Talk:Paul H. O'Neill

Untitled

One part of this article says that "he resigned in December 2002", another part says "led to his dismissal in 2003". Which is it? Did he resign, or was he fired? Was it in 2002, or 2003? --Mprudhom 16:30, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He officially resigned, but was asked to do so. I think he submitted his resignition in 2002, but did not leave his post until 2003. --Jiang 01:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why is this article on the Main Page? There is no specific recent date in this article with current context. Please update this page or I will de-list it from the Main Page. --mav 05:14, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For anyone who bothers to read the news, it should be obvious. The first paragraph mentions "January 2004" and links to it as when he became a critic, and the last couple paragraphs explain this criticism. --Jiang 05:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Assume no such things in readers. Specific context is always needed for any news item. Simply list what day his book was published or what day the Bush Admin counter-attacked. I'm well-aware of the issue and the news about it - but teaching people how to correctly list things on the Main Page is my concern right now - fixing it for them will not teach them as well as them doing it themselves. --mav—Preceding undated comment added by Mav (talk) • contribs) 05:52, 14 January 2004 (UTC)

The point of listing the date is so that readers are not entirely clueless when they come to an article. What we need is context, not a specific date. Although a specific date may be useful, the general month is sufficient. Dumb rules need not be followed. I just scanned the Jan 12 CBS article and found no date. --Jiang 05:56, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

LOL On January 12, 2004 CBS reported... There is your date. There is also an earlier CBS article (the 10th). --mav—Preceding undated comment added by Mav (talk) • contribs) 06:01, 14 January 2004 (UTC)

We don't care about CBS. Was Jan 12 the first day this story was released? By CBS's posted online news article? It's a waste of the reader's time to read about CBS reporting something when we could avoid mentioning CBS (like is now done in the article). We care only about when O'Neill was interviewed on 60 Minutes (incidentally on CBS) and when his book was released. We are not here to regurgitate news articles. All we have to do is to assume that CBS is telling the truth.--Jiang 06:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Without knowing when and where the info is reported, then how can we find out if the un-named source is telling the truth? When he was interviewed on 60 Minutes is a very important piece of information that should be in the article. That would establish all the context the reader would need. --mav—Preceding undated comment added by Mav (talk) • contribs) 07:04, 14 January 2004 (UTC)

"Interestingly, O'Neill viewed one of the main problems with the Bush administration as being the lack of debate among senior administration officials on issues about which he felt strongly. He longed for the return of Brandeis briefs where issues were hashed out and sound coherent policy generated, similar to what is used today by Wikipedians to determine the content of this encyclopedia!"

dopey comment - what happened to be kind to the newbies ?

I thought it a clever comment. I read the book and I think there is a lot more there than the sound bites heard in the media and on this page. Incidentally I am a lifelong Republican and voted for Bush. Have you read the book?

The method of discussion bringing together disparate points of view and hashing it out is the method advocated by O'neill. He complained that he didn't see much of that in the administration, like he had in previous administrations such as the Nixon and Ford administrations.

We should get Mr. O'Neill involved in Wikipedia. He's got money - maybe he'll donate to the cause.—Preceding unsigned comment added by H-2-O (talk) • contribs) 22:04, 26 February 2004 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to be self-referential and talk about wikipedia. That's what's dopey. You are welcome to incorporate your post (minus the wikipedia part) into the relevant paragraph where his comments about being in a "room full of deaf people" are discussed - not before that paragraph. --Jiang 23:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

point taken - hope this is better - can't find my copy of the book just now but will update with page references later.64.185.10.156 14:10, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've got the page references from the Price of Loyalty I want to use where O'Neill talks about "Brandeis briefs", but I don't know how to cite. (pp. 165-169, 306) 64.185.10.156 16:34, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (will be getting handle soon)

