Talk:Chuck Hagel - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 9 January 2013 (→BLP POV issues, Dec. 2012: new subsection - other thoughts on fraud accusations? Other editors please opine; let's not edit war on these issues.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:34, 9 January 2013 by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) (→BLP POV issues, Dec. 2012: new subsection - other thoughts on fraud accusations? Other editors please opine; let's not edit war on these issues.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chuck Hagel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Military history: Biography / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Congress

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

United States: Nebraska

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska.

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Odd addition to voting Record section

This is really odd to have on the voting record section, "Hagel had a tradition of wearing costumes to work on Halloween, usually masquerading as colleagues or other notable political figures. He has arrived at work dressed as Joe Biden, John McCain, Colin Powell, and Pat Roberts in past years" especially since it has nothing to do with voting. Not sure where exactly it belongs, but the voting record is not the place. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Need more about Hagel

Where does he stand on issues? What committees is he on? If he runs for president, I think we need more information about him in the article, hopefully without making it a campaign ad. Brian Pearson 01:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Standing amongst conservatives

I put a citation next to the sentence "he is increasingly unpopular with conservatives". Any evidence that he ever was popular amongst the right? With more and more Republicans joining the anti-war coffers, is there anything to suggest his unpopularity is decreasing?

Upcoming book?

Is it true that Hagel will come out with a book called "America, The Next Chapter"? I am the kind of person who is so anxious about what will happen in the future that I would be eager to read his book. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him. -Amit

Vice Presidential run with Bloomberg

I removed the statement saying that he might run with Bloomberg, since he has never said that he would, and in his press conference he said that he didn't intend to seek any office in 2008. Inks.LWC (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions

I think someone needs to add a section of Chuck's political positions on a variety of issues from Marriage issues to other social issues such as abortion and etc. This will add further enlightenment to the article.

Spokenwordsegment (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the purpose of the second sentence in this quote? "He considers Bush's foreign policy a 'ping pong game with American lives'. He is purple." I may be missing the meaning, but it struck me as a rather odd, non-sequitur statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.20.216 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Voting Record

"Despite his criticisms of the Bush administration, his voting record is 78.1% with his party."

This is highly misleading. John McCain, a supposed moderate, has a figure of 88.5%. A figure of 78.1% shows serious disagreement with his party. Kazmarov (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. These kind of statements are totally misleading. Most of those are procedural votes. Whats more important is knowing what are the nature of the 21.9% of votes in which he differs from his party. 76.25.207.129 (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing text

I've removed a paragraph about Senator Hagel's appearance at a meeting on Iran. Simple appearance at a single meeting is not a significant occurence as fact collecting plays an important part in the senator's job description. Further, I question the relevance of the extracted material in a section related to the senator's business interests.

--Philopedia (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP violation

Misplaced Pages has very strong WP:BLP rules about dealing with living people. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. These allegations of illegal or criminal behavior made by one Bev Harris in a self-published book clearly fall under the rule that "poorly sourced" allegations have to be deleted immediately. Rjensen (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP POV issues, Dec. 2012

I'm sure there will be lots of POV editing on this so I'm starting to watch it. I do see a lot of material was entered and then removed and from just a 30 second look can see both may have been done for POV reasons. I'm hoping other NPOV editors will come along and help keep article NPOV. I'll look at it more thoroughly tomorrow. CarolMooreDC 17:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The POV problems come from three sources: 1) by far the most important is Bev Harris' self-published book Black Box Voting, Harris, Bev. "Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-08-07., which alleges Hagel stole his elections because he controlled the software in the voting machines. 2) there is an editorial in CommonDreams article by Thom Hartmann, that is based on Harris and has nothing new . There are not serious RS that can be used to make charges of illegal and immoral behavior. Third there is an article in a serious newsletter The Hill Bolton, Alexander. "Hagel's ethics filings pose disclosure issue". Archived from the original on June 6, 2004.. This article is about an entirely different issue. Whether A) the Senator was obliged to report certain holdings on his ethics forms or B) was not so obliged. The Senate Ethics committee decided on B --that Hagel had followed the rules correctly--and dropped the matter. The BLP text cites the article but does not explain he was cleared. In sum, the charges of illegal/immoral behavior all come from one person (Bev Harris) and comprise a clear BLP violation that is not based on any serious reliable sources, and therefore must be erased immediately by Wiki rules. This matter is especially urgent because the press reports that Obama will soon appoint Hagel to the cabinet. Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the ownership and Hill info should be in there because a lot of people know about this issue;I also see something from Harpers. Without some mention people will keep adding the most questionable sources - or assuming Misplaced Pages is covering something up if there is not at least a mention. I myself can't remember the details, though I've read about them over the years. Thom Hartman might be usable as his opinion if properly balanced. I'd have to read all articles carefully. But not today. CarolMooreDC 18:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

