Talk:Lee Bollinger/Archive 1

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Controversy

Please note that there's no Monday on the "September 27" date. Monday of this week is, today, or September 24. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pvanhoof (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We need a transcript of his opening remarks to the Iranian presidents visit to columbia, I heard it was wonderful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.213.98.59 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful? Hardly. It was disrespectful, insulting and what one would expect of a entirely brainwashed society. Americans loved it, but the rest of the world took notice. I wonder what Americans would say if Bush was treated in the same way in another country. 201.29.208.14 13:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree...if you're going to invite a guest speaker to a university, no matter who it is you should show them some level of respect. 10-01-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.122.197 (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a transcript of the whole debate here: [1]. Read it and make up your own mind. It's interesting to note there was audience applause for both Bollinger and Ahmadinejad. Sparks1979 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are not relevant to this article (which, BTW, is about the life of Bollinger, not the Ahmadinejad talk). Additionally, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please consider airing your opinions elsewhere. -- DanielPenfield 18:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The final section on Lee's page is Soooo September 23rd. I would make somem changes but apparantly the page is in some sort of status known as "semi-protected". The simple facts are that the critics didn't know (and how could they?) that Bollinger's invite Ahmadinejad was actually an ambush. The criticims that were proffered as the invitation offered fall quite away now that we know Bollinger's actual intentions. The Ahmadi.... section ought to reflect that in not be stuck in some sort of weird time-warp.

Oh, and what he did was so tremendously correct that it ought to be reprinted in full on some "wiki documents" page and have a page regarding the effects of his talk. He did EXACTLY what our President should have done, had he only been able to be remotely as eloquent.

Opinions aside, the facts are that the section on Ahm... on this page are simply outdate. - www.mnuez.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.148.23 (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Ignorance based POV responses bear repeating. What he did was harsh and to the point, but he asked justifiable questions, which the Iranian president was unable to answer. ^|^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.96.152.48 (talk • contribs) 19:28, September 25, 2007

I don't believe that the final statement in this section is appropriate. "He was commended for using the stage to not just introduce Ahmadinejad, but also the express what he--and indeed, the rest of the Western World--believes." The rest of the Western world does not necessarily believe that.--Kye2789 18:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please consider venting elsewhere. DanielPenfield 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Thus, editorializing by saying "...the rest of the Western World--believes." is not appropriate. For the record, I applaud his statement, however the "Western World" is by no means monolithic. You could replace "rest of the Western World" with "many in the West" or an equivalent statement that doesn't overstate its case. 24.24.91.160 05:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)GMM

I found it necessary to add his accusation "your [Iran's] government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming, and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces" to the Ahmadinejad controversy for the simple fact that this is something which is repeated over and over by Bush Administration and relayed by the domestic media. Apart from several Iranians being arrested by U.S. forces, all of them accused of being members of the "Qods" force, there has been no evidence whatsoever of any of the above. Such an outright lie, at a prestigious event, needs to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.209.21 (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC) In the piece cited here Ed Koch says Bollinger is Jewish. If this is true, why isn't it in the article on Bollinger in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.222.189 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Too much of this article is devoted to the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad controversy nonsense. This is undue. Viriditas (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Tags

