Jump to content

Talk:Michael Pillsbury

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

C-class article. How can I improve it and remove the editorial tags?

[edit]

I have tried to create a nice and informative article about Michael Pillsbury. I recognize that I am a newbie, but I would really like to get this job done professionally and right. The editor in charge of this article has left about 7 negative tags that explain the low quality of my job. Could you please advise how I can improve the article, remove those tags and make the article as close to class A as possible?

thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 22:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a newbie here, I think that you're under a few misconceptions, so let me take them one at a time:
  • I'm not the "editor in charge of this article," because Wikipedia has no such thing. No one is "in charge" of any article.
  • If you want an article done "professionally," then it needs to be somewhere other than Wikipedia. We're all amateurs here. No one here's getting paid--or at least I certainly am not. But as you referred above to "this job" and "my job," I have to ask: are you being paid to do this?
  • This is neither your article or mine (see WP:OWN).
  • And as I said to you on my talk page, these tags are not as big a deal as you think they are. I certainly don't think that it's "low quality," especially as I've put a lot of time into wikifying it and coming up with ways it can be improved.
To respond to what you put over my talk page saying:

Dispute Resolution?

[edit]

Dear Dori Smith, I have found two more verifiable references about Michael PIllsbury, which makes about 15 total I provided. The two new ones are a book by Scribners press (Peter W. Rodman, More Precious Than Peace: The Cold War and the Struggle for the Third World, Scribers, 1994, p. 337), and a peer reviewed journal article in Political Science Quarterly (ALAN J. KUPERMAN, The Stinger Missile and U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan, Political Science Quarterly, on line at http://www.psqonline.org/free/kuperman.pdf). However, I need your advice how to remove your tags disputing a neutral point of view and the allegation of conflict of interest. The WP policy on Point of View says the editor who disputes neutrality must place her reasons on the talk page, but there are no reasons posted. It stresses "high quality reliable sources" of which there are 15, including a Pulitzer prize winning book, two Oxford Press books, etc. You removed the 12 examples of praise for Pillsbury's books from Professors at Harvard, Princeton, Penn, and 3 former Secretaries of Defense. Readers now do not have the benefit of those sources on the quality and importance of his two books on China. Is that the core of our "neutrality dispute?" You want to delete 12 re liable sources on this man's work on China, and instead you post for "further reading" a reference-less article that calls his scholarship "dubious" in the subtitle? IF the issue of neutrality is whether this man's scholarship is "dubious" then you should restore the 12 quotations. If there is another issue, it seems to be WP policy that you state it clearly so that other editors can see your concern. I am the kind of newbie that Wikipedia says its wants -- willing to assemble high quality references for a subject who is notable and certainly willing to accept the need to "wikify" the article. However, it was another editor, not you, who created this article from my very rough draft. If you pposed it from the start, please give your reasons so I have a chance to help, rather than adding these tags that the WP policy says "should not be used as a badge of shame" or to "warn" readers about the article. Frankly, I would ask for dispute resolution now, but th at seems premature if I can provide high quality references to meet you whatever your concerns may be.

Here is the policy that I found about dispute over neutral point of view:

Do not use this template unless there is an ongoing dispute in an article.

The editor placing this template in an article should promptly begin a discussion on the article's talk page. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant, then this tag may be removed by any editor.

The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.

