Talk:Donald Rumsfeld/Archive 1

Secretary of Defense

"Donald Henry Rumsfeld (born July 9, 1932) was the 21st United States Secretary of Defense, since January 20, 2001, under President George W. Bush."

This may be a bit pedantic, but to me this sentence seems to be saying that Mr. Rumsfeld is the 21st secrectary of defense since January 20, 2001. As in literally, there have been 20 other secretaries of defence since 1-20-2001. Does it strike anyone else that way? Moulding 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

---

"Having served under President Gerald Ford, he is both the youngest and oldest Secretary of Defense

What does this mean exactly? That he was the youngest when he started and that he's now the oldest? Am I the only one who had to re-read a few times to get it? Could this be made clearer..? MikeCapone 04:56, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think it has been clarified now. --Lowellian 03:38, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

e was BOTH he was secretary under 2 different administrations Tomgreeny 18:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Degree

In "(AB, 1954)", what does "AB" mean? -- Mpt 18:38, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It means that he graduated from Princeton University in 1954 with a degree as a Bachelor of Arts.

I've always heard a Bachelor of Arts degree referred to as a "BA". Am I missing something?

Some of the schools in that time period and before reversed the abbreviation-- if Princeton did that then AB is right and perhaps AB could be linked to an explanation that it's a bachelor's degree

No, this common format uses initials for the Latin equivalent of "bachelor of arts" (artium baccalaureus). Many colleges and universities do this, including Princeton and Harvard. (Note that Ph.D. is an abbreviation for philosophiae doctor. I'm not aware of any school that grants the D.Ph.) ... —OtherDave 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Selected quotations?

It seems to me that "quotes" in a wikipedia article are supposed to be clever or witty things a person has said. Not these bizarre, damning, selected quotations with square brackets and so forth. They make the article look awkward and blatantly biased. user:J.J.

I wouldn't hesitate to include infamous quotes if they were really important (Chamberlain's "Peace in our time", for example). While I suspect the quotes currently selected for Rumsfeld are part of a subtle hatchet job, he did say them and they are of interest. I guess the counter-balance is to find some more positive/brilliant quotes. --M4-10 18:51, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

No fan of Rumsfeld I, but I agree the quotes seem to be a (not so) subtle hatchet job rather than giving a good overall picture. I suspect there are quotes that could be better selected to be just as damning and more 'big picture'ish. Anyway, there are plenty of web pages of incriminating Rumsfeld quotes to link to.Gzuckier 15:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed on the obvious political shading inplied by the quotations. As argued on just about every other politically controversial talk page regarding quotations, the bulk of the quotations should be the domain of WikiQuote. C'mon - 16 entries? Many of the quotes are just plays on others not originally attributable to Rumsfeld (i.e. Squirrel/nut, criticism/inaction) and others have just way too much dis/mis-ambiguation inserted that it's plain to see that the context is nonexistant. I say pare it down to 3 or 4 unique, NPOV quotes that stand on their own, and are relevant to critical points in his career and history. My personal picks would be:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

"Our task, your task... is to try to connect the dots before something happens. People say, 'Well, where's the smoking gun?' Well, we don't want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction."

and

"Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is 'bold, exciting, innovative, and new.' There are many ideas that are bold, exciting, innovative and new, but also foolish."

--[[User:Detriment|Detriment (T-M-C)]] 29 June 2005 04:30 (UTC)

No opinions regarding the overuse of quotations? I'll be paring them down in a few days if nobody can justify the section being left as-is. Detriment 08:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent page, well done to all concerned. --bodnotbod 13:54, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

This page is has a decidedly "anti-Rumsfeld" lean which should be obvious, even to the casual observer. --JR

Agreed. I would be in favor of killing the whole section. Having a list of quotations does not advance the article in any way. The current set of quotations is so selective and gives the article so much POV, it's ridiculous. -Vontafeijos 21:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

yes this section is an obvios NPOV which has been stated for 2 years according to the posts above. I vote delete for the quotes. also the Ray McGovern part should be moved to his own page becouse of its irrevelence to rumsfeld's life but obviosly a high point in Mr. Mcgoverns.--204.10.247.1 11:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)sorry forgot to sign in--MadDogCrog 11:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting the section now. -Vontafeijos 04:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib

---

Abugraib was unacceptable-- but was a war-crime only in the eyes of a rabid Lefty.

Saddam Hussein committed REAL torture, how come you don't talk about that?

More lies from the Left, that's why.

128.138.96.17 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld is a war criminal. How come the article doesn't mention this? --24.200.35.253 23:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Biographies require citations per the Wikipedia policy on articles dealing with living persons. Please cite authority that has adjudicated this matter and found that Rumsfeld is a war criminal, and the article can be changed to reflect it.

There's far too much detail about Abu Ghraib in here IMO. The stuff about what he knew, when, doesn't need to be here especially considering that it's all breaking news changing day by day anyway. Especially considering that there is almost no other info about his military campaigns. There wasn't even any mention that he ran the Iraq War at all until I just added it. Mdchachi|Talk 15:55, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

War crimes tend to be in that class of important things an encyclopedia should note. orthogonal 05:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

War crimes... Aww! Poor terrorists... Perl guy 19:58, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)

Justice is a blind woman holding a scale. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not a matter of "poor terrorists". The picture is much bigger than that. When ignoble emotions are allowed to take precedence over reason, one's actions become counter-productive. Kevin Baas 17:05, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)

Nobody has at all shown in a convincing manner that any war crimes took place. All we have is bunch of C/O forcing the prisoners to do frat house type hazing. For this several investigations have been started/concluded and the people held responsible are being punished. It's silly to blame Rummy for actions of some immature soldiers. Rummy himself has said that he dissaproved of of what took place at Abu Ghraib Klonimus 03:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

"...the people held responsible are being punished." So war crimes did take place?? It is hard to imagine a single war since the phrase "war crimes" has been coined that war crimes have not occurred. However, that does not mean that Rumsfeld is a war criminal. Should Robert McNamara be considered a war criminal because the My Lai massacre happened on his watch? Those on the left have accused Bush and his administration of countless things. That does not make everything they have been accused of a controversy. Mentioning the Abu Ghraib incident in connection to Rumsfeld is important for this encyclopedia because of the media sensation it was. However, one organization that tries to find a court to accuse Rumsfeld as a war criminal doesn't make a significant controversy. Such an item would belong in a book long biography. Mentioning it here is an attempt by his detractors to legitimize their accusations, where no court will.

If Rumsfeld's policies directly led to war crimes then it would be fair to call him a war criminal. Rumsfeld authorized the harshest interrogation methods in American history. He pressured the pentagon brass to provide actionable intelligence by any means. However I would tend to say that an international tribunal would decide who is or isn't a war criminal. So at the most you could say Rumsfeld was behaving like a war criminal. Robert McNamara has himself said that he and others working with him behaved as war criminals during the firebombing of Japan and the war in Vietnam. Had the US lost the war, McNamara would have been on trial at Nuremburg. --Sirkeg 04:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

For what I have understood, "war criminal" is a legal notion. Rumsfeld has not yet been trialed and found guilty of being a war criminal. Casting a moral judgement is one thing, legal matters are another. Rama 16:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

still, Abu Ghraib was a big thing, and at least deserves plenty of attention. AndrewAL 22:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Geneva convention

On June 17, 2004, Rumsfeld admitted during a news conference that he had personally ordered two prisoners to be concealled from the International Committee of the Red Cross, one at Camp Cropper, at the instigation of CIA chief George Tenet - in apparent violation of the Geneva Convention.

Where is the evidence that this violated the Geneva Convention? Who was the prisoner and do we know if the Geneva Convention applied in his case, i.e., was he a legal combatant captured wearing the uniform of a signatory nation? Because if he wasn't, the Geneva Convention explicity states he would not be protected under the Geneva Convention. TimShell 08:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rumsfeld was widely criticized for the issue, that should be reported. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court ruled that the treatment of prisoners by the Bush administration violated US law. Get-back-world-respect 16:35, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tim, I think you are misinformed about what, according to the Geneva Conventions, constitutes a protected person:

"Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." -Part 1, Article 4, GCIV

Kevin Baas | talk 17:38, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

---

Perhaps the 'Articles' section should provide some sort of disclaimer or notification that some of the articles linked to are POV. -Fogger 22:10, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Military Service

Is it just me, but there is no mention of his military service, considered for both John Kerry, and President Bush there are extensive sections, shouldn't there be even a basic mention of Rumsfeld's Service in the US Navy? PPGMD

Mr Rumsfelds' Naval survice was "truncated". Therefore the original mention of "three Calander years of Navy service". It seems that he, Mr. Rumsfeld wast TAD on an U.S. Army Post. His personal actions toward a "femail U.S. Army person" was not appreciated. A complaint was made and Mr. Rumsfeld was then in "hac" for his personal actions to the young U.S.Army person. Should this complaint have gone to Courts Marshal, it was likely tolead to a conviction! So he used his influence and exited the Navy quietly through the side door. My source was a serving Army Person from that Army Base. I find no reason to believe that he lied or had anything to gain by such a disclosure. S// G.E. Anderson USMC Serial :1054898 FMF Korea 1950/51

Fine, if we are going to leave this unsubstantiated rumour on this Web site then I will comment upon it. Why isn't this comment signed? Who wrote this? Why don't you come out and state who you are? I will tell why you don't because you are lying. This is a flat out BS rumour and you are using Wikipedia to put it on the Internet. Step up and state who you are. Step and state what information that you have to back this up This is just simply misuse of the Wikipedia system to get a flat out bald-faced lie onto the Internet. Why hasn't any respectable newspapers know about this allegation. You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie. Until you provide some type of hard evidence then this is a lie. If it put into the article I will tear it immediately and if it is put back in then I will rip out the damn lie again.-----Keetoowah 02:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"You are making an allegation without any support for the allegation that make your allegation BS and a lie" *Cough* *cough* Rama 08:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant flame war about Kerry, Gore, France

Hey Rama Kerry is a loser and so is Gore.-----Keetoowah 14:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Since you say "Kerry is a loser and so is Gore" without providing references, according to your initial statement, I assume you mean that they are great men, right ? But what does it have to do with the present topic ? Rama 14:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of course the fact that Kerry is a loser and Gore is a loser has nothing to do with the current topic--just like your previous *Cough* *Cough* comment has nothing to do with current topic. If your comment did have something to do with the current topic then please explain what the heck that is and also Heinz Kerry is shrill pig.----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Saying that something which is not documented is false is a trivial logical fallacy. I am sorry not to have made my remark more explicit. I also should say that I find your insistance to compliment these Kerry people extremely odd, but since it would likely draw us further from the topic of the article, I won't ask you what you mean by that :) Somebody is a dirty pig to you too and cheers ! Rama 14:53, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah, you should probably stop assuming that anybody who tries to develop Wikipedia articles following the policy of neutral point of view and adds content that is critical of the current US administration is necessarily a supporter of Kerry or Gore. Not everybody is interested in petty US political squabbling. David.Monniaux 14:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, exccccuuussee MEEEE! Not! Look if you don't like it you don't have to read it. Also, the original point of this discussion was a rumour placed on this particular Talk page about Rumsfeld. So if you have anything useful to add to that discussion let's hear. What information do you have??? Do you feel better that you lectured me? I haven't changed one bit, but I was just wondering if it gave you some kind of feeling of power??? Look if you have anything, I mean anything at all constructive to add to the discussion about the rumour that started this thread then let's hear it.-----Keetoowah 14:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I looked at your background and I see that you are French. I'm so sorry for you. What's it like living in a former world power that is nothing but an impotent, second-rate country with an inferiority complex??? Wait don't tell me, from your comment I already know. It tees you off that no one and I mean no one pays any damn attention to you any more, so much so that you have to buy Saddam's oil off of the black market and invade third world countries like the Ivory Coast and then lecture Americans. But Americans don't care!!!! We just laugh at you and ignore you. Have A Frog Day!!!------Keetoowah 15:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mmmh. Perhaps you don't care, but you've just violated Wikipedia's policy against personnal attacks. Remember that repeat violations will get you blocked, or banned altogether.

