Talk:Donald Rumsfeld/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

German prosecutor dimisses Rumsfeld war crimes case

Published: Friday April 27, 2007 Germany's federal prosecutor announced she will not be proceeding with an investigation against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA Director George Tenet, and other high-ranking U.S. officials for torture and other war crimes committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo, according to a press release obtained by RAW STORY.

Link to RAW STORY article

Article needs to be updated, but I don't have the skill. I'm putting above references in to alert those more skilled than me.--Raymm 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing was absurd in the first place. German courts have no jurisdiction over American foreign policy.

128.138.173.224 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

they do though, as they have started an investigation and will bring their claims to the international criminal court where his trial will be taken under consideration, American policy or not Markthemac 07:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Markthemac: the US does not recognise the ICC and it has no jurisdiction over American citizens. The ICC can't simply assert jurisdiction over a sovereign nation without its consent. In fact, Congress by statute has granted the Prewsident the power to use military force to rescue any US national held by the ICC.Solicitr (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Torture is forbidden by international law, which means that every country, where Rumsfeld is traveling to, is obligated to investigate this case and possibly arrest him. See Pinochets arrest in the UK --Raphael1 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Clicking on "Wolfgang Kaleck" (the human rights lawyer who brought this case) on other pages, or typing his name into the search function on Wiki, brings you rather eerily to "Donald Rumsfeld"'s page. Unfortunately I can't work out how to change it, but perhaps someone cleverer than I could? Thanks. Ciggywink 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Age

The article currently reads:

He is both the youngest (43 years old) and the oldest (68 years old...

Since he held the position as recently as 2006, shouldn't we say that he was 74 years as the oldest position-holder? If no one objects, I intend to change this. Dylan 07:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Domestic life

That Rumsfeld lives at the plantation Mount Misery loses context since it was edited. Earlier versions should be restored.Robert B. Livingston 21:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear Reactor Sales to north Korea

Can we include the London Guardian's reference of Donald Rumsfeld's involvement in the sale of nulcear reactors to North Korea in 2000, just two years before the Bush Administration's declaration of North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil. http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lakeshorebaby (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Opening Line to Article as regards Profession

I would say this opening description of 'politician and businessman' is incomplete. He was also a White House Cabinet member (Cabinet members are not considered to be politicians, but rather Civil Service Presidential advisors in charge of Departments of the Government--so the word politician doesn't go far enough). He also had a long career as a Navy fighter pilot and served as well in different roles as a non-Cabinet Senior White House advisor. Also he is no longer any of those professions but is now retired so the article should say "was".

The sidebar seems to hit most of these points but they should also be in the opening sentence to the article.

I would suggest instead "...was the (numbers) Secretary of Defense, a senior White House advisor, a politician, the CEO of _________ and a Navy Fighter pilot for 20 years (get exact number of years). The details of course need to be filled in. Even those who have been critical of him on Iraq him have to concede that he had an incredible career, any one of these roles is quite an accomplishment. Give credit where credit is due.

Phil

Sean7phil 04:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

67.42.243.184 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing $2.3 Trillion

On September 10, 2001 declared war on the Pentagon bureaucracy. "The adversary is closer to home, it's the Pentagon bureaucracy." he said in the same speech that he cannot account for up to $2.3 Trillion that has been spent by the military. To see the video click here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4437883523511945930&q=Rumsfeld+loses+trillion

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.70.217 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

If you can't cite it, it doesn't matter. Just drop the issue. This page is not your soapbox. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There:The War On Waste. Lovelight 14:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tag

The article's tag read Donald Rumsfled is a fucktag so I deleted the line. I hope this was the right thing to go.

Mikomax 14:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Unused public domain image

Here is an orphaned PD-USGov image of Rumsfeld: Image:Rummy.jpg. --Strangerer (Talk) 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Birth Place

I see a birth place of Evanston in the infobox, and Chicago in the article. Which is correct?--Kranar drogin 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Savage

Michael Savage said yesterday on his radio program tht Donald Rumsfeld still has an office in the Pentagon. Can anyone confirm or deny this? 75.44.20.8 20:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Times writes:

On Jan. 4, Mr. Rumsfeld opened a government-provided transition office in Arlington and has seven Pentagon-paid staffers working for him, a Pentagon official said.

The Pentagon lists Mr. Rumsfeld as a "nonpaid consultant," a status he needs in order to review secret and top-secret documents, the official said.

--Raphael1 11:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Response

Any good reason Rumsfeld's attempted rescue actions after the Pentagon was struck were left out of this article's section on "September 11"? I would like to include a sentence or two on his hurried response to the accident scene. 24.62.25.90 04:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumsfeld Jewish?

Is Donald Rumsfeld Jewish? I ask because it doesn't say so in the article (a sure sign that he isn't) but I was under the impression, don't know why, that he is. Jewish ancestry? I am sure you can have the name Rumsfeld and not be Jewish but I was concerned it could have just been passed over.

In case anyone is wondering why it matters I am of the impression that ethnicity or religious persuasions are/or can be important factors. Maybe I am off, as an Australian I don't really understand the U.S. political ways.

Any how, i suppose it is just a simple YES/NO sort of thing. Is Rumsfeld Jewish?

ooh, sorry, forgot to sign that comment. Alexbonaro 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I never heard anything about Rumsfeld being Jewish and I have no reason to believe that he is. I'm curious as to why you got that impression. Is it because his name ends in "feld"? Because he's a neoconservative? Either way, I never heard anything about his being Jewish. Sh76us 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lol. I am not gonna lie, the feld was a selling point, but ofcourse Alfred Rosenberg was no Jew and it would be absurd to assume so because Rosenberg is also the name of some Jewish families. And his neo-conservative stance - and that of Paul Wolfowitz, his Jewish deputy - and the Jewishness of his two precedents for Secretary of Defense; James Schlesinger and William S. Cohen - was just another thing that made it come to mind. I had also seen him being called a Jew on some racist forums and in the Eastern media. I looked more into it though and there is nothing substantial to suggest he is. Alexbonaro 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of names that many people associate with being Jewish are actually German. Names like Schwartz, Rosenberg, Stein, Weiss, etc. are all German names. In the USA, because there are so many Jews of German descent, it's almost assumed that people with these names are Jewish (and they very often are); but there are also plenty of non-Jewish Germans that have these names. Of course, there are some names (Cohen, Katz, Rappaport, to name a few) that are virtually certain to be Jewish- but the German names are not among them. Sh76us 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

controversial?

In first section of the BBC Profile: Donald Rumsfeld calls him the the most controversial defence secretary in US history[2]. IMHO that's enough to call him controversial in the lead section. --Raphael1 23:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not even close. The article states "And he was probably also the most controversial." There is a huge difference between the two. If you want to mention it somewhere in the lead, I wouldn't oppose it's inclusion, but to state "Donald Henry Rumsfeld (born July 9, 1932) is a controversial U.S. Republican politician and businessman" as you've tried is not acceptable. Rumsfeld is not notable because he is controversial; he's notable due to the positions he's held in US Government. Adding a sentence to end of the second paragraph along the lines of "Rumsfeld is considered to be one of the most controversial defense secretaries in US history"[3]" would be properly sourced and within NPOV. - auburnpilot talk 23:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why "one of the most"? I'd suggest adding to the 2nd paragraph "He is considered to be the most controversial defense secretary in US history." --Raphael1 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Slip of the keyboard; removing "one of the most" is more accurate, and I've made the change. - auburnpilot talk 23:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Raphael1 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

By WHOM is Rumsfeld considered most controversial? Not by me. Perhaps by left-leaning wikieditor? Statements like this are a sneaky way for the author to insert his opinion (by ascribing it to others or to a consensus.) Realize that there are a lot of us Red Staters out here. Bush got elected in 2004 by us. Not everyone reads DKOS and listens to NPR. Or watches the Daily Show.TCO 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Aspartame Link

Can someone add a section detailing Rumsfeld's efforts to get Aspartame approved under the Reagan administration, and his economic links to the G.D. Searle Company - I'm at work right now and can't - I'll probably do some research later and add to it.