This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Regarding this, given that it's a discussion about a specific article, I think that we should keep this on the article's talk page. I certainly don't think that it's a personal disagreement, nor do I think that it's remotely to the point where it needs to go to mediation or any such process.
Now, as to the particular tags and particular sources:
  • This is an article about someone in politics. Of course it's going to have people who dispute its points. Is there any politician on earth, or anyone who works for a politician, of whom everyone has the same opinion? I can't think of one, so with politically-related articles, I just assume that they'll always have a POV tag.
  • I removed the book cover blurbs because they were irrelevant. Blurbs are just "so-and-so says 'this guy's written a good book'". Okay, what does that blurb tell us about the person? Nothing. What does that add to what we know about what he's done? Nothing. Okay, then it doesn't matter, and it can be deleted without loss.
  • I added the citation to Washington Monthly for a few reasons:
  • Without it, the article makes Pillsbury sound like he ought to be canonized. There was previously not a single word, anywhere, that he might not be the most-loved person in DC.
  • I think of Washington Monthly as a fairly reputable source.
  • When you search Google News for all news articles that mention Michael Pillsbury, it comes up #2 (out of 274). The first was an interview with Pillsbury, which means the Washington Monthly article is the top third-party source found online. I figured that meant it was worthwhile.
Here are a couple of other topics that I don't feel the article covers adequately (or at all), and without which is possibly biased:
  • His firing for failing a lie detector test
  • His role in the BCCI scandal
I can't say I've read through all of them (as I haven't) but I've skimmed enough to know that no, this article does not give a well-rounded picture of the person. And as such, I'm comfortable with the tags it has, and still think that it needs more work by more editors to fill out the view of the topic. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a dispute in this case

[edit]

We do have a dispute. The book cover blurbs are about the detailed significance of Pillsbury's contributions to the understanding of China. None of them merely says "this guy's written a good book." The authors are reliable and expert - not only the professors from Harvard Princeton and Penn but also including Democratic Senator on the Intelligence Committe and two Secretaries of Defense for Democratic presidents - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

On the the 1986 firing for leaking, this is covered in the Wall St. Journal front page profile. However, I provided the link to the article on the web, while you provided a link that requires a fee to be paid - much more difficult for readers to verify. Please restore the link I gave to an articel that does give the "bad" side to Pillsbury. It states Pillsbury returned to the Pentagon - there was no indictment or any finding of wrongdoing. There are several articles about this on the web, but as one fired cabinet member once famously told the press "where do I go to get my reputation back?"

The BCCI scandal connection is referenced in detail in the Washington Monthly article you added - but without the announcement by the Senate Ethics Committe that there was no wrongdoing. WP policy is not clear to me on the length of articles and the details that are needed.

Our dispute is not only over the blurbs when you write "I removed the book cover blurbs because they were irrelevant. Blurbs are just "so-and-so says 'this guy's written a good book'". Okay, what does that blurb tell us about the person? Nothing. What does that add to what we know about what he's done? Nothing. Okay, then it doesn't matter, and it can be deleted without loss."

Our dispute is also over the lack of references in the Washington Monthly which calls Pillsbury a hawk on China and cites two translation errors she says he made -- inserting the word "we" intead of using the passive voice, and Pillsbury's mistranslating the so-called Chinese "assassin's mace weapons program" whihc MIss Ho wants to call a "kick ass" weapons program. Again, is this level of detail significant for a encyclopedia article. WP often covers a biography of a living person in a few paragraphs.

Finally, our dispute is about you desire to throw some dirt at the subject of a biography. How else can I read your comment to explain why you added the Washington Monthly: "Without it, the article makes Pillsbury sound like he ought to be canonized. There was previously not a single word, anywhere, that he might not be the most-loved person in DC. I think of Washington Monthly as a fairly reputable source." I checked the web about this Washington Monthly - they are self proclaimed attack journalism, out to "get" the individuals they profile. It is not a reputable source. A lot of fringe bloggers link to it, which isw why the article appears so high in Google rank pages.

Finally, I used the terms "professional" and "job" to mean highest quality standards for the voluntary task of help the WP to achieve an A class article.