there are very strong Wiki rules about adding derogatory information on living people. Opinion based on a defamatory source (Bev Harris) is not acceptable as RS. Rjensen (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Editing a lot on BLP's of critics of Israel, I wish that was true! (But glad to see that when/if WP:undue criticism starts here someone will care about the defamation issue.) I didn't find anything on her or the book in a news archive search, so I doubt she's WP:RS. Thus I did not mention her. However, I did just check Highbeam and found

the newspaper story correctly reports that she is obsessed with the issue of voter-machine fraud. The idea is that the manufacturer can program the machine to overide the voter and "vote" for a specific candidate--and that she says if how Hagel (who was one of the owners) got himself illegally elected. No legal authority and no RS has supported her allegations, but here it is in Misplaced Pages. Rjensen (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Other thoughts on fraud accusations?

Since that paragraph is BACK, I took half and hour and cut it down writing: per WP:BLP: cut poorly written, redundant, WP:Undue section on ES&S to one comprehensible paragraph and put in election section where obviously most relevant) I think the first part is fine. If you have a problem with the last sentence listing the three complainants, and no one here agrees with you, take it to WP:BLPN (noticeboard). I've seen so much worse on wikipedia that people get away with, I'm not a good judge myself of whether it belongs there. But you know that people will keep adding it back, so that's your best bet. CarolMooreDC 02:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Without bothering to respond to the above, at this diff] Rjensen removed most of the Hill material (which I think is unacceptable since people DO know there's some allegations on this issue) and the sentence on the three allegations of fraud. (Something there is more of an argument for, but I'd like to hear it from someone besides him.) Anyone want to opine? I personally don't feel like reverting the Hill part, but the one sentence does look stupid. Obviously other editors want to emphasize questionable contributions, like this (improved) revert of my revert, but they should not be edit warring. CarolMooreDC 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Jack Besser's OpEd does not directly address any claims of antisemitism directed at Hagel - but that's beside the point. Even if it did, we as editors can't decide that his ethnicity is relevant to what he wrote if other sources didn't comment on it. Thomas Friedman is also Jewish - yet his ethnicity is not called out. Ben Ami is also Jewish, and directly addresses charges of antisemitism - yet his ethnicity is also not called out. They think it's all over (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I put that in after reading somewhere he was Jewish or else seeing this description in the end of the article he wrote: "James Besser was the Washington correspondent for The Jewish Week from 1987 to 2011 and was a syndicated columnist for several Jewish newspapers." A similar description might do, if one necessary at all. Of course, this article in Tikkundaily by MJ Rosenberg discussing American Jewish Committee attacks on Besser - who he describes as Jewish - makes it more so. American Jewish Committee Demonstrates That Lobby Effort To Sink Hagel Has Backfired. It might become more relevant if Hagel is appointed and there are articles about splits in Jewish community over his nomination, including mentioning Besser. CarolMooreDC 04:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources you refer to call out that Besser is Jewish, and they are additionally not reliable sources. I agree that IF there a need to describe who Besser is, then "the Washington correspondent for The Jewish Week " is better than "Jewish journalist', but I don't really see a need to describe him beyond how any other commentator in that section is described. They think it's all over (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Jewish lobby" quote

We know that this was said to Aaron David Miller but is this from a 2008 book or a 2006 interview? There are sources for both, which suggests Hagel said it in 2006 and it was written about in 2008. In that case, I think Misplaced Pages should date the remark to 2006 instead of 2008.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've changed this to 2006 interview and provided a cite for that.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning criticism in the overview?

