Talk:Paul O'Neill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri.

I've got the page references from the Price of Loyalty I want to use where O'Neill talks about "Brandeis briefs", but I don't know how to cite. (pp. 165-169, 306) 64.185.10.156 16:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (will be getting handle soon)

"Interestingly, O'Neill viewed one of the main problems with the Bush administration as being the lack of debate among senior administration officials on issues about which he felt strongly. He longed for the return of Brandeis briefs where issues were hashed out and sound coherent policy generated, similar to what is used today by Wikipedians to determine the content of this encyclopedia!"

dopey comment - what happened to be kind to the newbies ?

I thought it a clever comment. I read the book and I think there is a lot more there than the sound bites heard in the media and on this page. Incidentally I am a lifelong Republican and voted for Bush. Have you read the book?

The method of discussion bringing together disparate points of view and hashing it out is the method advocated by O'neill. He complained that he didn't see much of that in the administration, like he had in previous administrations such as the Nixon and Ford administrations.

We should get Mr. O'Neill involved in Wikipedia. He's got money - maybe he'll donate to the cause.--anon

It's a bad idea to be self-referential and talk about wikipedia. That's what's dopey. You are welcome to incorporate your post (minus the wikipedia part) into the relevant paragraph where his comments about being in a "room full of deaf people" are discussed - not before that paragraph. --Jiang 23:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

point taken - hope this is better - can't find my copy of the book just now but will update with page references later.64.185.10.156 14:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

One part of this article says that "he resigned in December 2002", another part says "led to his dismissal in 2003". Which is it? Did he resign, or was he fired? Was it in 2002, or 2003? --Mprudhom 16:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He officially resigned, but was asked to do so. I think he submitted his resignition in 2002, but did not leave his post until 2003. --Jiang 01:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article on the Main Page? There is no specific recent date in this article with current context. Please update this page or I will de-list it from the Main Page. --mav 05:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For anyone who bothers to read the news, it should be obvious. The first paragraph mentions "January 2004" and links to it as when he became a critic, and the last couple paragraphs explain this criticism. --Jiang 05:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Assume no such things in readers. Specific context is always needed for any news item. Simply list what day his book was published or what day the Bush Admin counter-attacked. I'm well-aware of the issue and the news about it - but teaching people how to correctly list things on the Main Page is my concern right now - fixing it for them will not teach them as well as them doing it themselves. --mav

The point of listing the date is so that readers are not entirely clueless when they come to an article. What we need is context, not a specific date. Although a specific date may be useful, the general month is sufficient. Dumb rules need not be followed. I just scanned the Jan 12 CBS article and found no date. --Jiang 05:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

LOL On January 12, 2004 CBS reported... There is your date. There is also an earlier CBS article (the 10th). --mav

We don't care about CBS. Was Jan 12 the first day this story was released? By CBS's posted online news article? It's a waste of the reader's time to read about CBS reporting something when we could avoid mentioning CBS (like is now done in the article). We care only about when O'Neill was interviewed on 60 Minutes (incidentally on CBS) and when his book was released. We are not here to regurgitate news articles. All we have to do is to assume that CBS is telling the truth.--Jiang 06:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Without knowing when and where the info is reported, then how can we find out if the un-named source is telling the truth? When he was interviewed on 60 Minutes is a very important piece of information that should be in the article. That would establish all the context the reader would need. --mav

I don't see what the External Link to a PNAC article has to do with Paul O'Neill himself. I suspect that it talks about the Bush Admin. planning the iraq war before sept 11, but I think it's really off topic. The article is about Paul O'Neill, not about whether the Admin. planned things in advance. I'm deleting it, but if anyone can justify keeping it, please do.Dostal 23:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This portion is wrong: "... the current Downing Street Memo - if proven accurate - supports the position of O'Neill and Richard A. Clarke, both former members and now critics of Bush's administration, that indeed such planning was taking place." It does no such thing. The so-called DSM's claim of fingering the Bush administration for nefarious intent and manipulation of the evidence, which even the original story in the London Times didn't find newsworthy to mention until very late in the story, rests on a misunderstanding of British English. It reads ""the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power sounds suspect because American English differs in usage. In the memo's author's British English, "fixing" is a neutral verb meaning "secured or nailed down, made certain;" in US usage, it means "altered or changed." Most of the DSM actually supports the Bush administration's policy, not opposition, antiwar critics. Anyone who has live or studied in Britain sees this obvious confusion that prove Mark Twain correct - two nations "divided by a common language."