Chris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.195.227.146 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC) 

Sorry, I hadn't seen the article under his career. Maybe it should have an additional heading. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.195.227.146 (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This Article also fails to even mention "Transformation." Rumsfeld came to office witht the intent to radically redefine the US Force structure. While his efforts have been overshadowed by the war in Iraq, as far as media exposure, his efforts have changed the US military significantly. Why is Wikipedia talking about spurious prosecutions in Europe and not the dramatic changes Rumsfeld wrought in the Dept. of Defense?

81.85.255.75 (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)--JB--

Please remove the following comment from the Donald Rumsfeld page.

"HES A DUMB ASS FUCKER FUCK HIS KIDS."

It degrades the effectiveness of Wikipedia.

171.64.131.101 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a source for the statement that Rumsfeld has gotten a 1-yr job at Stanford (Hoover Inst)?

I'd like to see the source (and read the article myself). I recently heard on local news radio that he was *offered* a post, but that there was a petition circulating among students and faculty protesting that appointment. Can anyone with better information footnote this, please? Rousse 22:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Each article I just glanced at after a search on Google News refers to him as already being appointed. (results) Most of the current sources also discuss the online petition. - auburnpilot talk 23:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

another affiliation?

i didn't see any mention of his involvement with the Bilderberg Group, i believe it speaks volumes about his power and influence. anyway, just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.252.99 (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist

• Yes, he is a terrorist. --Striver - talk 16:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the linked article is Rumsfeld referred to as a terrorist. - auburnpilot talk 17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Snowflakes

Rumsfeld's "snowflakes" (memos) should be discussed in the article. Washington post article. Badagnani 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

let's cut the "considered by some" crap

A. It's a facade: what it really means is...I, the writer, think this. B. The "some" is not specified. C. It's not noteworthy. D. We could also find "some" with an opposite view. E. The "some" are always DKOSacks who don't like Bush or Rumsfeld or what have you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rummy

I've reverted the addition of "Rummy" to the introduction and infobox as it is not a common name for Rumsfeld, even if it is used by some. Think of it this way, we don't add Dubya to George W. Bush's name or Bubba to Bill Clinton's, but we add Bill to Clinton's (in addition to William) and Al to Al Gore's (in addition to Albert). A common name is quite different than a nickname. - auburnpilot talk 15:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge difference. "Dubya" is extremely informal and not widely used among his colleagues, but "Rummy" is a bona fide nickname used professionally, as the sources show. In fact, there are more Google hits for Rummy Rumsfeld (352,000) than for Dubya Bush (282,000)! It is reasonable to expect people to be looking this sort of thing up, so I am replacing the nickname. MilesAgain (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

First, please see WP:BRD. You seem to be missing the point entirely. We do not put nicknames in the infobox or first line of the introduction. Rummy, like Dubya, is a nickname and should not included. This has nothing to do with how many people use the nickname, but the fact that it isn't used as his common name in the way Bill is for Clinton, Al for Gore, or Dick for Cheney. It is improper for rummy to be placed in the intro and infobox. - auburnpilot talk 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What does WP:BRD have to do with this? WP:MOSBIO suggests including well-known nicknames, but doesn't give an example of an inline nickname. I'll ask at WT:MOSBIO. MilesAgain (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

BRD is how this should have proceeded. You make a change, I revert it, then we discuss. By the BRD cycle, you should not have then re-added your edit until a compromise was reached. The BRD cycle, when followed, prevents edit wars and allows for consensus to be reached. But that's beside the point and we can continue this discussion at WT:MOSBIO for now. - auburnpilot talk 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Asked at WT:MOSBIO#Lead names. MilesAgain (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, I've left a comment there. - auburnpilot talk 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the google results noted above are not correct. The proper searches should be for "Rummy Rumsfeld" and "Dubya Bush" (in quotations). These searches result in 2,390 hits for Rummy and 116,000 for Dubya. Without placing them in quotations, some of the results linked above did not always include but Rummy and Rumsfeld or Dubya and Bush. - auburnpilot talk 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My deletions

I deleted a whole bunch of stuff recently. The reason has nothing to do with politics, beliefs, agendas or any of that. The reason was simple. After dealing in "big facts" for quite a while, the entry suddenly gets bogged down in minutia and "small facts." The information presented (each and every lawsuit, for example) is not significant in the grand scheme of things. Being aware that Rumsfeld is controvercial, I deleted it because all of this material is negative, apparently the work of folks bent on presenting a case against the man with factually accurate, yet relatively insiginficant detail compared to the rest of the entry. I'm sure there are lots of facts that can be listed here, such as his grade in algebra, the first girl he kissed, how many Cubs games he attended as a kid, etc., but a line needs to be drawn when editing (I am a professional editor). In this case, there are so many "big facts", the dispropotionate attention to "smaller facts" cheapens the overall flow. If others disagree, that's fine and that's what this site is for, I guess. But I think it reads better without the overload of detail about relatively insignificant facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.96.247 (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ray McGovern

Any objections to removing this in its entirety? McGovern is a crank and a 9/11 truther to boot, he has squandered any credibility he once had when he went down thermite Ave. CENSEI (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This was widely covered in reliable sources and McGovern, despite your personal opinions about him, is a well-known and important figure (however "cranky" or "truthy" he may be). csloat (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Not widely enough covered or a significant enough event to include at this length in Rumsfeld's article. Perhaps in the McGovern article, but not here. McGovern is certainly popular with the truther crowds and what not, but is not well know. CENSEI (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're simply wrong. This was a major event and was well covered in numerous reliable sources. And McGovern is not a "truther" figure; he worked for the US government for the better part of three decades, mostly delivering briefings and has been a notable figure in reliable sources since at least 1992. A former intelligence official, he's been a published commentator on intel matters since the 1990s, and his public criticism of Rumsfeld was a major story. csloat (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Major in McGovern's life perhaps, not notable in Rumsfled's. And yes Ray McGovern is a batshit insane truther [4], his interview on the Alex Jones show is even more disgraceful. The man has gone off the deep end and is no more reliable a source than Lyndon Larouche CENSEI (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinions; however, reliable sources do not back you up. If there is anything here about McGovern's appearance on Alex Jones I would support removing it; however, his interaction with Rumsfeld (in which he did not mention any "batshit insane truths") was well commented on in the media and needs to stay here. csloat (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, to have a section in a biographical article about one incident involving a batshit insane truther flies in the face of wp:WEIGHT. This incident is notable for McGovern. McGovern’s opinions and thoughts were notable once upon a time, before he started drinking the kool aid by the barrel. CENSEI (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources dispute you. And "batshit insane truther" is not a category with academic standing of any sort. It is not objectively verifiable. And it's irrelevant anyway -- the incident was notable in reliable sources, no matter who you think McGovern is or what beverages he finds refreshing.csloat (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"batshit insane truther" is not a category with academic standing of any sort, it appears as if we agree on this after all. I'll wait to get some more feedback on this. At best, this deserves on line about a raving mad truther dressed in diapers screaming at the SOD. CENSEI (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

A single media incident without significant historical impact, or impact on the life and career of Donald Rumsfeld, does not merit a separate section in the article on Donald Rumsfeld. Fold it into the previous section that criticizes his conduct, and slim it down considerably. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Ray McGovern, even by proxy. RayAYang (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not paper. Feel free to show us the abridged version you would like to see, but there is little question that this was a very significant incident. Comments such as Censei's about diapers and ravers are not worthy of comment. csloat (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be paper, but as as been noted, this is a question of undue weight, and there are very real size restrictions on article length, if not number of articles.

There is indeed question of whether this is a significant incident: I am so questioning it, and it's rather clear that CENSEI is doing so as well. So far as I can tell, the incident has had few consequences other than to get Mr. McGovern some more press mention. Certainly it had no appreciable impact on US policy, and at best only a peripheral and incremental effect on perception of US policy. A "have you no decency" moment this was not. By being televised, it may have been a 15 minutes' wonder, but Wikipedia is not news.