I was reading over this article and I feel the entire third paragraph of the overview section doesn't belong up there. (If it's gone by the time you read this, then hooray). It's for the most part repeated in "Obama administration Secretary of Defense consideration" chapter. And while on that note, we could actually set up a new subchapter in that particular section, titled "Criticism" or "Controversy" or whatever, and put a paragraph of his critiques there. Just a suggestion though.

Blee395 (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Blee395

Hi -- welcome to wikipedia. The lead section of a Misplaced Pages article serves as a summary of its most important aspects. His nomination, and the critics and defenders of his nomination, constitute precisely such an important aspect to be summarized in the lede. The lede should summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. This is just such a controversy. See wp:lede, for a discussion of this.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I´d say that the nomination deserves mentioning in the lead (now, at least), but the reactions to it - not necessarily so. Certainly not almost half the text, that seems undue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it and wrote on Epeefleche's talk page under the 3rr warning: With 6 or 7 sets of edits for today, I have a feeling I'll be able to find 3rrs. Given your known POV I hope you will control yourself and not editwar with others. And for obvious reason I have removed your criticisms from lead. After the nomination is official someone can put something in noting controversy. CarolMooreDC 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Given your whining here, I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I point out the hypocrisy of your personal comments about Epeechflee and subsequent comments about myself.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As per Epeefleche, the lede is supposed to summarize the important aspect of the article. I'm open to trimming it, but for NPOV and comprehensiveness's sake, criticism of his positions must be included in the lede. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted it and wrote on Epeefleche's talk page under the 3rr warning: With 6 or 7 sets of edits for today, I have a feeling I'll be able to find 3rrs. Given your known POV I hope you will control yourself and not editwar with others. And for obvious reason I have removed your criticisms from lead. After the nomination is official someone can put a sentence in noting general controversy without full details.

Also, per revert of my revert, a host of editors who edit with the pro-Israel line probably will be showing up to revert anything that goes against their POV... CarolMooreDC 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How about trimming it to something like: In January 2013, major media outlets reported that Hagel would be nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense by President Barack Obama. This caused much comment from republicans, democrats and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

POIFECT :-) CarolMooreDC 17:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Limiting two two sentences would be ideal but its most prudent to summarize the specific controversies. How about something along the line of "This caused much comment concerning his past comments and positions about Iran, Jews, and Gays. "--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I´d like to cut "about Iran, Jews, and Gays", since that is kinda vague to me, and clarity requires more words. New suggestion: "This caused much comment concerning some of his past comments and positions." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, new suggestion: "This caused much comment from both Republicans and Democrats concerning some of his past comments and positions."--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That´s good, and Iike it slightly better than the current wording. Which is also fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The criticism should be included, it should not however overwhelm the lead. A single sentence was given to the nomination, so I gave a single sentence to criticism. The details are in the body. nableezy - 17:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit seems fine to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me too, though I would not be opposed to something slightly more specific like "concerning his positions on Iran and Israel." If it stays NPOV like this hopefully it's safe to remove my POV Intro tag. CarolMooreDC 17:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove the dispute tag? NickCT (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Although not originally involved in the dispute above, I read through the whole thing and I can say I, too, am fine with the way it is. Dispute tag is indeed obsolete.

Cheers, Λuα 19:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dispute tag removed. NickCT (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Should article go to 1RR??

