Jump to content

Talk:George Shultz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

The last threee paragraphs of this article has no place on Wikipedia. It's a juvenile I've-just-discovered-Chomsly-and-I-hate-the-West-now rant. It's written as a polemic, not a encyclopedia entry. It's sad to see Wikipedia get an ideological slant. It makes it less useful and less trustworthy.

Shultz...a dove?

[edit]

I don't think that calling shultz a dove is very accurate given his support for several wars. He may be a dove restricted to certain very specific areas but he appears to be well known for advocating military force. I would vote to REMOVE it, but I'm curious what other people think. I haven't read anything super difinitive about it but it seems that his congressional testimony in 83 was to raise funding for the contras. I think dove should be replaced with 'moderate'

I think parts of the article are a little unclear because shultz was opposed to "arms for hostages" but was totally in favor of using the contras in south america.

There are some other shultz pieces from the 80s that I would like to find an online link to "Moral Principles and Strategic Interests," April 14, 1986 (State Department, Current Policy No. 820) "Terrorism: The Challenge to the Democracies," June 24, 1984 (State Dept. Current Policy No. 589) "Terrorism and the Modern World," Oct. 25, 1984 (State Department Current Policy No. 629) user:TitaniumDreads

Definitely not a "dove." This portion of the article is very very misleading to say the least. The article should also point out that affirmative action was first put in place by Shultz when Sec. of Labor during the early years of the Nixon administration.

Cold War people

[edit]

What is the rationale for removing this article from Category:Cold War people? --HK 15:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cold War people was deleted, so the category is being "depopulated". It's not about Shultz. -Willmcw 19:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bretton Woods System

[edit]

Willmcw has reverted this formulation: "It was during this period that Schultz, along with Paul Volcker and Arthur Burns, was chiefly responsible for the decision of the Nixon administration to end the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system.[1]"

...substituting this one: "It was during this period that Schultz, along with Paul Volcker and Arthur Burns, supported the decision of the Nixon administration to end the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system.[2]"

The assertion that Schultz et al were chiefly responsible is not contingent upon the cited source. It comes with the job description, i.e., Secretary of the Treasury. The decision to end the Bretton Woods system fell within his bailwick. --HK 21:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretary of the Treasury works for the President, and serves at his pleasure. The source, an article by Andrew Young, says:
  • Twenty years later, Paul Volker, in his book Changing Fortunes, admitted that all of these distinguished men had grave reservations about their recommendation at the time, but they were going along with the new administration's position.
That seems to indicate that Schultz supported the decision, but was not chiefly responsible for it. -Willmcw 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Needs Work

[edit]

The article appears to be oddly structured for an encyclopedia entry. It starts with Mr. Schulz's "Background" then after a brief description of his activities as Secreatary of State jumps to his "Retirement"; as if the writer were suggesting that the most significant part of his career has somehow occured in retirement as opposed to his decades long service to three different administrations. Anyone reading this article would have certain expectations that are placed there by the writer; something needs to be inserted between "Background" and "Retirement". Otherwise I would have to say that the writer had not made an honest attempt to flesh out this prominent individual in our history.

_____________________________________________________

I agree with the above. The article needs a lot of work. Secretary Shultz served in the Marine Corps not Navy...this is a HUGE mistake if you ask any Marine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.108.154 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right. I changed it to reflect this. You can do this sort of thing yourself, you know :) RayAYang (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biography section said, "He opposed the U.S. aid to the Sandinistas which led to the Iran–Contra affair." This is completely wrong. The Reagan Administration never armed the FSLN but rather the rebels who were trying to overthrow them. I made the change.

-bechtel is now working on improving nuclear warheads in los alamos..

[edit]

or you believe he is too paranoid to fill any responsability correctly. or you feel there is too much between chinese military and neo-cons to be a real threat, only a fake war so people don't try to declare a new one.

Neoconservative? Shultz!?

[edit]

The Neocons are a group of liberals who crossed the aisle following the cultural/political wars of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly associated with proteges of senator Scoop Jackson. (see our article on Neoconservatism). Shultz has been a conservative economist and a strong proponent of a robust foreign policy since before the neoconservative movement was more than a misgiving in its founders' eyes. If the term is to have any meaning other than an epithet for "people associated with George W Bush" (also not a neocon), then it doesn't belong here. I'm removing the category and making changes associated with the meaning of the term. RayAYang (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhD without a Master?