My instinct is to remove the section altogether; barring that, I am prepared to compromise to the extent of a sentence along the lines of "Rumsfeld was confronted by activist Ray McGovern and accused of lying to provoke a war" with appropriate citations and internal links in the section on war criticism. As for CENSEI's arguments, I remind you to remain WP:CIVIL, as he has. We can be heated in expressing our opinions (and I believe that we should be -- it feeds our enthusiasm for our mutual project), but we should not express contempt for the intelligence or seriousness of our fellow Wikipedians. I know it's hard -- it can be frustrating, but worthy projects usually are. RayAYang (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize two wikipedia editors are questioning whether this was a significant incident, so let me rephrase: there is little question that this was a very significant incident among reliable sources. It really doesn't matter all that much what any individual wikipedia editor thinks, with all due respect. It also doesn't matter whether this had effect on policy. It's also incorrect that its only effect was on Mr. McGovern; Rumsfeld's reaction was widely noted in the press (and relatively positively, I might add).

There is no "undue weight" issue here. This is one tiny section of a long article, and I have already agreed that it could be shorter. You have not presented any evidence of any "undue" problem here other than to assert that it exists.

Your proposition for shortening the section is unacceptable, however, but go ahead, and I will add what I think is necessary, and from that I'm sure a reasonable compromise will emerge. As I have said, I am not opposed to shortening the section -- there is no need to reproduce the entire dialogue -- but I am opposed to rendering it unintelligible, as you seem to be advocating.

Finally, you are incorrect; Mr. Censei has not remained Civil -- though I certainly have been civil (what exactly did I say that was uncivil? That his ad hominems against McGovern are not worthy of response? I will say it again -- please report me to WP:ANI if you feel this is uncivil. Once again, to be sure -- I do not believe that CENSEI's comments about McGovern in diapers merit a response. I am prepared to accept any sanction administrators feel that comment is worth. On the other hand, calling McGovern a koolaid drinker in diapers is hardly civil (and presents severe BLP issues that could get him blocked from editing until he cools down). I will add that it's hardly his only example of incivility and BLP violations in this discussion. csloat (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Parry

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.[4]

Parry is self published, and as such the use of material from his site, Consortium News is in violation of BLP. CENSEI (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Parry's newsletter is remarkable and well respected. It is not a blog and it clearly is edited. It is certainly more of a reliable source than, say, a blog from the LATimes, which the above quote suggests is ok. csloat (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have certainly made your opinion known but that still does not negate the fact that its Self Published. If Parrys remarks on this are so remarkable or notable, perhaps someone will pick them up in a reliable source. CENSEI (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal or group blog; I do not believe it meets the definition you cite above. csloat (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A brief glance at the Consortium news website demonstrates that it is highly opinionated and devoted to political advocacy. There does not seem to be a careful fact-checking mechanism, or any attempt at a neutral point of view, as required in sources for BLPs. When in doubt, be conservative in your choice of sourcing. Go ahead and cut this one out. The "self-published" aspect of blogs is aimed at the requirement for independent editorial review. See the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons for further reference. RayAYang (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A brief glance at the Weekly Standard website demonstrates that it is highly opinionated and devoted to political advocacy. So what? That's not the issue - the issue is whether this is an edited website or not, and it is. Beyond that, Robert Parry is a well known and well respected professional journalist (and has been for decades). Consoritum News is an outlet for independent investigative reporting. The requirements for Wikipedia are that we present material in a neutral manner - not that the material itself be neutral. See WP:RS for further reference. csloat (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The requirement is that sources for BLPs not be self-published -- see WP:BLP. I recently had this discussion in another context (see the talk page at WP:BLP if it hasn't been archived already), where it was explained to me that it doesn't matter of the source is a Nobel laureate explaining elementary facts in his area of expertise, since there's no editorial review and fact-checking behind his immediate statements, as there are for his papers and books. In this context, the Weekly Standard or National Review's group blog wouldn't be an acceptable source for BLPs (since any author is free to post without prior editorial review). But the material on their website which reflects the editorial processes of their magazines, would qualify as sources for BLPs (subject to editorial consensus that they have reasonable editorial mechanisms). Consortium News does not speak to having any editorial process whatsoever (much less one we can discuss the reliability of), and as a zine, the presumption is against it, as per WP:BLP. RayAYang (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The part of BLP you quote above actually specifically says that blogs of newspapers and magazines are allowed, but I see your point about editorial review. The "About" page on Consortium appears to say there is editorial review but I can't find a list of editors, so I won't push this -- it's possible that Parry is the only editor. csloat (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Consortium is neither a newspaper nor a magazine. There is nothing specific about what, if any, editorial process exists at Consortium, "appears to say" is not enough, either it does say or it doesn’t, and regardless it still fails the WP:RS requirements for BLP's. Let me reiterate Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. CENSEI (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Calm down. As I said above, I won't push this, but let me clarify since you insist on distorting my words: I was responding to Ray's claim that the Weekly Standard's blog would not be an acceptable source: he is wrong. I was not stating that the Consortium was a newspaper or magazine (although it is, in fact, a magazine). Please try to be civil in the future if possible when responding to me. Thanks! csloat (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn’t mean to come off as unhinged, just emphasizing the relevant material. As far as the Weekly Stnadard’s blog, it clearly is a Reliable Source, all blogs from established news and opinion sources (The LA Times, The Nation, The National Review etcetera) are indeed reliable sources. Consortium, however, is not. CENSEI (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

I'm glad the pov tag was added to this page. I haven't been paying attention lately but I see a number of things have been systematically whitewashed from this page; it is no wonder that certain editors have put the microscope on minor issues like the Ray McGovern incident or the lawsuits. Most of the information about the "generals' revolt" -- an unprecedented fact in US history -- has been already deleted, as well as the material about the "pentagon pundits," not to mention the claims of those like McCain that Rumsfeld "will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." Obviously the page should be about the man's entire career, not its worst incidents, and I am sympathetic to those who believe that the section on McGovern is too long, but I sense a preference that such things be deleted entirely. The POV tag should stay up until these facts are (re)entered into the article. csloat (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I inserted the POV tag, because I detect a precisely opposite bent to the article. Rumsfeld's many and significant accomplishments are mentioned in summary if at all; his remarkable qualities and situations where he demonstrated his determination and intelligence that made him a national hero in the fall of 2001 go completely unmentioned; his epic push for transformation of the defense bureaucracy is only mentioned by allusion, while passing incidents like being scurrilously heckled by retired intelligence staff officers, or lawsuits by perpetual activists who can't even make a prima facie case, get full billing. I'm hoping to make it something of a project to detail Mr. Rumsfeld's remarkable career here to the extent it deserves, real life permitting. Suffice to say that Commodore Sloat and I probably agree very little about the direction of bias in this article, but we both emphatically agree that a bias exists. RayAYang (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think more of his accomplishments and his problems should be mentioned here, but if you are planning to write about a "national hero," we may be talking about a different person. Suffice to say that if your main actions are to keep whitewashing his career, we're not likely to see the tag removed any time soon. csloat (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've no intention of "whitewashing" Rumsfeld's career. It is a great career, and therefore has its fill of both triumph and tragedy. I do think that many of the "criticisms" presented here are poorly informed, often hysterical and slanderous, peripheral to the major issues of his career, and do not address many of the more serious and nuanced accusations leveled at him. Calling him a war criminal and having six paragraphs of such insinuations may be emotionally satisfying to his enemies, but it is unlikely in the extreme to carry any serious weight in courts of law or the court of serious public opinion. His "transformation" agenda was the subject of sustained debate as to the proper role and methodology for modern technology in war; so too was his strategy of a reduced footprint as a means to counterinsurgency. His promotion of special operations forces in preference to line forces for counterterrorism and the pursuit of a high-value target strategy has long-term implications. His clashes with Powell's State Department represent a turf war as epic as any ever waged in the upper reaches of American government; so too with the creation of the Office of Special Plans and an alternative, policy-directed intelligence analysis office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. His brusque managerial style and regular confrontations with the press were also, to say the least, highly controversial -- I'm astonished that the diplomatic disaster occasioned by his coining of the phrase "Old Europe" doesn't get more than a passing mention. As I said, I think improving this article is a really long-term project.

