Talk:Chuck Hagel/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Ethnicity

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

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

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

"Jewish lobby" quote

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

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

Mentioning criticism in the overview?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about trimming it to something like: In January 2013, major media outlets reported that Hagel would be nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense by President Barack Obama.[3][4][5][6] This caused much comment from republicans, democrats and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Should article go to 1RR??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scary message

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

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

Go home Norwegians!

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. I wasn't told that 18 months ago, but I guess I assumed it and didn't try again til had forgotten. So I have now put that factoid on both relevant templates so no one else screws up again. [Add later: however the problem is if neither an editor reporting to 1RR or the admin in charge realizes this an innocent person could get blocked, not know how to do an request for unblock, and just quit wikipedia. :-( CarolMooreDC 23:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Lilibet Ziller

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

BLP POV issues, Dec. 2012

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

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

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

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

Editing a lot on BLP's of critics of Israel, I wish that was true! (But glad to see that when/if WP:undue criticism starts here someone will care about the defamation issue.) I didn't find anything on her or the book in a news archive search, so I doubt she's WP:RS. Thus I did not mention her. However, I did just check Highbeam and found [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-11136530.html one detailed article in the Telegraph - Herald (Dubuque), so there may be others out there. CarolMooreDC 23:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Other thoughts on fraud accusations?

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

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

It's been reverted twice since I wrote this and now has a statement NOT in the source, i.e., the committee decided Hagel's action was correct. May I suggest some compromise language which is factual an can allow people to do more research or draw their own conclusions:

In 2004 The Hill reported that the United States Senate Ethics Committee had asked for “additional, clarifying information” about the value of the assets of the McCarthy Group, including about its ownership of American Information Systems Inc. At that time the latter company made nearly half of American voting machines; it had counted 80 percent of votes cast in Hagel’s 2002 and 1996 races. The committee did not accuse Hagel of wrongdoing. The Center for Responsive Politics reported that employees of Kiewit Corporation were the largest contributors to his Senate campaigns.

Hearing no dissent, I'll assume it's just peachy. CarolMooreDC 14:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We still have a WP:BLP/WP:RS problem. The first sentence suggests that Hagel was investigated for some kind of wrongdoing even though the only source (the Hill) says he was not accused of any wrongdoing. Then we have a second sentence saying he was vindicated even though that doesn't appear in the source and I can't find it anywhere on the Web. If we can't find an RS for that then the whole paragraph must go per WP:BLP. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean the current inaccurate paragraph, as I noted above. My suggested one is just a shorter version of what was there before that User:Rjensen reverted as being vs. BLP. So what we need to discuss is my proposal. CarolMooreDC 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually even mentioning Kewit corporation is pretty much original research. So it gave $48,000 and next company - Citigroup which is more famous - gave $45? What does that mean? No Secondary source explains. Last call for comments or I'll assume it's ok tomorrow. CarolMooreDC 05:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Carol and the rest here. Remove as it's a clear case of WP:OR. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User:S2Grand's edit warring complaint Finally resulted in a block. went nowhere (probably lack of admins)and he keeps adding OR Material and User:Rjensen continues to delete it and other consensed upon material, make a false claim that Hagel was cleared, as opposed to that they didn't accuse him of wrong doing, two very different concepts. Both ignore discussion by others here. Should I put back this more consensus version or does someone else want to?

In 2004 The Hill reported that the United States Senate Ethics Committee had asked for “additional, clarifying information” about the value of the assets of the McCarthy Group, including about its ownership of American Information Systems Inc. At that time the company made nearly half of American voting machines; it had counted 80 percent of votes cast in Hagel’s 2002 and 1996 races. The committee did not accuse Hagel of wrongdoing.