[edit]

How can someone obtain a PhD without having a master degreee before?--85.179.110.128 (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly common. RayAYang (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But only in the USA, not in our wonderful "Old(school)" Europe.
Because "USA = land of unlimited chances". :-)
And abilities. And money. :-)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2A58:1400:C967:A5DC:6713:2DBE (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Turmoil and Triumph: The George Shultz Years"

[edit]

In July 2010, PBS broadcast the three-part series, "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Shultz Years," which raised various issues as discussed at:

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2010/07/turmoil_over_turmoil.html

The "Afterward" at the end of the last hour made the glaring omission of the fact that Shultz played such a central role among the establishment Republicans who handpicked George W. Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate.

On 25 February 2011, I added the following in the Later Life section, but it was reduced to one sentence by Fat&Happy. In my opinion, this was unwarranted:

George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/

1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html

If I remember correctly, more than $70 million had been raised by the time W announced his candidacy. It is high time that Shultz and the establishment Republicans be held accountable for their disastrous selection. Italus (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two remarks. First, every candidate goes forth to try to find support. While Bush was talking to Shultz, he was undoubtedly also talking to every other person who was willing to listen, particularly in Iowa or New Hampshire. You need to make a case that Shultz's support was somehow major and significant; otherwise, while it undoubtedly belongs in an exhaustive chronicle of the 2000 campaign, it doesn't belong here (see our policy regarding undue weight). I don't see such a case there yet, although I can be convinced. Second, your closing sentence betrays a bias which you would do well to keep from your Wikipedia work (see WP:NPOV). RayTalk 02:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My last two sentences had not been included in the article. According to the Frontline program, in April 1998 Bush was not considering running for president. Shultz was one of the prime operatives to encourage Bush's candidacy and to start the fundraising campaign for him. I just found the full transcript of the Frontline program at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/etc/script.html , where the Shultz quotations in my first ref can be found. Italus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I am underwhelmed. Shultz, a guy at Hoover, wanted to expand Hoover's influence by getting Bush to meet with experts. He butters him up some, being impressed. No causal link is drawn between Shultz and Bush choosing to run; in fact, Shultz explicitly says something like "I know you're thinking of running already...." Certainly nothing like "prime operative"- Shultz is a senior statesman, not a daily operations person. RayTalk 19:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Family

[edit]

Why is there a "common assumption" that Shultz is "a member of the Pratt family associated with John D. Rockefeller ". Pratt and Shultz are not the same name!203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pratt" and "Pratt", on the other hand, are very similar if the entire paragraph is read from the beginning. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies?

[edit]

The entry lacks a section concerning the controversies and questionable stances taken by Schultz both in and out of office. The entry is too hagiographic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.137.35.130 (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any missing but reliably sourced information to suggest as additions to appropriate sections of the article, or is this just a morning kvetch session? 2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

尖閣についての朝日新聞での発言について

[edit]

尖閣の問題について、朝日新聞（Asahi）で発言したことは、事実誤認があります。インタビュアーの朝日記者が、「日本は尖閣問題で中国の強硬姿勢に苦しんでいます」と発言したところ、「日本が尖閣を国有化したことで、中国は公船を派遣するようになった」と言っています。しかし実際は、中国が尖閣に最初に公船派遣と領海侵犯をしたのは2008年12月です。2012年9月には漁船衝突事件が起き、それ以降中国は毎月の頻度に公船派遣を恒常化させました。日本が尖閣を国有化したのはその2年後の2012年9月です。シュルツ氏の発言は事実誤認であり、今も朝日新聞では訂正記事が書かれていません。ここにその事実を記します。--110.66.55.130 (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on George P. Shultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Shultz by Lyndon LaRouche

[edit]

Lyndon LaRouche seems to be a person with very strong opinions on some issues and persons. If this article wants to describe criticism of Shultz, I think it should be described in more general and neutral terms and include not only LaRouche but also other people criticising Shultz. --Coffee leaf (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on George P. Shultz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America

[edit]

The Latin America section is confusing in two ways. First, because it discusses things out of sequence: the Iran–Contra affair started August 20, 1985, but after mentioning that event it jumps back to 1983. Second, someone who was strongly critical of the Sandinista government and Daniel Ortega might be expected to be more likely to support undermining it, and there's no text involving "however", "even though", "in spite of", or any similar expression that helps the reader with the contrast. I would have expected this section to be along the lines of "He strongly opposed the Sandinista government and said in 1983 ... However, he also was well known for outspoken opposition to the 'arms for hostages' scandal that ..." —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

four different Cabinet positions?