As for the "generals' revolt," I'm going to remark that, as to "unprecedented," I do not think the word means what you think it means ;-) There is a long and controversial tradition of American officers resenting and publicly conflicting with their high command in a variety of situations for a variety of reasons. I refer you to, off the top of my head, Benedict Arnold, Horatio Gates, George McClellan, Billy Mitchell, and Douglas MacArthur. A serious student of military history would undoubtedly be able to come up with many more. Compared to these historical precedents, a few disgruntled commanders seems almost a regular feature of major American wars. If anything, Colonel H.R. MacMaster's book "Dereliction of Duty" is aimed at how remarkably unusual it was for the Vietnam-era generals to, almost uniformly, say little or nothing in the midst of a controversial war where such input could have been valuable. RayAYang (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about Rumsfeld's career other than to point to the mess in Iraq as one of the concrete results of his transformations. As for whether the generals revolt was unprecedented, can you name the other SecDef whose resignation letter was demanded by over half a dozen prominent retired generals? I can't, but you seem to be the expert here, so I'm listening. Anyway, we can agree to disagree on all of this - I think the article will be made better if it comes to a form that editors with opposite perspectives can be satisfied with. Cheers. csloat (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I just came across this page. I don't like Rumsfeld at all but I think the current section on his career is terrible and contains a bunch of random irrelevant negative tidbits. The writing is terrible and un-encyclopedic -- it should describe the major controversies, and not just consist of a bunch of random quotes! If you don't already know what happened, there's no way you'll figure out what the problems with Rumsfeld were, and why he eventually had to resign:

• He wanted to modernize and transform the armed forces, but didn't succeed (I suspect largely due to his abrasive personality and inability to "wheel and deal" in Washington).
• He didn't send enough soldiers to Iraq and didn't seem to have any coherent plan for managing the post-invasion phase.
• He approved the torture of enemy POW's and is widely seen as bearing at least partial responsibility for Abu Ghraib.
• He mismanaged the war effort. He was known for micromanaging his generals and not paying enough attention to "from the field" input from them.
• He (and the administration in general) refused to acknowledge how badly the war was going in 2005-2006.

Why don't we just say these things? I'm sure some pro-Bush editors will disagree with my assessment but at least the above points should serve as the basis for the section on his career.

I've deleted all the following as either irrelevant or incomprehensible:

Brigadier General Montague Winfield, at the National Military Command Center, said, "For 30 minutes we couldn't find" Rumsfeld. The Pentagon was attacked at approximately 9:40 a.m. and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld entered the National Military Command Center at 10:30.

Approximately five hours after the attack on the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld told aides he wanted the "best info fast." Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only OBL [Osama bin Laden]."

===Condolence letters===

In December 2004, Rumsfeld was heavily criticized for using a signing machine instead of personally signing over 1000 letters of condolence to the families of soldiers killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. He promised to sign all letters personally in the future.

Rumsfeld, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell listen to President George W. Bush speak.

===War critics===

Rumsfeld has come under fire for his remarks at the American Legion's national convention when he accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counter-terrorism policies. Also, Rumsfeld claimed that the administration's critics have "moral and intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security and accused them of lacking the courage to fight back.

===Ray McGovern===

In May 2006, Rumsfeld was grilled about prewar intelligence during a question and answer session in Atlanta by Ray McGovern, who spent twenty-seven years as a CIA analyst. McGovern called on Rumsfeld "to be up front with the American people." He accused Rumsfeld of lying before the war, and Rumsfeld responded, "I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie... They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there." McGovern replied, quoting Rumsfeld's 2003 appearance on ABC's This Week, "You said you knew where they were, 'near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and northeast, south and west of there.' Those were your words." The session was aired on national television and garnered brief media attention.

Benwing (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Help reorganizing the section on his term as SecDef!

I've come to the conclusion that a major reason I'm so dissatisfied with this article is that, frankly, the section on Rumsfeld's second term as SecDef is a mess. There is no clear chronological or conceptual organization; it ends up being a laundry list without coherence. I wish to propose a reorganization of existing information, but there is a lot of material to cover, so I'm soliciting help and suggestions in fleshing it out. I tentatively suggest a grouping by type of topic, with events detailed in approximate chronological order inside each topic. The topics would be

• A) Military transformation, structural changes at the Pentagon, and Pentagon procurement issues
• B) The Global War on Terror, to include September 11th, Afghanistan and the heavy combat phase of the Iraq War
• C) The stabilization and counterinsurgency periods of the Iraq War
• D) Other miscellaneous topics that arose
• E) The section on his resignation

We would handle criticism of the various wars inside appropriate subsubsections pertaining to the individual wars. Miscellaneous topics would address things like the State-Defense turf wars, the Tamiflu section and other accusations of conflict of interest (insofar as we consider them to be relevant -- but that's another discussion) , his role in media relations, his cultural image, etc. Thoughts? RayAYang (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea and somewhat corresponds to the points I just made above. I'd say split C into stabilization (2003-2004) and insurgency/civil war (2005-2006) and add a section on torture, Abu Ghraib, etc. since this was a persistent and extremely controversial issue throughout the last 3 or 4 years of his term. Benwing (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI reverts

Come on CENSEI, try to work with your fellow editors towards compromise rather than making this some kind of war. On McGovern the version I edited after Ray's editing kept things short and to the point, left most of the comments to Rumsfeld, and kept in the directly quoted material I felt was important. The version you reverted to was sterile and empty of content. As for the general's war, the "unprecedented" is a well sourced and important fact; why would you delete that? Ray is proposing some major improvements to the organization and content of this page but we're not going to get anywhere on those if we edit war on minor points. Even though we disagree this article will be better off if we work together on it. csloat (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

New quote regarding Aspartame

Am I being particularly dense? I went through the notes in that section looking for that quote ... there is a Congressional record for aspartame on that date, but I can't find the corresponding quotes. There actually is testimony by Dr. Goss on that point, but the precise phrases "beyond a shadow of a doubt," "the FDA has violated the Delaney Amendment," "who is left to protect the health of the public" appear nowhere in the testimony. He has certainly made remarks towards that point; however, the quotes used only appear, as far as I can see, on an advocacy website (I suspect the website of "spicing" up the relatively technical Congressional testimony). I can have Lexis email the record I pulled for that date to those who are interested.

Also, I fail to see how the quote adds meaningfully to Rumsfeld's bio; the appropriate place for its insertion is our article on the Aspartame controversy, which is linked from the paragraph. It seems a matter of deliberately inserting material to promote a particular point of view, attributed or not, and its placing here violates principles of neutrality, as it leaves us with unbalanced coverage of the aspartame controversy in the Rumsfeld article. RayAYang (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entire section. Is Rumsfeld particularly notable for aspartame, and considering that the majority of peer reviewed scientific material on aspartame does not indicate either an acute or chronic health threat, aren’t we combining a good touch of WP:OR and guilt by association here with a touch of junk science to boot? CENSEI (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple google search turns up the quote on numerous websites attributed to the CR of the testimony of Dr. Gross for that day. If you have access to the full text of CR going back that far it would be great to see what he said; I am pretty sure it will confirm what can be found on the web, but if not it might be a good snopes submission since the quotation is quite widespread. As for whether it is notable for this page -- based on what was in there I would agree with you guys. I'm not a scientist so I don't know if it's "junk" science or not, but I don't see enough of a direct comment on Rumsfeld in what was in there, so I won't be putting it back in unless someone else wants to bring more sources into it. csloat (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, CENSEI. I won't be putting it back in, either. Csloat: I do have the text of CR via Lexis (the academic version), and that was the problem. I pulled up the testimony and searched on those phrases, and they don't exist, at least, not in the record for that day (which is what the Googled results reference). I suppose it's possible there was testimony with those quotes somewhere, but at the very least the reference was wrong. Ah well, the point is moot. RayAYang (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You actually have the full text of Goss's testimony? Could you post a copy or email it to me? I'm just curious whether there was a similar quote that was actually distorted or whether it was from something else entirely (or perhaps even made up out of whole cloth). But yes it has no impact here either way unless someone can demonstrate that it's a notable criticism of Rumsfeld. csloat (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Send me an email address? It's a fairly humongous file, b/c it includes everything Senator Metzenbaum stuck into the record. RayAYang (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Does the "email this user" link work on my page? csloat (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sent. Let me know if you received it. RayAYang (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. This seems to be the section that is being misquoted all over the web: "In view of all these indications that the cancer-causing potential of aspartame is a matter that had been established way beyond any reasonable doubt, one can ask: -- What is the reason for the apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame had caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals, and is this not sufficient to satisfy the provisions of that particular section of the law? Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind of tenable argument opposing the view that aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify its position that it views a certain amount of aspartame (50 mgm/kgm body-weight) as consituting an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or "safe" level of it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to setting a "tolerance" for this food additive and thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA itself elects to violate the law, who is left to protect the health of the public?" My guess is we have a partial quotation (the last line is verbatim) and some paraphrasing from an old book or article and someone who quoted the latter on the web or in another article messed up and included the paraphrasing as part of the quotation. csloat (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