I did NOT attack you personally. I did NOT violate any policy. That is a figment of your imagination. I attacked the country of France. Now, back to the article. You keep telling me to focus on the article but neither you, David.Monniaux or Rama have explained why the rumour, which is the subject of this tread, should be on the Rumsfeld Wikipedia page. As far as I can tell I have asked both of you for your input on that topic at least two times each and I haven't got a respond to that topic yet. I have received is a lecture from David.Monniaux explaining his personal opinion that I should not refer to "Kerry is a Loser" and from Rama about logical fallacy of my argument. But I haven't heard one comment from either one of you on the actual topic of discussion, the substance of the matter, which is the rumour listed above about Rumsfeld. Remember you really shouldn't lecture someone about sticking to the facts at hand unless you yourself actually comment on the facts at hand, which you haven't done yet. I will repeat. Unless there is some evidence provided for the Rumsfeld rumour then it will NOT go into the article and if anyone puts it in the article then I will rip it out.-----Keetoowah 17:33, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this kind of attitude is unlikely to make you more popular: your statement was very clearly a personal attack against David.Monniaux ("Wait a minute. I looked at your background and I see that you are French. I'm so sorry for you. (...)"). In any case, racist and xenophobic rants are not more allowed than personal attacks. David.Monniaux already suggested that you refrained from making heavy allusion to other political personalities in an obvious attempt to annoy hypothetical supporting users -- which was your only response after I pointed a serious weakness in your initial argumentation. As for it, the unconfirmed piece of information will be investigated by users which would be interested before it will go into the article or be forgotten. Because the community in its entirety wants it this way; not because somebody entitles himself defender of the article. Rama 17:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for the rest, I will not answer to personal attacks that try to bring in irrelevant factors to the issue at hand. David.Monniaux 15:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was about to make a similar remark, but David beat me to it. Perhaps we might want to focus on the discussion and let othe factors aside. Rama 16:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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

Keetoowah, why do I get the felling that you are just some angry person who hates people??? ps. watching an angry investment banker argue with a genius is fun.

Confusing Tables

The two tables, located near the end of this article (Preceeded By) are quite confusing. Can someone who understands the intent improve the organisation? --Philopedia 30 June 2005 10:11 (UTC) Wow what a childish non-debate. You should probably grow-up and cut France a break, they gave you the STATUE OF LIBERTY, be nice or they might take it back!

Princeton Professor?

If I'm not mistaken, Donald Rumsfeld was a professor at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School during the late 70s. If correct, this ought to be taken up under privat career. Can anyone confirm. --Philopedia 30 June 2005 10:11 (UTC)

His biography on defenselink.mil fails to mention that. If he dropped out of law school and doesn't have a PhD, it's safe to say that he was probably never a professor at Princeton.

Good catch, Philopedia!

In 1977, Mr. Rumsfeld left Washington, D.C., after some twenty years of public service and lectured at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and at Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management prior to entering business. [1]

The School of International Affairs often has lecturers with backgrounds in public service, regardless of their academic credentials. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivial pointless quote

What is the second from last quote in the list:

"...or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon" (a possible slip up refering to the September 11, 2001 attacks[2])"

...supposed to mean. Am I, the reader, to believe that this is some kind of evidence of the truth of a wacko conspiracy proving the government actually shot down the plane and that the statement wasn't a simple gaffe in the same vein as when people inadvertently refer to the "9-11 WTC 'bombing'"? The quote is obviously simply one of Rummy's many phrasing flubs and is entirely non-notable. I will remove if there is no counter argument. --Deglr6328 07:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Counter argument: Should be kept as evidence of his verbal incompetence.

That's hardly a relevant argument. It was a mistake.

And the word "possible" clearly shows it was the author's intent to troll

Controversy

I did a little cleaning up and and added a "Controversy" section. Can't believe there wasn't one before. BTW, major kudos to whoever is maintaining this page. Palm_Dogg 04:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I am a registered independent, supported the Iraq War, and I am no fan of Rumsfeld. The Iraq War was controversial from the start, and Abu Ghraib is a sub-controversy of the same. Both deserve mention here, because Rumsfeld is a key figure in both. However, both deserve their own pages and details of Rumsfeld’s involvement and criticisms belong on those pages, specially sense no completely objective analysis is still possible.

One organization that tries to find a court to accuse Rumsfeld as a war criminal doesn't make a significant controversy. Such an item would belong in a book long biography. Mentioning it here is an attempt by his detractors to legitimize their accusations, where no court will. Its mere mention here is biased. It would be more appropriate to mention it an the Abu Ghraib page. User:IndependentThinker 00:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. BTW, I am a registered conservative, still support the Iraq War, and am a big fan of Rumsfeld. However, I'm also a NPOV nazi, so I may go overboard sometimes trying to present the other side. Palm_Dogg 01:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason Rumsfield is not tried is because the USA under the bush adminstation refused to participate in the International Criminal Court unless it was granted immunity. No court is trying him because no court CAN try him. your logic is invalid more than just the typical fallacy of deriving premises from conclusions. Kevin Baas^talk 18:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

well...that and the fact that the Iraq War 2003 was LEGAL. Seeing as how we used military action against Iraq in 2003 after Congress passed the AUMF in 2002 and we went based on the same basic WMD intelligence and under the same UN authority that Bill Clinton did when he took military action against Iraq in 1998. (why do people always seem to forget this fact??) Jeravicious 00:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that argument does presuppose that Clinton's bombings were legal too. I suppose it might win you some arguments against Democrats. --Saforrest 05:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

why 'former'

why is his wife the former Joyce Pierson? is Pierson her maiden name? was she married before? to whom?

if it's her first marriage then maybe Joyce nee Pierson??? Wikipedia must have a style rule for this. But former sounds like she changed bodies

I was bemused by it as well, but took it as a synonym for 'late' as in deceased. Can someone who knows what was meant by it please clarify that sentence. Far Canal 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, it does not mean "late" as in "deceased." It's just an older way of giving her maiden name, commonly used in the United States until the '80's or so. The idea was that before she was married, her "public" name was Joyce Pierson, and after marriage, it was Mrs. Donald Rumsfeld. If you were sending her mail, you'd have addressed the mail to Mrs. Donald Rumsfeld. References to her in a newspaper or magazine article would have been likely to have included a sentence informing readers that Mrs. Rumsfeld was "the former Joyce Pierson." You don't see this type of writing very much any more (if at all), and Wikipedia may well have a style rule on the subject.

The fact that it's so confusing suggests even without a style rule it would be wise to avoid. Either nee as suggested above (probably best option) or Joyce Rumsfeld formerly Joyce Pierson IMHO Nil Einne 12:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

medal of freedom

why was he given it. And following the swine flu discussion it comes out of the blue

controversy...

sub-section proposed:

9/11 – the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century

Some critics say Rumsfelds conduct in the morning of 9/11 might be inadequate to the duties of a secretary of defense. The allegations reach from `criminal negligence` to complicity and cover his duties as a political leader and as a military commander. [3]

The criticism to the transition of the military and society (mentioned above, see chapter `G.W. Bush Administration) was to be expected. So Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director, before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities testified already in 1999 "One may conclude that, in the absence of a strong external shock to the United States—a latter-day “Pearl Harbor” of sorts—surmounting the barriers to transformation will likely prove a long, arduous process." [4]

`The expression `Pearl Harbor´was used by Rumsfeld himself too 9.August 2001: “Rumsfeld further gave the game way by warning of the "increasing vulnerability of the US" to a "Pearl Harbor in space". [5]

As Bob Woodward informed us in "America's Chaotic Road to War" (Washington Post), "Bush tries to keep a daily diary of his thoughts and observations. That night, he dictated: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." [6]

In the morning of 9/11 Rumsfeld did not what his critics judge as being adequate to "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". Documents show that Rumsfeld got the information about the ongoing hijackings and that he then decided to take his breakfast with Wolfowitz and Senator Cox. [7]

So he was not present in the `war room´(National Command Center, about 300 feet from his office), he did not confer with his generals, with the FAA, with NORAD. Critics point out that he did not care for the scrambling of the jet fighters of Andrews Airforce Base, 10 miles away from the Pentagon. This missing of direct information of interceptors doing the so-called àir policing´ added up to the lack of information by his staff caused by his absense.

So no decisions were taken by him untill about 10:30. When Bush -25 minutes after getting the information "America is under attack" finally spoke to the press at 9:30, Rumsfeld still had breakfast with Senator Cox. [8]

Defenders of Rumsfeld argue

- he was not informed about the hijackings. (This is not true proven by fact, logic and law.)

- he was not responsible: as a political leader he had not to care for military duties (This is false again. If the standard operational procedures to scramble fighter jets fail it is the job of the superiors to ask why. In case of a `normal´ hijacking Rumsfeld would have to take decisions about release of prisoners, sending money, saving atomic plants, phoning Castro or whatever. Together with the president and vice-president or alone. His first duty is to be well informed in general and especially by the inspection of the hijacked plane by `his´ interceptors.)

- it was a police job to care for hijackings or a military job on low, local level (completely wrong: how could anybody know that the attacks were not the preliminaries of an all out war ?)

- he was misjudging the situation ( like the statement of Wolfowitz "There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately" [9] .But the opportunities to act otherwise are already pointed out. A misjudgement of a leader in this position by being not informed can be called criminal negligence)

- he was so shocked and unprepared that he could not act appropiately to the crisis (the MASCAL plan [10] shows how exactly Pentagon officials were prepared. The PENREN Pentagon Renovation ptrogramme was to be finished five days later for the wedge where AA77 plugged in. Hundreds of firefighters, police, paramedics and camerateams knew exactly what to do after the first impact, without having any foreknowledge about hijackings. Hundreds of millions of TV watchers knew already that the situation is critical and asked if the impacts must happen completely unhindered. `Jumpers´ knew what to do. They chose death when Rumsfeld chose breakfast.)

- he did not know how to react since the impacts of the four planes were so fast. ( This statement implies a thought from the aftersight: the knowledge of the attacks ending with Unuted 93. How could any commander know that ? At least after Andy Card stated “Amaerica is under attack” the plausibility check was done that hijacked planes – 3 at that time – impact into symbols of the U.S.A. –2 at that time. But should we not assume that the staff of Bush and the Pentagon officials had no foreknowledge that there was no more attack was to come ? How did they know: that`s all ?)

Critics and defenders both agree that the skies over the U.S.A. were full with interceptors in the afternoon and the following days. But this is not the subject of this argument.

---

I want to add that Rumsfeld didn't sign the cards for dead soldiers families in Iraq and that he had a machine do it. I don't know if I can find it considering this was 1-2 years ago and briefly showed on the news. Can someone find and add it?

JJstroker 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought....put it on your personal blog, put it on your "I hate Rumsfeld" website...but leave it out of a NPOV factual encyclopedia website. Thanks! Jeravicious 00:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the fact that Rumsfeld used a writing machine to sign letters of condelence is a well-supported matter of public record, see [11] and [12]. I believe he has even apologised for it. --Saforrest 05:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of Nine Angles

Is there ANY basis for this claim? I can't find confirmation of it anywhere... ka1iban 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why it's controversial.. Project2501a 23:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

no...i'm saying I can't even find anywhere it's even been said originally. I could write he has three testicles and is from the planet Gleemorp but that would be fantasy; just something I made up. With out even a "Soandso Magazine said..." or some kind of sourcing, this appears to be just that: fantasy, and it should be deleted. ka1iban 16:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

9/11

Interestingly evcen the discussion is vandalized. But whoever does it: you will never stop the information: ANDREWS AFB is existing 10 miles from Washington. 2 squarons of fighters there. 2 fighters have ben in QRA mission (24h a day alert, ready to scramble within 10 minutes). And RUMSFELD KNOWS THAT AND DID NOTHING to ask why the SOP to scramble these fighters failed.

Besoides: even unarmed fikghtes would have been able to provide informations. If they got scrambled.84.159.87.12 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was rather relevant that on 9/11, Secretary Rumsfeld was helping to carry injured people out of the Pentagon. It's the most important recent event in our country. Shouldn't what he did on that day be included?

perhaps you don't understand the point of this Wiki entry for Donald Rumsfeld. It's not to explain the factual details of his life and career...but rather to provide the reader with criticisms and bias regarding his life and to cast him in the worst possible light as possible. "Good acts" by Rumsfeld have no place here. Wikipedia = "The Blog for Liberals" Jeravicious 00:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Please just hurry up and go from your blatentroll to blatentvandal phsse, so we can get this over with, and you can wind up back on the indefblocked list, and you can go start on sock#35325--205.188.117.10 05:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely you're not talking to me...I've never vandalized an entry nor have I ever been blocked from editing in Wikipedia. This is a "Talk" section, where opinions/ideas are discussed. Jeravicious 17:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

not with the army you WISH you had...

Isn't this the full text of the quote? the tail end of the phrase "not with the army you WISH you had" was removed a few days ago, but I believe he said all of it. A Google search or two could confirm it...ka1iban 16:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

upon further examination, the full quote IS listed in the quotes section. Nevermind; I'm just not paying attention...ka1iban 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

---

Actually, I don't need to...I just restored it to how it was before.

---

It appears that the page has been vandalized. I have put up a little notice.

---

Some mention of the rumsfeld doctrine needs to be made, to refrence the page refering to it --maximusnukeage

---

I reverted the image to an earlier version. The white background just doesn't go along with the whitespace on the page. --Jiang, Talk 06:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Kissinger quote isn't in the cited source. Could somebody try to clarify it, or find a better source?