For those not familiar WP:ARBPIA is the Israel-Palestine arbitration which puts articles related to it under 1 revert per day. If this article is going to be used to promote a strong line on this issue, it should at least temporarily go under WP:ARBPIA and if he's made Sec. of Defense and the attacks continue, probably permanently. I'll control self and not tag for now but comments welcome. CarolMooreDC 16:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You controlled yourself for exactly four minutes thereby violating your own promise and 1RR rules that you claim apply to this article. The level of hypocrisy (see my comments in the section above) is astounding. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Read more carefully: I'll control self and not tag for now... I don't want to punish people and keep inaccurate info from getting into article, like my misreading of the Hill article about what year he resigned from AIS. So thought I'd see if other people think this is necessary - hopefully not! CarolMooreDC 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Read what more carefully, the word "now"? You said you won't tag the article and you tagged the article four minutes later. You said the article falls under 1RR rules and you subsequently violated 2rr. You whine about personal comments about you but have no problem personalizing your comments about other editors. I'm not wasting any more of my time with this nonsense. The record right here speaks for itself. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, read two relevant sentences and you'll get fact I was not talking about POV Intro tag. I was talking about WP:ARBPIA tag (ie 1RR topic of this thread) on talk page (and article page if I ever figure out how to do that): it should at least temporarily go under WP:ARBPIA and if he's made Sec. of Defense and the attacks continue, probably permanently. I'll control self and not tag for now but comments welcome. CarolMooreDC 17:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not need to be tagged, anything regarding the I/P conflict is covered under the 1RR with or without the tag. Brewcrewer, Epeefleche, and Carol, you all know this already. The material about Hagel and Israel/Hamas is unequivocally covered under the 1RR. If you dont believe me you can find out if Im right by reverting again. nableezy - 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I didn't know that it applied if NOT tagged. Learn something everyday. But if not tagged does that ONLY apply to Israel-Palestine material? In any case, I think my factual corrections (one serious mis-statement of a date) would not be covered per wp:BLP. CarolMooreDC 17:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The restriction reads any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. The recent edits make rather clear that this article can reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But no matter, Im adding the template to this page now. nableezy - 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Template is needed on editing page too since surely it will not occur to a lot of people that this article is 1RR. Unfortunately, I've never been able to get the template to work on the main article page - it's supposed to show only when people try to edit. Just tried it and OOPS! Now can't be undone. See Template:Arab-Israeli_Arbitration_Enforcement if someone else can figure it out. CarolMooreDC 20:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Scary message

Guys, this is your Misplaced Pages (I am mostly active on Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål) but as I incidentally came across this article with the screaming warning on the top I have to say that I think it is way too much. Put it on the top of the discussion page, it has no place on the top of the article. If it stays there you will only make yourself victims for jokes. Best wishes, Ulflarsen (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see message directly above. The problem is that message is supposed to be inside the edit window but there is no guidance on how to get it there. As I note, have been trying to get it for a while and forgot what happens when you do it wrong. I tried to undo but it would not undo. CarolMooreDC 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Go home Norwegians!

Hehehe.... Joking. @CarolMooreDC - That was real messy. You deserve a wet fish (i.e. trout slap). NickCT (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As you see here I tried a year ago to get guidance on the template page on how to do this and got none and gave up and asked an admin. Today I forgot how bad it was when you try to add it the wrong way. Why the big mystery? I hate to see people get caught on 1rr because the notice isn't there, when there IS a notice available. CarolMooreDC 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What about something that indicates that people have issues with the subject? Adding a semi-lock on it would at least get my attention. And if I happened to revert the article twice, I assume I would have a warning before I got banned, or? So this seems to be a bit of overkill for loads of readers to inform just a handful of editors. Wet fish or not, still best wishes! Ulflarsen (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

How about exhibiting a concern for edit warring as opposing to "catching people on 1RR", Carol? I note that you issued a 3RR warning to an editor with more than 100 thousand edits saying that with all that person's edits in a relatively short space of time, "I have a feeling I'll be able to find 3rrs." You really think moves like that increase people's inclination to edit collaboratively? But you're demanding that a cop jump in where there is no demonstrated need for one to start throwing his or her weight around through the application of stringent 1RR sanctions and evidently volunteering to pay that role. Hovering over the article looking for opportunities to accuse other editors of technical rules violations (where is the SUBSTANTIVE edit war if there is one?) is more likely to create conflict than preclude it. If there is a problem it's more likely the first step would be to limit editing to registered users.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Carol, that template is meant for an edit-notice, something that only an admin can create. And no, it isnt needed. If somebody does not realize the rule inform them of it and ask that they self-revert a second revert. Thats all that is needed. nableezy - 22:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't told that 18 months ago, but I guess I assumed it and didn't try again til had forgotten. So I have now put that factoid on both relevant templates so no one else screws up again.

Love me both some Chuck Hagel and Misplaced Pages. Completely agree with 1/rr and a notice to those editing and here on the talk page of certain editors are already involved. Cptnono (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Modifying the lede, to conform with wp:lede

WP:lede states: "The lead should ... summarize ... any prominent controversies." It adds: "The lead should ... include mention of ... significant criticism or controversies".