UN human rights and prosecution

I have added a sentence and reference indicating that a UN representative (the special representative on torture at the UN Commission on Human Rights) has called for this man's prosecution. This just a factual statement. --Fremte (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that this reflects more on Mr. Nowak than on Mr. Rumsfeld, but until I have enough time to undertake the long-delayed rewrite/reorg of this article, I don't see that the extra sentence does that much damage. Ray (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I thought it reflected on the UN and Mr. Rumsfeld both. If it advances to endorsement or progress in the UN on the matter, then the sentence may stay. If this is only an opinion that is the subject of a news item and as you suggest about Mr. Nowak ( is he grandstanding and wanting press?), then it will need to be considered to be taken out as unimportant and advancing an agenda. At what time frame? I do not know, but we can see later. --Fremte (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Go massive. Sweep it all up… Things related or not

I want to know what happened to the original text with regards to Stephen Cambon's 9/11 notes. Before anything I would like to hear a valid explanation for the removal of the well formulated sentences which stood in "Run up to Iraq" heading for a very, very long time. We had vigorous discussion about it couple of years ago, the consensus for inclusion was reached and I hate to stumble upon same issue which already fueled a lot of debate because it shows our, somewhat ridiculous love for entropy. So before we go on another ride, I'd like to see who and why removed a whole section leaving dubious sentence while violating long time reached consensus. Thanks. DawnisuponUS (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you try using WikiGuilt if you really care. I did a brief search on the archives, and I didn't see it; if you could point us to the prior discussion, that would serve as a useful reference point.

However, I object to the inclusion of the current text inside the article. It is contextless: you don't know how and why the quote appeared. You don't know what Rumsfeld was reading or talking about at the time, what the agenda for the meeting was, if it was a response to a proposal to bomb Iraq, or Rumsfeld's own initiative, or what he even meant by "hit." Indeed, my particular problem is that the source, while reliable, also does not provide that context. Including it inside the "run-up to Iraq" is thus original research -- a presumption taken on the basis of lack of information. Leaving the reader to "draw their own conclusions" from a contextless quote with suggestive titles and poor framing is a failure of responsibility and reliability on Wikipedia's part, likely resulting in inappropriate conclusions -- this is inconsistent with our requirement to provide a neutral treatment of the subject. The policy on biographies of living persons explicitly tells us to avoid such things. I'm removing it from the article page per WP:BLP and putting it on the talk page until we can address these concerns. Ray^Talk 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

To readers just dropping in: here is the text of the passage in question. Ray^Talk 22:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Approximately five hours after the attack on the World Trade Center, Rumsfeld told aides he wanted the; "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]." He instructed general Richard Myers to; "Go massive (…) Sweep it all up. Things related and not." DoD staffer Stephen Cambone who took the notes ended them with sentence "Hard to get a good case."

I've made a few suggestions in my initial reply at your talkpage, apart from existing references such as reports that Rumsfeld Sought Plan For Iraq Strike Hours After 9/11 Attack. We may add his own recollections that show he acted upon instinct.

To address your concerns and avoid any possible presumption we may recall Mr. Rumsfeld's own thoughts and words. For example, on the day after 9/11, Mr. Rumsfeld "insisted" that there is a need to "bomb Iraq", he "complained in the meeting that there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

Hope this clears things up for a bit and justifies my statement that the section needs more work and deserves to be dealt with the respect to historical and biographical significance it represents.

More context can be taken from [[5]]. If we take this omnibus together, wouldn't you agree that there is little room for any misinterpretations or presumptions? DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Where are we with this one? Ray? DawnisuponUS (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I've been a little busy elsewhere. I think there's enough here to write something, but what are you trying to say here? That's sort of the problem with this all. We still don't know the context in which this stuff is going on -- we've got snippets out of what must have been a very intense discussion following 9/11. I would object to something as bizarre as just sticking the quote out there, but if you have some sort of proposed wording that handles this in a narrative voice, or attributes the opinion to somebody else instead of throwing it out there, we can work with that. Ray^Talk 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving lawsuit section to talk page for preservation

I'm moving the section on lawsuits here. They don't seem to be going anywhere, and they don't have any lasting historical significance to Rumsfeld's life. WP:NOTNEWS and all of that. As it is, the descriptions of personal lawsuits only exist to repeat charges against Rumsfeld which no court has found even remotely worthy of consideration. The lawsuits against him in his official capacity are sufficiently irrelevant to his life that they shouldn't be included at all. If one of these actually goes somewhere with impact on his career, the information archived below may become meaningful. Ray^Talk 19:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Some readers will be aware of lawsuits that have been filed, and might come hear to learn the status. One possibility would to make a brief mention that several have been filed but, so far, none has gotten anywhere. One knowledgeable observer has predicted that this will change and that, "beginning next year, Donald Rumsfeld will have difficulties traveling outside of the United States because of his connection to war crimes." [6] Because this is now only in the prediction stage, however, I think it's too tangential to merit inclusion.

The Nowak quotation goes to a different point -- not the potential legal consequences for Rumsfeld, but the assessment of his conduct. Suppose that the U.S. government and other governments that might prosecute Rumsfeld choose not to, and suppose further that any cases that are brought against him are dismissed, whether on the merits or on the basis of separation of powers or lack of jurisdiction or some such. It remains open to people knowledgeable about the subject to opine that Rumsfeld's conduct was criminal. Wikipedia reports facts about opinions. Nowak's opinion is certainly notable, given his position with the United Nations. We should not state as a fact that Rumsfeld committed war crimes, but we should report the fact about Nowak's opinion, rather than suppressing the subject entirely. A single sentence is sufficient, with a link to Guantanamo Bay detention camp for the reader who wants more detailed discussion of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, etc. JamesMLane t c 03:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowak's opinion is reported where it properly belongs -- on Nowak's page. It is significant in the context of a career human rights lawyer's highest moment of fame. It is insignificant in the context of a life as large in scope as Rumsfeld's, particularly since his call went unheeded and is going nowhere. If he should actually succeed in putting Rumsfeld in the dock, that would be another matter entirely. At most, he merits a passing mention along with all the other usual suspects of his ilk, and certainly not a whole paragraph. Nowak also called for President Bush to be put on trial, but quite properly there is no mention of that at George W. Bush. Ray^Talk 14:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the distinction I made. We report facts about notable opinions. One thing that makes an opinion notable is if the person expressing it is powerful and will have an impact on the bio subject (as opposed to "going nowhere"). I agreed with you that, so far, that criterion doesn't apply here. Another factor that can make an opinion notable, however, is the expertise of the person giving the opinion. It's worthwhile for a reader of the Rumsfeld bio to know that one expert thinks Rumsfeld committed war crimes. It's similar to our quoting Bush's fatuous praise of Rumsfeld on the occasion of his resignation. In fact, the latter quotation is much less informative, because the reader would probably assume that Bush would speak highly of his own appointee. JamesMLane t c 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We disagree on the importance of Nowak's opinion. I simply don't think he represents anything more than the usual suspects. The entire bio is in pretty sad shape in any case. I hope, now that there are some better biographies of Rumsfeld coming out, we may able to find the time to revise it properly. Ray^Talk 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Career Positions Should be Reversed

For example, "Politician" should come before "Businessman". The most significant role should come first, not last.