These comments are NOT neutral in point of view and are extremely poorly formatted. If you want them in the article so strongly, I suggest you reformat them and add them to the Controversy/criticism section, but they do not belong in his career summary section ka1iban 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an edit war here, but for the user who is continually trying to insert the content which begins... ">>>This was to be expected. So Andrew Krepinevich..." into the article, editing Wikipedia pages for clarity and within WP policy is not "vandalism". I removed your comments because they were critical and introspective of Rumsfeld. They are not neutral and if you want to keep them in, please feel free to rewrite them. Also, they may belong more in the controversy section (e.g. "Rumsfeld did nothing on 9/11") rather than the career summary section. Additionally, if you feel the article has been vandalized, a good place to post your concerns is on the talk page, not within the article itself.

Please post your opinions and intentions here before editing again, and please sign your comments (with 4 '~'s) so we know it's you. ka1iban 15:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No "edit war"? Good. I had the impression before. Now I will follow most of your advice. In my opinion the so-called "neutral" sentences like "Some critics have also argued that Rumsfeld" sound like bad jokes in comparison to what must be said. But "no war" - so I will rewrite it. About two days from now. This was me84.159.92.83 17:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC) And I will agree not to post in "career" - but I am not at all convinced not to do it. It is the top and turning point of his career. So I urgently ask you to open a section "9/11 - just for now as a part of the section "controversies". Have a nice weekend." "

I based my criticism on the assumption that the section on his career should remain a quick overview of his role(s) in government and business, without analysis of his effectiveness or performance. The questions your additions raise (did he react to 9/11 too slowly or without due concern?; is he incompetent? etc etc) seem more like criticism or controversy and not simple factual reporting. I think they'd go well in the controversy section. ka1iban 20:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Took out the vandalism allegation here. Posted a new version under `controversies`. Know that it is hard stuff - and I am very much looking forward what defenders might say and argue. It is me again84.159.84.217 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Have a good day and please post the section as son as possible. I do not find more neutralty than I put in. Defenders can only argue more when they see the allegations and the quotes. ---

Five days later now. I offered my 9/11 section here in the `discussion`and nobody discusses it. I see no edits. So I understand that I can post it into the article without being vandalized again.

No one has edited the article because the current version is pretty good and no one is "discussing" your proposed addition because you seemed appeased. You're free to make additions but please understand that others are free to make edits, as well. You should get a user ID so you're not just an IP address when you sign things. It'll help establish an identity on WP. ka1iban 15:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the flowers. i do not fear any discussion and edits. Especially I hope that information about the subject flourishes. If aspects get another note - why not ? The only thing which makes me feel uneasy is getting erased. This day and this man are too important not to shade a light on it. Thank you for your offer to help in registration. If it gets necessary I will adress it.

Controversy

I have removed the following content:

Some critics say Rumsfelds conduct in the morning of 9/11 might be inadequate to the duties of a secretary of defense. The allegations reach from `criminal negligence` to complicity and cover his duties as a political leader and as a military commander. [13]

The criticism to the transition of the military and society (mentioned above, see chapter `G.W. Bush Administration) was to be expected.

The first paragraph uses weasel words to attribute a viewpoint to nebulous 'critics'. Please provide a credible and verifiable source for these claims. The second sentence is also an uncited claim.

In the morning of 9/11 Rumsfeld did not what his critics judge as being adequate to "the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". Documents show that Rumsfeld got the information about the ongoing hijackings and that he then decided to take his breakfast with Wolfowitz and Representative Charles Cox (R-CA). [14]

This paragraph also attributes a viewpoint to nebulous 'critics'. It also presses a point of view in referring to Rumsfeld as "taking his breakfast", which none of the official sources describe.

So he was not present in the `war room´(National Command Center, about 300 feet from his office), he did not confer with his generals, with the FAA, with NORAD. Critics point out that he did not care for the scrambling of the jet fighters of Andrews Airforce Base, 10 miles away from the Pentagon. This missing of direct information of interceptors doing the so-called àir policing´ added up to the lack of information by his staff caused by his absense.

Again, nebulous 'critics'. "so-called" air policing. These are opinions which must be sourced.

So no decisions were taken by him untill about 10:30. When Bush -25 minutes after getting the information "America is under attack" finally spoke to the press at 9:30, Rumsfeld still had breakfast with Representative Cox. [15]

All the sources cited on the "alternative theory" site[16] seem to indicate that the breakfast with Cox ended sometime between 9am and 9:30am, if it matters. Most of that "research" seems to be a whole lot of confirmation bias.

What's left appears to be verifiable, though may need some grammar work. KWH 08:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

---

So my friens- what kind of discussion is this ? You REMOVE the whole text instead of asking me to prove this or that word, this or that allegation. Do you call such behaviour a discussion ? Imagine you would silence me in a public discussion and then, here in the private, "explain" why you silenced me ....

I expect YOU now to restore the text - I did my best several times. You are urged now to integrate what YOU demanded to know. "Weasel words", because YOU do not know, because YOU do not read the quotations. So here is the nebulous critic No.1: "Paul Hellyer, former National Defense Minister of Canada:... Why did the President just sit in the schoolroom when he heard the news? Why did he not acknowledge that he already knew what was going on? As a former Minister of National Defense, when the news came out I had to wonder. Why did airplanes fly around for an hour and a half without interceptors being scrambled from Andrews [Air Force Base]? Is it Andrews right next to the capitol?" [17]

Oh I see my friend- you trust "official sources" only. This is a so-called `circulus viciosus´ since "official sources" are not very eager to feed controversies in Wikipedia. But to make you happy I have an official one: "At 9 a.m. EDT Tuesday, as a hijacked Boeing 767 slammed into the World Trade Center, I was in the Pentagon in the private dining room of the Secretary of Defense. Don Rumsfeld, the Secretary, and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary, and I were discussing how to win votes for the Bush defense plan that is now pending in the House and Senate." [18] I must admit that I do not know hat they had, coffe or tea. There is no official source for that. I only know: they are not sitting in the "war room" nor in an office but in the morning in the private dinig room. If you believe private dining rooms are command centers I cannot help you any more. But you ask for "weasily critics" again. Her is no 2. Mr. Meacher was minister in the Blair government. "The war on terror is a bogus" he writes, and read what he writes about the missing jet fighters: [19]

And again from me: I will add some more "nebulous critics" later. But what you call "opinion" is fact. You spread your opinions here. A fact is: there were no fighter jets from Andrews AFB. How shall I prove something which nobody has seen in the air? If your opinion is that there were jet fighters please be so kind and tell us which interceptors were there to saveguard Washington D.C. And about "air policing": it is a NATO terminus technicus. If you do not know what it is - although the word explains itself and although the AFBs having interceptors to be scrambled can were discussed in teh internet it is YOUR problem. Now I am going to stop arguing. First I want the artile to be restored, if you want with edits and the above quotes. But do not try to censor "controversies" by eliminating them and launch meta-discussions. I do not fear the discussion, as you see. But the subject of discussion must be existent. Be aware that YOU showed that YOU are not informed and that I try to fill in the needed informations. Ask me, no problem. But do not remove informations which were unknown to you. The sources "seem to indicate" ? Is this the kind of quote you prefer ? You do not quote anything, it is just a pure allegation. in comparison I quote her Mr. Cox: "...and I were discussing how to win votes for the Bush defense plan that is now pending in the House and Senate. When minutes later, the Pentagon itself was hit..." As you may notice there is no remark that indicate that he stopped discussion before the "minutes later"-event. As you said "if it matters" For sure it does not matter even if you were right. Especially it does not matter as a cause to remove all the work I have done. Be ashamed. That matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.94.197 (talk • contribs)

---

Please note that it is incredibly confusing for you to interject your comments within my message, as I can hardly even tell who's talking. I have copied them above, probably mostly intact.

I won't respond to your individual points as they have nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals, and I think I have been clear in pointing out the problems with the text. Please read Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability and Neutral point of view. These are some of Wikipedia's core policies and are non-negotiable. You are very welcome and encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia if you follow these and other policies and guidelines. If you disagree with these policies and don't feel that your writing should be subject to them, then you are at the wrong place. KWH 06:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) ---

"If you disagree with these policies " nice try. I like that. Obviously for everybody it is you who disagrees with Wikipedia. It is you who tries to prevent any information about the two hours when Rumsfeld had to act as a secretary of defense. Wikipedia readers would like to know about Rumsfeld. Even IF YOU were right in your judgement about what I wrote (you are not, and the above controvery about vandalism shows that people agree that my words are according to Wikipedia rules)

So EVEN IF you were right and my work must be banned:

your position would be a lot stronger if you could provide an alternative version what Rumsfel did to protect America.

You are unable to do that. You just try to censor the Wikipedia article. That is all. it is obvious. More in the next days. it will have consequences.

(BTW: no problem with the edition of my answers as you did it. Good edits and good discussion: no problem. We cann all improve. ) This was me again 84.159.122.234 15:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) :-))

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so let me say one more thing and if we still can't agree, we should get third-party arbitration. I have no problem with your additions; they paint an interesting picture of what happened on 9/11. But they are speculative, which means that they take events (or alleged events) and try to determine what REALLY happened in a situation. That's not what happens on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a REFERENCE resource, useable solely for information and not analysis or editorialization of that information. That means that WP is neutral, objective, and sparse on speculation. Take an example of a newspaper article: a newspaper may report a story on the merger of two banks. It may say how much the new unified bank will be worth, or what it will call itself. It could report if the bank thinks they may have to cut jobs after the merger. But the newspaper CAN'T make its own guesses about if people will be laid off, or suggest new names or report that they're pretty sure the CEO is going to fire people because he's an evil man. That's not *news*, not reporting. It's just speculative on the part of the newspaper. That's what Wikipedia is like, only with 'reference' for 'news'. There is a precedent for wikipages where certain controversies or debates *themselves* are analysed (like U.S. government response to the September 11, 2001 attacks). I think your additions about Rumsfeld's actions on the morning of 9/11 would fit well there. ka1iban 15:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

---

So many words to camouflage your censorship. If I would follow you I would say "Rumsfeld sat in his dining room with Cox and Wolfowitz together" - which is of no interest and meaning at all.

Notice: I do not say once: "R. is an evil man" like you try to insinuate in your newspaper example. I point out the MEANING of sitting in the dining room without further assessment. The MEANING is only deductable by showing the duties and opportunities of a secretary of defense. The comparison may be judged this or that way (critics-defenders).

Without both informations (dining - no interceptors) nobody can ever understand what Rumsfelds role was on 9/11. You should decide if you make the proposal to send me into the nirwana of another article or that you have no problems to write about Rumsfeld on the monring of 9/11.

For sure the subject needs to be placed HERE. It is about Rumsfeld. He sat on his hands - without any speculation. It is fact. You cannot deny it. So you try to censor what others here already agreed to. More about that later. —This unsigned comment was added by 84.159.83.226 (talk • contribs) .

Nope, that's not how Wikipedia works. You're at the wrong site. There's 1,001 sites where you can criticize Rumsfeld all day, or even write your own blog and say anything you want. We don't do "critics vs. defenders". We just write an encyclopedia. And myself, I'm not a defender of Rumsfeld, for what it's worth. I've already pointed out our policy on verifiability and neutral point of view. You might figure it out if you read our guideline on Wikipedia:reliable sources, particularly the bit about Using online sources. It's not a personal thing, it's just that that's not what we do here. You might notice that they don't do it on the German Wikipedia either. KWH 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Too late...almost every paragraph in this article has criticisms of Rumsfeld in it. Go back and read it from top to bottom. I was going to try and clean it up and make it less biased, but that would take an entire rewrite. I Love Wikipedia!! Wikipedia = "The Blog for Liberals". Jeravicious 00:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

. Not too late for Happy Hour !

My offers to vandals and Censors

Answer a simple question first (yes/no): Is it important to know what the secretary of defense did on 9/11 to defend his country ?

If you answer YES, it is definetly necessary to put it into this encyclopdia

- restore my entry uncensored - restore my entry and edit it - make your own account what Rumsfeld did in these srucial hours

If you answer NO, these hours are of no interst for anybody

- remove the words of Armstrong about his first steps on the moon. They are only some words of an unimportant pilot some decades ago, and they lasted less than a minute. - Prepare for an edit war until the “Donald Rumsfeld” must be closed or - Let a third party decide what to do. Wikipedia community has wisdom enough to understand that it is impossible to hide that rumsfeld was sitting on his hands that morning. 84.159.119.16

This was from the Pentagon press briefing on Sept 15, 2001

Sec. Clarke - Well, the terrible moment was actually earlier at about 8:40, 8:45 when we realized a plane and then a second plane had hit the World Trade Center. And immediately the crisis management process started up. A couple of us had gone into the secretary's office, Secretary Rumsfeld's office, to alert him to that, tell him that the crisis management process was starting up. He wanted to make a few phone calls. So a few of us headed across the hallway to an area called the National Military Command Center. He stayed in his office. We were in these rooms maybe 200 feet away where we felt the concussion. We immediately knew it was something bad. We weren't sure what. When it first happened, we didn't know what it was. But again, all the wheels were in motion. Everybody was doing what they were supposed to be doing.

The secretary was in his office, really not that far away from the side of the building that got hit by the plane. He and another person immediately ran down the hallway and went outside and helped some of the people, some of the casualties getting off the stretchers, etc.

