Talk:Robert H. Tuttle

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

HOW BIASSED IS THIS PAGE?

This page is extremely anit-Tuttle. There's not a single good point about him in here. I think this page needs srious revision! Due to this page being excessively against the featured Robert H. Tuttle, I believe that it is noncompliant with Wikipedia's neutrality policy and havwe marked it as such.

What good things are there that can be said about him then? That information will have to come from the U.S., because all he has done in London is cause antagonism and offense. if he was appointed to tackle the collapse in support for the U.S. brought about by the iniqities of the Bushites, he's doing a dammned incompetent job of it. Brandon97 21:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good that you have a political opinion, but ALL articles on Wikipedia MUST be balanced, unbiassed and non-partison, or did you fail to notice that factor when you joined?

Political views or no, if someone was not good for the job and there are facts and sources that back up that reality, is it not important and relevant to the subject matter. For instance, an article on Hitler probably lists that he resulted in the deaths of a lot of jews and the subjugation of Germany by external forces. It would be ridiculous to leave that out purely because it reflects negatively on Hitler.--M4bwav 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not suggest removing the "bad points", I suggested adding good points. There's nothing here about his life, education or family. Surely if an article is to be balanced it needs bad points (which this article has PLENTY of) but also good points, of which this article has none.

Historically the position of Ambassador to the UK or formerly Ct of St James is not filled by a career US Foriegn Service Officer but by a person who has served the current executive administration in some capacity, including that of providing large donations. (And $59,000.00 is very small, so either he gave more, or did something else to earn/buy the appointment) The Deputy Chief of Mission (#2), and PAO (#3) is/are also not usually a career officer. It is NOT a Bush practice. Though I am not a fan of Bush, it seems that it is certainly inncorrect to say that "all he has done.... etc.) He has at least, though we may not like the policy of the current Administration; represented the US government to the UK.

Incidentally, Red Ken's "fee" is a tax, and it it is predominatlly viewed as such by the British Press.Cillmore (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A Partisan Ambassador?

Interesting to hear an interview on the BBC Radio4 'Today' programme today (23 Dec 08) in which Tuttle seemed to be astonishingly partisan in favour of Republican presidents - of course he must always represent the current US government, but why speak on behalf of Reagan's administration as well?

I will be interested to see whether he remains in post under the new administration.--Ndaisley (talk) 08:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see I was naive and that he would be a political appointment anyway, so unlikely to hang around! --Ndaisley (talk) 08:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Excision of material without explanation

A new wikipedia contributor removed some material, without any explanation. In particular they removed mention of criticism to the practice of appointing amateurs, who are not professional diplomats, to key diplomatic posts. Bush has made a practice of rewarding those who donated generously to his campaigns to key diplomatic posts. This is a significantly notable practice.

Perhaps I put my edit in the wrong place, but it is not a sigificant Bush practice, it is a historical fact. The ammbassodr to the the UK from the US is an extension of the president to the most important ally of the US, and thus, represents the policy of the sitting US president. This is NO different than the constant struggle between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office (career bureaucrats) in the UK.Cillmore (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Since they didn't offer an explanation for their excision I restored that information. -- Geo Swan 20:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I can atest to that, I've probably create more articles on Bush diplomats than anyone else on wikipedia (thank you very much :), and between a third and half of them are either large campaign donors, or campaign donor organizers.--M4bwav 22:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the contributor who deleted the material referred to above, and yes, I am new, but how that relates to my judgment I'm not quite sure. I deleted it for various reasons, not least because it was badly written and was seemingly included without any thought given to its appropriate placement within the article (a problem that the re-posting of the previously removed material has once again given rise to). The original material also stated that 'they would have preferred Miss Moore'. Exactly who 'they' or 'Miss Moore' were the author did not feel necessary to make clear.

Another reason for the removal was that even a cursory inspection of American politics will reveal that a donation of $59,000 is nothing extraordinary - certainly not enough to 'buy' a prestigious diplomatic post such as the British Ambassadorship. Indeed, one need not look any further than our own Parliament's Upper Chamber to see that the 'purchase' of privileged positions generally involves far greater sums than those involved here. It is submitted, therefore, that perhaps Ambassador Tuttle's previous experience in the White House (where his duties, at one stage, involved recommending prospective candidates for Ambassadorships to the President) was the more pertinent reason for his appointment.

In conclusion, it is submitted that its inclusion was simply extraneous.

Instead of deleting everything, you should instead try to make more precise small incremental changes with referenced sources, to make it conform with what you view as a more objective article. It's easy to just delete what you don't like, but most of the time the reader would be better served if the article was adjusted rather than deleted.--M4bwav 14:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What does your newness have to do with anything? Well, it excuses you, to a certain extent, for failing to signal to the rest of us the purpose behind your edits. When you make edits there are a number of ways you can signal to the rest of us what you are doing.

• For minor fixes, like correcting spelling errors, deletion of duplicate words, or missing prepositions, you can click the "this is a minor edit" box. In the edit summary that places a little m next to the edit.
• Just below that box there is the edit summary box, where you should put a brief explanation of the edit. When you changed the location of material, you could have put something like: "moved material to improve readability".
• You can explain yourself here on the talk page. If you do this add "see talk page" to the edit summary.
• You can put an html comment in the body of the article. I have done this occasionally, when I have an intuition that something I added is at risk of being "corrected" by contributors who believe a common misconception.
• Sometimes I put a note directly on the talk page of the user of a previous edit I am correcting. Now that I am more experienced I don't do this as often as I used to. It is better to put it on the talk page, where other people coming to the article can see the discussion.

You write:

"Another reason for the removal was that even a cursory inspection of American politics will reveal that a donation of $59,000 is nothing extraordinary - certainly not enough to 'buy' a prestigious diplomatic post such as the British Ambassadorship."

1. Your assertion that "$59,000 is not an extraordinary donation", sounds like an unsourced, personal conclusion. We are not supposed to put material in articles based on unsourced personal conclusions. And I question whether we should be removing material that is based on properly cited, verifiable conclusions from external sources based solely on our personal conclusions.
   • If you have a credible, verifiable source you can cite, that echoes the conclusions you reached, by all means go and add that to the article.
2. Who said anything about "buying"? It is however well documented that a significant number of the ambassadors Bush appointed were drawn from the ranks of his big donors.

Happy editing! -- Geo Swan 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, some administrator has used the almighty power of rollback to selectively edit an article that clearly does not povide any balance. Certainly they'll claim to be balanced, and will cite their loads of experience in editing articles. The congestion tax in the UK is a highly controversial issue, and to promote the concept that the issue does not have significant opposition is wrong. The policy of not paying the TAX is not Tuttle's. It is the policy of the current US governemnt, an administration that Ken Livingstone has had significant issue with.----Cillmore.

In looking back at some of the edits there appears to be much more info that is "anti" Tuttle that probably should on this page, negative or not. The fluff about the congestion tax is clearly POINTLESS. How about his comments about torture??? ----Cillmore

Current photo (with lady in red)

Is the lady in red his wife? If so shouldnt the photo caption identify her. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.251.160 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 2006

Controversy Over Parking tickets

I'm going to change the title of the sub topic to "Controversy over congestion fee" because as far as I can tell that is more accurate. --72.183.246.101 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

'Married to the former Maria Denise Hummer'

How can the subject of this article be married to the former Maria Denise Hummer? What does "the former" mean? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert H. Tuttle. 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/20090220170526/http://london.usembassy.gov/rcambex.html to http://london.usembassy.gov/rcambex.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310045730/http://www.pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=382 to http://pacificcouncil.org/page.aspx?pid=382

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)