Thanks for your improvements and your edits. But we have a significant dispute that needs to be resolved by arbitration, it seems to me. Unless you want this article to go to 10 pages or more about 20 year old issues, while omitting what Pillsbury has actually contributed to knowledge about China in his two books with 600 quotes in his second book, and about 35 chapters of Chinese military authors translated in the first one. I just checked Google Scholar. Pillsbury's second book was cited by 200 other authors. That is a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 13:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essay: I WAS NOT TOLD

[edit]

Dear Dori Smoth, thank you for your research on Pillsbury/BCCI in 1990/Stinger leak/lie dectector in 1986. I cannot pretend to understand either of these two complicated issues, or how to digest them down a sentence or two to persuade you to drop your tags about a "neutral point of view" and lack of sources. I understand you do not want to canonize Pillsbury or show him to be loved in Washington DC. But this item you found sounds pretty positive, unfortunately for neutrality. The NY Times columnist writes that in 1986 Pillsbury clashed with Oliver North and was trying to head off the Iran/Contra affair. It states "Admiral Poindexter apparently became agitated at Mr Pillsbury' continued presence at coert action meeting, wher he often clashed with Lieut COl. Oliver North about weapons withdrawals....the lie detector test...no appeal, no second chance, no due process, no FBI; just out fast." Then the columnist says that Weinberger, Richard Armitage and Colin Po well all be required to take lie dectors and fired if they refuse! He adds that Weinberger says he was not present at a covert action meeting to approve the arms transfers to Iran, but that the White House records say he was present. Do you think an editor (or you or I?) should add a summary of this column to the Pillsbury biography? It makes him look like the man who could have stopped the Iran/Contra affair if he had not been unfairly ousted. A "neutral point of view" is going to be difficult to achieve if you insist on having some "dirt" on Pillsbury be included before you will drop your tags for point of view and too few sources. This item just makes him look better! Our dispute continues, and I simply do not know what the length limits are for a biographical article. Thanks again for what your meticulous research discovered, but it seems irrrelevant to me, compared to the book blurbs about his findings on what the Chinese think about the future , none of which is in the article at present. A reader cannot tell w hat Pillsbury has discovered about China fror the article as it now stands. Is that not more important than this stuff? I lack the experience to know the right answer.

February 16, 1987 ESSAY: I Was Not Told

By William Safire On Friday, Jan. 17 of last year, when Ronald Reagan or his autopen signed the finding submitted by Admiral Poindexter sending arms to Iran without notifying Congress, the two officials who ordinarily handled secret arms transfers had not yet returned from a trip to China. Hurriedly, one of the men closest to Secretary of Defense Weinberger, Maj. Gen. Colin Powell, bypassed the written focal point system procedures and ordered the Defense Logistics Agency to turn over the first of 2,008 TOW missiles to the C.I.A., which acted as cutout for delivery to Iran. One reason the usual covert-action transfer officials were kept in the dark may be that one of them, Michael Pillsbury, was a former aide to Senator Orrin Hatch, and it was feared that he would object to lengthy concealment of this operation from the Senate Intelligence Committee. Less than three months later, Admiral Poindexter apparently became agitated at Mr. Pillsbury's continued presence at covert-action meetings, where he often clashed with Lieut. Col. Oliver North about weapons withdrawals. The admiral used the occasion of a story in the press about the shipment of Stinger missiles to demand a polygraph test of Mr. Pillsbury, which was conducted by a Navy examiner chosen by the National Security Council staff. The lie detector supposedly went against Mr. Pillsbury and he was abruptly dismissed. No appeal, no second chance with a different examiner, no due process, no F.B.I.; just out fast. Neither Admiral Poindexter nor Secretary Weinberger would have to worry about an aide with right-wing connections alerting Senate Intelligence to the strange bypassing of procedure in the transfer of TOW missiles. At year's end, we learned of the Jan. 17 finding, which the doers of the secret-transfer deed used as justification for an otherwise illegal act: Pentagon officials confirmed that Weinberger did not notify Congress about the transfers . . ., wrote George C. Wilson in The Washington Post on Dec. 14, but the Defense Secretary was not obliged to do so because, they said, he was operating under President Reagan's 'finding,' which ruled out the notification procedure . . . Curious that the Jan. 17 finding was cited by officials as their legal authority. Curious because at a Pentagon luncheon for pundits hosted by Mr. Weinberger last week, during which he reported proudly that his polygraph testing program now had grilled more than 7,000 souls, this exchange took place: Q. Did you know about the Jan. 17 finding? A. Not until a few weeks ago. Q. So you weren't told? A. I was not told. Gee. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, A final meeting was held in Poindexter's office on Jan. 16 to review a final draft of the finding. Attending were Poindexter, Casey, Meese, Sporkin and Weinberger. Weinberger again voiced opposition to the program. He didn't know? He wasn't told? Weinberger testified before the Committee, continues the report, that later that day [ Jan. 17 ] he received a call from Poindexter informing him of the President's action. Something is fishy here. Cap is one careful lawyer of high repute. Through his official spokesman, Secretary Weinberger informs me that he holds to his assertion that he did not know about the Jan. 17 finding, and adds that he cannot recollect having attended the Jan. 16 meeting that the Senate report most emphatically places him in. Either the Senate Intelligence Committee was incredibly sloppy, or some people are changing their stories about the moment in this case when the nation's highest officials circumvented the law. If Defense did not know about the finding, on what authority did Mr. Weinberger fail to notify Congress? The temptation is to suggest that the nation's foremost proponent of polygraphs be required to take one on this affair, on pain of being fired if he refuses or fails, and to extend that coercive invitation to Assistant Secretary Richard Armitage and to Colin Powell, who has been promoted to lieutenant general and appointed as Frank Carlucci's deputy at the National Security Council. But that, as we used to say, would be wrong. As we see, the polygraph is less a device to get at the truth than an easily corruptible method by which officials who may be eager to conceal possible wrongdoing can conveniently remove any other official who might be inclined to obey the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Dori Smith (the editor)