Otherwise you would have Wikipedia articles like "Barak Obama: Lawyer, Neighborhood Activist and U.S. President". That would be ridiculous.

I also don't know why "Secretary of Defense" isn't in the first career descriptions.

Hopefully this is not a case of people with political agendas manipulating the article.

69.171.160.86 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, should Navy Fighter Pilot really be in the lead sentence? He is not in any way noted for this and he was only full time for 3 years, in peace time. Ashmoo (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

History of Terrorism link (HoT)

I changed link "[non-]state terror"-->"State terror" because as it was, the link really went 180• off target. I changed the link to "non-state terror"-->"History of terrorism" because the History of Terrorism page describes many, many non-state terrorist organisations and gives an excellent counter-example in the French "Reign of Terror." I didn't point the link to the "Non-state terror" page because there isn't one and because creating one is currently a bit beyond my scope at the moment.

I didn't sig the original edit because I forgot to log in. oops. Fred (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

{{hidden|Lawsuits|

Bible verses in briefing papers

I think some of the images can be used under fair use?

Here is one image:

• http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2009-05/46983181.jpg
• http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uspentagon0519,0,4529295.story

--Timeshifter (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Decider remark?

The article states "and also defended him in his controversial decider remark." but I can't find anything about such remark in the article. Did I miss it? or maybe info should be added? Thanks. Airproofing (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Media mention

This isn't really a full blown media mention, but a new book by a former Bush speechwriter apparently claims that "Donald Rumsfeld had to be talked out of editing his own entry on Wikipedia, which he referred to as "Wika-wakka."" Joshdboz (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

this right here is the funniest thing I've read all week. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it shows how seriously he and others take Wikipedia. Jusdafax 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Run up to Iraq

Do we really need a section for one sentence, do we? InnerParty (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to expand it, I am sure that there is plenty more that is is relevant to that section. The period leading to the Iraq war is one which Mr. Rumsfeld is intimately involved. Unomi (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Expand it? We've just dropped the charges as irrelevant and you're suggesting we expand it? I'm for removal, that way it will be more tidy. Let's hear what other editors say. InnerParty (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

My position regarding the section is that the contents are well known and sourced appropriately and is placed within context which renders it meaningful to the article. I don't know what you are referring to regarding 'charges'. Unomi (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Expand - There is plenty of well-sourced history out there regarding this issue. Sure looks to me like an editor here is arguing to sweep it under the rug. The section's one sentence barely scratches the surface. Happy to discuss this further, but my view is that deleting this sentence is the opposite of what Wikipedia is about. Jusdafax 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added an expand tag to that section. Unomi (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That again? Could someone please articulate the meaning of that quote? Why is it so darn significant, isn't it normal to seek 'best info fast', isn't it normal to seek evidence of involvement or to retaliate to attacks? What is the darn context of that quote??! InnerParty (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The context is given quite succinctly by CBS News[7] CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks. Unomi (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wonder who wrote that sentence, not sure if its clumsy or skillfully done, you see, it actually says opposite to the context you gave, it doesn't say anything at all about the lack of evidence, it simply states Mr. Rumsfeld sought evidence. I don't think that people should have common knowledge about 'things related or not', I don't think people should click on references to get the factual info, and I don't think we should have misleading and factually inaccurate info in our articles, so hold no grudge, but I'll remove it. InnerParty (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please do not mark an edit which removes a well sourced paragraph as 'minor'. Second, it is from notes made by white house aides which documents that he saw the link to UBL as vague and sought to find evidence supporting an invasion of Iraq. As the Guardian article sums up ...these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.. There is nothing 'controversial' about this, it is well documented and fairly universally accepted. Please reinstate the information you deleted. Unomi (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would we care what other sources sum up, either we can come up with our own sum up or we cannot. Just read what I wrote above and examine what you've provided, also, your 'universally accepted' claim has no foundation whatsoever. As a person who is against your 'expansion' I've been more than helpful. InnerParty (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not how it works. Where possible, we should endeavour to relate how secondary sources such as Guardian and CBS refer to the matter. I don't really see what it is you take issue with, we have at least 2 good sources one which states emphatically that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq and the other, just as directly these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.. If you believe there is some issue with those sources take it up at WP:RSN or contact CBS/Guardian. If there is a particular wording in the text that you removed that you take issue with please do spell it out. Unomi (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with InnerParty, and support Unomi's work, which is of value and properly sourced. Will revert it myself manually. Jusdafax 21:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why, but I've actually pointed out that your 'endeavor to relate' failed. Well, I'm glad that this version works for you, because it certainly works for me. InnerParty (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you find the text of the quote confusing we could simply go with stating the conclusions of CBS and Guardian? Unomi (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be in best interest of clarity. InnerParty (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now that we've got some activity again, I went and took a look at Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, which surprised me with the fact that WMD were found in Iraq, albeit presumably not at the scale or quantities claimed in the leadup to the invasion. Thus, I've removed that sentence - anybody who wants to take a stab at summarizing a decently complicated subject, feel free -- I just didn't feel comfortable with a factually wrong statement on the page. In general, I think we should strive for a good, narrative treatment of Rumsfeld's role in the leadup to the Iraq war, instead of regurgitating 6-year old bits of news reporting. If anybody's willing to dive through one or two of the Rumsfeld biographies that have been written of late, that would be very welcome. Ray^Talk 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think finding some old shells of mustard gas qualifies as finding weapons of mass destruction. Remember, the U.S. public was threatened with "mushroom clouds" over our cities from weapons coming from Iraq, this was why we had to invade at once. I think what you removed was accurate and factual, Ray. I ask you to revert the sentence back, and failing that, to be open to further discussion on a reasonably quick revert without the time-consuming process of obtaining and digesting a Rumsfeld bio re: weapons of mass destruction. There should be plenty of WP:RS sources available online. A good place to start would be the way The New York Times was gamed via Judith Miller's reporting, (suggest you start with her Wikipedia article - if you are indeed right, then it also has to be re-written) and the way the paper had to apologize for said 'reporting' by the now-Fox News reporter. Jusdafax 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest compromise wording. "Rumsfeld made numerous statements concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which were not later substantiated." Would that work? Saying that weapons of mass destruction were never found is demonstrably false - the nomenclature on this subject is precise: nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons are all weapons of mass destruction, and mustard gas qualifies, whereas I don't think there should be any difficulty verifying that Rumsfeld made statements of fact regarding Iraqi weapons that were unsubstantiated. That said, we have a problem with the sourcing - the existing reference is not a secondary source, so much as it's a collection of Rumsfeld statements which are claimed to be false, without any further analysis link here, effectively, a collection of primary sources that do not verify the claimed statement. Ray^Talk 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

not later substantiated sounds ok to me. As for specific sources, cross searching on google news archives for bits of the quotes finds loads[8][9][10][11][12][13]. We could pick a representative source, but I would prefer that we also keep the existing reference as it gives a good basis for further research by later editors. Unomi (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you Ray and glad Unomi is on board too. Good job. Will let one of you do the honors. Thanks, Jusdafax 04:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

'Hm. I don't think finding some old shells of mustard gas qualifies as finding weapons of mass destruction. Remember, the U.S. public was threatened with "mushroom clouds" over our cities from weapons coming from Iraq, this was why we had to invade at once. I think what you removed was accurate and factual, Ray.' POV on 'Some old shells of mustard' Links? VX precursors were found, right? Tons of mustard shells were found and detonated. cite: The continuing storm: Iraq, poisonous weapons and deterrence By Avigdor Haselkorn.// Further cite link: Link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722255.stm This is from a single Google search for 'VX Precursor' and 'Gas Artillery Shells Iraq' keyword search. Can we please try to stay non-POV?Foamking (talk) 06:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

POV? I don't care how many tons of mustard or any other gas were found, if there was no way to deliver it to the USA. The was no threat to the country. Seems like common sense to me. Jusdafax 03:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias in summary paragraph