Sigh... CarolMooreDC 18:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed all of the material about election fraud as I believe we have consensus to do so, at least among those who have chosen to participate in this discussion. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think you read too carefully. The paragraph you originally criticized did NOT accurately reflect the article. The one I suggested did. I did not see you disagree with it. User:Aua I thought was just agreeing that the Kewit corp didn't belong. So I don't know if there is consensus. But frankly my goal was to have something NPOV in there because people WILL keep putting in some of the more POV accusations since this IS a widely known one. But I guess I'll deal with it next time someone puts in that material. (Though I am still tempted to report RLJenson for editwarring). CarolMooreDC 04:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood your proposal. Is it correct that you're proposing:

In 2004 The Hill reported that the United States Senate Ethics Committee had asked for "additional, clarifying information" about the value of the assets of the McCarthy Group, including about its ownership of American Information Systems Inc. At that time the latter company made nearly half of American voting machines; it had counted 80 percent of votes cast in Hagel’s 2002 and 1996 races. The committee did not accuse Hagel of wrongdoing.[1]

If so I believe we have a WP:BLP/WP:UNDUE problem. We have an ethics investigation into a BLP subject with no accusation of wrongdoing. Either there is no implication of wrongdoing, in which case it doesn't belong per WP:UNDUE, or there is an implication of wrongdoing, in which case it doesn't belong per WP:BLP. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that is an argument that actually makes sense. Just to be clear I just added above this diff this section is based on. Turning 5 paragraphs of WP:Undue into one paragraph. If you'll look my original edit (which had some factual errors I later fixed) contained the sentence: Bev Harris, Thom Hartmann and Victoria Collins in Harper's Magazine have implied that Hagel's victories may have been due to election fraud. RLJenson of course claims that is against WP:BLP. As I say in first paragraph, I don't know - but I do know that people WILL keep adding this info since it is widely known; so why not do it right? And since no one else was opining, I invited him to take it to WP:BLP. Instead he kept edit warring with me and with the other editor who was blocked for edit warring on that paragraph. Thus my frustration. So what are your thoughts about adding that sentence with those refs? CarolMooreDC 02:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations of wrongdoing = flagrant BLP violation. I understand there may be speculative merit to some of these accusations but that is far from sufficient to meet the BLP bar. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good line and I will save it for places I have BLP problems! Well, hopefully people will stop adding the material and those deleting refer to your more persuasive arguments. CarolMooreDC 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

secdef nomination & recentism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can we please have some input from editors other than Brian Dell and me? --Nstrauss (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Recentism" means news grabbed from today's headlines. In the Hagel case, what we have are accusations that have been repeated for upwards of 14 years – regarding gay bashing, "the Jewish lobby," sanctions on Iran, and support for Obama in 2007. None of that is recent. Those are the main charges levied against Hagel in what all the media agree will be a very big cabinet nomination fight – one of the biggest biggest in years. Rjensen (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty pointless discussion. It's good enough for now and we can decide what to do depending on whether he's confirmed. What might need adding is the inevitable campaigns that will happen on both sides. CarolMooreDC 13:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

In no way does what we have now "summarize" the controversy. Our top RSs do.[2] It is rather simple to do, if there is a desire to comport our editing with the wp guideline. It's not an issue of recentism -- if it were, we would never report a current controversy, until the dust settled. Of course, that's not the case.Epeefleche (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I think your comment was meant for the previous thread. That'one is about the lead section; this one is about the body. --Nstrauss (talk)`

We're having a hard time summarizing in the lead section because the sources and statements used in the article are so weasly. LA Times and Christian Science Monitor allude to the critics without pointing out anyone specific besides Lindsay Graham. And then we take the 'critics say' voice of those pieces and put them into namespace. If you're going to include those pieces, dig deeper. Show us through more extensive sourcing who the critics and proponents are. ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Modifying the lede, to conform with wp:lede

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

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

Our top RSs around the country seem to be able to summarize the controversy. See, for example, the New York Times article of a few minutes ago ... referring to "his views on Israel, Iran and Islamic militant groups. ... criticism from gay rights organizations for remarks he made 14 years ago – for which he has since apologized – about an openly gay diplomat."[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Getting rid of "the opposition" in the lede

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

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

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

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we get agreement on lede description of criticism?

