Talk:Robert McFarlane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Military work group.

how could he have shot off an email in 1986?

That's what I was wondering

Because the government had a rudimentary e-mail system at the time. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 14:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the timeline on email introduction in the White House from the National Security Archives at George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/white_house_email/index.html:

1982- The National Security Council (NSC) staff at the White House acquires a prototype electronic mail system, from IBM, called the Professional Office System (PROFs).

April 1985- The PROFs e-mail system becomes fully operational within the NSC, including not only the full staff, but also home terminals for the National Security Adviser, Robert "Bud" McFarlane, and his deputy, Admiral John M. Poindexter.

SCGC (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned at the lack of information in this article, especially regarding his role in Iran-Contra. There is no mention of his connection Oliver North nor to his testimony before the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Does anyone care to expand this article? ~ (Bellfazar) ~

There also doesn't appear to be any noteworthy information outside of his Iran-Contra role. Quote is unattributed.

[edit] Reference

A reference was pulled out from inline and placed at the bottom. While this is (barely) tolerable for a new article, why can't the reference be used multiple times on various sentences? Future additions can use their own footnotes. Inline footnotes are vastly more credible. It looks like someone actually tried. Ending references sound like the editor is just fobbing us off. "Try this. If this doesn't work, it must be something else or else it was placed in there after I wrote the original." Student7 (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)