In no way does what we have now "summarize" or even mention the nature of the controversy. It only mentions that there is criticism "by some members of both the right and left." It fails completely to summarize what the criticism or controversy is.

Our top RSs around the country seem to be able to summarize the controversy. See, for example, the New York Times article of a few minutes ago ... referring to "his views on Israel, Iran and Islamic militant groups. ... criticism from gay rights organizations for remarks he made 14 years ago – for which he has since apologized – about an openly gay diplomat."

The lede should similarly reflect that. Something that includes the words "Israel, Iran, Islamic militant groups, gay" would do the trick. Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Every politician has said or done something controversial during their lives. Unless that controversy had a major bearing on that politician's leadership/career (e.g. Clinton's Lewinsky scandal, Nixon's watergate), it's likely undue in the lead. I'm not a Hagel expert, but at first glance, sources discussing Israel/Iran/Islamic militant groups and the gay thing only seem to be a small chunk of those which cover him. NickCT (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the ongoing issues most relevant -Iran and Israel - should be mentioned but there is a laundry list, so perhaps you are right. CarolMooreDC 20:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The NYT coverage is representative of all high-level coverage of the man's career, as his career is discussed in the context of his nomination. It is exactly what wp:lede has in mind. We do have to be concerned about hiding the ball by saying "I'm no expert, but I say let's not report on what the RSs all report on" -- that's exactly what wp:lede doesn't want some editors to do.Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a crystal-balling issue; if he won't be confirmed because of this, then it'll be significant for the lede. If he does get confirmed, it won't be important stuff. But you can't play fortune teller. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of comments made years back are a tiny speck on this man's long record. If we include every controversial thing a politician said in their article's lede, Silvio Berlusconi would have a 300K intro. Cheers, Λuα 21:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

re "let's not report on what the RSs all report on"? Really? Surely that's hyperbole. Every article about Hagel mentions the Israel/Iran/Islamic militant groups and the gay thing? Listen Epee, prior to Hagel's nomination, the issues you want to add barely even registered anywhere in Hagel's article. Now you want to put them in the lede? Have there been new notable revelations about those issues, or is that his rise to prominence has lead you to want to frame the guy with your POV? NickCT (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment in this section. As a paleocon I object to the generalizing of opposition to "the right." The opposition on the right is almost exclusively coming from neo-cons. Either it should be stated that the "right wing" criticism is neo-conservative or it should be specified as criticism of what Hagel has said or done with respect to the Middle East.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If this were an article on the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, then yes such detail should be included in the lead of the article. This however is not an article on the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, it is an article, a biography to be exact, on Chuck Hagel. The proposal is an attempt at a smear without so much as granting a response. The idea that the lead should include more about criticism of a nomination than it does about his Vietnam service or his time as a US Senator is absurd. And unless you wish to include the responses to the criticism, in as much detail as you do the actual criticism, it is also a violation of multiple policies (NPOV and BLP). The lead summarizes, with appropriate weight, the most recent news. Going beyond that is nothing more than an attempt to use a Misplaced Pages article as a platform to smear a living person. nableezy - 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The political debate over the nomination belongs out of the lead altogether per WP:LEAD, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP. This is an article about Chuck Hagel the person, not about the political brouhaha of the hour. Does anyone really think we'll be looking back at the guy ten years from now and one of the first things we'll think of is the debate over the secdef nomination? No way. Unless it becomes a HUGE issue, which it hasn't yet. Think back to all the federal nominees in history. Can you think of any that deserve the political debate in the lead section? I can only think of a few. They were all nominated for the Supreme Court, they all had obscure backgrounds relative to Hagel, and they all had bruising nomination battles that lasted for more than a day. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

