Talk:Madeleine Albright/Archive 1

Bias

This article seems to hold a certain amount of hostility towards Albright. Does Wikipedia condone bias?

It can be seen as one sided, but, nevertheless, she did say it.

There is still a neutrality dispute notice in the article. Are there still objections, and if so, what are they? Wmahan. 05:13, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

The article has been sanitized. Note that not only the Boutros Ghali's remark has been cut out (OK, it's his opinion, so in a way it is POV by definition); her infamous "The price is worth it" reply has been cut out too. Now, quoting her own words as said on national TV is somehow supposed to be biased against her? Anyway: I'm restoring the quote, and if anyone would like to object to that, please do so here. GregorB 19:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

I've removed the NPOV notice for three reasons:

1. Some content that could have been perceived as POV has subsequently been removed from the disputed version (not by me!)
2. There were no specific objections to the article
3. I see no evidence of bias in the current text

If someone feels that the article is still biased, the place to object is here... GregorB 22:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Gay Icon Project

In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 20:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Time Mag Cover

Noticed the Time cover. I like it, but are we allowed to use these covers, or is it copyright. I would really like to add it to other topics but need to know first about copyright. Let me know.Kyle Andrew Brown 17:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Wrapping in Personal Information

Does anybody else see the text wrapping over the edit link for the Personal Information section? - Jayc 07:24, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I'll ask about it on the Help desk.--Commander Keane 07:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Information

Would it be style okay if we moved the Personal Information above Academics? Opening with where she graduated from high school seems weak for an encyclopedia article.Kyle Andrew Brown 19:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sound like a great idea. Go for it! :-) Tomer ^TALK 04:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

she oversaw the US and UN's

as Secretary of State she would not "oversee" an overall action by the US nor by the UN. She did not have the power or authority. The wording more properly could state, if true, " that as Secretary of State she was not viewed as being involved in preventing ...." or whatever you state she did not do.Kyle Andrew Brown 13:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In need of attention:

The "Secretary of State" section of this article is poorly written, to say the least; I was going to correct it, but I'm not 100% sure of its veracity and didn't want to lend it credibility by copy-editing it. I beg anyone who can verify the statements made therein to clean that section up a bit. --Bumhoolery 04:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that not too many who have read her books are going to the site and adding content. I agree with you on how empty it is, but it takes a scholar to work it. She had an amazing career whatever the pundits on either side may say.

A reliable and quick fix is to first put together a chronology chart. I know I would work from the chron chart and develop sections from it and it would be less intimidating for others to join in. Do you like that suggestion and would that interest you?

Someone deleted her brooches. I guess it is a little silly, but in the absence of much depth to her as a person, I wonder if even she would object. I certainly recall her doing it. She probably giggles herself when she sees it. I just noticed she's wearing one in the official photo. I bet her daughter gives her one on special occassions.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)== Why is the "Family background" sub-section in the "Controversies" section? ==

There's nothing seemingly "controversial about the "Family background" content. Why is it included here? Unless there is a reliable source indicating her family background is a "controversy", I think it should be moved.--Oakshade (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Albright offers to donate her papers to Wellesley College, which will launch the Madeleine K. Albright Institute for Global Affairs

The Boston Globe reported Albright has offered to donate her papers to the College and has comments from Albright on the launch of the Institute for Global Affairs, which is to be officially announced on June 14: . Also the college has a press release about the launch of the Institute in January, 2010, but doesn't mention the possible donation of her papers: 72.73.89.95 (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Ambassador section

I placed the Sixty Minutes comment under the "Ambassador to the UN" section, as the date of the comment is 5/12/96 and she was ambassador until 1997.

Should the heading of the "Ambassador to the UN" section instead read "US Ambassador to the UN"? Deisbrenner 16:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The heading has been corrected.

WWII

Here we state that she spent WWII in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. Here http://www.nwhp.org/tlp/biographies/albright/albright_bio.html they say she has spent WWII in UK. I believe that second is correct. If no-one objects, I´d change the text. Saigon from europe 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

She spent WW2 in Serbia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_w0YY7M8is and was saved by Serbs!79.175.77.173 (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

She was in Serbia during World War Two. CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_w0YY7M8is 79.175.74.82 (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nicosia, Apr 17 (CNA) -- A Serbian family living in Vrinjetska Banja village, in Yugoslavia, is reported to have given shelter to US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when her family fled Nazi persecution during World War Two. A Cypriot weekly publication "To Periodico" (The Magazine) carried the story yesterday, with phaded black-and-white photos including one of four- year-old Albright embracing Ljutko Popic, who told his story to the magazine.

Popic claims he is the boy in the picture, taken in 1939, and the girl is the present US Secretary of State. He said he was Albright's "first love" and wondered why she is now backing NATO bombing in Yugoslavia.

The Serb is reported to have said that Albright's Jewish-Czech family took refuge with his family, in their village Vrinjetska Banja, some 80 kilometres out of Kraljevo, to escape the threat of Nazi persecution.

His village was bombed on the night the Cypriot journalists stayed there, April 12, and the following day the villagers apparently scrawled a message on an unexploded NATO bomb saying: "Thank you Mrs Albright for the presents you send us in return for our hospitality."

According to the report, Popic said he had sent Albright a letter asking her to halt the air strikes, but had received no reply.

CNA MA/MK/1999

ENDS, CYPRUS NEWS AGENCY

Hellenic Resources Network http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/cna/1999/99-04-17.cna.html 23:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.175.74.82 (talk)

The metal table she remembers is in fact a "Morrison" shelter, installed in many houses in UK during WW2. (See Wikipedia article with photographs on Morrison shelter)

KernowPete 7 Nov 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KernowPete (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The highest ranking woman?

The intro has the claim and at that time the highest ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government. I think that is not correct since Sandra Day O'Connor was a Supreme Court justice since 1981. I don't think you can argue that Secretary of State is a higher position in the government that a Supreme Court justice. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you CAN argue that. Firstly, judges are not part of the government (the judiciary is the judiciary, and is in most countries independent). Secondly, according to the United States order of precedence, the Secretary of State is normally outranked only by the President, Vice-President, their spouses (who are not part of the government), the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Chief Justice (not part of govt). Thirdly, in most countries the foreign affairs brief is seen as THE most important cabinet position after prime minister (which in the US would be the President), though it is perhaps equalled by finance or interior, where such a post exists.--Dub8lad1 01:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

First, the United States Order of Precedence is a matter of protocol for parties and such. It is createed by the President and has no binding legal effect. Second, Judges are part of the government. Specifically, federal judges are created by Article III of the U.S. Constitution in the same way that Articles I and II create Congress and the Executive respectively. Third, there is no dispute that the Secretary of State is the most important Cabinet post considering that it is the oldest as well as first among Cabinet positions in the Presidential line of succession. Finally, a Prime Minister should not be compared to a President because the systems of government from which they come are too different to support the comparison.

To return to the original issue, Albright, is the highest ranking woman in the history of the Executive branch, Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the highest ranking women in the history of the Judicial branch and Nancy Pelosi is the highest ranking woman in the history of the Legislative branch. The Constitution established a separation of powers and comparisons of the relative power of the three are inappropriate.--Jj002 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You could make the argument that since she was born outside the US, thus constitutionally barred from the Presidency or Vice-Presidency; Condelezza Rice is the highest ranking woman ever in the executive with the ability to ascend to the Presidency.

Condoleeza Rice is completely irrelevant here because the article clearly states the phrase "at the time" and at that time Condoleeza Rice was working at Stanford, which I wouldn't really consider a high ranking government position.

The Secretary of State is the highest ranking Cabinet position within the Executive branch and it shows a lack of forethought to suppose that a position in which you are in the line of sucession to become head of state is not superior to one in which you are merely an associate member. O'Connor was neither Cheif Justice nor held the position of the Associate Justice with premier seniority. Your objection is marring the article and should be removed because your point has been left unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence.

Merger Proposal

For the rational behind the proposed merger, see the Talk page for Joseph Medill Patterson Albright. --TommyBoy 02:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

See the above link for reason NOT to link as well.CJ Chapman 14:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Merging the articles would be a tremendous disservice to any serious student of international public policy and U.S. diplomatic affiars. Medeliene Albright is the highest ranking female in the history of the United States government and has generated an impressive cadre of accomplishments on her own. Her work warrants separate visibility. Perhaps the articles should, instead, be linked.N. McAllister 22:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on the merger has changed, see the Talk page for Joseph Albright for more details. --TommyBoy 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We can remove the merger proposal, then. Ksnow 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Ksnow

This should not even be an issue. Madeline Albright and Joseph Medill Albright are two completely different people with two completely different life experiences, circumstances, and accomplishments. Not only would it do a disservice to each, but such a merger would be completely incomprehensible. I strongly recommend that this merger proposal be removed. - MAI

As a result of overwhelming opposition, I have removed the merger tag. --TommyBoy 16:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this true

I was watching ESPN, it said she can leg press 400lb, is this true or just false? Paul.Paquette

Whether or not it is true, how is it relevant? Fsotrain09 00:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is relevant. It makes her interesting. By the way, it was confirmed by the New York Times: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp? vnu_content_id=1002383529.--128.61.44.15 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Gary Mann Is that with just one leg ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

@Paul.Paquette Ok 175.157.111.206 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

source?

Albright has stated that she did not know she had Jewish ancestors until she was an adult. Can't find any source confirming she really said that. Foreigner 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Sub-headline in Washington Post of 6 Jan 1996 (not sure about exact date) went along the lines (paraphrased) of "Secretary of State says she did not know..." She confirms it also in his memoir Madam Secretary. Excellent read btw. 218.186.9.1 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hope that this is the place to make a comment on an unconvincing reference. Text says A's parents "converted from Judaism in order to escape persecution" and then refers to a newspaper article. That newspaper article however does not reveal the motives of A's parents, only that the motive of escaping persecution was a common motive for conversions during that pre war years. But there is nothing in that article that tells me that A's parents did not act out of inner conviction. Jippert (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Inner conviction is irrelevant -- Judaism does not have an opt out clause. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

She also referenced her Jewish heritage in Hell and Other Destinations: A 21st-Century Memoir.zaccari 19 October 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaccari (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Episcopalian or Catholic?

Is she an Episcopalian or a Roman Catholic? Homagetocatalonia 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Born Roman Catholic, she became an Episcopalian prior to her marriage to Joe Albright. AFAIK she remained Episcopalian after their divorce in 1982. -Fsotrain09 03:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC

Post 2001 Career

This

"Secretary Albright has been an out-spoken opponent of the war in Iraq. Although she stated in Jerusalem in 1998 "we must sop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stabilty and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction". She apparently no longer holds this position as supported by her statements in Moscow (6/06) where she stated.."The message out of Iraq is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded. If you do have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded"."

Seems slanted. It can even be argued that the statements are consistent. Only invading countries that don't have Nuclear weapons would encourage countries to get nuclear weapons. The person who added this seems to want to score points and cherry pick quotes.

170.232.128.10 04:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)crackpipe

I agree and I made the change. I think the last quote does show that she has concerns about the Bush Administration's Iraq policy....--MattDartmouth 23:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Flip Flopper

Secretary Albright has been an out-spoken opponent of Saddam Hussein. She stated in Jerusalem in 1998 that "we must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." She has expressed concerns about the Bush Administration's Iraq policy. In June 2006 in Moscow she stated, "The message out of Iraq is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, you get invaded. If you do have nuclear weapons, you don't get invaded.

Was this a major issue during her time under Clinton? It sounds like POV..

Of course, it was. See http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022006_tpo.html

Our media have let us down by not reporting on the historical context of our position vis-a-vis Iraq.

Madeline saved by Serbs in WW2!?

During NATO bombing,many women and men came out on TV and brought photos or personal stories how mrs.Madeline spent her life saftly thanks to Serbs during WW2.Many talked about sharing bread with her,the last piece and appeled to her to stop bombing them.So,why this part of the story is not integrated?

Also recently when she had published her biography book or so,she said :"My dad loved Serbs and said if he wasn't Czech,he would be a Serb,but unfortunately I will not be able to walk again along Belgrade's streets which I love as people remember me by NATO bombing"....So,plase,edit the article.

Thanks

Actually, it is you, dear anon., who bears the burden of providing sources for these claims. Please provide them. -Fsotrain09 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I found:

according to this her father Josef Korbel worksed as a diplomat in Belgrade.

According to the [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16150 World Net Daily] Madeleine lived together with her father in Belgrade while he was Czech ambassador the the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

According to the University of South Carolina, she and her father moved back to Belgrade after World War II. When the Communists took power in 1948, they left for the US. --PaxEquilibrium 15:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Albright and her family were Czech refugees in Serbia during the WWII Bicca (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

---

this is the latest Serbian news. Albright's family lived in Vrnjačka Banja for a time in World War II. By the end of this month Albright shall return to her (former) home in Vrnjacka banja as a witness on a municipal dispute (she has allegedly accepted the call and is gladly willing to revisit her youth-place). --PaxEquilibrium 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

References

vandalized

This article's last section has been vandalized. If anyone has a chance to fix this before I get home, please do so.

I think I need a reference for Condoleeza's piano shaped planter. I wouldn't put it past her, but it seems like vandalism. Rawkcuf 15:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Rawkcuf

WP Biography Rating

Due to a backlog it is no longer possible to give comment on ratings. Please put any comments/questions on my talk page. GDon4t0 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hong Kong?

As US Secretary of State she attended the handover of Hong Kong and boycotted the Chinese swearing-in ceremony, along with the British contingents. Is this worth mention? Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Judaism???

As far as I can recall she only have Jewish roots from her paternal side. No, both were, and they converted to escape persecution

500 000+ child deaths worth it?

Why is there no mention of her monstrously immoral response regarding the death of 500 000 - 800 000 Iraqi children during the sanctions regimen on Iraq? During an interview on 60 Minutes in 1996 she was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it" Remember, this was in 1996 and the sanctions and the related mortality continue until the 2003 US invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.120.140 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but after, she had said that her statement was a mistake. She had said :'This is no one's fault but my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.46.160 (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Mike Rosen described Stahl's question as a loaded question before I did, so I added a reference to his article. DougHill (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this statement needs to be in there. Whether she regretted making the statement later or not it is a famous part of her legacy. Infact there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Iraq sanctions at all, A very large part of her legacy whether you agreed or disagreed with the policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.78 (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq sanctions were mentioned but not linked. I fixed that in my last edit.DougHill (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the part about the loaded question Right now what it is saying is that there was controversy over Albright not pointing out that she was given a loaded question. No, the controversy was that it seemed like she was fine with children dying. Instead this part just quotes a bunch of right wing blogs in a very muddled manner to try to push forward a completely unrelated dispute as fact.

Since Albright herself claims that she fell into a trap, it seems worthwhile to identify the trap. At least to her, that seems to be what the controversy is about.

Maybe you could add a note saying that there is debate about whether the question asked to Albright was even accurate in the first place could be done in a NPOV manner so readers don't automatically assume the questioner is correct. But twisting what was actually an "eek! dead children!" controversy into an "eek! improper handing of logical fallacies!" controversy is a bit ridiculous. 173.66.145.11 (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the controversy about both, about how her mishandling of the second let many to conclude that she was callous about the first? Assuming that "the question asked to Albright was even accurate" is what the loaded question discussion is about. Please go ahead and make the more NPOV edit that you suggest.DougHill (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am lately accused of starting an edit war on this topic. I'm contesting the current version (9/25/10) on a few points.

1) The section heading "The Non-Denial Heard 'Round the World" isn't appropriate. The source of this title seems to be a lone Reason Magazine article, which a few dogmatic editors seem to think gives them license to title the section whatever they would like.

Reason magazine did indeed coin the term for her response, but the name seems to be sticking.

Moreover, the current version reads: "Her failure to "refram[e the question] and point[] out [its] inherent flaws" has been called "the non-denial heard 'round the world" because "by not challenging the statistic, Albright inadvertently lent credence to it." This sentence is rather revealing of the editors' intentions to deceive readers. If the "failure" is what is called "the non-denial heard 'round the world", then the section heading refers to what the editors think she should have said rather than what she actually said!

No, actually it's about what Albright thinks she should have said, as her later comments indicate.

I suggest "Statement Concerning Iraqi Sanctions", which is incontestably more neutral.

Having said all that, I only have a minor objection to the change. The quote was actually a response to a question (as opposed to a Statement that might have been offered on its own), so I'll change the heading to include "Response".

2)"Identified as a loaded question". Albright's "trap" is an ambiguous reference: it could easily refer to her self-ensnarement by means of her answer just as well as it could refer to Stahl's putative deceptive query.

It's a loaded question either way. Read the rest of her quote: "I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it."

Since there isn't quoted anything to the effect that Albright felt deceived, and what is quoted has her blaming herself solely for the mis-step, the editors' conclusion that "this 'trap'" is identical to Stahl's question is only sustained on an extremely superficial reading of the source text. Also, "identified" is far too strong here: what Stahl asked Albright is merely called a loaded question by Reason. We are asked to take it on good authority that Reason can tell us which instances of speech are logically fallacious. I suggest "Several commentators have accused Stahl of asking Albright a loaded question." This takes the speculation out of this point and just reports what the commentators have said. 68.159.115.36 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to sound like WP:OR. If you have other sources who say otherwise, you should cite them as well. DougHill (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Section name

An editor asks"would we label Clinton's declarations about Monica Lewinsky a "response" because he was queried?" This suggests a faulty analogy, since the real issue was what Clinton did, not what he said. Albright didn't do anything; she merely gave a response in which she "came across as cold-blooded and cruel." If "response" is problematic, let's label this as an interview. BTW, Albright criticized the whole segment, not just the question. (I'll fix this too.) DougHill (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the title identify the subject of discussion, but "60 minutes interview" seems alright to me. 68.159.115.36 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The affair, while noteworthy, doesn't seem to merit more than 3 paragraphs and as many quotes. Her quotes are consistent, in that she regrets her statement and not the policy. Let's try a short, plain statement of what happened (the question/answer), then her response, then the response of other people. rewinn (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The relevance of the photo you added was unclear. (If 3 paragraphs is too much, we sure don't need the photo.) And the new editing of her words was awkward. Please feel free to try again. DougHill (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The photo was an error; not sure how it happened but it's gone now. If language is awkward, feel free to improve language but wholesale reversion is rarely appropriate. Since much of the awkwardness stems from accommodating a flurry of quotes in support of Albright's already stated position and incorporates numerous square brackets to alter grammar, I've simply shrunk the awkward quotes to a more manageable length. There is still a large preponderance of the text devoted to Albright's POV and very little to that of her critics, but let's see how this looks.rewinn (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As we've discussed over at Iraq sanctions, Rahul Mahajan doesn't defend Stahl's question. (The issue had probably not been raised when he wrote that.) Can we please work that out on just one page first? DougHill (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no need to make 2 sections out of this. We should also find a way to edit it so that "reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise" is not stated twice. But previous edits (especially with their factual errors) didn't improve on this. DougHill (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a controversy so I have moved it to the Controversy section - it's not really a major part of her career segment at the UN. The only relevant quotes are what Stahel said and her reply; all the other quotes merely repeat that some people either approve or disapprove of what she said. rewinn (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewinn: Please stop attributing to Mahajan a defense of Stahl's question. He simply does not address this issue. This page is on Albright, we are entitled to hear from her (and not excessively edited) both about the segment and her response. As I know you know, she did this while Ambassador, but many sources get this wrong. This is an easy thing for us to clarify here. So I think it belongs in the Ambassador section. But I'll leave it in controversies for now. DougHill (talk) 18:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

why is there no link or info as to how many children died due to sanctions , Saddam could have ended sanctions, but so coudl USA so they arew both culpable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.64.109 (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Rwandan Genocide

In 1994 Madeline Albright, the then UN permanent representative led efforts to deny declaring the massacres in Rwanda genocide (Source: Romeo Dallaores's Shake Hands with the Devil, p. 374). She also led resistance to a new mandate to a new UN mission towards "ensuring" stability and secuirty in the provinces of Rwanda (Source: Romeo Dallaores's Shake Hands with the Devil,p.506). An Episode of the West Wing has press secretary C.J. Craig playing the role of the US spokeswoman who was instructed by the State Department to avoid using the word "genocide" and instead use the words "acts of genocide". This actually happened. Rationalhuman (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag. If any here have cause to have a tag, by all means put one on with current date, and discussion.Jjdon (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture

She was in an episode of Futurama, the one that also starred Lucy Liu. When Leela picks up her head (in a jar) a pressure sensor went off, so Madeleine's head (next to Liu's) was substituted, and her personality was downloaded to someone expecting Liu. - NemFX (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Madeleine also appeared in an episode of The Gilmore Girls "Twenty-one is the loneliest number", in a dream sequence as Rory's mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.238.207 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"liberal intelligentsia"?

Was it only the "liberal intelligentsia" who advocated a change in the "natural born" requirements? I'm not American, so please excuse my ignorance, but over here in the UK Albright used to be the obvious choice for writers of all political persuasions on the (fairly rare) occasions on which the issue was discussed in print. The most prominent ineligible figure is now Schwarzenegger, but I can't say I've seen much difference in the general tone of the debate, such as it is. 86.136.250.66 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Year of birth and Belgrade

If Albright was born in Prague in 1937 then how could her family have been living in Belgrade since 1936? This statement in the article is followed by what I consider a rather politicised comment, so maybe the author of that is also responsible for the confusion as to where her family was in those years. I don't know the facts of this, so can't correct. 92.118.18.24 (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the POV insertion -- thanks for that -- but you're right, that's confusing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• She was a refugee in Serbia during the WWII Bicca (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Genocide Prevention Task Force/Complicity in Turkey's Denial of the Armenian Genocide

Harut Sassounian offers the same criticism of both Albright and William Cohen, so I've left the link to his articles, but moved his argument onto a page for him. Readers interested in his argument can follow the external link to his article, or follow the wikilink to the article on him. DougHill (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly is the warrant for removing the arguments? Cohen and Albright collaborated together on their support for Turkish denial, so they ought to have the same information available on both their entries. This appears to be an attempt to whitewash her record on genocide. Given that the Sassounian piece cited does not include the word Holocaust, I believe that DougHill's edit was done in bad faith to attack Sassounian and Armenians in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.98 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

References

Repeated vandalization

It seems as this Wikipedia page is subject to repeated vandalization. I repaired the infobox and restored the name of her predecessor but I am not sure if there are other vandalizations as well. Not being a US citizen or an expert on US history I don't know all the details about the late Madeleine Albright so would someone please check if there is other parts that have recently been vandalized? As far as I can judge from the edits the vandalization is the result of an edit war between two culprits. Jsde (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ibid

All those new citations from Madam Secretary just say "ibid.", which is not particularly useful, since they don't give page numbers and hinder future editing. Page numbers should be included, and probably this level of detail belongs on the Madam Secretary page instead of this one.

Also, I changed a header called "Life and Career" since the entire page should be about her life and career. (I kept all the material, some of it under "Career" and moved the rest lower on the page.)DougHill (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added page references for all Madame Secretary quotes, so they should be more useful now. There is no page for Madame Secretary, and as it is a biography, the info in it really does belong here. I have also shifted the personal and early life section to the top of the page, so the whole article has some semblance of chronological order, making it easier to read and follow. Hellomontana, 10 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellomontana (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Good work. Thank you! I used reflinks to consolidate the references. Eventually we'll want to get rid of the ibid.s, but I'll look for (and encourage others to look for) a more elegant way to include a lot of citations from a book (which should be a major source for this page).DougHill (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Albright Jewish

Albright is Jewish and it should be noted within the article as such. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see anything relevant to Albright on the page that was cited, which seemed to address how to convert to, rather than whether one can convert from. Thus I've requested another citation. However, a discussion about this claim probably belongs on a page about Judaism instead of Madeleine Albright. DougHill (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The citation verifies Albright's condition -- a reality of being Jewish (i.e. having a Jewish mother) is that one may not opt out of one's Judaism. The source was not being used to verify the claim that Albright's mother is Jewish -- such is supported by the citation(s) provided in the paragraphs relating to her biographical info. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.145.136.34 (talk)

Yes, it's clear from earlier sources that Albright's mother was Jewish. But what needs to be supported is that "Judaism ... considers neither conversion nor nonaffiliation as relevant to Jewish status". This may be true but it's not on the cited page. That page talks about conversion TO Judaism, not conversion FROM. Could it be that you are looking at a page in a different edition than the one that comes up in Google Books? DougHill (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It states, "if the convert should opt out of Judaism for a time, she is still considered a Jew for purposes of religious law and, returning, would not need to undergo a second conversion process," explicitly stating that Jews may not leave the faith. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Since neither Albright nor her mother were converts to Judaism, that does not apply here. So we should remove that citation. The closest thing I could find in the new source is: "if the child of a Christian father and a Jewish mother is not raised Jewish, the child is a Jew according to the Orthodox movement, but not according to the Reform movement!" So we should leave this citation in but qualify the claim. Judaism#What_makes_a_person_Jewish? also seems to indicate that this is a borderline case, so I'll put in something to send readers there (where this discussion really belongs). DougHill (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no boerderline cases because Jewish law on this subject is well defined -- Reform Judaism, which does not practice Judaism and does not apply Jewish law [1], may claim what they wish, but it does not affect the objective assertion I made in the article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Albright is ethnically Jewish, just like Sarkozy. She obviously does not consider herself to be a follower of Judaism and probably her Jewsih identity is solely a genalogical matter for her. Thus Jewish religious law is if little relevance. However, if she or her children were ever to consider becoming adherents of Judaism or begin to see themselves as Jews in a spiritual sense, they would not require any conversion process whatsoever. This is the tricky part of ethno-religious identity, in that conversion cannot alter one's ethnicity. Many ethnic religions in India do not allow outsiders to join their ranks at all, even though they may acknowledge children of mixed parentage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.51.12 (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Stolen art, deleted text with no note here?

Madeleine Albright's father, Josef Korbel, allegedly appropriated artwork which belonged to Bohemian German industrialist Karl Nebrich, who owned the confiscated Prague apartment later given to Korbel after World War II and the expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia (1945-1950). Like most other German-speakers living in Czechoslovakia, Nebrich and his family were forcibly expelled from the country under the postwar Beneš decrees. The claim is being pressed by Philipp Harmer, the great-grandson of Karl Nebrich.

60 Minutes interview

This section needs to be clarified. It should not be justifying her comments. It should clearly document what was said not how we would re-write what was said. Id447 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a short at simplifying it as you suggest. Some of the citations to things others said about it were dead anyway, and didn't seem to be noteworthy anyway.rewinn (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not terribly noteworthy that an editorial in an obscure publication criticized Albright's response using a phrase that soon vanished into obscurity. A simple reference to the fact that Albright had some supporters should suffice, although it should be balanced by a reference to her critics. Doing all that would expand one, rather small episode in her long career far beyond its deserved significance - do editors really feel obscure editorializing is that important to understanding Ms. Albright? rewinn (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Requesting semi-protection

Because of the persistent vandalism of the page, I've requested semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection. DougHill (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you point to some "persistent vandalism"? Looking at the edit history, I don't really see any. Surely semi-protection is harmless but let's continue assuming good faith, shall we? rewinn (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 March 2013

Please include "Washington University in St. Louis" in the list of honorary degrees for 2003. The attached link on the University's website is verification. http://commencement.wustl.edu/history/pastspeakers_recipients/2003/speaker/ Aruhlin (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Since the list was getting quite long for the lead, and it didn't seem to fit anywhere else, I moved it down to a new section. GoingBatty (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Stonebridge Edit

Please write that Albright is chair at Stonebridge Group LLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon1008 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - combined with the other small sections into one paragraph. GoingBatty (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hate Speech?

Its obvious that people have posted here about the youtube incident in prague and it doesn't seem to be too fair. I think its completely unnecessary and incendiary to give the link to a youtube video and then the time that the "hatespeech" occurs. This is a fairly small incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltcolkilgore (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is not fair about it? That a link/time of the video was posted or mentioning the incident at all? Small or not, it is a pretty serious remark for a former Secretary of State and absolutely deserves to be mentioned here. Buttons (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the Hate Speech section is that it gives undue weight to a protest at a bookshop. Four paragraphs is far more than is required, and youTube videos are OR. If some editor thinks the protest is an important event, write a separate article about the protest and link to it from here. rewinn (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The removal of text was way too large. Much of the incident itself revolved around that she was reported to the police for screaming "Disgusting Serbs, get out" to the Czech group. There are several articles (mostly in Czech and Serbian, though) that cover this, and the article isn't supposed to be limited to English-language publications. I agree with that the text was too long, but most of the info (that used to be there) belongs in the "Controversies" section. Can anyone go fetch the old version and maybe remove the trivia around the Stonebridge group, etc, but keep the information central to the event? Anonimski (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the activity around this article seems to be quite low, I took some time to do the restoration and rewriting myself. I removed some superfluous info, and the current text now has two paragraphs to avoid risking "undue weight" to one single incident (maybe the text can be extended later when the rest of the article is larger). Anyway, I don't think that a whole new page is necessary for this, at least not for now. Also, linking directly to the Youtube videos is relevant in this case, since they're the original publications of the incident. The incident went viral after the event, and the controversies were covered by Czech and Serbian news publishers mostly, which often linked to the videos in their articles. Anonimski (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Youtube videos are not sufficiently notable or reliable for an accusation of "hate speech" in a WP:BLP, and the commentary about her investment firm is POV-pushing WP:SYNTHESIS.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The accusation of hate speech was made by Vaclav Dvorak (together with some other political activists), and they officially handed it over to the police, and the article clearly describes that the accusation comes from them. The incident was covered by a bunch of European newspapers. When restoring the blanked text, I intentionally changed the title to "Allegations of hate speech [...]" instead of the earlier "Hate speech incident [...]", it hopefully creates less misunderstanding now. Anyway, back then it was a fairly big event in Czech and also Serbian media (since she as a politician said "Disgusting Serbs") so I don't agree that it's POV-pushing. Other editors have contributed to the text before it was blanked and then rewritten. The English Wikipedia also isn't supposed to limit itself to excluding publications from other parts of the world. If we have a section for "Controversies", then there is no reason to abstain from putting relevant stuff there... Anonimski (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2013

"She was nominated by US President Bill Clinton on December 5, 1996, and was unanimously confirmed by a U.S. Senate"

For consistency, please either make it "U.S. President" or "US Senate". I don't care which. 2001:18E8:2:1020:50AA:A703:992F:5826 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation Issue

Numerous footnotes cite "Albright (2003)" but there is no full citation. Would someone who knows the work please add the full citation to the first instance? Marbux (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Birth Name

Born as Marie Jana Korbelová — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4905:A115:D5E6:B066:2C0A:DD39 (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done a source would be needed for that, and a source provided in the article already indicates it is "Korbel" and not "Korbelová". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

She was definitely born "Korbelová" - Czech naming conventions (similar to Russian) have female and male versions of family names. Her father's last name was Korbel, making hers automatically Korbelová. The Czech-language version of her page has it correct as Korbelová. The source in the English version is quite weak. I will find a good source however before I change it. Wikimandia (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

While the source previously inserted might be subpar, I did find a better one that supports "Korbel". Unless a reliable source says "Korbelová", we can't include that per WP:Verifiability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous sources that correctly state her birth name. I included two (CNN and The New Republic). Wikimandia (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There's a risk that a linguistic error can have crept into the sources that say Korbel, as they might have thought that Czech naming traditions are identical to English (i.e. no modification of the father's name when given to a daughter). Czech Wikipedia describes her name the following way: "...rozená Marie Jana Körbelová (po roce 1945 Korbelová)". - Anonimski (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is typical and happens frequently when people emigrate, since English does not have masculine/feminine names, and the family just all goes by one name to make it easier. We have it straightened out though to correctly be Korbelová now :-) However, another issue is that the family name was originally Körbel (Körbelová), but according to Michael Dobbs' biography, her father thought "Körbel" (which is pronounced differently than "Korbel") sounded too German and too Jewish, so they dropped the umlaut in 1945. Wikimandia (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

TV appearance

In the new season (7) of Parks and Recreation, she made an appearance as herself (on whom Leslie Knope forced a friendship...out of admiration). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.136.7 (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Balkans reputation

I have removed a piece that claimed Albright earned the wrath of the Serbs and was with Bill Clinton popular in Kosovo, Bosnia and Croatia. I believe this is more stereotype peddling than factual. Albright's significant period concerning Serbia as a republic alongside Montenegro (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) was with regards her role in the NATO bombing of the country in 1999. Yes she played a major role, but there is no special hatred of Albright that is not also extended to the likes of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Wesley Clarke, Robin Cook, Joe Biden, Jacques Chirac, George Robertson and a host of world figures that were on the political front line of the campaign. Bill Clinton is certainly popular with the Republic of Kosovo regime, of that there is no doubt when a boulevard is named after him, but this says nothing about the ordinary person. As for Bosnia and Croatia, other that the tit-for-tat rivalry with Serbia and the juvenile penchant for rejoicing in an enemy's misfortune among parts of the population (all nations in the world are guilty of that), there is nothing specifically "popular" about the named persons. From what I can gather, Albright does not have a strong connection to Croatia or the Croatian nation. The one source I can find of relevance here is from CNN in 1997 whereby she criticises the then-Croatian administration for slacking on ICTY matters (as I assure any reader that whilst there are three locations at the time of my writing to bear the name of Franjo Tuđman Bridge, nowhere in Croatia and Bosnia will there ever be a Trg Madlin Olbrajta, Madeleine Albright Square with her name localised, Kosovo one day maybe). Apart from that, I can find no compliments paid to her by any Croatian writer, and I cannot even find nice words said about her on any forum, and believe me, I have tried. So if someone knows something that I do not, be my guest here! --Oranges Juicy (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

Please include Tufts University (2015) in the Honorary Degrees section. At present, the following links verify this information. http://now.tufts.edu/commencement2015 http://trustees.tufts.edu/hondegree/degrees/ BrankyGrad (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

DNC flub

how is it that she does not know how to pronounce kim jong-un (and by extension kim jong-il)? to pronounce the j as a y is flat-out wrong, even in dutch or german. matt drudge is notorious for it -- and i think letterman on occasion -- but he/they aren't in the foreign services and he/they aren't the HIGHEST RANKING AMERICAN TO ACTUALLY MEET THE FAMILY.

i would have been startled to hear ANYONE say "yong-il" in a DNC speech, but...her?! how is that even possible?! 209.172.23.190 (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Please stop putting "ISM" on religious concepts like Christian, Catholic, Protestant, etc. Religion is not an ISM! It's demeaning and there is no such word.

74.195.226.84 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This is not an appropriate use of an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Judaism.

How is it possible for a child of 4 years not to remember anything about practicing Judaism by her family? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 04:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madeleine Albright. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-29/us/us_medal-of-freedom_1_presidential-medal-highest-civilian-honor-president-barack-obama
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160204185811/http://secretary.state.gov/www/albright/albright.html to http://secretary.state.gov/www/albright/albright.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Madeleine Albright. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605054044/http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm to http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161129021339/http://www.albrightcapital.com/images/ACM%20Form%20ADV%20Part%202A%20-%20Final%203-18-16.pdf to http://www.albrightcapital.com/images/ACM%20Form%20ADV%20Part%202A%20-%20Final%203-18-16.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161129021354/http://www.unfoundation.org/features/Ministerial-Initiatives.html to http://www.unfoundation.org/features/Ministerial-Initiatives.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140830065447/http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/2348046/Soros-Albright-Rothschild-In-350M-Deal.html to http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/2348046/Soros-Albright-Rothschild-In-350M-Deal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308041542/http://fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/19/98021907_tpo.html to http://fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/19/98021907_tpo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714202550/http://www.praguepost.cz/archivescontent/31921-germans-lost-their-art-too.html to http://www.praguepost.cz/archivescontent/31921-germans-lost-their-art-too.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Add Herbalife to controversies?

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2013/11/27/1705132/please-welcome-the-secretary-of-state-for-herbalife/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.255.8.86 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Endured the worst of the Blitz ?

The text does not say exactly when Albright's family moved to London, but 1941 would seem to be the earliest possible. Text says that they "endured the worst of the Blitz" in Notting Hill. In fact the worst of the blitz was pretty much over by 1941, and Notting Hill is West London, which was relatively unscathed. Though the term 'blitz' is often used more loosely to cover all wartime bombing of London/British cities, properly speaking it covers a distinct phase of the war.Pincrete (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Add honorary degree

Albright received an honorary doctor of international relations degree from Dickinson College in 2014, and I'd like to add the college's name to the "Honorary degrees and awards" section of her entry.

Textcrash (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

Under the heading "Honorary degrees and awards," in the first paragraph, please add "Dickinson College (2014)" after "Knox College (2008)."

Textcrash (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done feminist (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

Please add Madeleine Albright's new book to the "Book" section. Hell and Other Destinations was released on April 14, 2020. 2603:7080:1800:9700:950A:A2D3:C819:2688 (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC) https://www.harpercollins.com/products/hell-and-other-destinations-madeleine-albright?variant=32205485998114

Decouple duplicate discriminate

Decouple duplicate discriminate redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 25 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Loucraig.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Alice Albright

In the paragraph briefly describing her children, it might be appropriate to mention that her daughter, Alice P. Albright, has followed her footsteps in government service, twice receiving Presidential appointments and as of 16 Feb 2022 is serving as CEO of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, an independent Federal agency. GCL (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Languages that she spoke

If she came to the U.S. at age 11, as the article seems to say, then she must have spoken Czech or another language of that area. It would be a good article detail to add what languages she spoke. Perhaps in the Personal Life section, or the Early Life section.

Also, at what age did she learn English? If it was at age 11 or later, that would be a noteworthy detail. Obstacles faced = notability.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

She was native in Czech and her Czech was very good (although I - Czech - can hear that it isn't perfect). She had learnt English since her 2nd birthday or so because her family spent WWII in London.

188.75.177.218 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we have any citations to back-up her fluency in other languages. I believe this would be relevant to the article, especially given her career. Jurisdicta (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I know it isn't the best for Wikipedia but for Czech this[2] could be used. 188.75.177.218 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Polyglot: Speaks English, French, Czech, Russian, German, Polish, and Serbo-Croatian. I've added this to "Personal life". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Korbelová vs. Körbelová

She was born as Körbelová. The umlaut was omitted after WWII. 188.75.177.218 (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Per what sources? —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, according to this [3] it's even more complicated... And for the umlaut this page[4] about her father could be used. 188.75.177.218 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

First paragraph ‘As of March 23, 2022…”

Please remove the editorializing regarding her residence after her death. 2601:4C0:8004:8B00:F062:528B:88C5:8C90 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022

Introduction contains defamatory remarks 209.53.191.150 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done It was vandalism that has been removed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Residence location inappropriate

The residence location for Madeleine Albright is listed as “hell.” This is totally inappropriate and should be altered immediately. 2600:8802:2902:9000:5C7E:6288:6A4A:2C56 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2022 (2)

She’s dead change it to past tense 69.120.242.231 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it all is? Point out what isn't and we can update it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

references to Madeline Albright being in hell

References to Madeline Albright being in hell and being remembered as going to hell are totally inappropriate. 24.117.204.197 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Herbalife

I'm going to leave the content I just removed below. It looks to be another right wing hit job where they try to create a scandal based on a thread of truth. That 2010 Reuters source says she spoke at a panel sponsored by Herbalife. She never "promoted" them. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Herbalife POV content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support for Herbalife In 2010, Albright began promoting the controversial multi-level marketing company Herbalife. References

Please correct and lock site

It appears that there has been repeated vandalism here. Please carefully correct and lock site 24.117.204.197 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.117.204.197 oy vey shut it down!!!!!! 5.90.119.74 (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request on 24 March 2022

Please include "Bowdoin College" in the list of honorary degrees for 2013. This link from the Bowdoin College website serves as verification: https://www.bowdoin.edu/commencement/honorary-degrees/index.html. Additional verification can be found on the Bowdoin College Library website: https://library.bowdoin.edu/arch/college-history-and-archives/honors/albright13.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowdoinocpa (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Death and illness

Or illness and death, it needs its own heading, and not on personal life. --Thelostranger (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really. At least not yet. It's currently only two sentences, and granting its own heading may grant disproportionate visual weight and needlessly chop up content. Everybody dies. Not every death warrants a devoted subheading unless the death is especially significant (e.g. murders, or when a death is the primary reason for a subject's notability). Per MOS:BODY: "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." --Animalparty! (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

Please add Secretary Albright's mother's name

Anna Korbel (née Spieglová) Mrcollegiateprograms (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Mrrob123 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)== IRAQ SANCTIONS AND CHILDREN DEATH ==

The 2017 study published in British Medical Journal of Global Health (reference 130) that states ""there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after 1990 and during the period of the sanctions" is criticized by Geneva international center of justice as seriously incorrect and dangerous assertion distorted by political motivation. Article was written by two researchers at the London School of Economics (LSE) To summarize the authors allege that UNICEF’s survey data was deliberately falsified by the Iraqi government to fool the international community. Geneva international center of justice stated, "The arguments brought forward in the BMJGH study that UNICEF’s findings are “a masterful fraud” are rigged and its conclusion is not only deeply flawed but also damaging" <ref>https://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/1188-razing-the-truth-about-sanctions-against-iraq Also note another study published in British medical journal stated US lead sanctions as responsible for the deaths of more than half a million Iraqi children https://www.bmj.com/content/311/7019/1523.1 Another article published in journal archive of disease in childhood made similar argument. "he Gulf War and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality amogn Iraqi children under 5 years of age. It has been estimated that more than 46 900 children died between January and August 1991" https://adc.bmj.com/content/88/1/92.1 Similarly article published in New England journal of medicine concluded " Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1513350/ You should mention all these references that are from studies published in credible medical journals.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrob123 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

Please include "Bowdoin College (2013)" in the "Honorary degrees and awards" section. This link from the Bowdoin College website serves as verification: https://www.bowdoin.edu/commencement/honorary-degrees/index.html. Bowdoinocpa (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Iraq Sanctions Response

Hi User:Reflecktor, you removed some sentences relating to the Iraq sanctions. I'd like to contest that. I understand the COATRACK policy but i think that one sentence was particularly useful to the section and well cited. Perhaps we can condense it down to the following or something like that. There has been previous discussion here about the merit of including a statement like this.

Research following the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq has shown that "there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after 1990 and during the period of the sanctions" QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the content, along with the subject's account in her 2020 memoir.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This research and its conclusion that sanctions did not cause significant mortality is stated very unequivocally right now. However, it has been disputed by UN affiliates. I think this would be worth adding. Momookim (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, Momookim, the Non-governmental organization in question does not appear very credible to me, as the brief article you linked to does not seriously engage with any relevant research from the past twenty years, instead reading like a time capsule from the mid-1990s. It contains no empirical data, simply citing the 1999 ICMMS study (which UNICEF itself disproved via Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys in 2006 and 2011) and the 2005 memoir of Hans-Christof von Sponeck to "refute" the current view based on more recent evidence, which the UN has acknowledged in its revised child mortality figures for Iraq. (Many authorities have noted this revision—see, e.g., Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry.) It refers to a "defensive and propagandistic web of lies used to justify the unyielding Anglo-Saxon self-interest," but there is no way to substantiate such claims absent any supporting documentation. Moreover, I know for a fact that one paragraph from the article is a close paraphrase of the old lede of Wikipedia's own Sanctions against Iraq article, which does not bode well for the organization's credibility insofar as WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source; relatedly, it repeats a misstatement from Wikipedia that "sanctions were intensified through Resolution 687," when all familiar with the diplomatic record will recall that Resolution 687 lifted Resolution 661's prohibition on foodstuffs (which applied to both Iraq and then-occupied Kuwait). The most substantive part of the article, as I see it, is the following: "While UNICEF staff was cooperating with Iraqi medical personnel and Iraqi authorities in the data collection, they were painstakingly aware of the possibility of manipulation and collected the data with utmost circumspection and expertise. To suggest otherwise is hubristic." There is nothing "hubristic" about the now widely-replicated finding that the Iraqis tampered with the data, nor is there any implication that earlier researchers who failed to detect the fraud should be personally denigrated. However, Wikipedia must reflect the best recent scholarship. (For what its worth, there were plenty of people at UNICEF who were at least privately uncomfortable with the ICMMS report, and for good reason: Have you ever taken a look at it? How about page 3, where the map of the region omits Kuwait? Even without access to the raw survey data, stuff like that is sure to raise an eyebrow...) Finally, I note that Snooganssnoogans previously rejected using this NGO source on the grounds that is is unreliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

speaking of wikipedia msut reflect best scholarly source, Here are following studies that are published in credible medical journals that argue US sanctions were directly responsible for deaths of Iraqi Children

This study published in British medical journal stated US lead sanctions as responsible for the deaths of more than half a million Iraqi children

Another study published in the journal archive of disease in childhood made similar argument. "The Gulf War and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under 5 years of age. It has been estimated that more than 46 900 children died between January and August 1991"[5]

Similarly article published in New England journal of medicine (that is one of the premier journals in medicine) concluded " Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. Mrrob123 (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Your first source is derivative and is merely citing a 1995 study by Zaidi and Fawzi in collaboration with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Iraq's Ministry of Health (MOH). In 1997, Zaidi explained that Iraqi officials conducted the interviews in 1995 (they were limited to the capital city of Baghdad and had to extrapolate for the rest of the country), but she organized a follow-up survey using Jordanian interviewers in 1996 and "The mortality rates estimated in 1996 were much lower than those reported in 1995, for unknown reasons." Specifically, her team found a child mortality rate of 38 per 1000 in 1996 versus 206 per 1000 in 1995, a clear failure of replication. Although the significance of this was not appreciated at the time, and the FAO survey was eventually overshadowed by the 1999 ICMMS study (which witnessed additional Iraqi manipulation, on a much larger scale), Zaidi later acknowledged "My guess is that 'some' Iraqi surveyors recorded deaths when they did not take place or the child had died outside the time frame but they specified the opposite." As a result of the three comprehensive surveys (using full birth histories) that have been conducted since the Ba'th government's ouster in 2003—namely, the 2004 Iraq Living Conditions Survey (ILCS) and the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICs) carried out by UNICEF and Iraq's MOH in 2006 and again in 2011—we now know that the child mortality rate in the period 1995–2000 was "in the vicinity of 40 per 1000"—in other words, not far from Zaidi's 1996 findings.

The 1991 International Study Team (IST) estimate "that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused ... more than 46,900 (child deaths) between January and August 1991" did not rely on Iraqi government interviewers and is still considered relatively credible. "However, because it was conducted in August and September 1991 it is of limited use for understanding child mortality patterns in Iraq throughout the 1990s. The study is of even less use for understanding the impact of sanctions specifically, since much of the increase in child mortality during this period probably resulted from the war itself, the two uprisings and the migration that followed." Furthermore, the period in question predates Albright's time in office.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

where is the evidence that the Iraqi government meddled with the survey results? It seems absolutely baseless that the UN and their affiliates would actively work with the Iraqi government especially during a time when they were suspicious of UN entities. Both UN studies significantly show that sanctions had an effect. The follow up study in 99 (which were in part due to the claims of Zaidi) also show that about 500,000 children had been victimized. Zaidi herself, claimed that the number is "between the two." To claim it is "baseless" even after a much better UN study that was backed up by photos, testimonies, and independent surveyors is unscientific. The Geneva International Centre for Justice examined the claims put forth by the BMJ study (https://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/1188-razing-the-truth-about-sanctions-against-iraq) 169.148.82.221 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)