[edit]

Dear Dori - You helped a lot to improve the Michael Pillsbury article last summer. Do you now feel the wikifying and bot edits of the past 10 months justify removing any of the 7 tags you placed?

Also, I extend my congratulations to you on your being a clerk for the arbitration committee, even though I see you are listed as temporarily inactive. Would you have the time to help me get the issue of "overtagging" on this article about Michael Pillsbury submitted for arbitration? I see there are 17 members of the arb com, and Jimbo Wales confirmed 8 new ones January 2010.

Respectfully,

Artdriver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdriver (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

[edit]

Hi, I saw your posting requesting a third opinion. I actually think that since this is a bio of a living person it needs some attention from more experienced editors than it might get at WP:3O, so I've placed a new notice at the bio of living persons' noticeboard. I'll also take a look at the disputed edits here and see if I can weigh in myself. — e. ripley\talk 22:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why this article has an NPOV tag? It's been there since summer, but I can see no obvious reason for it. — e. ripley\talk 00:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a day since I've asked for an explanation of the npov tag but none has been forthcoming, so I am removing it. If its tagger should resurface please feel free to re-add, but with an explanation here on the talk page, so we know what you think needs resolving. THanks. — e. ripley\talk 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Pillsbury. 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) 02:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Pillsbury. 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) 01:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Pillsbury. 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) 08:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement to sources, but much yet needed

[edit]

Work of editor Bullamore, and I, have improved the sources, formats, and copyediting of the lede, but much remains to be done to bring this article up to standard. In particular, the lede fails to summarise the article (as WP policy requires), instead focusing mostly on a latest bestselling book (the accolades of which are repeated in the main body, raising the spectre of promotion).

Also, if WP policy does not allow unverifiable material (unsourced presentation of purported facts) it is noteworthy that nearly the entire sections of VOA commentator, Government positions, and Affiliations, and the opening 4 paragraphs of the Career section are largely/completely without sources. This suggests one or more self-published web sources, which again are prohibited by WP guidelines and policies, and which further raises the possibility of promotion as an aim of a prior editor. Note as well, the citations appearing in the Affiliations sections are essentially entirely to references substantiating the existence of the institutions mentioned, rather than supporting specific, stated biographical facts associated with the title subject (e.g., years of affiliation, etc.).

Finally, someone has done a good job on providing page numbers for some book references, but unfortunately this did not inspire other editors to follow the high (expected) standard of alway providing page numbers for quotes and fact-draws from books (and other long sources)—hence page needed tags appear to indicate where the problem remains.

So, process started, but mmuch more needs to be done. No fact uncited. Not encyclopedic until. 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:B1B0:20F6:F6F:4F1D (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier issues that remain unadressed

[edit]

Earlier, and editor wrote—see above—"Here are a couple of other topics that I don't feel the article covers adequately (or at all), and without which is possibly biased [emphasis added]:

  • His firing for failing a lie detector test
  • His role in the BCCI scandal

This point of article bias was raised by editor Dori on the order of 8 years ago, and I see that the matter raised was not rectified. (Neither the matter of the leaks, nor of BCCI, are addressed in the article at this date.) 2601:246:CA80:3CB5:B1B0:20F6:F6F:4F1D (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request edit

[edit]

Information to be added or removed:

1) REMOVE Under AFFILIATIONS: this line does not fit into the affiliations section and should be removed: "Aided Bank of Credit and Commerce International in avoiding bad publicity in the US Senate after BCCI pleaded guilty to laundering billions of dollars in "drug money laundering, arms trafficking and support of terrorists" The reference here clearly proves that this is not an affiliation - https://apnews.com/eca7346ae98cf45d0306a75a40faa5e6

2) Under AFFILIATIONS, Michael Pillsbury's affiliation with the Freedom House ended in 2019; also, Mr Pillsbury stopped being a board member at the French American Cultural Center in 2019 so this needs to be changed;

Thank you in advance! Jen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen1955 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 19-MAR-2020

[edit]

🔼  Clarification requested  

  • To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:
  1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
  2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
  3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.[1]
  4. Reasons should be provided for each change.[2]
  • In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:
Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:

"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."


2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:

"The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."


3. Using as the reference:

Prisha Harinath (2020). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1.


4. Reason for change being made:

"The previously given diameter was incorrect."
  • Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request. Thank you!


Regards,  Spintendo  12:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019. Instructions for Submitters: Describe the requested changes in detail. This includes the exact proposed wording of the new material, the exact proposed location for it, and an explicit description of any wording to be removed, including removal for any substitution.
  2. ^ "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 30 December 2019. Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious (particularly for proposed deletions), explain.

Request Edit

[edit]
  • 1. Please remove the first bullet point under the Affiliations section:

"Aided Bank of Credit and Commerce International in avoiding bad publicity in the US Senate after BCCI pleaded guilty to laundering billions of dollars in "drug money laundering, arms trafficking and support of terrorists" [28]"

  • 2. Using as a reference:

Report Offers New Details On Sen. Hatch’s Defense of BCCI, Aug 26, 1992, AP, https://apnews.com/eca7346ae98cf45d0306a75a40faa5e6, 7th paragraph: "BCCI lawyers and the senator’s longtime aide, Michael Pillsbury, told the Times that Pillsbury, at Hatch’s request, offered the lawyers advice on how to counter another Senate inquiry."

  • 3. Reason for change being made:

"It can be considered legally defamatory, as the quote from the sentence from the Associated Press article is misquoted. "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jen1955 (talk • contribs) 17:28, March 30, 2020 (UTC)

Not done I've checked the accompying source, and it's not misquoted. It says NEW YORK (AP) _ U.S. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch tried to help the Bank of Credit and Commerce International escape Senate scrutiny after the bank pleaded guilty to laundering drug money, a newspaper reported today. In the article, it contains Aided Bank of Credit and Commerce International in avoiding bad publicity in the US Senate after BCCI pleaded guilty.... They connect, so they stay as well sourced. It even quotes drug money laundering, arms trafficking and support of terrorists. WIth COI editors, you are allowed to remove unambiguous defamatory content and vandalism, but in this case, it's ambiguous. If you do really think this defamation needs to be removed, I recommend pursuing a third opinion. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 17:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Pillsbury&oldid=1204198477"