[edit]

As of 2019-10-31 this article said, "Along with Elliot Richardson, he is one of two individuals to serve in four different Cabinet positions." However, this article currently only lists three.

I've changed that number to three. If you think it's four, please document the fourth. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

problem edits by an anonymous user

[edit]

@Arado Ar 196: Between 2022-07-19T07:26:51‎ and ...T08:02:12‎ User:76.71.176.207 made 5 questionable edits. User:Arado Ar 196 reverted the first 3, saying, "Non-constructive edit". I checked the source for a comment that Arado Ar 196 reverted and concluded that User:Arado Ar 196 was correct in doing so: I wondered if the deletion in question might have been an attempt to discredit Shultz for his support of Theranos.

With the most recent 2 edits, User:76.71.176.207 inserted the following at the beginning of the lede: George Pratt Shultz (/ʃʊlts/; December 13, 1920 – February 6, 2021) was

a prominent and hands-on board member of Theranos, which defrauded more than $700 million from its investors before it collapsed.[1] He was also ...

First, this does not belong in the lede: Shultz is famous for many things, and the Theranos affair was a relatively minor issue in a long and distinguished career.

Second, the comment may belong later. However, I have no access to that book and do not feel a need to pursue this further.

Thanks to User:Arado Ar 196 for the earlier reversion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC) DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Carreyrou, John (2018). Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. New York City: Knopf Doubleday. ISBN 978-1-5247-3166-3. Archived from the original on February 8, 2021. Retrieved June 20, 2018.

Omitted role in Theranos scandal in the summary.

[edit]

Need to include the role in the Theranos scandal in the summary. His role helped legitimize a con job of 700 million. It is as significant as everything else he has done and speaks to his reputation! 107.201.60.83 (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I do not agree that Shultz's "role in the Theranos scandal [was] as significant as everything else he has done". The second sentence in this article currently reads, "He served in various positions under two different Republican presidents and is one of the only two persons to have held four different Cabinet-level posts". In addition, he was one of the "Four Horsemen of the Nuclear Apocalypse" as part of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. I think these are all more important than his role in the Theranos scandal.
  2. The last two sentences in the lede currently read, "He was also a prominent and hands-on board member of Theranos, which defrauded more than $700 million from its investors before it collapsed.[7] His grandson Tyler Shultz worked at the company before becoming a whistleblower about the fraudulent technology.[8][9]" I'm not convinced it's accurate to say that Shultz was "a hands-on board member", but I don't have easy access to the book that describes that, Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. Elizabeth Holmes, the CEO of Theranos, and her COO were both prosecuted for fraud. In any event, Shulrz's role in the Theranos scandal is already in the lede. I don't understand what User:107.201.60.83 is saying about this.
Does anyone have documentation claiming that Shultz was part of the conspiracy to commit fraud? Or was he duped like the investors? DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slander

[edit]

the accusation that a grandson had anything to disclose as a " whistle blower" is libelous, slanderous, and patently falsely. Those accusations were just that, and long ago proven unfounded . 2600:100F:B1B7:EBA9:9447:65FF:FE81:E30A (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not slanderous and the term is used by the sourced linked. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with User:ZimZalaBim: The term Whistleblower may be a negative to you. However, to me, and to those who have supported legislation protecting whistleblowers, a whistleblower is a person of principle, willing to risk their career and even incarceration or death (as in the cases of Satyendra Dubey and Sergei Magnitsky) to expose wrong doing by others in an organization. See also List of whistleblowers. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not sure how whistleblower can be construed as a negative unless your worldview is wedded to the obfuscation of the truth in defiance of clearly overarching moral imperatives. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Shultz&oldid=1198606517"