Edders work for Perle, or something? Timharwoodx 19:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just created a new references section, and added 3 references, 2 of which are from the New York Times! Does Mr Edders regard the New York Times as an acceptable external source or not? Because much of the stuff he has recently deleted from the article, can indeed be found in the New York times archives, via simple key word searches. Timharwoodx 20:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


As you may be aware, wikipedia frowns on unsourced material, particularly when it concerns living persons. The information I deleted involved a legal matter and was unsourced hence I removed it, as per the usual policy of this site. You may also have noted I have repeatedly stated in my edits that if people can properly source unsourced material that I remove then it is perfectly acceptable for them to include that and help make a better article. I'm sorry if you were offended by my attempts to clean up this article, but that is no reason to make nonsensical accusations of working for Perle or being arrogant and wasting your time, as you felt inclined to point out on my usertalk page. You may recall something called "giving wikipedia editors the benefit of the doubt", though I'm having difficulty finding an official wikipedia policy on "acting like a small child". Please try and calm down, and maybe have another look at the wiki user guide, particularly the guidelines on criticism and sourcing claims. Edders 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference to Perles motivation for instigating the Iraq war, ie. that it was about 'preventing another Holocaust', much needed

You cannot ask for a clearer proof as to why this individual so passionately promoted war against an old foe of Israel and the palestinians best friend and benefactor. In an interview with the BBC's Steve Bradshaw in April 2003, when he and his fellow-lobbyists (Michael Ledeen,WILLIAM KRISTOL and JOSHUA MURAVCHIK) were triumphant(and perhaps incautious) following the (staged) pulling of Saddams statue, he said:

>BRADSHAW: But the Neo-conservative hawks say history shows there really is good and evil, especially the history of Europe in the last century. The appeasement of Nazi Germany that led to the holocaust hovers over their view of the world and its dark possibilities.

RICHARD PERLE: (US Defence Policy Board) For those of us who are involved in foreign and defence policy today, my generation, the defining moment of our history was certainly the holocaust. It was the destruction, the genocide of a whole people, and it was the failure to respond in a timely fashion to a threat that was clearly gathering. We don’t want that to happen again when we have the ability to stop totalitarian regimes we should do so, because when we fail to do so, the results are catastrophic.<

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/thewarparty.txt

Knowing that Saddams Iraq was very much contained, had sanctions and a no-fly zone implemented on it, and that virtually all its weapons had been destroyed since 1991 by the UN, for a jewish hawk to refer to the removal of Saddam as a way to avoid another Holocaust, speaks lenghts about a distorted view and a very narrow horizon, indeed. It talks about the selfishness of the jewish people and their leaders,- being willing to trick the worlds only superpower to fight a dirty war on their behalf.

The United States of America MUST take action against these un-elected clerics, who tricks it into wars far away, that have allready costed more american lives than perished in the Twin Towers on 9/11.(and 650.000 iraqie civilians lest we forget)

Fictional Conversation

Schmuel Abramovitch (fictional):" I think what he meant by holocaust was not so much the jewish holocaust and a repetition hereoff, but rather his reluctance to see iraqies experience something similar."

Me: "Right. He must be pleased now to see how well it goes in Iraq." Secondly, the war in Iraq was never about either Saddams human right accord nor about relieving iraqies from persecution, which also never can be likened to a 'holocaust'.

Schmuel Abramovitch: " I dont know what to say. You are clearly smarter than me"

Sir-John-Peters 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Sir-John-Peters; thanks for participating in the discussion but try to construct your points in a way that allows other wiki editors to get straight to what you're arguing for; e.g. A simple sentence on how you think this information helps build an informative encyclopedic article etc rather than writing it as if you're arguing a point in a newspaper column. Thanks and good luck. :) Edders 17:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't really understand the point of the latest edit; "lobbyist" has been added to the introduction, which doesn't really matter either way, but for some reason "extensively" has been changed to "a lot". Isn't the former a better choice of words? Edders 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll change it back then Edders 14:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Perle's relation to PNAC

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century we are told that PNAC was "co-founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan", and both these names are prominent at http://www.newamericancentury.org/ .

But at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle we are told that Richard "Perle is co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)".

Can someone accurately describe the extent of his involvement with PNAC?

FrederickNoelChase 16:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC) FederickNoelChase 2007 Jan 8

In SourceWatch's description of PNAC, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century, Perle is listed as a later joining member, not a co-founder.

He also was not one of the 25 signatories on their founding statement of principles: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I'd say remove this statement entirely. KellyLogan 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

With no other verification on the co-founder claim, I'm removing it. Please put a solid reference in before putting it back. - KellyLogan 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's review the NPOV tag

I didn't see the original version when this tag was placed last year, but from the discussion and after reading the article now I think that we should be able to pull the tag.

Please note here if there are any overall issues with the article. At the very least, I think we should be able to move to disputes on a couple of sections instead. KellyLogan 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? NPOV tag going once. . . - KellyLogan 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag going twice. . . - KellyLogan 18:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag going, going, gone! - KellyLogan 15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the whole Business controversy section

Could people have a look at this section and see what they can do. I think most of the controversies are conflict-of-interest so if we use that as a header and divide it up into individual cases that would help :) Try to get a few more citations for recent events - a couple of the charges just seem to have been left there without any update, and remember how careful wiki demands living people's biographies to be, especially where allegations like this are concerned :) Edders 02:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Registered Democrat

He should not be listed as a Democrat. He embodies the antithesis of Democratic principles and assuredly hasn't supported a Democratic candidate in thirty plus years. This is quite misleading.