I don't have time to go through the full article right now, but just at a glance, the summary that opens the page seems to be HEAVILY biased against Rumsfeld. "Rumsfeld is one of the key people responsible for the misguided direction the United States took when experimenting with torture"? "This is his most infamous legacy."? Both statements are anything but neutral in tone. NathanDahlin (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

very good point. I repaired the lede. Rjensen (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Along those lines, there is no controversy section which makes the whole article read like a fluff piece. Good job WIKI!! you're such a bad joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.78.183.102 (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Bush,Cheney and Rumsfled involvement in 9/11

Donald Rumsfled,George W.Bush and Dick Cheney had involvement in 911.Dick Cheney had the responsibility of the pentagon & flight 93.George W.Bush had operation of the world trade center and Donald Rumsfled planned 9/11.Rumslfed made sure the two planes went into the world trade center.There has been evidence that Bush,Cheney and Rumsfled where involved in the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks.A U.S. House Representative & U.S. Senate is trying to find a prosecutor to prosecute Bush,Cheney and Rumsfled for murder on 9/11.George H.W. Bush helped bush jr with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.Bush,Cheney and Rumsfled could face charges of treason,murder and could face a life sentence or the death penalty.Bush could face prosecution for the Iraq war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.186.198 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Q.: I had heard that on or soon after 9/11, Rumsfeld announced a de facto continental military perimeter. I don't see that mentioned on his page. Any info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.183.222 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

"Member of the President's Cabinet"?

in the "Nixon Administration section, Rumsfeld is described as "a member of the President's Cabinet (1969–1970)" and then again as a "member of the President's Cabinet (1971–1972)." But the info panel doesn't describe any cabinet level positions until he became Secretary of Defense in 1975. The positions he held were United States Office of Economic Opportunity (1969-1970) and Director of the Economic Stabilization Program (1971-1972). Are these generally considered cabinet-level positions? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

They are at the president's discretion. In this case, Nixon gave them cabinet level status. Ray^Talk 04:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Fugitive

Something should certainly be said about the status of various arrest warrants Rumsfeld has internationally. He is considered an internationally fugitive by many nations. Germany: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473987,00.html France: http://www.alternet.org/story/66425/ Spain: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017494.php The ICC http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/12663-international-criminal-court-complaint-filed-against-bush-cheney-rumsfeld-tenet-rice-and-gonzales-international-arrest-warrants-requested.html ECT. This needs to go in, it is a very notable part of his life 97.91.187.161 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to be very meticulous about stating that someone is an international fugitive. For example, the link you cite for Spain names six Bush administration officials, NOT including Rumsfeld (they are Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington, Feith, and Haynes). I know that the Center for Constitutional Rights has recently filed a complaint in Spain. I forget whether it includes Rumsfeld, but it's still just an allegation. Your link for Germany is from 2007 and I'm pretty sure that that case was subsequently ended without an adjudication against Rumsfeld. We can certainly report that Rumsfeld has been criticized over the torture issue but we can't give a false impression of an official adjudication. JamesMLane t c 21:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead, "statesman"

"Statesman" is an overly glowing term, this is just peacock lanugage. I would suggest "public servant" or simply give his former titles. Hairhorn (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

hairhorn lets his POV show. Actually the term is precise, as the dictionary (Webster 3rd) defines statesman as "one versed in the principles or art of government: POLITICIAN; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies; ["an assembly of the statesmen of many nations"]" It is usually used for a holder of a senior policy making office. Rjensen (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, the OED reads "a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure." (And my Webster's includes "2: one who excercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship".) The wiki entry is even more forthcoming about the bias in using this term. Hairhorn (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

the problem is that Hairhorn has a negative view of Rumsfeld but editors are not allowed to express their POV. The #1 definition fits just fine. Rumsfeld was indeed skilled, experienced and highly respected when he was appointed to the Sec Defense job in 2001--it was his later actions that critics disliked and which caused the POV.Rjensen (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep trying to make this about me, which isn't going to make your case. There's no POV in calling someone a "public servant". Hairhorn (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's redundant; the article already says he served as SecDef which is a public office. csloat (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

the opening lede summarizes the article -- it is not redundant in terms of previous statements since it is the opening statement.

I would regard statesman as a more neutral term than public servant. Whereas "statesman" is shaded in its connotations towards seniority, the term "public servant," carries an aura of selflessness and nobility. I consider the shades of difference between the two terms to be too trivial to be worthy of much further reflection. I do, as I note below, object to the less specific and helpful "politician," which encompasses an excessively broad spectra of elected officials from school board members to presidents. Ray^Talk 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot fathom that anyone would apply wikipedia's own definition of statesman to Sec. Rumsfeld: "Statesmanship also conveys a quality of leadership that organically brings people together..., a spirit of caring for others and for the whole." Rumsfeld was intentionally divisive in his policies and language. He ranked very low in public approval, and still does. This is not the hallmark of a statesman. --Cjs56 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't inject your own point of view into the matter, please. Statesman is a pretty generic term for people who have occupied high offices of state, particularly those with careers that cross into international relations and leave the purely domestic arena. Rumsfeld, particularly in his incarnations as secretary of defense, presidential envoy, and NATO ambassador, certainly qualifies. Politician is, in this case, a term that less accurately characterizes his career in public service, since NATO ambassadors and presidential envoys are not necessarily (or even usually, in the former case) partisan political positions. Ray^Talk 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not "my personal view" that am injecting. I looked up the definition of the word "statesman," and then compared it to the accomplishments of the article's subject and found that it did not apply. Public opinion is a key ingredient in determining "statesman" status, and Rumsfeld. Overwhelming public esteem is a key ingredient in "statesman" status, and Rumsfeld is more of a divisive figure than a near-universally acclaimed one. Here is a sampling of statements from the article to support this view:

• "His micromanagement of the Defense Department angered many generals and the slow progress of the Iraq war made him a political liability for Bush."
• "He's a ruthless little bastard. You can be sure of that."
• [he was]"the skilled full-time politician-bureaucrat..."
• "Many Republicans were unhappy with the delay(in Rumsfeld's resignation), believing they would have won more votes if voters had known Rumsfeld was resigning."

I replaced a word laden with value judgment (statesman) and replaced it with a neutral one (politician). In all but the most indisputable cases, wikipedia should probably avoid value laden terms like statesman, in favor of more neutral terms. In addition, I think that politician is a far more descriptive term than statesman, as Rumsfeld was certainly not a statesman while serving in Congress as a young man, and could not have possibly been a statesman until the last few years of his life, while he was most certainly and unarguably a politician. Cjs56 (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ray writes, "Statesman is a pretty generic term for people who have occupied high offices of state...." In that case there's no need for us to assert that he's a statesman. It doesn't give the reader any additional information. I checked a few other SecDef bios and none use that term. In the current version of the Rumsfeld bio, the first sentence properly reports his service as SecDef, the most notable aspect of his life, so the readers who accept Ray's definition (and who would therefore have no trouble calling Idi Amin a statesman) will already know that Rumsfeld, like Idi Amin, meets the definition. JamesMLane t c 18:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article states"Rumsfeld was named Defense Secretary soon after President George W. Bush took office in 2001." Rumsfeld was appointed, not elected. Therefore he was not a politician. Since he wasn't representing the state to others, he was not a statesman. He was an appointed, or "named", departmental Secretary, much like a military commander. He was neither politician, nor statesman. Santamoly (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rumsfeld was elected to Congress and briefly started up a presidential run,and had a senior role in theWhite House; thus "politician." As Sect Defense twice he represented US defense interest to Europe and Asia in many international conferences and formal meetings with top world leaders; He also served on many national committees while in business that helped shape national policies. hence "statesman". Rjensen (talk) 10:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Check out the Financial Times of February 11, 2011, for Gideon Rachman's Lunch with the FT: Donald Rumsfeld. Asteriks (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Note

Please see: Known and Unknown: A Memoir, it should be linked from this page. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Resources ... regarding Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel

• Donald Rumsfeld Faces Another Torture Lawsuit by Patrick G. Lee August 9, 2011 WSJ
• Court allows torture lawsuit against Rumsfeld Aug 15, 2011 Press TV
• Iraq crimes return to haunt Rumsfeld; Former US defence secretary can no longer deflect responsibility for abuse of detainees August 11, 2011 Gulf News
• Two American men CAN sue Donald Rumsfeld after 'being tortured by U.S. army in Iraq when they worked for security firm' by Oliver Pickup 9th August 2011 Mail Online
• Rumsfeld must face torture suit, appeals court says August 09, 2011 Bloomberg News via Boston.com. 99.19.47.119 (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rumsfeld surname actually scottish

The rumsfeld surname is actually scottish so rumsfeld is scottish on his father's side. The link that says he has german ancestors no longer gives that information and may have never had that information so it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.153.66 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Johann Heinrich Rumsfeld, Donald Rumsfeld's great-grandfather, emmigrated from Weyhe (Lower Saxony in Germany) to the USA in 1876. - Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. My parents happen to live on the other side of the road, the farm where the German side of the family lives to this day is still called "Hof Rumpsfelde" (Rumpsfeld farm). He even visited the German Rumsfelds when he was the ambassador to Nato in the 70s. -- Imladros (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Colonel Insignia next to Captain rank.

