Talk:Harlan K. Ullman

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. Pritzker Military Library Mid‑importance This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Harlan ullman (talk · contribs) / Ullman, Harlan Ullman, Harlan

Reference 1 is ambiguous. It links to the most recent Ullman article, and, though there are 10/6 and 10/18 articles, there doesn't appear to be a 10/16 one.

The Washington Times links to his most recent article. need to go back and link to the archive. i will work on it. Or update. guess the reference is outdated. Thanks Godspeed John Glenn! Will 07:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ullman's theory of Shock and Awe places him in the group of thinkers known as Neoconservatives whose intellectual efforts have underpinned the Iraq War.

No, it does not. "Rapid dominance", aka "Shock and Awe" is a military approach to winning a war by applying overwhelming force as a way to demoralize the opponent and therefore destroying their willingness to fight, not a political agenda. The only thing it says about the people who came up with it is that they are trying to figure out effective ways to win wars.

Furthermore, the concept was introduced in 1996 (as described in the rapid dominance article), long before the Neocons became a factor in the US's foreign policy. Calling this guy a neocon because someone in DC decided to use a military strategy he promoted is very weak, by that standard, pretty much anyone involved in the 2003 invasion or subsequent occupation would be considered a 'neocon' for no other reason that they have helped carry out a policy advocated by neoconservatives.

Is there any evidence that Mr. Ullman has made any explicit statements on neoconservatism as such? If not, the point should be removed as unsupported. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.168.62.202 (talk) 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Without prejudice to the allegations, there is a somewhat of a problem with this quote.

"The allegations do not dignify a response," Ullman told CNN, "I'm a private, not a public, citizen. Any further questions are referred to my attorneys."

He did make the statement, but it is not true. Ullman is a public person/figure. He is a media personality and author. 72.75.4.244 13:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go, Wikipedia. You've succeeded in making a page about an important person (he originated the Shock and Awe doctrine) a play-by-play of what sex acts he committed with a prostitute.

I'm sure Jimmy Wales is real proud that his "child in africa" can look this shit up.

Bravo. 69.143.136.139 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has obviously been "scrubbed" by someone close to the subject, attempting to conceal the truth about this person and therefore make the current version of this article extremely biased. Just look at the lead paragraph: it lavishes praise on the subject of the article without any attempt at balance. Shame on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.177.234.34 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates and tables for short stories, poems and/or book reviews. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page was proposed for deletion by Nyankee2003 (talk · contribs) on 12 September 2022 with the comment: Notability. This person doesn't appear to meet the definition of notable; he's just veteran and a consultant It was contested by Twilight Nawi (talk · contribs) on 2022-09-12 with the comment: Ullman fulfils the notability requirement through his authorship of the 'Shock and Awe' philosophy

Twilight Nawi (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]