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

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

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to summarise the reasons for the opposition to the nomination is bound to result in inaccuracy. The recent addition cited gay rights, Israel and Iran, which is partially true. But it overlooks the more subtle (or perhaps more obvious) reasons: that a main factor behind Hagel's problems with Republican senators lies in his abandonment of the party late in his Senate career and through his post-Senate career. And also "Many senators didn’t like Hagel personally, not just politically, two Republican operatives pointed out." [4] So there are personal factors too. The body of the article has the room to explain all the factors and nuances to the extent that it doesn't already do so; the lead does not. And so the lead is fine as it is. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Agree with that, too. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Delete problematic sentence until we come up with better alternative (if alternative is needed)? Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "There is some controversy surrounding his nomination because of his positions on Israel, defense and open homosexuality; but in the view of his supporters, his stances are not anti-Israel and his nomination may counter neo-conservatism within the Republican Party."

I don't think we can say much more than that because of the limited nature of the controversy (a couple of paragraphs in a long article). I don't think we should say less than this because it would make the lead section promotional where there is criticism present. ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting about whether or not to include criticism in the lead, but if there is mention of criticism, it should be succinctly explained, as according to MOS:LEAD, the lead should not 'tease' the reader. FurrySings (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, Furry. Sticking to what is attributed within news sources:

• Because of his views on Israel, Hagel's nomination has been criticized by Sen. Lindsay Graham, William Kristol and the National Jewish Democratic Council, but supported by various political commentators, nine former ambassadors and the Cato Institute.

This is the central argument with its attributed critics and defenders. I had to draw them from the sources as they are not all elaborated in namespace. It would help us in the lead section if the nomination criticism section was more clearly attributed. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, I could be wrong but my understanding is that there was consensus that criticism of the nomination doesn't belong in the lead. If you feel that certain language is appropriate then it would make sense to challenge that consensus before we delve into what language would be best. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only see one person who said that, and their objection has been answered. Do you have a particular objection to summarizing the divide over his confirmation? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually still think criticism doesn't belong in the lede per WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. However, I really cannot think of a single sentence that summarizes the very complex nature of the support and criticism succinctly and fairly without overwhelming the reader. The status quo is preferable to me. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 05:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that there are issues which currently have some minor sourcing. I was happy to briefly summarize those as well, however, the bulk of the criticism and support actually sourced makes reference to views on Israel and some to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in general. A source count may be helpful. At what percentage of the article's overall sourcing should a summary of criticism around this issue be represented in lede? ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

ClaudeReigns, I think you misread the discussion above. Mkativerata, Aua, Nableezy, and I all agree that the political debate over the nomination doesn't belong in the lead. My main arguments were that including this subject in the lead is recentism, and that there doesn't seem to be a comparable sentence in the lead section of any other article. No one has made a serious counterargument (yet). If you have one, now would be a good time. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@ClaudeReigns: thanks for your offer! But I'm afraid sourcing is not the issue here. To be honest with you, I started watching this page a while back when rumors first surfaced that he is to be nominated. I am strongly against POV-pushers, and I suspected they'd have a field day here. I am against including neither support nor criticism for the simple reason that in 2 months, no one will give a flying flip about them. I also think that much of the support/criticism sections will go the way of the dodo in the near future (maybe as soon as the confirmation hearing is over) for the same reason: no one will care. Now, I understand we can't base our decisions on what will happen, but we can't get carried away in the present. The status quo presents a very balanced, and very neutral statement. It leaves the most contentious, and arguably the least important, elements of the process to the main body of the article. Absent a really significant find/change, I don't think I'll change on this issue (again, against SUPPORTing AND CRITICAL statements). Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination/hearings need own article?

Given that a number of WP:RS have said this really is a major showdown between Obama and the Israel Lobby (and other hawks) and that much more will happen and, should he not be confirmed it could be a major political event, we should think about making this section its own article. That also eliminates too much discussion - now or later - of what goes in or out. Something to think about. CarolMooreDC 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no. The opposition party is grandstanding, which is not unprecedented. I doubt this reaches the level of a Bork or Thomas confirmation hearing. It is a cabinet official, after all. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favor of a split. These nomination proceedings are taking a hugely disproportionate amount of real estate in this article, its real estate will likely continue to grow until the proceedings are over, and [strong resistance to cutting it down]. A split seems to be the only way to keep the section from taking over the Hagel article. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath of criticism over anti-gay remarks