But, if you think it's relevant to include links to conspiratorial websites like http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/ (which someone above is using as their source) be my guest...it looks like some kid created that website Jeravicious 21:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your proposal, Jeravicious.

I 84.159.113.94 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) took the quote, edited it a bit, and posted it in full length. It would be nice if you add the source of that quote, and I will add the source of the Bush quote.

I knew it would be possible to come together since I made my six proposals. Long live Wikipedia ! Mr. Admin:

Whatever you believe, if you love Mr. Rumsfeld or not, nobody cares. You stop vandalism. Okay. You look for a good impression of the wikipedia information. Okay.

But even if you were a Republican, if you were a Rumsfeldian I do not understand why you take out any information what Rumsfeld did on 9/11. It was the only day in his entire life when he could prove his abilities as secretary of DEFENSE (not “attack”). The crucial two hours of terror he did not do anything. That is a proven fact. And you sort it out.

WHY?

Where is this proof that Rumsfeld did "nothing" in the hours following 911? I can't see how that statement could possibly be credible. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that he didn't do what you thought he should have done in those hours? Detriment 08:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

answer (A-E):

A) “Where is this proof”? Look for “Articles”.

B) “"nothing" in the hours following 911?” This is a wrong question because obviously I was not talking about the FOLLOWING hours but about the hours WHEN 9/11 occurred. And so it is obvious too that the issue is not NOTHING he did but “nothing about 9/11”

C) “he didn't do what you thought he should have done” This allegation makes the issue a personal problem between me and Rumsfeld. Which it is not. To make it cristal clear: What did you think he should have done? What does anybody think he should have done? I am so free to state: everybody expects the man responsible fpr defense to defend. Which includes: - go to the war room - confer with your generals, FBI, FAA, NORAD about the situation to get a picture - ask for the interseptors especially of Andrews AFB (“Where are they ? Why are they not been scrambled?” and so on) - make first decisions

D) conclusion “Wouldn't it be more accurate to say …” No, not at all. It is a fact that the two hours existed. If you do not want me to fill the description of this period of time feel free to do it yourself. YOU TELL US what he did when you have better information. My guess is you cannot tell the public that these two hours were not crucial in world history. Additionally you cannot find other information than that which I tried to provide.

E) So my question stands: WHY ? Why are you blocking ANY information about what Rumsfeld did in these hours ?

I have added sources for your additions and edited them for clarity and brevity (Senator's Clarke's testimony is available through the link; no need to reproduce large sections of it here). Hopefully we can move on from this now. ka1iban 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes . ka1iban, I like that edition very much now. It is to the point, written by a native speaker, concise. Just okay. The only thing I wanted is that these hours in his life are mentioned. Now every reader who is interested may go on, read more, conclude this or that - but he knows where Rumsfeld was and what he did. Tht`s all. Finish. Thank you. 84.159.113.94 20:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal

This Text was removed: "Within 60 minutes of American Airlines Flight 11 striking the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld raised the defense condition signaling of the United States offensive readiness-to DefCon 3, the highest it had been since the Arab-Israeli war in 1973.[20] " Norad actions can not be pointed back to Rumsfeld. And even if the statement was true it was much too late. Remeber Andy Card saying "America is under attack" at 9:05.

The statement is verifiable and has nothing to do with Norad, nor is it intended to.

So why do you not provide a reliable source ? And I add again: "America is under attack" was OFFICIALLY noted at 9:05. Not 60 minutes later.

I have added a link to the 9/11 report [See page 554 - footnote 8 for chapter 10] - it clearly states that the secretary of defense directed the nation's armed forces to Defense Condition 3 - This is for all the armed forces.

The new source you have added - the report - is a good source for the times which I changed according to the commissions reprt. Your mistake was only 60 minutes which I had to add. I added as well Andrews AFB which was "on highest state of alert", that is QRA, too. See their own homepage. It would be unfair to forget the Washington based AFB. Do not remove it, this site is on my watch now again.84.159.78.80 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for the statement that Andrews AFB had fighters at QRA on 9/11? "Miraculously both were too late. Andrews AFB in Washington, home base of Airforce'1 and of two squadrons of fighters, di not scramble their pair of F-16s in QRA (quick reaction alert, a NATO SOP) for airpolicing."

Additionally: hijackings without any impacts in towers are under NORAD and Rumsfeld duties too. So the timeline for their failure begins at 8:13.84.159.105.190 07:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

his text has again been removed:

Rumsfeld's activities on September 11 2001 were outlined in a Pentagon press briefing on September 15 2001. [21])

Some critics feel that his actions were ill-advised or incompetent, and that his alleged slowness in reaction was unacceptable in response to what some have called the "Pearl Harbor of the 21st century". [22] Specific actions which have been criticized include his remaining in his office when the crisis management process was ramping up, his resolve in keeping his morning schedule which included a breakfast with then US Representative Chris Cox, and his failure to oversee the launching of interceptor jets from Andrews Air Force base, which some believe may have changed the day's outcome. [23]

I see that as soon as this text was added to the article, it appeared shortly thereafter on the cited site www.medienanalyse-international.de. I don't believe that this is coincidence, and shows that the site in question is a personal website which should not be used as a source per our policies and guidelines on verifiability and reliable sources. It appears that our policy on no original research and advertisement may also apply. It is believed that the events in question are (nominally) truly described (though the interpretation is subjective), but if this is to be included as a "controversy" then the existence of the controversy and interpretation must be shown by a citation which meets our standards. I was unable to find such a citation. KWH 06:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Kwh|KWH - this is censorship AGAIN. Have you ever heard of "amendments"?

1. The issue is: What did the secretary of defense do to defend his country. Nothing else, nothing less.

2. The issue is NOT this or that website allegedly "in question" and not that you are "unable" to do this or that.

3. The above text was widely agreed, it was the fith version after a long discussion. It was not at all my text, I am 84.159.124.241

4. Instead of adding information about what Rumsfeld did to defend his country you remove it. This is against all sense of Wikipedia. If you try to rely on Wikipedia rules try to understand them first.

5.What you are "unable" to find is widely described in the internet. I add two more sources to the text which are widely known and reliable. Do not dare to censor them again. Feel free to argue how Rumsfeld defended the U.S.A. in the morning of 9/11 when America was attacked.

Well, it is *my* text, and I don't appreciate being cajoled into writing it only to find out that you're using it as grist for your conspiracy-website mill. Wikipedia is NOT a platform for preaching your ideas (or a soapbox). This comes directly from a Wikipedia Policy page:

"What Wikipedia is not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article."

I've removed your additions on that basis and I feel I'm justified. If you don't like Rumsfeld, fine; hell, I hate the bastard. But this isn't the place to try and slander him or argue whether or not he did enough on 9/11. This is not a public forum for discussion about ANYTHING. It's an online reference resource. One last thing? Can you please please please REGISTER with Wikipedia and get a nickname (like Ka1iban or KWH)? Especially if you're going to be editing so much. People tend to take you much more seriously if you have an established identity when you sign on rather than some random IP address. Thanks. ka1iban 15:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"What Wikipedia is not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view."

And what do we read written by you:

“I've removed”

“I feel I'm justified.”

“If you don't like”

“hell, I hate the bastard”

“But this isn't the place to try and slander him or argue whether or not he did enough on 9/11.”

Exactly. I never used the word “enough”. My simple demand is an account what he DID on 9/11. Any judgement if this was ENOUGH can be done by the readers. I do not , NOT AT ALL , need any refernce to critics who say this or that. It was you who wanted to make the text neutral by mentioning critics. Instead of just telling: “Rumsfeld made some phone calls, R. met Senator Cox in the dining room, R. did not confer in the National Command Center, R. did not order the interceptors.”

“It's an online reference resource.”

YESYESYES ! When you want critics in the text then I offer you my favotite one. When you said it is not enough I offered you some more (and left out the italian, german, frendch websites). But again: I would prfer the pure facts without ANY reference to critics, without ANY judgement.

“going to be editing so much. “

I do not want to edit “so much”. I want a simple account what Rumsfeld did on 9/11 in the morning between 8:15 and 11:00. It is as if I were asking Wikipedia to give an account what a certain Neill Armstrong did when setting foot on the moon.

It is about the reliability of Wikipedia. Nobody cares if you hate bastards or if you are quoted and quoting or not. BTW, I am sure the website which you hate so much gets enough attention without Wikipedia, I must not advocate it.

The issue is Wikipedia and a fill account of Rumsfeld in the Rumsfeld section. It is not your guts and not me.84.159.119.144 08:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I tried to cooperate with you. I don't know if it's your English skills or your obstinacy, but you don't seem to get it. I'm done. ka1iban 16:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If the "I am done" means that you refraine from censoring the article and remove the version nr.6, it is okay and we save a lot of time. Feel free to add more information - but do not remove because of every-day-changing causes. I will keep an eye on it. It is my obstinacy, btw.

Congressional career

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

Academic qualificationf for current job

Other people without an academic background in any subject that would suit them for work as Secretary of Defense have fulfilled their responsibilities adequately. However, Rumsfeld has been very active in pushing his own strategic decisions on the Joint Chiefs. Is there anything in his academic background that would have prepared him for performing this function? The article does not even say what his undergraduate major was, and it seems his only post-grad work was a brief stint in law school. P0M 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this relevant? I don't believe most people would care about his academic background. More important is "can he do the job?". My opinion is yes. He managed to defeat a whole country with a minimum of troops. I would say that makes him a great leader. Wallie 13:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe his academic credentials are irrelevant to his qualifications to hold high office. If he has qualifications of that sort then they ought to be mentioned. P0M 08:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He went to Princeton. He served in the Navy. He served as U.S. Secretary of Defense in 1975. He was a CEO in the private sector. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives. That seems like some pretty decent credentials to me. One's qualifications don't just necessarily come from school...it comes from real world experience. Jeravicious 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job

I like the layout of the table, which details the reasons given by the six Generals as to why they would like Mr. Rumfeld to go. Very professional indeed! Wallie 13:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

it may be 'professional' (an odd characterization for an open-source pseudo-encyclopedia, but i digress), however it takes up an inordinate amount of space merely to reproduce seven quotes. it should be trimmed into a conventional list of quotes. it will take up less space. Anastrophe 07:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the concern for space here? Wikipedia is not paper. I thought the layout was helpful too (if difficult to edit).-csloat 09:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is supposed to be a clear, concise, NPOV source of information. not a current events depository. relative to his long career, the table betrays its bias/POV basis. it's a huge table created to display prominently exactly seven quotes. why? because it's a hot political topic....right now. in the scheme of history, and probably his legacy, compared to the descriptions of his past history and legacy, it's an absurd inflation of a current tempest. as it stands, i converted it to plain formatting of quotes, reducing to one the number of quotes attributed to easy person, and while it did reduce the space consumed, it's still way overblown - again, when taken against the overall entry of a political figure with a long career. it's called 'balance', and it's not there yet, by any stretch. Anastrophe 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense then, to remove the table, but your implication that the discussion of eight generals calling for his retirement should be removed entirely or shortened even further is silly. It is true that his current disgrace is but one moment in a long line of accomplishments and/or other disgraces (depending how you look at some of his career), but it is nonetheless one of the most significant, no matter what side of the political fence you sit on. Defenders of Rumsfeld are quick to note that this is the first time in history generals have called for the resignation of a SecDef so publicly. Some have even claimed it is tantamount to a military coup! I don't agree, of course, but my point is that both sides consider this significant. Whether it withstands the test of time is another question, of course, but it seems pretty obvious to me at this point that historians and biographers will definitely mark this moment as a key moment for Rumsfeld's career as well as for the Bush Administration in general.--csloat 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Rumsfeld (quite the opposite), but I must weigh in with Anastrophe on the relevance of quoting the generals in an encyclopedia article on Rumsfeld's career. I feel the quotes are relevant, but in a different article. A more appropriate article might be on controversies surrounding the conduct of the war. I do not feel strongly enough to remove someone else's contributions, but I suspect that in a few year's time those quotes will seem excessively detailed and replaced with a simple sentence such as "Numerous retired generals publicly criticized Rumsfled's conduct of the war and called for his resignation or replacment."--Mikebrand 04:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

I wanted to add this but I don't understand the table formatting. Wesley Clark is actually General #7 to come out in support of Rumsfeld's resignation, giving us 8 total. Can someone add Clark to the list? See here for details.-csloat 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to add the 4000+ retired Generals names to the table who haven't come out against Rumsfeld and even the names of the 4-Star Generals who've already publicly expressed their support for Rumsfeld like Tommy Franks, Richard Meyers, etc.

table removed. took up too much space for seven quotes. Anastrophe 07:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Salvador Option
Can you get back to Senator Kucinich on the iraqi death squads thing? Thanks, Okthen 16:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ray Mcgovern

This section should be removed or moved to Ray Mcgovern's own page becouse of its irrevelence to donald rumsfeld, and its obvios non-NPOV --MadDogCrog 05:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Ray Macgoverns allegations are valid and Mr Rumsfelds response was very weak: "Why men and women in uniform , when they went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits?" Well, of course they did, because he ordered them to do so. Raphael1 17:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