User GloriaMarie removed the {{recentism}} and {{off-topic-other|Mahmoud Ahmadinejad}} tags, stating they were not discussed on the talk page. Anyone else for reinstating them?Yavoh 02:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What are your reasons for wanting them reinstated? A reason or reasons should be given on the talk page for the tags' placement. Since this is what Bollinger has gotten more press attention for than anything else he's ever done, I don't think it necessarily qualifies as recentism. The other sections do need to be expanded, but it's appropriate to place section-expansion tags on those sections. I took out most of the information that focuses solely on Ahmadinejad and condensed the original invitation into one paragraph, so I think that concern has been addressed.--Gloriamarie 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you were wrong for removing the Wikinews tag. --David Shankbone 04:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If I removed such a tag, I did not realize it and did not see it. Please put it back if that is the case,and please assume good faith.--Gloriamarie 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• "A reason or reasons should be given on the talk page for the tags' placement." To my knowledge only the NPOV template requires this. Can you cite the policy that would require this for the {{recentism}} template? It merely admonishes editors to keep things in perspective, which, IMHO, is good advice. -- DanielPenfield 14:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether there's an official policy or not, the tags should be discussed on the talk page-- what are your thoughts on whether this is recentism, how can the section be fixed, etc. Tags are not meant for indefinite placement on an article, and if there is no discussion on them on the talk page, how will that ever be done without editors deciding on their own (rather than by consensus) to remove the tags? There is currently an NPOV tag on a section of the article, and I'm going to leave it there for now, although there is not specific discussion concerning it on the talk page. My reasoning for this: the section does seem to have some NPOV problems, with no citations for one side and apparently one editor veering into personal opinion on the matter. It could use some better wording, along with specifics of who praised him for the speech. --Gloriamarie 19:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• We aren't here to junk up mainspace with tags. There needs to be a reason to have a tag, or the tag goes. I'm with Gloriamarie on this and I'm going to remove it. If there is a reason for keeping it, then it should be stated. But the default is no tags. --David Shankbone 02:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know where from Bellinger is

Sounds french, anyone has more info and could document this? thanks Abdelkweli 03:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Bollinger doesn't sound particularly French to me; I notice that someone noted that he was from a "Jewish family," with an Ed Koch article as evidence... however, all Koch says is that Bollinger is currently a Jew. He doesn't say he came from a Jewish family (although that certainly could be the case) or whether he is a Jew by religion or ethnicity, so as it currently stands, that's not really sufficient sourcing to say he came from a Jewish family.--Gloriamarie 19:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will correct the claim to "is a Jew". Please do not remove unless you have doubts in Ed Koch who repeats it twice. If you think this info is irrelevant, read the article again. Mhym 04:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on an opinion column from a critic for biographical information on Bollinger's life. Surely another, more reliable source for this information can be found. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I never intended to remove it; that's why I mentioned it on the talk page.--Gloriamarie 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The important part is not that this is an "opinion column" but the fact that the author is Ed Koch, the former long time Mayor of NYC.[2] I am frankly dismayed that an anon reversed it without comment. Unless I see a real argument why not, I am putting it back as clearly relevant to the discussion. Mhym 07:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed Koch is a prominent New Yorker and certainly a reliable source for these purposes, not a "critic."--Gloriamarie 20:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Koch's column is criticizing Bollinger, thus he is most certainly a "critic" of Bollinger's. When it comes to BLP articles, we should be scrupulous about using the most reliable sources possible. Koch's fame and prominence certainly entitles him to be a noted pundit, but that doesn't give him any special expertise or knowledge about the biographical facts of Bollinger's upbriging. Certainly, with a basic biographical fact like this, we should be able to find a source that there shouldn't be any question about. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 20:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether it had anything to do with his upbringing or not is the question at hand (did he come from a Jewish family?) and is not stated in Koch's article. Koch simply said Bollinger is currently Jewish. Koch is a prominent Jewish person in New York City who has had much association with Columbia throughout the years; it doesn't take too much of a leap to imagine that he may know whether Bollinger is currently Jewish or not. --Gloriamarie 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Columbia Unbecoming" (middle east center controversy)

Should be some mention of his role in this whole controversy, where many would say he kind of fudged things with bureaucratic apparatus (committee reports etc.) without really satisfying either side... AnonMoos (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Name

Shouldnt he be named "Lee C. Bollinger" per WP:MOSTCOMMONNAME --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC) "Lee Bollinger" 102K "Lee C. Bollinger" 157K "Lee Carroll Bollinger" 1K

Absolutely not. In most contexts he is almost always referred to as his first and last name. use some common sense, not just google hits.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Common sense" is subjective, a Google test is objective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok then, have a look at what people are actually searching for.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Lee Bollinger - Daniella Zalcman less noise.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lee Bollinger - Daniella Zalcman less noise.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 30, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 21:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Lee Bollinger (b. 1946) is an American lawyer and educator who is currently serving as the 19th president of Columbia University as well as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York board of directors. Formerly the president of the University of Michigan, he is a noted legal scholar of the First Amendment and freedom of speech.Photo: Daniella Zalcman/PLW