I inserted a mention of specific pro-LGBT policy commitments that Hagel made to Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and cited one of Shaheen's press releases. Someone objected that the information had "no reliable source." As an infrequent editor I have 2 questions: 1. Am I alone in thinking that a Senator's press release is a reliable source of information on that Senator's public views? If so, would y'all mind pointing me to a standard that explains how, so that I can study up? 2. Right now the support-for-confirmation subsection fails to include arguments in favor of forgiving Hagel's anti-gay remarks, which many prominent political operatives have made (including, most recently, Senator Shaheen). Would it be appropriate to include both this item and things like Ambassador Hormel's response to the apology under the support subsection? Cuddihy (talk) 00:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

When it's about what a third party allegedly said, it can be a bit iffy. The person who deleted should explain their view, though. CarolMooreDC 01:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Hats off to you, Cuddihy, for such measured and diplomatic response, including reverting your own self.

Now, I checked the source and all, and it all seems in order. I don't think there is anything wrong with including that particular sentence, with its source, on the page. I think we can take a US gov't official at their word regarding a matter of this importance, especially when it's a senator.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 04:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted and I disagree with Aua. Press statements are generally considered unreliable sources (though there are certainly exceptions). The fact that it was issued by a government official doesn't help at all; politicians are notorious spinmeisters, and Shaheen is a political ally of Hagel and the Obama administration so she's hardly neutral. On the flip side it doesn't seem like a particularly controversial statement. In the end I'm swayed by the fact that the press isn't picking up on this. They're reporting that Shaheen endorsed Hagel but they're not saying anything about GLBT vet benefits. I don't know why; maybe they're seeking verification; maybe it will come out in tomorrow's papers. There's WP:NORUSH to get this right. Btw, if you want to learn more about source reliability check out WP:RS. And for info on the reliability of particular sources WP:RSN is an excellent resource. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

the details are covered in the major New Hampshire newspaper here, which is a solid RS. Rjensen (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, it's just a direct quote from the Shaheen press release. We can do better. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

it meets the Wiki criterion for RS -- a major news organization has verified that she made the statement. Rjensen (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The question isn't whether she wrote the press release, the question is whether he said that to her. Parroting of unreliable sources by the news media isn't reliable. If the article had said something about independent confirmation then it would be a different story. --Nstrauss (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nstrauss has no evidence whatever to suggest that an official statement by a Senator on what she heard is in any way incorrect. He trapped in his own POV --including making up imaginary Wiki rules about press releases--which makes him a poor editor for wikipedia.Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Rjensen (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cuddihy, welcome to Wikipedia. --Nstrauss (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG guideline states: "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis." Accusations of POV-pushing which tend not to be WP:CIVIL and creating not-responses to incivility in violation of WP:TALKPAGES and WP:INDENT detracts from the substance of this dispute. It's clear that she said he would do it. The Union-Leader makes no suggestion of anything stronger than this. I don't find anything unreliable about saying that she made this claim about him. However, if the Union-Leader had not pointed this out, this would be a violation of WP:SELFPUB, making a claim about someone else in a self-published source. To be resilient, the statement by Sheehan in the article needs to be referenced to the Union-Leader and make no claim stronger than she said that he would take this position. In my opinion, the Union-Leader is not a weighty source on matters of national policy, and this response should be discussed in the article as briefly as possible. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

New Picture?

I don't know how old the current picture on the article is, but it is obviously outdated. I don't know where to find a newer official picture but I can get it if someone tells me. Thanks! Whitestorm17 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's his official picture as a US senator. I'd keep this one in the box until Hagel is confirmed and then I would replace it with his official picture as Secretary of Defense and move the senatorial picture to the subsection dealing with his senate time. -- fdewaele, 1 February 2013.