John Tower was nominated for the exact same post in 1989 "but he was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 53 to 47." Now where does that tidbit of info appear? In the three line lede! The great irony with deletionists like you is that for all your complaints about RECENTISM and NOTANEWSPAPER, instead of going after articles focusing on ancient history, you set your sights on Misplaced Pages's highest traffic articles, no doubt because you've read about the topic in the media...--Brian Dell (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You realize that most people havent said that the material should be deleted, right? Because you appear to be arguing against a point never made, maybe because it is easier than arguing against the points that have actually been made. This is an article on Hagel, not his nomination. Editors have attempted to score political points and turn this biographical article into a playground for them to parrot their political preferences. The lead of the article includes that he was nominated, and that the nomination has resulted in some opposition. The full details of that nomination and opposition is in the body of the article. Next time you make a counterargument, could you please try to actually counter the argument? nableezy - 15:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tower lede says nothing about the the political debate surrounding his nomination. Case in point. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting rid of "the opposition" in the lede

Sentence in question: "The nomination has some opposition from both sides of the political spectrum, left and right"

OK, so since Brian Dell objects to the generalization made by the statement, and others object to the undue weight given to this whole nomination thing, how about we just get rid of that sentence. If a reader wants to know more about his nomination, they can just go to the relavent section.

Further problems with the sentence: it is mainly negative, and shadows the fact that he also received support.

Cheers, Λuα 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we get agreement on lede description of criticism?

I see people keep reverting each other without discussing. Just creating this section so others can easily find section discussing this point. CarolMooreDC 19:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha. We got the same idea about a new section at the same time. I agree though. We need to agree. I say we mention the nomination, but leave it at that. If people want to get rid of any mention of the nomination, I am good with that, too.

Cheers, Λuα 19:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to summarise the reasons for the opposition to the nomination is bound to result in inaccuracy. The recent addition cited gay rights, Israel and Iran, which is partially true. But it overlooks the more subtle (or perhaps more obvious) reasons: that a main factor behind Hagel's problems with Republican senators lies in his abandonment of the party late in his Senate career and through his post-Senate career. And also "Many senators didn’t like Hagel personally, not just politically, two Republican operatives pointed out." So there are personal factors too. The body of the article has the room to explain all the factors and nuances to the extent that it doesn't already do so; the lead does not. And so the lead is fine as it is. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything Mkativerata wrote except for his/her last sentence. The last sentence of the lede ("The nomination has some opposition from both sides of the political spectrum, left and right."), while internally balanced, should go per WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. There doesn't seem to be comparable sentence in the lede of any other article. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I would agree with getting rid of that too, come to think of it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with that, too. Λuα 20:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume the source says "left and right" and this is not WP:Original research? I'd prefer something even more general like met with "criticism or opposition from a number of (interests/constituencies/sources/or whatever)." Tempt them to actual read down through the article !