I don't see what the External Link to a PNAC article has to do with Paul O'Neill himself. I suspect that it talks about the Bush Admin. planning the iraq war before sept 11, but I think it's really off topic. The article is about Paul O'Neill, not about whether the Admin. planned things in advance. I'm deleting it, but if anyone can justify keeping it, please do.Dostal 23:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This portion is wrong: "... the current Downing Street Memo - if proven accurate - supports the position of O'Neill and Richard A. Clarke, both former members and now critics of Bush's administration, that indeed such planning was taking place." It does no such thing. The so-called DSM's claim of fingering the Bush administration for nefarious intent and manipulation of the evidence, which even the original story in the London Times didn't find newsworthy to mention until very late in the story, rests on a misunderstanding of British English. It reads ""the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of removing Saddam Hussein from power sounds suspect because American English differs in usage. In the memo's author's British English, "fixing" is a neutral verb meaning "secured or nailed down, made certain;" in US usage, it means "altered or changed." Most of the DSM actually supports the Bush administration's policy, not opposition, antiwar critics. Anyone who has live or studied in Britain sees this obvious confusion that prove Mark Twain correct - two nations "divided by a common language."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.191.106 (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Is it worth commenting that, eight years after coming to DC as an entry-level analyst, he was deputy director of a prominent government institution? I also read that in his biography and found something not quite right there. Being a low-level government employee myself, I would love to hear more about such an abnormal meteoric rise to prominence. I think this is one of those self-serving facts that wikipedia members might well look at with a skeptical eye before transplanting it wholesale from an autobiography. There is something else there.  *  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrvnk (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

I believe the article Paul O'Neill should be for the disambiguation page, because two Paul O'Neill's, this one and the baseball player of the same name are equally deserving of the main article. However, since their only can be one, it should be a disambiguation page linking to both of them as well as others with the same name. Milchama 01:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion that can now be found at Talk:Paul O'Neill, I moved this page to Paul O'Neill (cabinet member). If a better name arises, it should be easy enough to fix. More important now is dealing with all the incoming links at Paul O'Neill. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Economic School?

What Economic School of thought does O'Neill fit into? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.249.51 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Paul O'Neill (politician). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Paul O'Neill (Secretary of the Treasury) → ? – "Paul O'Neill (politician)" is my preference; of course, his occupation was "secretary" of the United States Department of Treasury. He was also Paul O'Neill (businessman), but that does not reflect his political career. Similar happened to Mary Peters (politician); she was "(Secretary of Transportation)". George Ho (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The current title is unnecessarily specific. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Seems obvious, current title is definitely too specific for a disambiguater. Scarlettail (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as there's no other US cabinet members in history named Paul O'Neil, thus no reason for specification via cabinet post. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paul O'Neill (politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060213041454/http://prhi.org:80/ppc.cfm to http://www.prhi.org/ppc.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Paul O'Neill (politician) → Paul H. O'Neill – per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity)#Self-identification (subject's own signature, as reproduced at Wikimedia Commons (File:Paul H O'Neill sig.jpg), indicates the middle initial "H."). All official government websites also specify the middle initial (official website of the U.S. Department of the Treasury). Many, if not most, public officials (e.g. John R. Bolton) are officially referenced by names with middle initials. Middle names or middle initials should not be forced into use where these are not commonly indicated but, in this case, it is clear that the middle initial "H." is in official use as part of subject's name. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment -None of the on-page references use the H., and many of them are currently broken. Can you provide some sources to establish the H as part of his common name, and not just his official name? Tiggerjay (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see if reliable sources use his middle initial. If you can provide RS using middle initial, I will support the move. Meatsgains (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Main title headers in Wikipedia entries for public officials frequently use subject's official name (with the middle initial, when used by subject) even if the middle initial is only in occasional use by mainstream press. In addition to the previously-mentioned John R. Bolton, there are presidents Harry S. Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson, mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia as well as numerous senators, congressmen and other members of government. As for Paul H. O'Neill, here is a link to the Paul H. O'Neill Charitable Foundation, which he established with his wife, Nancy O'Neill; here are four links from The New York Times: [1], [2], [3], [4]; Toledo Blade [5] [next-to-last paragraph], The Sumter Daily Item [6] [3rd paragraph]; The Deseret News [7] [7th paragraph: DEFENSE]. There is a lengthy list available of hundreds of newspaper references both with the "H." and without. However, the personal signature and the name of the foundation should indicate subject's self-identification. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support based on the information provided above. I'm also going to try to take a stab at fixing some of those broken links. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think all of the broken links are either fixed, or replacement sources have been found. However, it might still be a good idea, Roman Spinner for you to integrate some of those sources you provided above as actual inline references for this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

During Paul O'Neill's term as Treasury Secretary there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, references to him in newspapers and magazines. Your suggestion, nevertheless, is well taken. I will incorporate into the entry at least a few of the citations for The New York Times articles which focus on key details of his tenure and departure from office. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Request close - this discussion apparently has run it's course, and it is uncontested. Since it requires an admin to delete the target to make way, and I am effectively involved, I request this be closed and moved as uncontested. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.