U.S. News and World Report reversion

Here is the diff. It is not immediately apparent that this is a reversion. I was attempting to make sure the entire source was accurately represented. I felt that the current statement in the article cherry-picked a quote rather than looking at the whole of what the article was saying. How can we say this better with attribution? Unattributed criticism (or praise) is not a best practice of NPOV. ClaudeReigns (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is also posited that the reversion may be 100% unintentional and the result of an edit conflict. I do not wish to edit war. Is there any objection to me restoring my edit? ClaudeReigns (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

FT Interview and sequestration

Article states:

Opponents also complained of Hagel's 2011 call to have the Pentagon "pared down", saying that "[t]he Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated."

This statement references the original interview by Stephanie Kirchgaessner of Financial Times, which proceeded without criticism. So I looked for who criticizes this statement, which led me to GOP.com. This is a whole litany of things the Republican Party doesn't like about the Hagel nomination. The problem is that now I essentially have two primary sources about the statement and only one about its implications on military sequestration, and now need secondary sources about how to interpret Hagel's policy differences with his own party - not limited to military sequestration. I think it's now clear how to attribute an opposition statement, but the importance of the quote, the significance of Hagel's views on military sequestration, and the other differences are all needing more clear interpretation. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV - page seems Israel-obsessed

I have added the NPOV tag.

The word "Israel" appears thirty times on this page. Talk about undue! That strikes me as somewhere between excessive and obsessive. Would editors who see the world solely through either pro-Israel or anti-Israel glasses please refrain from inflicting your obsessions on this page? Frizzmaz (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I counted 24 (not including referenced titles) and 23 were in the nomination section. So any tag should be put there. Otherwise the tag is confusing and misleading.

Actually what is missing in the article is sufficient mention of prominent commentators stating in some fashion that this nomination was considered a critical test for the strength of the Israel lobby and/or right of American politicians to criticize Israel. Just from last couple weeks: Huff Post Henry Siegman, Huff Post MJ Rosenberg, Doug Bandow, Slate, The Nation, Justin Raimondo, Stephen Walt. And of course there are lots of articles/commentaries about Congress' obsession with Israel, some already in there, plus (LA Times, the Guardian, Joshua Hersh. (And we can't use but can get a laugh out of Non-WP:RS fun stuff like Saturday Night Live spoof of the hearing and Israel and the various criticisms of it).

If Hagel had said everything except comments on Israel (and not being hard enough on Iran, which is about protecting Israel), his nomination easily would have sailed through. (I'm sure some WP:RS has said that explicitly.) Do we just need to make more explicit WHY it's mentioned so much? CarolMooreDC 12:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You have unfortunately just demonstrated my point rather neatly. Twenty three times in one section, while virtually ignoring all other topics on the nomination? The press coverage shows several different reasons for opposition to Hagel, yet the section here is unduly obsessed with only one. And yet your proposed solution to this imbalance is to - yes, add more about Israel. The POV is evident and indefensibly deep. Again, I would hope that activist editors who see the world solely through either pro-Israel or anti-Israel glasses would refrain from inflicting their obsessions on the page, but that is apparently not the case at the moment. Frizzmaz (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, if there were more WP:RS saying why WP:RS think the nomination was particularly important re: the Israel issue, some of the POV commentary on both sides could be cut out. Also there are some unprecedented things, only vague alluded to, like group(s) largely supported by Sheldon Adelson spending 10s of millions to defeat Hagel. (Needs to be mostly in his article, of course.) It would be nice if we could just wait til vote is over and then redo the section since it will be a bigger deal if he's locked out and there will be lots of screaming in news and commentary about that topic. But If you want it cleaned up right now, I'm willing to do it tomorrow or Monday; waiting on others comments of course. I did just move down the Tag down and make it a POV-section tag, however, so people won't wonder what's so POV. CarolMooreDC 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So when I noted that the confirmation section is far too Israel-heavy, an editor responded that she was willing to add more Israel stuff. When I noted that this would make it even more Israel-heavy, the editor responded that she could swap out some Israel stuff for some other Israel stuff. I have a feeling I'm not getting a very simple message through.

But I will try again: the section as it stands is POV, as it puts undue and exceptional emphasis on the Israel issue at the expense of all the other issues surrounding the nomination. This is bad for Wikipedia. It would be bad for Wikipedia if there was undue focus on a pro-Israel narrative, and it would be had for Wikipedia if there was undue focus on an anti-Israel narrative.