His allegations may, or may not be valid, that is a POV which is not a Pillar of wikipedia. What is Ray Mcgovern's revelence to Donald Rumsfeld. there is none, So they do not belong on Donald Rumsfelds wiki page. Maybe on ray Mcgoverns own page, Critic of Iraqi War page, and a link to those pages in the See Also section, Ray Mcgoverns was not a major milestone in Donald Rumsfeld's life to warrent anything but a See Also. --MadDogCrog 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Try a google news search on Rumsfeld: Ray McGovern's critique is the fifth result. Raphael1 12:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

So that still does not mean it belongs, why dont you answer my reason why I think it should be moved or removed. just becouse you can google it. lol--MadDogCrog 12:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant, if it's still major news about Rumsfeld after more than two weeks. It is not POV, because not only McGoverns question gets cited but Rumsfelds response as well. Though I wouldn't mind adding the whole interview. Raphael1 15:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's news than let the researcher get the info from the newspaper. This is an Encyclopedia, ya, add the whole interview, and the interview on This Week that Mr. Mcgovern referenced--MadDogCrog 08:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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

The McGovern exchange was covered in all the national media and has remained an issue since then. It is notable and has been picked up in subsequent calls for his resignation.Homey 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Calls for resignation

This area also seems to be a violation of of the Wikipedia NPOV. Either have republicans praise for Mr. Rumsfeld added, and also Praise from retired generals added . Even then I dont think they really belong. These sections should be deleted or moved to there own page.--MadDogCrog 05:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is both a relevant and notable incident; it is, in fact, the first time in history such a thing has happened. I am all for including material defending Rumsfeld too, but to pretend this did not happen is a little silly.--csloat 17:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Critique on the government is the most important task for journalists and essential for every democracy. Praises to any government member are dispensable even for an encyclopedia. Raphael1 17:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

what a croc, that this is the first time some people of the other party has called for the secretary of defenses resignation. your making a bold claim! second what and why is McGoverns question and answer session so much more important than any other! his rhetoric has been echoed for the last 3 years before by many more influential people than Mr. McGovern. no new news with his questions! this stuff needs to be in a micro page called "partisan critiqe of Donald Rumsfeld". this section fits no other purpose than to voice a POV on the main page which is not done on Pages of similar content and position of importance. again it happened. give it it's own page and link it. McGoverns comments were a POV,the retired generals comments are a POV. Without opposing POV it's just wrong!--MadDogCrog 08:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to answer the comment about the generals, I did not say that criticism of a secretary of defense by the opposing party is unprecedented, but calls for resignation by eight retired generals has never happened before.--csloat 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you, why McGoverns question and answer session is so much more important: Because it is the first time Mr. Rumsfeld actually responded to that question, instead of letting the security take care of the questioner. Don't you think, that it is rather dubious for a democracy, that inquirers regularly get thrown out by security personal? Raphael1 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

the irrelevant bit in this section is the mentioning of criticisms of hillary clinton, they are in no way important to an understanding of donald rumsfeld

Mr. Rumsfeld has been asked these same questions by the media a hundred times before, and has respoded to them with the same answers he gave Mr. McGovern. nothing new! And no security doing there job does not bother me, It's not Illegal for disrupters and protesters to get kicked outside, Then they can stand on there soapbox somewhere else if they want to. And the media can make there choice too . Mr Mcgovern was respectfull and so he was treated with respect. so again, Small footnote in Rumsfelds life (not a chapter). Raphael1 your bias shows in your comments. And I am not going to beat this dog till It's dead! So I will let it lie for now.--MadDogCrog 08:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Though my political views probably come closer to Raphael1, I must agree with MadDogCrog's point on the relevance of the McGovern interview. It reads like a blog entry and it degrades the WP article as such. A more appropriate article for that info would be Criticism_of_the_Iraq_War. That would also be a more appropriate place for the quotes from the generals. The Rumsfeld article would more appropriately mention the wide ranging criticism of the conduct of the war and link to it.--Mikebrand 18:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the McGovern comment is notable because it was widely reported in the media and because Rumsfeld blatantly lied in response to it. Sure, he has lied before, but this time he was called on his lie by many in the media, who quoted Rumsfeld's own words back at him to show that what he said was false. Of course, it is possible he was just being careless, rather than lying, but he should say so if that was the case.--csloat 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Surely this isn't the only article in which a transcript is quoted. I don't see how a verbatim transcript of a brief exchange makes the article look like a blog entry given that no opinion has been added. 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

== Moved from Rumsfeld page (Needs review) The omission is obvious. Facts, witnesses, sources and especially logic say: Andrews AFB provides QRA (Quick Reaction Alert, the highest state of alert) for Washington D.C. QRA as part of air-policing is a NATO SOP, measurable in minutes (less than 15 minutes untill take-off).

"Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."[24]

The capital of the U.S.A., home of Pentagon, White House, Congress, Airforce #1 being protected from Cape Cod is ridiculous and simply not true. (/Needs review)

contoversy/ Andrews AFB on 9/11

Somebody introduced a quote concerning the fighter jets and abilities/responsibilities on 9/11. By relying on the 9/11 commission he wants to let it appear as if Andrews AFB in Washington was NOT responsible for the airspace over Washington and as if Rumsfeld had no choice to adress the AFB in his very neighbourhood.

The impression is wrong. Andrew AFB WAs responsible AND had fighter jets in highest state of alarm. The colleague who always cuts out my comment concerning that fact may come here to discuss it. He may ask for more proof, he may improve my English, he may make proposals. Whatever. But do not remove facts which contradict the "official" legend only because the 9/11commission said so or so. The commission is wrong as it is in the case of "able danger" and dozens of other issues.84.159.105.89 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources." [25]

Actually you are incorrect. Andrews AFB only has two active duty units an AMC unit that handles the SAM aircraft, and a communications unit. The other flying unit on the base in the 459th Air Force Reserve unit a KC-135E equiped air refueling unit, and the DC Air National Guard Unit, an F-16 unit. The DC Air National Guard unit at Andrews AFB was not on alert that day, those people have jobs, and before 9/11 no one saw any threat from an aircraft already in US airspace. PPGMD 13:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All this arguing over a few airplanes at Andrews - cf. NAS Oceana, which has more squadrons than Andrews has aircraft! Hopalong1

Deleted obvious vandalism under the Iraq War section

it was PoV and VERY anti-semitic.

Citations Needed

In the Private career section:

"Rumsfeld has also served in executive responsibilities of various local charities across the United States. From 1986 to 1989 he was appointed to serve as United Way Inter-governmental Affairs Director in Washington, D.C..

As a result of his foreign policy achievements as Inter-governmental Affairs Director, he was asked to serve the U.S. State Department. Given the title "foreign policy consultant", he held the role from 1990 to 1993."

I think I cleaned that up correctly. In doing the clean-up I tried to verify the information — but I could not! Any pointers that lead to citations would be welcome. --Charles Gaudette 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nickname: "Rummy", not suitable for Wikipedia articles

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

Deleted, statement does need citation

One of the most significant controversies involves Rumsfeld's role in the preemptive action of invading Iraq. A Freedom of Information Act release revealed that on September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld instructed the military to, in the notes of one of Rumsfeld's aides, "Judge whether good enough hit S.H." (Saddam Hussein)

The above was removed by someone else, I just wanted to make sure it was on the talk page. If someone can find reliable citations, it can go back in the encyclopedia article. If it was revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, then citing shouldn't be a problem. --Charles Gaudette 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted aspartame career changes

This was posted by IP 85.146.85.61 (19:18, 26 July 2006), and it needs citation:

There are several cases of doubtful 'career changes'. In a report by the FDA in 1976, it was determined that the aspartame developer's testing procedures were shoddy, producing inaccurate results due to manipulated data. The investigators stated they, "...had never seen anything as bad as Searle's testing." The FDA report prompted a grand jury investigation, led by U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner, into G. D. Searle Co. for "apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the False Reports to Government Act" for their "willful and knowing failure to make reports to the FDA and for concealing material facts and making false statements in reports of animal studies conducted to establish the safety of aspartame.". Six months later, Skinner left the U.S. attorney's office to take a position at G.D. Searle & Company's law firm Sidley & Austin. At that time, the statute of limitations was about to run out, which it did, making prosecution of alleged crimial activity impossible.

This might even just belong on the Aspartame article. Please find a reliable source ... and FDA paper online? Then give a persuasive rational for placing it in the Donald Rumsfeld article, here, on this Talk page first. --Charles Gaudette 07:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello Charles,

That was my ip address. I'm new to editing Wiki. Excuse the silly username ;-) ... That will become apparent when I start some fresh articles about DIY. Now on to the subject of Donald Rumsfeld.

I've spent several hours researching the internet to verify and find better sources for the text I added after reading several websites on Rumsfeld and aspartame. Boy, are good referenes hard to find... The actual report from the FDA, I could not find anywhere. After spending a few hours, I'm pretty much convinced it is not available anywhere online. I have however found an article that uses the correct references to the report in question:

Article: http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id992/pg1/index.html

Reference to the FDA report mentioned on page 5:

"[8]. Food and Drug Administration, Searle Investigation Task Force Chaired by Carlton Sharp. (1976). "Final report of Investigation of G. D. Searle Company." March 24."

I found another link to a clear timeline showing the start of the investigation and when Skinner 'left the building': http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Aspartame/Articles/Preapproval.doc (scroll down to "On January 10, 1977, FDA Chief Counsel Richard Merrill")

Again, no direct online links to the referenced documents, but I assume that the many references to files of the Congressional Records and of the U.S. Senate is as good as any reference... I read on the wiki pages that in these cases, the reference should point to the webpage where the relevant references were found (instead of only mentioning the relevant references themselves).

In this document named 'Preapproval' we learn that on July 1, 1977, U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner left his job to work for the G.D. Searle law firm Sidley & Austin. And he's not alone: Skinner was replaced with Assistant U.S. Attorney William Conlon, who let the Statute of Limitations run out on the aspartame charges. Fifteen months later, Conlon accepted a job with the law firm representing G.D. Searle, Sidley & Austin. How on earth do two US Attorney's change jobs to go work for the law firm that represents the company under investigation? Or is it all just innuendo?

Please take your time to read several pages of the document about the period 1977-1985 in which Rumsfeld is CEO/President/Chairman of Searle. It's along read, but worthwhile. Apart from two US Attorneys leaving or failing to act at a crucial time, there are many more examples of very strong pressure in favour of getting aspartame to market. I'll cut and paste a small number of the pieces that I feel are relevant here:

Robert McConnell was the Director of G.D. Searle's Department of Pathology and Toxicology which oversaw most of the aspartame research. Mr. McConnell was named in Richard Merrill's letter to U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner. According to McConnell's attorney, his client was awarded a $15,000 bonus and asked to take a 3-year sabbatical (for which he received $60,000/year) because he was a "political liability." (Gordon 1987, page 496 of US Senate 1987)

According to a former G.D. Searle salesperson, Patty Wood-Allott, G.D. Searle president, Donald Rumsfeld told his salesforce that, if necessary, "he would call in all his markers and that no matter what, he would see to it that aspartame would be approved that year." (Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987)

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan takes office as U.S. President, G.D. Searle reapplied for the approval of aspartame. G.D. Searle submits several new studies along with their application. It was believed that Reagan would certainly replace Jere Goyan, the FDA Comissioner. G.D. Searle president, Donald Rumsfeld's connections to the Republican party were also thought to play a part in Searle's decision to reapply for aspartame's approval on the day after Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.

(Gordon 1987, page 499 of US Senate 1987)."

In April 1981, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. was appointed FDA Commissioner by Ronald Reagan (Graves 1984, page S5502 of Congressional Record 1985a).

On July 18, 1981 aspartame was approved for use dry foods by FDA Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. overruling the Public Board of Inquiry and ignoring the law, Section 409(c)(3) of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348), which says that a food additive should not be approved if tests are inconclusive (Federal Register 1981, Farber 1989, page 38). In an article in Common Cause Magazine, Florence Graves states that two FDA officials said that Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. wanted to push aspartame approval through in order to signal reforms of the Reagan Administration. The "reasoning" behind the FDA Commissioner's decision will be discussed in a later section (Graves 1984, page S5497 of Congressional Record 1985a).

As said before, Rumsfeld was hired by Searle in the beginning of 1977. One of the attorneys (Jim Turner, also mentioned in the above document) involved had a meeting with Rumsfeld and several scientists of Searle. Listen to the interview at: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages.rumsfeld2.html

He tells how Rumsfeld took on the issue of getting Aspartame on the market: from a political point of view, not a medical one. The 'science' and 'investigation' done so far were heavily(!) flawed and the results that were reported to the FDA had been tampered with: some information was withheld and some of it was impossible to be true (mice in the experiment dying but reappearing later on in the results, alive and well). Rumsfeld was not interested in facts. He was just there to get the job done, so to speak.