In the overview tab below the lead image, there is a US-O6 Colonel insignia (Eagle) to the left of the rank, Captain. I'm not exceptionally knowledgeable of military ranks and insignias, but the description for the US-O6 insignia succinctly states that it is for Army, Air Force, and Marines—excluding the US Navy. So considering that, along with Rumsfeld's retiring rank as captain, am I right in saying this needs fixed? If not, pardon my misunderstanding. I also do not have access to edit this article to do it myself.--Lennybird (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2012

On sept 10th 2001, It should be noted that he announced the pentagon lost/missplaced 2.7 Trillion dollars. Not million, not even billion, but TRILLION?!? Hmmmm I wonder where the corresponding finacial information was stored... Quelle suprise, in the same spot the pentagon was hit. Makes ya wonder... And I'm not a conspiracy nut (Jesse Ventura hahahhahaha so crazy) Sources- Gov/millitary websites 24.69.85.54 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide a specific source to support your claim. Monty₈₄₅ 04:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually 2.3 trillion not 2.7 trillion and it's not lost, it's "untracked". The biggest single robbery I know of. Just Google "2.3 trillion" - it's all fucking there, including videos of him saying it himself.

Hagiographic tendencies?

Did his literary agent have much to do with this blarney?

"His tenure has been noted to be one of the most pivotal in recent history; as one of the key individuals responsible for the restructuring of the military in the new 21st century, Rumsfeld was crucial in planning the United States' response to the September 11, 2001 attacks, which included two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly popular with the media for his outspokenness and candor,"

He is one of the most hated figures of the modern era, despised for his wholesale incompetence and his appalling mixture of arrogance, bullying, and cluelessness. By hanging on to him, Bush lost the Senate to Democrats in 2006. I'm sure he was wildly popular on the Republican-controlled Fox network, otherwise, this is disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mare Nostrum (talk • contribs) 12:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Donald Rumsfeld is American of German decent

Donald Rumsfeld great-grandfather Johann Heinrich Rumsfeld emmigrated from Weyhe in Lower Saxony (Germany) to the USA in 1876. Donald Rumsfeld's father George Donald Rumsfeld was the grand child of Johann Heinrich Rumsfeld. Henry Rumsfeld (Henry is the english form of Heinrich), the son of Johann Heinrich Rumsfeld, is the father of George Donald Rumsfeld.

• George Donald Rumsfeld geni.com
• Donald Henry Rumsfeld germanoriginality.com

Donald Rumsfeld visited Weyhe at November 16th 1976.

• Ein Abkömmling aus Sudweyhe spiegel.de pdf-file of an article (including a photo of Donald Rumsfeld during his visit in Weyhe - Citius Altius Fortius (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2013

The link to a current version of 'Rumsfeld's Rules' in the 'Works' section of 'External links'is broken. A current version is available at www.rumsfeldsrules.com. Please update accordingly. Matt9311 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Camyoung54 talk 20:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 July 2013

No mention is made of the editorial published by the Military Times Media Group which played a substantial role in Rumsfeld's resignation / removal. If this extraordinary event can't be fully covered by Wikipedia while he's alive, due to the rules on biographies of living persons, it should at least be noted as a unique event in United States history.

Ref: "Time for Rumsfeld to go." 11/3/2006. Army Times; Air Force Times; Navy Times; Marine Corps Times. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15552388/. Accessed: 2013-07-25. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6INvORWn0) alternately, http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fid%2F15552388%2F&date=2013-07-25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janeqpublique (talk • contribs) 21:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

war crimes controversy

undid the removal of war crimes controversy by User:Fat&Happy as wikipedia is international, and NPOV. it might be better to discuss this here before removing controversial text as "unsourced" from an article bearing "promotes the subject in a subjective manner". --ThurnerRupert (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

BLP Enforcement

Friends, we do not write thinly sourced, bad things about living people, such as stating or implying that they are war criminals. See WP:BLP. Please discuss sources and hash out what, if anything, has been reported in reliable sources. Once there is a good consensus, editing on this topic might resume. Anybody who restores a thinly sourced war crime allegation may be blocked without further warning. Jehochman ^Talk 03:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

jehochman, does NPOV not imply to state both sides of a discussion? the paragraph "war crimes controversy" was clearly citing both sides. it is relying on the fact that the reader is grown up and capable to make up his own mind about cited sources of both sides. calling the most reputed newspapers in germany "thinly sourced" seems not right. it seems not right to only allow u.s. american sources, especially for a politician of world renommee, a public person paid by u.s. taxpayers money. but omitting this international sources is just one side of the "peacock" tag. also important u.s. american sources are omitted, just to cite a couple of them: Detainee Report, Report Blames Rumsfeld for Detainee Abuses, Chapter XII: THE 'MAVERICK' GOES ESTABLISHMENT. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Without having checked the discussion in detail: Both Die Zeit and the Süddeutsche Zeitung are among the most respected and serious German newspapers. They are reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Meme of Rumsfeld being a lizard

This is one of the funniest interviews ever aired with a man of Rumsfeld's stature. I think it's deserving of an External link, but I think I tried it earlier, and it got reverted as vandalism, which it was not meant to be. Please do check, it's very much worth listening: LizardHunter (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brigadier General Lloyd Austin converse with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This talk page is a mess with all this "correcting" and formatting

This talk page is a mess with all this "correcting" and formatting. Clean it up somehow. Its ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.112.68 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. 142.161.113.242 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Could the hatnote please be moved above {{recently died}} per MOS:ORDER? Thanks, 142.161.113.242 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Drill it (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Navigation template/s

Hello, I'm interested in improving wikipedia navigation around Rumsfeld-related topics. To this end, I have started a potential template for related articles at Draft:Template:Donald Rumsfeld. I am interested in hearing from others how this template might be improved, if it is even necessary at all, if it should take the form of a "series"-type navbox or a "see also"-type navbox, which other articles might be included, if there should also be a Category:Donald Rumsfeld, etc. Please feel free to make edits to the draft, share thoughts here, or go to the draft talkpage. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

change "A day after Rumsfeld announced that the Department of Defense could not account for about $2.3 trillion worth of transactions,[61] al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and crashed them in coordinated strikes into both towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York City, and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C." to "On September 11th, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and crashed them in coordinated strikes into both towers of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York City, and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C."

The source given for the statement about the transactions not being accounted for is unreliable and is misrepresenting a speech that Donald Rumsfeld gave chastising the accounting standards for certain aspects of the pentagon. Including that clause to the sentence about 9/11 serves to further false conspiracy theories. 192.91.171.34 (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. That sentence seems to be unrelated to the rest of the section, so I've taken it out. Reliability isn't a problem here, since there's a CBS News source too, but it just doesn't fit in there. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Iraq war

I'm wondering why the blue link in the caption below the first pic next to this section says "Andrews Air Forces base", instead of Andrews Air Force base. Editrite! (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Congressman Donald Rumsfeld in 1967.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

war criminal

interesting how there's not one mention of the fact that this man is a war criminal and presided over torture and the extrajudicial killing of non-combatants L33tSpeak (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)