secdef nomination & recentism

I removed the pro & con sections for the secdef nomination per WP:RECENTISM. Rjensen reverted with the comment "not 'recentism' -- this debate goes back 14 years." I don't know what that means. These subsections are under the nomination by Obama (which just happened) and none of the cited sources are more than a couple of weeks old. Is the 14 years a reference to some of the past statements made by Hagel? If so they're still recentism. A few stray comments made years ago wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in the article if it weren't for the events of the last week or two. I challenge Rjensen to find a comparably in-depth dissection of a nomination that's as relatively minor as this one, especially in light of the fact that Obama just nominated him today. The Susan Rice nomination drew a much bigger debate and it gets about a third the real estate in her article, despite the fact that there was less stuff to write about her. As things stand we have more written about the day-old debate about Hagel's nomination than we have about his foreign policy views or his elections. Let's try to keep things in perspective. --Nstrauss (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about to undo the undo, but I don't want to start an edit war. I think it's not wrong per WP:RECENTISM, but WP:UNDUE. Once the nomination is confirmed or rejected, most of this "support for" and "objection to" information will fade to the background. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is not a Misplaced Pages policy, it's an essay. That doesn't mean it doesn't have value if applied properly, which it most certainly is not if it is being cited to delete notable, cited material without even attempting to first condense. The counter to any allegation of RECENTISM is notability and in this particular case the material is notable, not least because comments dating back to 1998 are at issue as opposed to something that happened last week. An example of true recentism would be to report on just one of two hundred speeches given by a subject, with the one reported on reported on simply because it was the one delivered within the last week. The situation here is not analogous to that. The Susan Rice non-nomination did NOT "draw a much bigger debate" given that the "debate" over Hagel has just begun. Re "weren't for the events of the last week or two" we would still be dating everything 2012. But the fact is that it is 2013, like it or not. If you want more material about his elections or what not, what is stopping you from adding that material? Why is it that so many Misplaced Pages editors think the solution to a less than informative article is to delete information instead of adding it? If it really hurts the article so much, why not spin out the nomination into its own article, like Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination? Much of the material, like the 2006 interview and the 1998 remarks, could also go to other parts of the article (which is largely what happened in the Rice article with most of her contentious actions and remarks), but, again, that's a solution that does not involve deletion. I'll ask a final question here, which is why it's so terrible for Misplaced Pages to cater to its readers' interests to some extent, which admittedly changes with time. It will not destroy Misplaced Pages's reputation to dial back coverage of what's "hot" when it cools to a limited extent. This point should not be overdone, but a purpose of the project to to serve the information demands of the readership.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You've done a good job of representing the pro-recentism arguments, which are certainly valid. Of course I could go through the anti-recentism arguments but you'd probably be better served simply by reading WP:RECENTISM. I personally like WP:10YT: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" But I understand, this is only a guideline. More critically, we must comply with WP:UNDUE (of which recentism is one dimension), which means that the article should be balanced among the various topics based on their notability. We must also comply with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion here. Based on these two policies it's unreasonable to expect other sections of this article to be expanded just because you want an in-depth dissection of every viewpoint about Hagel's nomination. This is not the Bork nomination. If it ever becomes the Bork nomination then of course it will merit much more real estate and perhaps even its own article. But right now we're really talking about a run-of-the-mill cabinet nomination. If you can find a single nomination that's comparable and receives this much space then I'd be very impressed. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You declare it "unreasonable" to be expected to actually add to the article yet you have the time to delete whole sections and write paragraphs on the article Talk page because your extensive deletion inevitably provokes pushback from other editors. Ask yourself if Misplaced Pages would have better served its readers had it existed on July 1, 1987 and you had had your way. There would have been minimal coverage of any controversy surrounding Bork (at issue here, again, is not your removal of material concerning the nomination per se but your suppression of facts like Hagel once referring to the "Jewish lobby" from appearing anywhere in the article) until, what, a year later, or 10 years later, when you would then presumably admit more material into the Bork article. Can we agree that would be less than ideal? I fail to appreciate the downside of the Bork nomination turning out to be non-notable 10 years out because Misplaced Pages always retains the option of deleting excessive material as it becomes evident that it is excessive. I'm not insisting this Hagel nomination will be greatly notable for all time because I don't have a crystal ball. You, however, presume to have one. You're the party making claims about the future here and it's accordingly your obligation to provide proof of your claims. Note that it is the current view of the Washington Post that: "The nomination of former senator Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon has set in motion a highly unusual campaign-style brawl over a Cabinet post long considered above politics. Supporters and opponents are raising money and building political organizations in anticipation of a grueling and contentious Senate confirmation process.... In the past week, fundraising has become a priority for both sides, introducing a new element of electoral-style politics into a realm that has seldom, if ever, seen it before.... The battle lines are being drawn so sharply because of the high stakes on all sides.... There have been fights in the past over presidents’ nominees, but longtime observers say the attacks on Hagel’s policy positions are unprecedented."--Brian Dell (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we're having a couple of miscommunications. First, when I said it would be unreasonable to expect other sections to be expanded it wasn't because of the burden it would put on other editors but because of the article bloat that would result. Sorry if it sounded like I was whining about having to improve the article, that is certainly not what I meant. Second, WP:10YT doesn't mean that notable facts must be excluded for 10 years before they can be added back in. It just means that we should write for the long view and make an effort to predict what will be noteworthy 10 years from now. Does that require looking into a crystal ball? Hell yes! I never claimed to be an expert, but at least I try. It's not appropriate to say "who knows what will be notable 10 years from now," throw up your hands, and include everything you can find just in case it might end up being noteworthy. That's totally antithetical to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Re the WaPo article, thanks for pointing that out. Based on this I can see a sentence or two on the debate but nothing more -- certainly not as much as we currently have. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lilibet Ziller

Ziller is a common German surname. Does anyone know of what descent Chuck Hagel's wife is? Hagel will be a GREAT defense secretary! --91.65.19.184 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: