Talk:Robert Zoellick

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

Antisemitism in this article[edit]

Is not it amazing that no fewer than 3 sources are used to PROVE that Robert Zoellick is in fact German? And yet his supposed "Jewish ancestry" is still debated here. Why some people are trying so hard to present neoconservatism as a Jewish conspiracy?Keverich1 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that citation #6 refers to an article that does NOT say that he is of Jewish origin. I'm deleting that statement from the article.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

Is it inappropriate to add "(Fannie Mae)" after "Federal National Mortgage Association" in the Business and Academia paragraph? 71.179.99.45 23:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Wiki views on Mr. Zoellick are inconsistent with his resume.

"Zoellick's approach to public policy to date appears to be more that of a committed nationalist than that of a free-trader"

Committed nationalists don't seek out UN intervention and don't join the Council on Foreign relations nationalists don't invade foreign nations which aren't threats to their nation and nationalists don't advocate foreign invasion of their own territory, Fannie Mae is engaged in subsidizing foreign invaders and social engineering which isn't surprising since he admired the "idealism" of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

"Zoellick "regards free trade philosophy and free trade agreements as instruments of U.S. national interests"

Our socalled "free trade" policies are annihilating America's industry and gutting the middle class while miring America in trillions of unsustainable debt while enouraging massive 3 world emigration all to prop up the racist hostile commie nation of China.

Yeah, uh, the first half of that is potentially valid. Your second is not. It just says what Zoellick believes; whether his beliefs are valid are for the reader to judge, perhaps at the free trade page.
    The initial comments claim that he's an economist, yet the Background section shows no formal
    education in economics, only history, law and public policy? 75.80.37.209 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and improvements[edit]

With his nomination for the World Bank position today the article has gained major importance. The quality is not up to scratch at the moment. I invite editors with particular knowledge on the issue to do a thorough cleanup and other improvements. Javit 23:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My question about his Jewish heritage was legitimate.

Zoellick's Jewish heritage[edit]

Robert Bruce Zoellick was confirmed at Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL on March 19, 1967. This is a verifiable fact. Canda2Canda2 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Zoellicks Jewish heritage is questionable I haven't found any sources that confirm his Jewishness or membership in a Jewish community.[reply]

okay, let's keep that out until a source and reference are provided. Javit 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, i've found some articles that indicate he is indeed jewish, but haven't yet found a source that would pass as credible. A google search does the trick, but unfortunately the list is full of unreliable and unverifiable blogs etc. Still looking for a newspaper article or a verifiable NPOV statement. Javit 16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the information about him being German from? It keeps getting restored by anon editors with no references. Ritto Revolto 19:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zoellick is clearly a German name. Some anon vandals keeps inserting bullshit like "He is a hawkish pro-Israel Jew in the Bush (Jr) Administration"

A last name doesn't do it. There needs to be a reliable source, see WP:V, WP:NOR. Ritto Revolto 20:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People with German names are usually German. How about the New York Times? "A Midwesterner with German ancestors, Mr. Zoellick received the Knight Commanders Cross from the unified German government."[1] He also served on the board of the German Marshall Fund and other German-American institutions.
"People with German names are usually German" is not a reliable source, but the New York Times is. I'll format the citation into proper style. Ritto Revolto 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article (Hebrew) in Ynet claims he is Jewish. Scarlight 18:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the ynet article and it has zero citations. I think it is safe to say that he is not Jewish nor an ethnic Jew. Couldn't we just email his family/office and get the information? I doubt they wouldn't be happy to supply the information if it's for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.47.65 (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments with four tildes[edit]

I love that whoever put this up didn't sign it :) Mathiastck 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to take the "Jews" comment out. It is biggoted.

Someone's religious or ethnic background is fair game to include if you can reference it. Saying someone is a Jew as in being Jewish is not being a bigot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.33.174 (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"His family is of German origin and he was raised Lutheran" is a phrase repeated so frequently in articles immediately presented with a google search that it is at a minimum suspect, no? It's also not clear, btw, why religion matters, especially versus economic "school" and maybe more broadly political ideology. His Zionism/neoconservativism *is* fair game imho. Mathiastck 21:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) 38.111.36.79 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoellick's wife?[edit]

Isn't he married? Sidebar lists him as single ...

Views section[edit]

The comment about how the US is a mercantilist power is an opinion piece with a title that shows a bias. If there are no objections I am going to remove it. Kd4ttc (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

74.96.75.44 (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency at the World Bank[edit]

I am proposing to add the two sentences in italics. I will only post these sentences after the proposed changes have been vetted here, and also at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&action=submit I was fired after twenty years of working as a lawyer the World Bank's legal department after disclosing international securities violations at the World Bank to the Senate Committees on Foreign Relations, Finance, Banking, and the Joint Economic Committee.

On April 20, 2010 Robert Zoellick declared open access to the international statistics compiled by the World Bank. US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a GAO inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh.

Even though she previously had expressed the desire to hold no further political office (specifically ruling out another four years as U.S. Secretary of State in a second Obama term), she has been in formal discussions about taking up the post, according to three different anonymous sources. President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.

The sources for the two statements in italics: 1. The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [see Congresswoman Kay Granger's March 9, 2011 statement to Secretary Geithner]

2. April 24, 2010 Statement of the Board of Governors, available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm 74.96.75.44 (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge 1000 deleted the following two sentences because he would like to see a reference from an independent reliable source that mentions these facts as relevant to Zoellick's career. The two proposed sentences were: US Congress refused to approve a capital increase for the World Bank until Robert Zoellick cooperated with a Government Accountability Office inquiry into transparency at the World Bank requested by Senators Richard Lugar, Patrick Leahy and Evan Bayh. [1] and President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended.[2]

There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPEEDY Issues are to be resolved by discussion with the other editor or administrator in the talk section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review. In answer to Demiurge 1000's criticisms: See "Zoellick is also trying to leverage his long U.S. diplomatic career into the bank's first general capital increase in more than 20 years, an issue that will be debated this week at meetings of the institution's governing board." World Bank gets help from sovereign wealth funds to invest in developing nations, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702921.html The applicable procedures for selection of the next President of the World Bank are in Strengthening Governance and Accountability: Shareholder Stewardship and Oversight, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEVCOMMINT/Documentation/22885978/DC2011-0006(E)Governance.pdf. See also MPs Call for World Bank Shake-up "The World Bank is in 'desperate' need of reform, which should include ending the arrangement under which its president always comes from the US, a parliamentary report has said." http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/231867.Currency1 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit at WP:BLPN, you made strong claims about what significance these two facts have for Zoellick's career. This is in your personal view, as, apparently, an employee of the organisation who was fired and is in an ongoing dispute with the organisation. Your seeking to add these facts to this article, when you have such a conflict of interest, is clearly intended to imply this analysis of yours to the reader. However, none of the third party sources you have listed, make any suggestion that these two facts reflect on Zoellick's career in the way that you suggest. Therefore, the addition of the material is contrary to Wikipedia policies on WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and by extension, WP:BLP.
Much of this material would be more suited to the article World Bank, where your conflict of interest would still be relevant, but WP:BLP concerns would be less relevant. (However, WP:BLP still applies to any article which discusses a living person.)
In my view, when a successor to Zoellick has been selected, it would not be inappropriate to mention in this article, by whom Zoellick is to be replaced, and how the selection process for the replacement was different to what has gone before; if these facts are discussed in an independent reliable secondary source. Equally, it would not be inappropriate to mention in this article, criticisms made of the World Bank during Zoellick's presidency; but for that case, an independent reliable secondary source would need to be found which relates the criticisms directly to Zoellick's presidency. The mere fact of there being initial opposition to what is apparently the first request by the bank for an increase in capital funding for some considerable time, is not sufficient. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the independent, reliable secondary source for your explanation? Aren't Wikipedia's readers, some of whom are US taxpayers, entitled to know what sources you "reverted" state about Congress refusing funding to an entity that did not cooperate with Congressional oversight through a GAO inquiry into compliance of that entity with appropriations legislation? If someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor. When you reverted the notable facts I presented, supported as they were by independent, reliable secondary sources, you preempted this discussion. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work?Currency1 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will take your points in turn;
  • This is a talk page, not a Wikipedia article, so there is no WP:BURDEN on me to cite an independent reliable secondary source for every opinion about Wikipedia content that I express here.
  • I do not know the details of the entitlements of U.S. taxpayers regarding access to information, therefore I cannot answer that question. I do know that it is not the primary purpose of Wikipedia to facilitate U.S. taxpayers receiving any such entitlement. (The mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation says that "the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally" - it does not mention U.S. taxpayers or their entitlements.) I've already linked you to Wikipedia:Advocacy, which is relevant here.
  • I have indeed assumed good faith about your good faith declaration of conflict of interest; my previous advice to you was that you will find it almost impossible to write neutrally about this topic. Another editor has advised you of the same thing, and he further suggested that, in his view, you should not edit this article at all.

From what I can see, Currency1's edits weren't bias. I think it does add something to the article although I do agree that it could do with some independant sources. Oddbodz (talk) 10:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Here is an additional source supporting Senator Lugar's September 15, 2010 statement that the GAO study needs to be completed before he would support the World Bank's capital increase: http://www.brettonwoods.org/index.php/244/E_Bulletin
On April 28, 2011 Robert Zoellick spoke about the importance he placed on the World Bank's capital increase (the final question on http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/episodes/2011/04/interview-with-world-bank-president-robert-zoellick-prospects-for-economic-development-part-1.html)
Here is an additional source on the end of the Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment by the US of the World Bank's President: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/18/why_is_the_imf_chief_always_a_european.Currency1 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the specific issue of the procedure for appointing the President of the World Bank, we should be careful with our precise wording. It is not entirely accurate to say the following: President Zoellick's successor has to be approved by the 187 country members of the World Bank since the 66 year Gentlemen's Agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US ended. Why is it not accurate? Because it has always been the case that, de jure, the appointment of the President has required approval from the shareholder countries as a whole. Thus the end of the "Gentlemen's Agreement" has nothing to do with the (already existing) de jure requirement for the members' approval. What changes is that, hitherto, the other shareholders have observed a de facto deference which allowed the U.S. to nominate a single candidate, who hitherto in fact received the approval of the shareholders, whereas henceforth that deference is not necessarily to be expected. Nandt1 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The International Financial Institutions: A Call for Change A Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations United States Senate, March 10, 2010, at 24 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_images/int_fin_inst2.pdf http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=33c66777-5056-a032-525aaOa5806634e9 http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&parentid=4&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=983 [see Congresswoman Kay Granger's March 9, 2011 statement to Secretary Geithner]
  2. ^ April 24, 2010 Statement of the Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and the Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries, http://www.imf.org/external/np/cm/2010/042510.htm

Mediation cabal[edit]

In connection with the mediation, do the additional sources I have cited justify a reversion? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Zoellick&action=historysubmit&diff=439205483&oldid=439152551Currency1 (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you meen, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion. If you do go ahead with a reversion. Please be aware that users have made edits un-related to this mediation since yor edit and it should be ensured that these are not removed. I hope this has settled the debate. If you and Demiurge1000 are happy with this could I ask that you both let me know on my talk page so that I can close the mediation. If you are not happy then also let me know and I'll see what I can do. Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If both users agree, please put your signature (4 tildes) in the list below. Currency1 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not agree, please give your reasons below.

Demiurge, having agreed to mediation, apparently has no justification for his reverts of my edits.Currency1 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, User:Currency1 does not agree. Incorrect, Demiurge1000, why are you saying that Currency1 does not agree when I have signed off on the mediator's proposed resolution? This only clouds the discussion.Currency1 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I do not agree either;:I disagree with the proposed resolution, for the following reasons; User:Currency1 was advised by uninvolved editor User:DGG as follows; "If you are actively engaged in a controversy involving the subject of the article, you must not edit the article itself; it would be an out-and-and violation of WP:COI. As you describe your situation, almost nobody in such a situation would be able to write objectively. The only way to keep yourself safe from being blocked for COI is to avoid the subject entirely, or..." (in this archive.) It is clear (and undisputed) that User:Currency1 is indeed actively engaged in a controversy involving the subject of the article. User:Currency1 stated in the same archive (linked above) that "I have been commenting about Robert Zoellick's lawlessness at the World Bank in the media". Being involved in a media campaign against a living person, is a clearly justifiable reason for not being involved in editing the biography of that living person on Wikipedia. WP:NPOV would be impossible. User:Currency1 was advised by uninvolved editor User:Off2riorob as follows; "we report on what secondary sources have asserted is notable and have as such independently reported on. Your desired addition above and its external support falls well outside of that remit". (Again, at the same link given above). Material being a "government source" does not make it a reliable independent source for Wikipedia. Government sources may report and state all manner of things, but Wikipedia has a policy of adhering to the best possible sources on WP:BLP articles, which at the least would mean a third party source such as the New York Times or similar. Thus far, no evidence has been given to indicate that reliable third party sources consider the facts in question to be relevant to Zoellick's life or career. This edit, expresses User:Currency1's viewpoint that the two facts that she wishes to add to the biography, "indict Robert Zoellick's Presidency at the World Bank." That is a very strong statement to make, or to attempt to make through adding a chosen combination of facts - it is really not acceptable to use a Wikipedia article to express Currency1's viewpoint in this way. I do have more concerns, but I think that will do as an initial summary. Oddbodz1, I'm sorry to saddle you with these difficult issues, but I'm sure that you will be able to help us come up with a reasonable compromise, reached through mediation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC) I have migrated this discussion to the Talk page of the Robert Zoellick bio, where other Wikipedia editors can view this discussion. A lawyer who has been retaliated against for disclosing securities law violations is able to write objectively when she provides independent sources to substantiate her claims. A whistleblower, particularly one that has been invited to testify by the European Parliament, is not necessarily biased. The Chairman of the European Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control wrote to me on June 1, 2011, "It is with great pleasure that I write to thank you for your presentation during the hearing 'The Effectiveness of Whistleblowing' on 25 May 2011 and for your participation in the exchange of views that followed. I share the opinion expressed by the Members of the Committee that it was very interesting and inspiring to learn about your case at the World Bank and especially the ideas you have presented to us to make whistleblowing more effective. The objective of the hearing was to gain evidence as basis for possible future legislative actions. I believe that this objective was achieved and that the outcome of the hearing will be of considerable importance for the future work of the Committee. I thank you again for your in-put and participation."

A staffmember on the European Parliament emailed me on July 21, 2011, 'I hope the letter of the chairman of the committee on budgetary control helps to convince the people in the US.' A whistleblower who discloses securities violations is able to write objectively. The sources I have cited are objective, and it is Demiurge who is out of line by censoring independent, authoritative sources, particularly when what is stated in those sources can prevent a currency war. Demiurge should consult with other Wikipedia editors before quoting their positions, which may have changed. I suggest that we focus on the issues and whether the edits improve the Wikipedia article, are objectively stated, and substantiated by creditable sources.Currency1 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Comment: I'm here at the request of User:Currency1. I indeed advised her to avoid the subject entirely. But she is not obliged to do so, if she limits herself to suggested edits on the article talk pages. BLP does apply to talk pages, though not to the same extent as articles. I do not see that any of her edits on this p. are at all beyond the bounds of what we permit on talk pages, & I commend her for the exceptionally straight-forward honesty of the nature of her COI, I wish more editors in similar situations did similarly. As for the relevance of the edits she has proposed, the difficulty is not WP:RS, but WP:Synthesis and WP:UNDUE. The bio of the head of the world bank should include events related to his management of the Bank. It should not be an account of the general history of the Bank during his tenure. Obviously, his management will have been responsible or involved in major policy changes, and these can be discussed, because they are relevant to his professional life, and it is his professional, not personal, life that makes him notable. But this would normally be a summary of the relevant events during the period, emphasising his particular role it in. In the Real World, that's how biographies are written. A biography of Kennedy talk about the Kennedy presidency, not all the events in US history during the period, or even all the events in the Executive branch of the government he controlled. I have read the entire text of all the the references proposed above; it took a while. . First, the articles are from Reliable sources, and are not written to abuse him. They can be used to support what they say. (They show there were changes in the policy of the bank during his presidency of it, and those changes are major enough that they can and should be discussed in an article about him . The change is the revision of the voting power to give slightly more voice to the developing nations at the expense of the most developed, to increase the capital from the participating nation for use in development project, and to provide for a more elaborate and customary process of choosing the next present. They also indicate there was substantial sharp criticism of the bank during the period) --The most specific of them about the criticism they seem to focus on criticism from the UK, but I'm sure similar sources could be found from the US and elsewhere. None of the criticism shown here seems to focus on his role in particular--they seem rather to indicate long-developing problems, not a sharp decline for which he could possibly be held responsible, even in the absence of specific malfeasance. None of them were a surprise to me as a general reader of the news without a specific strong interest in these issues--they confirm what I was aware of--and I think a person of my level of interests would be the sort of general reader an article like this would be meant for. They do not show that the increases in funding were held up until the more open governance was achieved or at least promised. It may well be so, it would seem only logical that Congress and Parliament would act in such a manner. But that is my inference; it is not stated in the sources. I can say it here; I could not go to the article and say it unless I had an actual source for it, with a usable in-context quotation. Nothing in the sources discusses the next President of the bank,, certainly not that the gentleman;s agreement that he come from the US is definitively ended--the entire selection process could by general understanding produce just such a result through a more formal mechanism. When the even happens, it should be discussed. But not discussed in this article; discussed in the article on the Bank and the article on whoever is the next President. At the time, there will certainly be good sources. In this, I directly disagree with the mediator, and can only suggest re-reading the sources. For perhaps I am wrong, and have not read carefully enough. The article on him needs to discuss th bank more. I put 2 sentences in parentheses above to indicate the sort of thing I would write, and anyone is welcome to use or adopt them. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I am grateful to DGG for suggesting that we look to the content of the proposed edits and whether these are supported by independent, reliable sources. However, DGG is concerned whether the proposed edits run afoul of WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." WP:UNDUE was also discussed in another mediation, and its applicability was questioned as follows: "I do not quite understand how WP:UNDUE applies to the only significant viewpoint we've thus far seen on this specific issue (let alone how this 'viewpoint', or rather cold hard fact, could possibly be challenged without any real sources)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunray/Mediation_discussions/Mihailovic Senator Lugar, Ranking member on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, asked the following questions during hearings on the proposed capital increase for the World Bank: "The G20 has called for more open, transparent merit-based selection for the IMF and the World Bank, and I would just like to ask quickly, Secretary Lago, what is the administration's position on exactly how that ought to be implemented in practice?" "Let me ask you, Executive Director Solomon, one additional question. A few years ago, I joined then-Senator Biden, Senator Leahy, Senator Bayh, and others in asking the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the World Bank regarding its ability to fight corruption and to conduct environmental assessments. But, at that time, the GAO did not receive clearance from the World Bank to commence its work. What is delaying that review and what could be done to ensure that the GAO has the ability to carry out its work in this endeavor?" http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg62644/html/CHRG-111shrg62644.htm Senator Lugar is on record: "This report suggests that contributions to the development banks should be a consequence of, not a precursor to, needed reforms..." http://lugar.senate.gov/issues/foreign/ifi/ DGG is also worried whether WP:Synthesis may be applicable. The question how the US will respond to the decision of the G20 on the Gentlemen's Agreement is certainly germane on this point in order to comply with WP:Syntheses. I agree with DGG that the edit of the Zoellick bio should include a discussion of this issue.Currency1 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Currency1 (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President of the World Bank section - source is closely associated with subject[edit]

The last paragraph of the recently added/expanded section "President of the World Bank (2007–present)" consists of a list of Zoellick's achievements during his tenure, sourced only to the website of "the President's Office" at the Bank itself. Really this needs independent sources.

Incidentally, it's surprising that the article is still rated B-class when many sections depend on a single source and some paragraphs are entirely uncited. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've just removed a large part of this section as it was much too closely paraphrased from the World Bank's own source material as cited. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you raised your concerns in somewhat different terms at my own Talk page, and I had already started to try to address them when I found the present comment. Maybe we can split this issue up into its different component parts.

AAA. If one wants to know what Zoellick said should be the World Bank's priorities, it seems to me clear that the source one goes to is the man's own speech. I have therefore moved from the earlier paraphrase of his speech to a direct quotation.

BBB. In terms of what he has actually done at the World Bank to date, I guess there may be room for different opinions on which sources are appropriate. It would seem to me that if, for example, one wants to know what has happened factually to levels of World Bank lending, then statements from the World Bank's own webpage, ultimately based on the institution's audited and published financial statements, should be considered reasonable sources. If, of course, there is a broad sense here that one should not rely upon direct statements on these matters from that source, and must source everything from third party sources (overlooking the rather obvious point that in the real world these sources are in fact going to be quoting the World Bank's own financial statements), then that would set a different standard. Would that be a consistent standard in terms of what is expected on the finances of other organizations or companies? Perhaps other users can help us on that question. Nandt1 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, today I have worked quite hard to find sources that do not come from Zoellick himself for each of the statements in the final paragraph. Here is how I have addressed the problem. Most of the statements are sourced to various different communiques (of different dates) issued by the members of the Development Committee (DC). The DC members, it should be stressed, are ministers from the different governments that own the World Bank -- so this is not Zoellick reporting on himself but rather his "bosses" (shareholders) reporting. I have sourced the expansion in resources for the International Development Association (IDA) to IDA's own webpage about its 16th replenishment, which includes details such as press releases, chairperson's summing up, and -- crucially -- a report ("Final Report") by the Executive Directors (who, again, represent not World Bank management but the governments who are the World Bank's shareholders). Nandt1 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Robert Zoellick/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

i think the external link to "z" magazine is worthless.

there is no link to the very important "whither china" speech given in sept 2005

i like the chrono order set up, but there seems to be too much 'analysis' about what his views are. i thought this was for facts - he was in city A in 1992 versus he says one thing and does another.

i suggest less is more in place of the author's analysis

Last edited at 20:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Robert Zoellick. 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: 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) 12:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Zoellick&oldid=1211059051"