So there is no question in my mind that Rumsfeld has used his (political) power to push aspartame to the market. I doubt it could have been done without him, or someone with the same large amount of influence.

Nobody can 'prove' that Rumsfeld as CEO of Searle was directly behind the career change of Skinner or that of the replacing U.S. Attorney, Conlon. I leave that to the reader to decide.

So, after reading a lot of info about the history of aspartame, the way in which Rumsfeld approached the problems of Searle and lead the company and after reading the current version of the wiki page, I decided to edit the page. As it already mentioned the following text

"Some believe that aspartame's approval was influenced by conflict of interest and that persons involved in the aspartame approval process were rewarded with high paying jobs or consulting positions."

I decided to provide an example of the statement in the form of Skinner. I initially thought this whole story qualified to be mentioned in the chapter called 'Controversies' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld#Controversies), but then decided against a large edit of the Rumsfeld page and chose to simply add the example of Skinner. One could also 'move it' to the aspartame page, but what's the point in that? It concerns a major part of Rumsfeld's career.

My small addition about Skinner's career change is factual and verifiable. Without mentioning names, it was already mentioned in the version before my edit. So I see no reason not to re-edit it into the Rumsfeld page. --DIY Freak 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, Hans.

---

See, the problem with this paragraph, to me, is that it seems POV while trying to pretend it's not POV... does that make sense? It's like it presents data in such a way that the reader has to come to the conclusion that the writer intended, instead of just putting the facts on the table and not drawing any inferences from them. It's an accumulation of paragraphs like these that make articles hopelessly slanted to one side. Is there a name for what I'm talking about? -Vontafeijos 13:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

---

See my response to Charles above. --DIY Freak 01:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Diy Freak

First; 30 years later, Aspartame is safe. Second; the political and lobby effort from the sugar industry and its industry states was enormous, and was filled with just as much bad political backroom politics and backbiting. Just my $0.02!

Your editing had nothing about Rumsfeld's involvement in your edits accusations! Just innuendo! Sorry Diy Freak, but that was a poor edit. But I commend your hard work and research. Please see why your edit seems so POV in the Rumsfeld Article. That Information would possibly belong in the Aspartame article, I believe.

There are already so many POV trolls editing and protecting poor content in these articles. They just don’t have a clue how they are ruining Wikipedia as a reliable research tool. Which also is turning good editors away. Good Luck.

Vontafeijos

That I think would be called sophism. And Wiki is full of sophistic content! By the highly educated, and sophisticated. Pun intended. (Wikiophistic), (Wikifiction), ( Wikiflexure), ok I had my fun! The higher education system of most the planet is an infective virus! I am just a simple caveman with a simple mind.--MadDogCrog 10:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi guys,

let's stay open and friendly, ok? I'm not a 'Sophist' and certainly not a troll. You are very quick to mention terms like these, since I've only been around for a few days... I'm not even American, neither do I have any affiliation with political parties either in the USA or my homeland. So I'm not going through the Wikipedia with an agenda, like some seem to be doing. I know... I could be Elvis Presley for all you know, but let's assume that I have good intentions. I think that is one of Wikipedia's principles/rules, isn't it?

MadDogCrog, The term 'sophism' has very little to do with higher education, which isn't all that bad or laughable as you seem to think.

Vontafeijos, "First; 30 years later, Aspartame is safe." See the Aspartame page and the history of 'testing' that was referenced in my previous post. I can only form a 'POV' on it, as I'm unable to verify medical claims or facts, so I see no point in discussing it.

But the main issue is... Please point out exactly where in my edit of the Rumsfelt page I introduce innuendo or POV to the Rumsfeld page. AFAIK, I'm only providing one example of the information already stated there. In other words, how can that be objectional?

Charles asked for citation. I believe I have found the proper references: files of the Congressional Records and of the U.S. Senate. Since my edit only consists of an example, I'd be happy to simply change the entire edit into: "for example, U.S. Attorney Samuel Skinner.", including one if the references above. Personally I, as a reader, would find it more useful to have a bit more background info instead of just a name coming out of nothing. That is why my original edit is a few lines instead of one name.

Now... If you guys feel that mentioning a name as an example is still too controversial, I, again, suggest we move the mentioning of aspartame to the 'Controversies' chapter. Still, why would you insist on that now instead of having it done in the past? Afterall, the information was already in there long before I added the example to it.

As for my previous lengthy post in this talk section concerning the aspartame timeline, I agree that most, if not all of it would probably fit better in the aspartame article. If I have time, I'll try to fit it in there if there is a need for it. The page seems to be pretty much up to date as it is now.

I've spent quite a bit of time on this. Please show me the same respect and consider the suggestions I have made. --DIY Freak 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello DIY Freak,

Sorry, my head has been elsewhere today. I'll need a little time to sort through all this. With the undertsanding that I have not read all that you wrote above, nor have I surfed your links, nor have I done my own homework, ....

I have a problem with:

"Nobody can 'prove' that Rumsfeld as CEO of Searle was directly behind the career change of Skinner or that of the replacing U.S. Attorney, Conlon. I leave that to the reader to decide."

Ideally, I want a verifiable fact that links then CEO Rumsfeld to Asparteme "issues". I see fact-finding as the role of any encyclopedia, and letting the reader decide is very good for a book.

People, I am just one humble Wikipedian, but I would also like to be "open here". And beyond that simply civil idea, please remember: WP:BITE.

I have about half a response framed, but I would like to do a proper job of this. Communicating (debating) with strangers using text lacks the ability to emote properly (both ways). Further, both Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame aren't going anywhere fast, so there is no sense in getting all worked up on either "side". More soon (enough). --Charles Gaudette 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

"both Donald Rumsfeld and Aspartame aren't going anywhere fast"

Agreed <grin>. I look forward to your response. --DIY Freak 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So far no response from either Vontafeijos or MadDogCrog. Disappointing.

Charles, have you had time to think more about this to continue the discussion? --DIY Freak 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dupe refs

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

Vandalism

Can those persons who have a distaste for Rumsfeld's being please refrain from vandalism in the main page. It ill becomes those of us who disagree with his politics to resort to statements such as 'RUMSFELD IS A WAR CRIMINAL'. Arguable, but belongs on the discussion page with accompanied facts. --The Three Jays 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see that we have a lot of activity here, please restrain from throwing "controversial" comments in the article. If you won't to dispute the article, take it from here… thx… -- Lovelight 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Run-up to Iraq

Scribner removed a section I rewrote on the controversy over whether Rumsfeld came into office wanting to invade Iraq. His reason for removing the section was that the source said "If these notes are accurate," which seems ham-handed to me: the section clearly stated that the comment was from notes. Certainly this controversy needs to be expressed in some form in the article. I'm reinstating the section, trying to better emphasize the incomplete nature of the information. If others have ideas on how to better represent the "hell-bent on war" accusation, go for it. But it does need to be in the article. !melquiades 19:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated the section with edits. I'm open to reworking, but as I said, the accusation that Rumsfeld had come to office planning to invade Iraq is part of the controversy surrounding him, and needs to be addressed in the article somehow. It would be ideal if somebody could turn up a direct quote from Rumsfeld himself on this topic. I believe he once even addressed the specific conversation mentioned in the article, saying it was his job to prepare for all military contingencies or something to that effect, but can't find it. !melquiades 19:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

!melquiades I removed the section because your cite claims, "But if these notes are accurate..." What if the notes are not accurate? It fails WP:RS.

The sources are the notes, not the article you cite. At this point it's speculation. Have you looked for another cite?--Scribner 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not speculation; it's just not a literal transcript. We're talking here about a literal quote from notes taken by Rumsfeld's own staff about what he said. At issue is how accurately the notes reflect the actual conversation — they are notes, after all — and that is what the reporter in the article was talking about.

Speculation would be, "The notes say X, therefore Rumsfeld planned to attack Iraq on Sep 11." The article was careful not to say any such thing — which is more than I can say for many of Rumsfeld's critics. The article did not speculate on the meaning of the notes; instead, it quoted them as they stand and characterized the debate surrounding them, I think accurately.

On sourcing: CBS obtained the notes and published them in the article in question, so they seem to be the best source we have. Note that secondary sources are not only allowed, but preferred: "In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material." (WP:RS) That would be the CBS article, I believe. Or is does investigative journalism fall under special rules?

In any case, this needs to be addressed in some form in the article. Rumsfeld is often charged with coming to power with an agenda for invading Iraq, and this conversation is frequently cited in that debate. The article needs to address it, preferably by pointing out the incompleteness of the information on the conversation in question. The omission serves nobody. !melquiades 00:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Accually, I'd like a cite for the first statement in your section, "Critics of the second Bush administration accuse it — and Rumsfeld in particular — of taking power determined to go to war with Iraq."

As for the notes, the CBS correspondent gives himself an out with his statement, "if these notes are accurate." He probably should have added, "and I've interpreted them correctly."

Your rewrite of, "so the content and intent of Rumsfeld's conversations that day remain in dispute." Where's the dispute? Cite it. I'll look for another cite, also. My argument isn't with the validity of the section but rather with the verifiability of the claims.--Scribner 03:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Age

Is he lying about his age? 1932 is a very long time ago. --Soothsaya 09:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/topic/donald-rumsfeld -Patstuart 09:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles / Websites

I`d like to know who cut out this :

• What did Rumsfeld do and what did he not do on 9/11 conspiracy website

It is a rich information, comprehensive and all documented. So why take it out?

Intellectual heritage

• John Boyd of OODA Loop fame.

What is the source linking this to Rumsfeld? Pgc512 16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to resurrect "Calls for Resignation"

The "Calls for resignation" section was deleted because some editors did not think it was notable enough that a number of retired Generals publicly called for his resignation (something that has never before happened in US history). Now that the main newspapers of America's servicemen and women is also openly calling for his resignation, isn't it about time Wikipedia acknowledged the significance of this fact? Here's the editorial.--csloat 08:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

well then there should also be a section quoting others saying they don't think he should resign. also, the newspapers are all owned by the same company and don't necessarily reflect the views of the armed forces. 216.69.46.237 16:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly anyone notable defending Rumsfeld at this point could be quoted as well. As for your attempt to minimize the significance of the editorial in the top newspapers of each of the four armed services by claiming that they "don't necessarily" reflect someone's views, that's really not relevant to anything here. This is huge. It was huge back then (absolutely unprecedented in US history, in fact; perhaps in world military history), but now even bigger.--csloat 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If it becomes an issue in the article: "The newspapers belong to the Military Times Media Group, which is owned by Gannett, and focus exclusively on military issues. They have wide credibility among their military readership."[26]csloat 23:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No need to call for it, he just quit

Resignation

Where is this being reported? TacoDeposit 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Everywhere, CNN for a start.Hektor 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So who is the new guy ? Hektor 18:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reuters, BBC and CNN carried it. Robert Gates from CIA will head the DoD. Natobxl 18:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Washington Post if you want a cite [27] Kmusser 18:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Bush announced that Rummy will go. But, no sign of a press conference by the man himselfNatobxl 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

People won't top editing the article long enough to make a change! Let's state - his term isn't over yet - he has only announced plans to step down. He will do so when (and if, given a new congress) his replacement is confirmed. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Rumsfield's resignation effective immediatley? or is it effective upon the Senate confirmation of the Secy of Defence nominee? If it's the later; then that should be edited into the article. GoodDay 18:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if my tone was a bit harsh above; I was frustrated at the constant edit conflicts. My bad. Anyway, I did a bit of research, and the sources I read seemed to be saying he planned to step down when there was a successor. This makes sense as well; as much as anyone doesn't like Rumsfeld, I doubt he's do the country the disservice of leaving it without a Secretary of Defense. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your're correct; Just to add, had Rumsfeld's resignation been immediate, I believe the Deputy Secy of Defence would have assumed the duties (as Acting Secy of Defence, until the Senate confirmed the Secy of Defence nominee). GoodDay 19:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I was the one who deleted your clause; in the edit summary, I said something like "feel free to put it back, but please use the talk page." It seemed a bit like POV pushing, but I hear your logic, and I guess it's not too bad. Just beware someone else might take it out. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a small clause saying that it was months of criticism that effected Rumsfeld's decision to resign. Of course it was also the mental stress of the job (he would have been longest serving sec of def in a month). I added the clause because the section above about the Army Times article makes it seem like that is the only reason he resigned when in actuallity it was months of criticism from the public and Senators (ie. Clinton) for mainly not listening to his Generals and not providing enough troops to Iraq. REscano 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld's resignation hasn't taken effect yet, (He's to be Secy of Defence, until Gates is confirmed by the Senate). Therefore he can still break the record (of Longest serving Secy of Defence). GoodDay 23:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But, on another note: it looks like someone has deleted my clause (he/she probably thought I am a liberal, which I'm not). So, maybe I should just rearrange the 'Calls for Resignation' section. REscano 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: "months of criticism that effected Rumsfeld's decision to resign" could be worded differently -- it is worth noting, perhaps even in the article, that Rumsfeld had previously "twice offer his resignation to the president" (I recall testimony from himself stating this as well, cannot locate it however)... perhaps this was not purely Rumsfeld's decision.--John Hubbard 03:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists

Please stop editing the word "Terrorists" to the generic "Men". Like it or not, they are both war-criminals, and terrorists. Using the generic terms implies that they were civilians. We're getting like, 10 vandalizations a minute, lets SP this mother already. Piuro 18:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but pace of article is hundreds of edits in last hour; we can worry about it later. :( Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the term terrorists. We don't appear to have an article on these men and/or the case and there is no evidence that's been presented to suggest they're terrorists. Nil Einne 11:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that according to the ACLU "None of the men were ever charged with a crime. All have been released." As such, I highly doubt these men were terrorists. Also, it is an accepted fact by most independent observers that the US has incarcerated people based on mistaken identities before. Note any source will have to evidence that all are terrorists. It is not enough to show there is evidence that one is a terrorist. If you only have evidence that one is allegedly a terrorist then you can only say one is a suspected terrorist. If you do want to claim in this article they're suspect terrorists and you have suitable evidence, I think you also need to mention that none of them were charged and all have been released. Anything else is not NPOV and probably violates BLP too Nil Einne 11:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, it might be helpful to check out Category:Terrorists. This is an area of great controversy and it's not something I follow a great deal but I think we're rather strict who we call a terrorist on wikipedia. Also, do note that a war criminal is usually not a terrorist Nil Einne 11:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it with "Suspected Terrorists", which, believe it or not, is far more NPOV then the generic in this case. Piuro 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No it is not when you've provided no evidence whatsoever that these men are suspected terrorists (as I mentioned above, please find a reliable source) and you also neglected to mention that these men have all been released without any charge (again as I mentioned above). Since you missed these key points which I made above, it might be helpful if you re-read what I wrote since there are some other issues. For example, as I stated above finding evidence that one is a suspected terrorist does not mean you can claim all are suspected terrorists .Nil Einne 12:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

They were held on suspected terrorism, making them *gasp* suspected terrorists! Even without evidence, what they were held for defines the situation. Piuro 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist is a sensitive title for Americans. We would never title someone a "Bank Robber" or "murderer" unless we actually saw them commit the crime before our eyes, but even then technically, and sadly, with out going through the justice system they aren't an official murderer until they are convicted. Furthermore, if we had a prison full of alleged, or suspected child molesters, we would definitely refer to the prison as the "child molesters prison" or "the perverts prison" even if some of them turned out to be innocent. However, I would not want anyone titling me a terrorist if I was incarcerated due to mistaken identity.

Ford Admin section

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

Lock

This article needs to be locked until further notice. I just took some nonsense out of it. Check the history. can you clean up the resignation part of the article if you are going to lock it and keep people from removing POV 69.140.73.128 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been locked, due to high vandalism rates. Unless you can specifically say which part you think is POV, and wha changes you think might help, I'm not sure I can help you on this one. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoever locked it should have checked for misspellings beforehand...the opening paragraph contains a reference to "President Geore W. Bush"... 137.21.66.203 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Private career

Hi, newbie here, just want to correct a typo:

>>ABB is a European engineering giant based in Zürich, Switzerland; formed through the merger >>between ASEA of Sweden and Brown Boweri of Switzerland.

That should read "Brown Boveri" of Switzerland (v, not w).

Nick

Done. JoshuaZ 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

religion

can someone tell me what rumsfelds religious faith is? Keltik31 22:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

the article says presbyterian; [this source] says protestant. a quick online search seems to not turn up a lot though; perhaps he doesn't practice as much as some figures like Bush. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Presbyterianism is a form of Protestantism. Bwithh 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

just thought with a name ending in "feld" he may be jewish. Keltik31 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Introduction

The introduction should begin defining what Rumsfeld is, the secretary of defense. The fact that he submitted his resignation is important, but not the defining factor of who this person is. I've changed the intro to reflect this. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I would think that Secretary_of_defense would be used to define that. Seeing has how most biographies include times of tenure within the introduction, why doesn't this belong here? --Mangler 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is there. But earlier the article literally opened with something like "Rumsfeld tendered his resignation as SecDef...". That is not a proper way to begin a biographical article. The current version is much preferred. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

CNN / Rumsfeld resignation date

CNN just said Rumsfeld's resignation letter was accepted by Bush yesterday - November 7th, 2006 - CNN reported this specifically as a response to the question of when Rumsfeld actually steps down Bwithh 03:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld tendered his resignation on Tuesday, but he remains Secretary of Defense until a replacement is confirmed by the Congress:

Timing of Rumsfeld’s Departure Is Uncertain

"WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has agreed to stay on the job until his successor is confirmed, President Bush said today, leaving the time of Mr. Rumsfeld’s departure somewhat uncertain."

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup: I thought I saw a reference to the resignation being officially tendered on Tuesday, but I can't find it now. The transcript just says the resignation was "accepted" on Wednesday November 8th. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the top

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

He is still technically the secretary. He has resigned, but won't officially leave office until Robert Gates get confirmed. Until then, he's still in. Slinky317 12:06, 9 November 2006

This is true; however, someone has changed the sidebar stating that he served UNTIL November 9, 2006. The fact is that he will serve until a replacement (Gates?) has been confirmed by the Senate...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.211.215 (talk • contribs) .

We've fixed it multiple times, and we've embedded huge comments in the article begging people to leave it alone...the editors who insist on changing it are in a huge hurry to edit the article, don't look at the surrounding comments, or God knows what. I just fixed it for probably the 10th time. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Main page article protection

I am just concerned about protection of the article that currently appears on the main page in "in the news section". With featured articles on the main page there is a recomandation not to protect them so that new users can actually try the whole of Wikipedia. Is it not the same with other articles on the main page. I know the vandalsim is heavy right now, but still it always is with articles that appear on the main page. --Jan.Smolik 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism was way beyond heavy. Since the resignation was announced yesterday, semi-protection has been lifted two or three times; each time, the article has been vandalized several times per minute, so much that it's impossible to distinguish good edits from random garbage. The article needs to be semi-protected just to maintain a level of sanity. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. However big part of vandalism was done by people who added information he is not Secretary of Defense anymore. This cannot be considered as vandalism per WP:AGF and WP:Vandalism, unless the same editor repeatedly ads the same information after being warned it is not true. But it is only an academic discussion, reality is sometimes very different.--Jan.Smolik 21:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jumps Around

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

Carlyle Group

Rumsfeld was not Chairman Emeritus of the Carlyle Group from 1989-2005. Frank Carlucci was.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.113.229.219 (talk • contribs) .

Alleged overseas torture

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

Re-added comments

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

Place of birth

The article said Evanston, three sources I found indicated Chicago, none Evanston. Anyone who can argue with thiw with could be my guest. And the reference to his previous generatoion German source was very POV and should not be as a source for geneology - put in in the later criticism of the man! --Dumarest 22:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/rumsfeld.htm

http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=R000508

Well this is interesting. This AP bio says he was born in Evanston:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/RUMSFELD_TIMELINE?SITE=ORBEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

A NYTimes article from Saturday November 13, 1971 (which I can't provide a link for as it requires TimesSelect membership) says he was born in Chicago and attended New Trier High School in "suburban Evanston".

I think we can definitely say he was born in Cook County, Illinois. I'm inclined to stick with Chicago as that's what his official DoD and Congressional bios say. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 23:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hart Seely Op Ed Comment re Wikipedia

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

Actor?

Someone put him under Worst Supporting Actor Razzie. Probably vandalism. Someone should remove it. --66.218.13.156 03:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not vandalism since he did win it 2004 Golden Raspberry Awards. However I don't think it's appropriate since he's not an actor and so it's not particularly noteable 'achievement'. I assume this issue has been debated to death for GWB so if you want to discuss further you might want to look there. Nil Einne 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Military/Industry history WikiProject

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

Rwandan award

I removed this line from the awards section: Royal Order of the Intare, awarded by King Kigeli V of Rwanda.

• Rwanda has not been a monarchy since 1962.
• Sole source for this award is the official website of the Rwandan king which states the award is to Rumsfeld as the 21st US Defense Secretary.[28]. There are no other google hits for this award than this website other than wikipedia mirrors and blogs (about 108 hits in total)[29].
• Zero hits for Rumsfeld and this award in the Factiva news database. 2 hits total for a general Factiva search on the award on news articles going back decades. Both hits are about Edward J. Von Kloberg (who is described by Associated Press as a "flamboyant American lobbyist for infamous tyrants") who received the award from exiled King Kigeli V in 2001. Kigeli's website states that the Royal Order award ceremonies take place in Washington DC, yet there is no news coverage or any other official coverage about other awardees apart from his website and the two stories about the dodgy lobbyist.

• I will look into this award further, and may bring the Royal Order of the Intare article for afd discussion Bwithh 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

PNAC

I am not sure if Rumsfeld was a founder of the PNAC as stated in the Clinton Years section. It is true that he cosigned a letter, but I have heard Kristol on a Colbert Report show distancing himself from Rumsfeld stating that Rumbsfeld was never a part of the PNAC.

I don't know if he can be consider a founder as such since the PNAC doesn't mention him as a founder. It does seem like he was an active member from the PNAC article and it appears he was probably a founding member. It isn't uncommon that people and groups will try and distance themselves from unpopular members at a later date so I don't think the fact that Kristol (whoever he is, sorry don't know much about American politics) distances himself from Rumsfeld is very relevant when it comes to whether he was a active member and perhaps founding member. I guess there might be some merit to mention the group now distances itself from him, if a reliable source can be found Nil Einne 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Swine flu episode

I rewrote and re-referenced the swine flu section (the previous reference used did not mention Rumsfeld at all). I'm having trouble finding authoritative, substantive sources showing that Rumsfeld should take a major part of the blame for the decision. I found a single book source which recounts the accusation but not convincingly (comes across as rumour/insinuation, and does not provide sources). I will look further to see if there's any substance to this or if this should be removed entirely Bwithh 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

can't find any relevant hits in a Factiva news database search for Rumsfeld and swine flu Bwithh 23:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this section completely. All mentions on blogs, forums etc seem to be derived or referenced from two or three unsourced lines in one book[30]. Cannot find any reliable news articles or books or scientific papers backing up this accusation. Ford was advised by CDC, large group of scientists including leading vaccine experts who supported the vaccination program. A few vague accusing lines in one book is too flimsy a sourcing to make such a major accusation. Book does plays down advisory role to Ford of CDC or and does not mention key role of Salk and Sabin (eminent vaccine experts) - appears biasedBwithh 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Quote that Donald Rumsfeld is going to be the longest serving Secretary of Defense is wrong.

"and stands to become the longest-serving Secretary of Defense if he remains until December."

This quote is not true since Robert McNamara was the longest serving Secretary of Defense serving from January 21st 1961 until February 29th 1968, which is seven years and one month, and by December Donald Rumsfeld will have served from January 20th 2001 until December 2006 which would only be five years and 11 months. So Robert McNamara would still be the longest serving Secretary of Defense. Also, Casper Weinberger would be the second longest serving Secretary of Defense serving from January 21st 1981 until November 23rd 1987, which would be six years and 10 months. So to correct the quote you would say that by December Donald Rumsfeld will become the third longest serving Secretary of Defense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mkluge (talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd. I wonder if it's including part of his tenure from the 1970s. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a little calculating of dates using Excel and came up with McNamara at 2,595 days. If we include Rumsfeld's time in the 70's, he will have 2,596 days on 29 Dec. I edited the article to clarify this. Roachmeister 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

December 6 is not his last day

Per [31], he will remain in the office until the official swearing-in ceremony. The date for that has not yet (as of Dec 6) been announced. Who knows, maybe it will be after December 29? I know lots of folks want him gone, myself included, (heck, they've already started taking his pictures down at the Pentagon [32]), but let's not jump the gun in the encyclopedia. A little decorum, perhaps?

I'll change the page back. 216.46.98.249 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe (now that Gates has been confirmed by the Senate), the date for swearing-in is December 15, 2006. GoodDay 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that, December 18th, 2006. GoodDay 23:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's hold off on giving his term an end date until Gates is actually sworn in -- you never know what could happen to Gates between now and then - a media scandal, an injury delaying his swearing-in or anything more dark -- so Rumsfeld's term doesn't have an Encylopedic end date until it actually ends. Editor Emeritus 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001

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

discussion for sillyrabbit edit war

Silly rabit: news organizations don't "take positions". They report things! If there was a survey done, then cite that! Otherwise, you are being confused and imprecise. Capisce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 23:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the present wording, then? Please suggest an alternative wording which will address your concerns. The statement as it stands is supported by references, and I think is a fairly widely held and easily sourced assessment. It certainly deserves to be mentioned in the lead. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording. It is an overly simplistic (and sort of jarringly off) way of stating something. My point is that news organizations don't make judgements or issue opinions as entities. They don't make proclomations. They're not really actors or even historians. They are reporters. And they're not monolithic. For instance if one story or editorial or what have you says something, than it is not like a press release of the entire organization's opinion.