That is not an invitation to cherry-pick a few opinion pieces in order to promote one side or the other; all that would do is make the topic already given undue emphasis just that much more emphasized.

Once more: I would hope that activist editors who see the world solely through either pro-Israel or anti-Israel glasses would refrain from inflicting their obsessions on the page. Wikipedia does not and should not take a stance on whether or not the Hagel dispute is "about Israel" one way or another (to do so would be POV) and editors should refrain from using Wikipedia as a way of grinding their particular axes about Israel, whether pro or con. If you feel you cannot edit objectively on the topic, and that you must use Wikipedia to advocate your particular view at the expense of WP:UNDUE, then maybe this isn't an article you should be editing. Frizzmaz (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Linking Hagel quote to Israel Lobby in US is not original research

Hyperionsteel reverted my edit linking Hagel's quote relating to the "Jewish lobby" to the Israel Lobby in US article "since this is a quote, making this leap of faith seems like original research". However this is not true. There is no other entity he could be refering too. The Israel Lobby in the US article itself is linked by the term and recognises it is referred to as such informally in the first line. Hagel also clarified in committee he was referring to the Israel lobby [5]. 81.135.30.112 (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree. CarolMooreDC 12:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to note that Hagel later clarified his remarks (i.e. he meant to say Israeli lobby instead of Jewish Lobby, which I probably think is true) then feel free to do so (in fact, I think this has already done). However, your implication that "Israel Lobby" and "Jewish Lobby" can be considered the same is incorrect, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Clearly, you didn't notice that the Wikipedia has separate articles for the terms Jewish Lobby and Israel Lobby (or, in this case, Israel lobby in the United_States). If you really want to link "Jewish Lobby" to something, you should probably link it to the article on the Jewish Lobby; this is what Hagel said at the time - he later clarified that he misspoke. The subsequent statements by Hagel, in which he clarifies that he meant to say "Israel Lobby" can certainly link to the Israel Lobby article, but linking the term "Jewish Lobby" to "Israeli Lobby" in a direct quote is original research. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC))

You are correct. What was I thinking. Now if only I could find a ref lambasting media worldwide, including in Israel, for making the same mistake and putting "Jewish lobby" in their text and head lines re: Israel lobby even when they are NOT quoting someone else who did. (For example this Jan-Oct 2012 news search). (Though sometimes it is relevant if it's Jews lobbying as Jews for some other purpose, which can be quite legitimate, of course.) CarolMooreDC 12:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I certainly can't argue with you about that.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC))

was he in Vietnam as a volunteer ?

Or was he a Conscript / draftee ?

See also Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War#The_draft

That should be mentioned in the article. --Neun-x (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point and added details. Of course, it could be further mentioned they were going to send him to Germany after special training and he decided to go to Vietnam. Should I add that? CarolMooreDC 15:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly stated that he volunteered for military service. There is no reference to whether to volunteered for Vietnam203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to invasion of Iraq

It is stated that "Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam". The context implies that this is a criticism. He may well have criticized the invasion and/or occupation of Iraq. But as he apparently volunteered for service in Vietnam, can we regard a comparison between the two wars as automatically a criticism of either?203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

secdef nomination & recentism, part II

The SecDef nomination battle is turning out to be a big fizzle. We currently have 11 paragraphs on this relative non-story. Do we finally have support to reduce it to, say, 1-2 paragraphs per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:RECENTISM? I believe all of the points I made in the previous discussion still hold true so I don't think I need to rehash my position on this. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

let's wait until the vote is taken by the Senate. Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that section is probably going soon enough, but it seems after the confirmation hearing.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's time. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Hagel sees dead people

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/13/hagel_i_met_assad_six_months_after_he_died#sthash.fEMqmLi9.yyOOPeyT.dpbs

Is this the proper medium to bring up Chuck's supernatural experiences? Hcobb (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

junior varsity basketball squad

NYT is reporting this as the straw that broke their relationship, but not mentioned in article. Hcobb (talk) 14:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Protection??

Many 'well meaning' editors keep erroneously putting in that Hagel is no longer Secretary of Defense. Perhaps it's time to have the article protected? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)