Well, he has not voted for a Democrat in a long time, but he is registered as one, so I think we have to go with that. I changed the text in the box from from 'democrat' to 'registered democrat' and added the footnote to emphasise this point. I think the body of the text makes it clear his political views are much more closely aligned with certain portions of the Republican community. Thom2002 20:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

agreed- thank you Astuishin (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

Was this guy born in New York or Los Angeles? 

 216.15.45.30 16:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Michael


"Bribery Accusations and Alleged Conflicts of Interest": What to do about this section?

Does anyone have any thoughts on how this part should be improved? Aside from the fact I'm a little dubious about leaving in accusations of bribery that havn't been updated in about three years, I think it should be rewritten as more of a "criticisms and controversies section" since much of it is taken from editorial hatchet jobs by the NYT and the Nation. It's pretty much remained unchanged since the major overhaul of the article I started about a year or so ago, aside from honest editors like Oakshade and others removing a lot of libelous material stuffed in there by vandals. Personally I still feel there is far too much of this kind of stuff here compared to 'official' or 'encyclopedic' material. Shame he hasn't written an autobiography we could use to pad out his life a bit. Edders 19:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle name

There's a message on the help desk (Wikipedia:Help_desk#Richard_Perle) from someone who claims to work for Mr Perle, stating his middle name is Nathan, not Norman. Is there a reliable source for his middle name? As best I can tell, all the google hits for "Richard Norman Perle" are Wikipedia and various mirror sites. But I can't find much for "Richard Nathan Perle", either. I know there's references for "Richard N. Perle", so it definitely starts with an N. Neil ム 08:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to cite Perle's family's religion?

I am uncomfortable with the relevance of the phrase, "Perle was born in New York to a Jewish family". I checked a number of other biographical links from this page, and none of those say, "____ was born to a Christian family". Why is this appropriate in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.29.10 (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I never really knew what to do with this line. I think (don't quote me on this) that many articles say things like "born to a xxx family" if the religion is a minority in that country, or it's a particular branch of a religion etc. etc. That said, I wouldn't be suprised if it was added for malicious purposes (browsing the pages of other neoconservative figures will reveal some people's unhealthy interest in whether that particular individual has some link to Israel and/or Judaism). As it stands I don't think there's anything wrong with it - just an innoculous detail of his personal life. Edders 11:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of breaking WP:AGF, I agree with Edders above that the lines about Perle's Jewish background probably were inserted maliciously, most likely by a user with an anti-Semitic agenda. However, that doesn't mean we should remove them: we should only remove controversial material about living people, and I wouldn't say Perle's Jewish background is controversial (or, indeed, disputed).
The allegations of him being an agent of Israeli influence, on the other hand (see the 'On Isreal' section) are rather more serious; that's definitely controversial, but on the other hand it's also sourced (to a book called 'They Dare To Speak Out' by Paul Findley). I have my reservations about that section, but as long as it's made clear that these are allegations only, and not widely-supported ones, I think the article can keep them in and still remain on the right side of NPOV. Terraxos (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It seems strange to imply an anti-Semitic agenda. Those born to Jewish families with political views opposed to Perle's (for example, Noam Chomsky, Normal Finkelstein, Karl Marx, and countless others) have the information about their Jewish background in their profile. In an encyclopaedia, this is interesting information, not least to Jewish people. It seems disrespectful to cull this information. If we do not mention Perle's Jewish background, we should not mention anyone's religious/cultural background. But the fact is, almost always, we do. Just look at the Wikipedia articles on prominent figures with a Jewish background. Perle should not be a special exception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liquidswords (talk • contribs) 03:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Perle's kitchen

It's odd that nothing in the article describes Perle's culinary skills and interests, which I've read are quite impressive. He's reputed to have one of the finest kitchens in Washington. I have no solid information about this, but I assume someone else does. (I think this is an apolitical comment!) Paul Abrahams (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for this? Badagnani (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I did just turn up a source:

Boston Globe, Perle's pulp fiction by Mark Schone, January 11, 2004

Schone writes:

The glowering, caterpillar-browed Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense under Reagan, has long been known as the Prince of Darkness for his uber-hawkish views. He is also a gourmet chef. These days, when he isn't devouring coq au vin at his vacation home in Provence, he's serving on the Defense Policy Board, an influential civilian advisory panel to the Pentagon.

Perhaps someone else can figure out an appropriate way to work this information into the article. I don't see an easy way to do it.

Paul Abrahams (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Error

There are so many errors on this page, it would take ages to correct them. Here's one which is easy enough for you to check. Respecting the Hollinger civil suit, the plaintiffs dismissed the suit against Richard which was utterly unfounded. And the corporation ended up wasting more of the shareholders' assets pursing this meritless claim against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.219.100.63 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation for "Prince of Darkness"

The nickname "Prince of Darkness" has been so widely used that it deserves a place in the article whether or not it is justified. It was used as the title of a book about Perle:

Prince of darkness, Richard Perle: the kingdom, the power and the end of empire in America By Alan Weisman Edition: illustrated Published by Sterling Publishing Company, 2007 ISBN 140275230X, 9781402752308 291 pages

That should serve as an adequate citation.

Paul Abrahams (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Shadow Elite

It seems like every bit of information cited under the first reference "Shadow Elite" is controversial, slanted or just ridiculous. I'd advise getting rid of it all. As it is I just got rid of a couple ridiculous lines that basically said all neoconservatives use their positions for personal gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.63.167 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Perle/Archives/2013&oldid=1137157307"