Also (different point) if you actually go to the references, you will see that even the original statements, themselves, are more nuanced. The BBC peice says "probably", not "the" most controversial. And the the ABC peice is even more caveated, saying "possibly" most controversial.

Third different point: Also, if you want to actually think about the issue, ITSELF, look into McNamara and the intense culture clash that his "wiz kids" had with the uniformed military in the 60s as well as the much more notable protest from the nation overall to the VN war as opposed to recent mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, I don't have living memory of it, but there were some big fiascos with some of the early DoDers (one of them even having "the revolt of the Admirals").

I'll think about putting something up, that at least expresses the main concept more fairly. However, I'm not sure I will. Wikipedia is so geared to edit wars and meme building. Also, it does NOT generally have the quality that I expect from real quality written articles (in writing or logic).TCO (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I had changed the wording to attempt to address your concerns. Please note that the original statement you objected to was

"ABC and BBC news consider Rumsfeld to be the most controversial defense secretary in US history."

Your edit summary indicated that ABC and BBC cannot "consider" as institutions. I think that is a fair point, so I went with

"According to ABC and BBC news, Rumsfeld is also one of the most controversial defense secretary in US history."

I think this wording is supported by the citations provided, and appears close to the original consensus version (see the discussion above).

Assuming that you still object to this version, let me see if I understand your argument. You seem to think that ABC and BBC cannot be used as sources for the assertion that Rumsfeld is one of the most controversial, because the organization itself cannot issue statements. I have a few replies to this belief. First of all, by hosting a profile in which the statement is made, and labeling it a "Profile" rather than "Editorial" the news organization officially sanctions it as factual news. Secondly, I think that the consensus in the wikipedia community is that ABC and BBC are reliable sources, and that certainly the profile of a noted public figure on either of these sites qualifies for use as a reference in an article. If you feel otherwise, then perhaps you can make your case at the reliable sources noticeboard. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an improvement. Still think it gives too much of a "the orginazation states" when it's really some guy wrote a profile and it says (and maybe we find some other profile that doesn't say, etc.) I mean it's not like a survey of historians was done. Or of the newsroom. It's just some profile writer. Not even as good as an individual historian. That said, I agree that Rumsfeld has been controversial. (Although it's amazing that we always rate the most recent as the most notable.) Any way, no biggie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 00:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

oh that must be why all news outlets are now reporting that Robert Gates is the most controversial defense secretary. Oh that's right, they're not. I think the statement that Rumsfeld is the most controversial is more than backed up by the available information; certainly the calls from generals for his resignation are completely unprecedented in US history. csloat (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I listed two other times when there was SIGNIFICANT dispute between the military and the civilian DOD leadership over it. Also the social protest was much higher during the VN war than recently.TCO (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The modified wording was not supported by the BBC profile, which described Rumsfeld as probably the most controversial in US history. It's a big step down from "probably the most" to "maybe one of the most". I have strengthened the wording, yet again. It would be nice, however, if some third party who has participated in the above discussions on this very issue would weigh in on the current dispute. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tone of the article

Even if you hate the guy and don't care about objectivity, it's actually counterproductive to writes stuff like this:

"Astroturf Generals In 2008 the New York Times reported that Rumsfeld responded to the Generals Revolt by using a number of high ranking retired members of the Military as puppets."

The whole article has too much the tone of a college dorm room writing an argument. This is not something that you would see in Brittanica or a real magazine or newspaper article. The word choiceage and just lack of giving the subject of the biography some dispassion is eVIDENT. People coming to this and reading it WILL SEE IT. So all you're really doing is writing articles amongst yourselves to express and crystalize and evaluation. Rather than a description.TCO (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tone of the article

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

Lawsuits

How notable are these, they seem like political theater? The German case was dismissed as soon as it got in front of the judge. I would like to remove all but a sentence or two about these lawsuits. Any objections? CENSEI (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. The lawsuits seem like a classic case of WP:UNDUE. The man was secretary of defense to two presidents, a major domestic figure in the Nixon White House, a tremendous player as Ford's Chief of Staff, and we have a whole section on post-resignation lawsuits? The day a major US defense figure can leave office without being accused of war crimes will be the day hell freezes over. We might as well have an exhaustive list of every protester who's ever confronted him. RayAYang (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, get some reliable sources supporting this claim please. This is not about random protesters; the reactions to Rumsfeld are unprecedented and certainly notable enough for comment here despite your nonsensical claim that they are "theater." Get a grip, or at least get reliable sources. csloat (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprecedented? As far as war crimes, they've accused Colin Powell of war crimes for the First Gulf War [33], Wesley Clark of war crimes for Haiti and Kosovo [34], heck, they even threw in Norman Schwartzkopf (see first article). The volume is a little higher, because Rumsfeld's more recent. As far as more legitimate lawsuits, Rumsfeld is named in lawsuits against the US government (rather than personally) in his official capacity of US Secretary of Defense, and those mentions no more belong in Rumsfeld's article than lawsuits against the TSA back in 2002 or so belong in Mineta's article. RayAYang (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add your information from reliable sources to the Powell and Clark pages; meanwhile, unless you find some reliable sources that have information relevant to this article, there is no need to get excited about it. And, yes, what has happened with Rumsfeld is certainly unprecedented (when did more than half a dozen generals publicly call for Powell's resignation??) csloat (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the lawsuits against Rumsfeld were thrown out because they are garbage. That they occupy such a large space here is clearly NPOV. You have not yet given a reason that they should be included here at such great length (I certainly don’t think they should be deleted, just significantly paired down). CENSEI (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

csloat, you're not listening to me. Do we include a student criticism section behind every math professor who's ever taught calculus? Do we include a "bad parenting" section behind the bios for every person who has children? Some things are inherent in the job description, and being called a war criminal, baby killer, fascist, etc., is expected for being a major US official in wartime, in this day and age. At most, lawsuits against Rumsfeld should get a brief mention. Otherwise, we might as well strike WP:UNDUE altogether, and make Wikipedia much poorer for it. RayAYang (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you think there is an undue problem let us know what it is. Yes notable lawsuits against the SecDef should be included here; I don't see an UNDUE problem with what is included. csloat (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I thought I was clear. I consider the existence of an entire section of lawsuits to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. Let me itemize. Bear in mind that the post-9/11 period (prior to the Iraq war), which includes the kinetic phase of the Afghan war, gets maybe 8 sentences in this biography, although the internal organizaiton of the article is messy enough that I would hesitate to say for sure. 4 sentences are devoted to a single lawsuit against the government over a database, which is purely incidental to Rumsfeld's role as SecDef. Next, a similar amount of space is given to a publicity stunt by political advocacy organizations which was speedily dismissed due to official immunity. Next, we devote another 4 sentences to a single disgruntled contractor who sues because mistreatment in a war zone. Following, we have two sentences devoted to another publicity stunt in a failed case of forum shopping by US political advocates. We then have 5 sentences devoted to a similar publicity stunt invoking a novel legal theory, sparing a sentence for the almighty and reliable opinion of the Berkeley city council on the matter. We next devote an amount of space greater than that to a filed suit in France which never came to court. We then have a blatant paragraph of POV-pushing, which goes on to state "human rights advocates ... are concerned that politics will trump the legal obligation of countries to prosecute torturers." So I count the balance of time space paid to spurious lawsuits against Rumsfeld over which no court has moved past preliminary proceedings, to the amount of space devoted to the Afghan war, at a ratio of about 3:1. That's what I call undue. The entire section is a mishmash of lawsuits which are harassing and speedily dismissed, with one or two possibly legitimate suits which are purely incidental to his official capacity and do not merit mention. At the most, a sentence is merited, noting that Rumsfeld has been subjected to repeated lawsuit efforts in various jurisdictions; until one of these lawsuits actually moves to the stage where any figure with real legal authority tries to arrest Mr. Rumsfeld or summon him to appear, I do not see that they merit individual notability. RayAYang (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. These are notable lawsuits that are directly relevant to this page. Your opinion that they are "spurious" is something you are welcome to, of course, but it has no bearing on this page. csloat (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you feel that the Afghan war, and Rumsfeld's reforms at the Pentagon, are of less importance than forum-shopping publicity stunts? If not, please explain how the length at which these lawsuits are discussed can *possibly* not be a violation of WP:UNDUE. "Replying" to my statements without providing any explanatory logic whatsoever, or any attempt to appreciate my contribution to the discussion, strikes me as rather unhelpful to the discussion. RayAYang (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? We're not talking about wars, reforms, or "publicity stunts." We're talking about lawsuits against a secretary of defense. They are quite notable and have been discussed in reliable sources. UNDUE is not an issue here -- I'm not opposed to cutting down long redundant paragraphs but that is not what is being proposed. csloat (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the suits were thrown out as soon as a judge saw them. They are frivolous suits, and deserve nothing more than a passing mention here, not 8 paragraphs. CENSEI (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is false. csloat (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Which suits were not thrown out? CENSEI (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the article about any of the following being thrown out: the database suit, the torture suit, the French suit, one of the German suits (which was apparently endorsed by a U.S. city council), or the charges in Sweden and Argentina (the section on the latter two should actually be expanded as it's not clear whether these are criminal or civil actions). Some of these are joined by notable organizations (e.g. the NYCLU or the FIDH). In fact, there seems to be only one thrown out by a judge, and another rejected by the prosecutor. Clearly further research is necessary on some of the others, but I'm just going by what is here. csloat (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The database suit was against the Department of Defense and named Rumsfeld only in his official capacity; I've tracked down an ACLU press release that confirms that and the conclusion of the case. Much as I am dislike seeing my own work deleted, I think I can, without a doubt in my mind, recommend wiping the database case from the article -- the Department of Defense engages in thousands of lawsuits at any given time, and it is customary to name the lawsuits for the sitting defense secretary in his official capacity. The torture suit is ongoing in discovery but it is currently unsourced; I may work on fixing that at some point, but it has not, as of January, proceeded past the evidentiary stage (see [35]), so it is definitely going slowly and does not appear to have attracted much press attention in the past year or so. As far as coverage by independent reliable secondary sources go, it seems to have been a 10-days wonder (i.e. news). The French suit was thrown out, as is noted in the article. Both German suits have been thrown out (I have found a source to confirm the failure of the second attempt). The sole sourcing for efforts in Sweden and Argentina is a press release, so I don't know how much we can say about them, but I would be very surprised if they went anywhere; the organization issuing the press release is one of the plaintiffs, and they have not been shy about advertising their efforts. In fact, the most interesting discovery of my research into the international lawsuits listed here is that they are all being driven by the same set of activist organizations -- the NY-based CCR, FIDH, et alia. In other words, this seems to be a concerted campaign to get some official, any official, to press charges against Rumsfeld. Thus far, I have not been able to uncover any evidence of any success on their part; unless their goal is to create publicity, in which case they have been somewhat successful, as this section of the article attests. RayAYang (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some opposition to removing this section, would anybody object to a content fork? We can create a separate article called "Lawsuits against Donald Rumsfeld" where we could move the overwhelming majority of the section, so that the article retains a sense of proportion as to his accomplishments without Wikipedia losing material. RayAYang (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You think the lawsuits are "stunts," not even worthy of mention here, yet you want to create a separate article for them? Wouldn't you then support an AfD for such an article? Again, I think shortening the longer paragraphs here might be worthwhile, but I would object to deleting them. And I don't think a POV fork is the right approach. csloat (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they are publicity stunts and unworthy of the amount of space they get in the current biography, and would delete them on that basis. However, "notable" has a broader tent than "more important than the Afghan War." It is reasonably settled in AfD debates (see the recent one on John Edwards paternity allegations) that content forks enacted to prevent WP:UNDUE are not easily deleted. Forking existing content is not a POV fork -- a POV fork is a content fork created so that a POV can be pushed using material that would not pass muster on the original page. But if you should agree that the lawsuits don't merit that amount of space, I'll be happy to slim it down myself. I'll put my proposed version here before editing the main page, since this seems to be an area of some intense concern. RayAYang (talk) 22:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The only one comparing them to the Afghan war is you. I never said they were more important than that and I will ask you again to kindly not put words in other people's mouths (or keyboards). If you want to expand the Afghan War section go for it. I don't think a fork is appropriate but I'm willing to take a look at what you propose. By all means propose a shortened version f you think some information is redundant; I am not opposed to it in principle. csloat (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Donald Rumsfeld/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Caution - Not neutral. Repetitive mentioning that "He had not served in combat". Pictures that show him shake hands with Saddam and other negative leaders. -- No mention of him personally donating $250,000 for a 911 monument. No mention of his numerous flights to Iraq, and Afghanistan, going to front line units on visits and putting himself at risk. No mention of him being an instructor pilot in the USN. -- All positives are ‘minimized’ rhetorically while all negative aspects are coincidentally emphasized. That is poor objective writing. This article is subtly biased.

Last edited at 07:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)