Talk:Elbridge Colby

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Elbridge Colby was the lead official in the development and rollout of the 2018 U.S. National Defense Strategy which states that "inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security"? Source: "It wasn’t until Trump became president that Colby received a political lifeline, joining the Defense Department in May 2017 as deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development. Trump’s rejection of the Iraq War and its supporters, along with his antagonism toward China, mixed well with Colby’s views. Soon Colby took the lead in crafting the Trump administration’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, which focused on China as the principal great power threat to America. He encountered a good deal of bureaucratic infighting, including from the U.S. Central Command and the Joint Staff which resisted change, but ended up prevailing in his emphasis on China, partly with the support of the Navy and Air Force." Politico
  "WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy lays out a world where great-power competition, rather than counterterrorism, will drive the department’s decision-making and force structure.
  “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security,” the 11-page unclassified summary of the strategy reads. Instead, “the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term strategic competition,” primarily from China and Russia." Defense News
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Dibrivka

5x expanded by Thriley (talk), Queensgambit57 (talk), and W9793 (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 18:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Elbridge Colby; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New and long enough, Earwig picks up things like titles and quotes which look fine to me, QPQ done. I'm a bit concerned that most of the sources are published by Colby's various employers and by Colby himself. Of the twelve sources, only three are independent, one of which is only used for the selected publication list and not for any of the prose. I'd like to see more independent sources used.

Hook is a bit long at 234 characters. Content is OK but I feel there might be a more interesting fact out there. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ll add some more independent sourcing if I can find it. I’ll think about a different hook too. Thriley (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have struck the original hook, which clocks in at 239 prose characters, way above the 200 maximum. It has been over three weeks without a new hook or more independent sourcing; if nothing shows up in the next seven days, it's probably time to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that Elbridge Colby stated that he believes that "the top external threat to America is China—by far"? Thriley (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that Elbridge Colby was considered for a top job in the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, but was not hired after “prominent, interventionist neoconservatives” objected? Thriley (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

on ALT1 and on ALT2. I note that two Wall Street Journal articles have been added as sources, so I'm satisfied that the article is now within the bounds of policy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert re sentence describing Colby's affiliation with the Alexander Hamilton Society

There has been two attempts (by @A1510, and this IP - 2601:14d:8480:6790:a1d2:5aff:96b2:438f, see page history) (the first of which I reverted) to remove a referenced statement that I added - "He currently serves on the board of advisors of the Alexander Hamilton Society, a non-partisan membership organization focused on US national security policy based in DC founded by Aaron Friedberg, Dan Blumenthal, and Roy Katzovicz in 2010." (source, as originally cited: https://www.alexanderhamiltonsociety.org/who-we-are)

I'd like to start a discussion here - about whether this should be removed. W9793 (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:EL

A roaming IP keeps spamming links into the ELs here (with belligerent edit messages). As (a) a WP:BLP (b) in a designated Contentious Topic area we need to keep all ELs absolutely RS and fitting WP:ELYES - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

and the IP is now removing the article subject's official Twitter in the process of spamming. Anyone support asking for BLP ECP? - David Gerard (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Hi @Wicorbottt I have some concerns with your addition.

First, the section itself raise some concerns. Wikipedia generally discourages criticism sections because they don't present the subject in a neutral point of view. The content should be integrated with the rest of the article, if necessary.

Second, the wording does not appear to be supported by the cited sources. For example, the text says Colby's decisions were described by some as "rogue", but that wording doesn't appear in the cited Politico source. Per WP:V, the article text has to reflect what the reliable source says, not language introduced by editors.

Third, much of the material is framed in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributed to sources. For example, "faced significant criticism", "tenure was further marred", "further fueled controversy", etc.. For contentious material per WP:BLP, it's better to attribute directly to a secondary source, like "According to Reuters", "Politico describes that"...

Fourth, several claims rely on criticism attributed to unnamed sources. If the materials is to be included, it should be attributed directly to the secondary source instead of using anonymous sources.

For this reason, I don't think the current version is appropriate for the article as written. If you want it to be included, I think it should be rewritten and integrated into the appropriate sections to address the points above. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Just a note since there seems to be some confusion per comments at ANI. Per WP:RSHEADLINE, headlines are not reliable sources so anything only in a headline is not in a RS and should be excluded especially from a BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

McConnel rant

Removeing sections with reasonable, well sourced statements in a BLP setting doesnt really work. And This deletion by Sibshops doesnt make much sense. WP:BLPBALANCE is met - both, Colby and critic Mitch McConnel are public figures, and the publishing source, "Washington Post" is credible enough to assure that WP:NOTRS doesnt apply, and it was actually McConnell who made those statements. An additional source, which could only state that McConnel said in the Washington Post, what he said... is utter pointless. But if you insist : Alexpl (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The concern is that an op ed is being used for a possibly contentious characterization in a BLP. Addition of material which attributes to non-editorial secondary sources is okay with me. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That does not apply here Sibshops, it's not a celebrity feud. And we are not talking about some editorial board, writing some opinion piece. op ed states that "the identity of the author may help determine reliability". Since few people, if any, have bigger insight in the budgeting politics of the DoD Ukraine project, McConnel seems extremly reliable. A "non-editorial secondary source" would, at least in this special case, have less gravitas than McConnel's statement. The whole thing isnt even "contentious characterization" - after all: Colby is accused of holding back information, not of having initiated the misdirection of funds/weapons himself. Alexpl (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

What I mean by contentious characterization is that Colby's actions are not being characterized by independent secondary sources, they are being characterized by McConnell in an opinion piece. Per WP:BLPSTYLE, BLPs should "summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources." An op-ed is reliable for McConnell's attributed opinion, but it does not by itself show that McConnell's critical characterization is due for inclusion.

BLP pages would fill up if they included every description of what one public figure said about another. For BLP purposes, I think is important to determine if the reliable secondary sources treat the criticism as a characterization of what Colby did, and not just verify that McConnell made the criticism.

I agree that the Washington Post op-ed is reliable for McConnell's attributed opinion, but not enough by itself for Wikipedia to state a contentious, or critical, characterization about Colby's actions, here. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The funding in question has apparently been released the day the op-ed got published. Alexpl (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Then doesn't that suggest it shouldn't be included? McConnell accused Colby of withholding aid, but the funding was released the same day the op-ed was published.

Unless independent secondary sources directly say Colby withheld the funding, this is still just McConnell's accusation rather than a secondary-source saying it.

For this WP:BLP, I think the article would be in a better place if we stick to reporting from secondary sources instead of repeating unconfirmed accusations. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I dont agree in this case, since Mitch McConnell was the chair of the senates defense subcommittee which drafted the bill for these USAI funds in summer of 2025. Getting another source where other members of that subcommittee give their opinions on Colby's role, seems an unrealistic approach for keeping this article relevant. If something like that comes up - it can be added later. Alexpl (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexpl I don't agree that we should add to the article before having reliable sources supporting the statement. Since Mitch McConnell is not generally not considered a reliable source, and his claims are published in an opinion article, I think we should treat what he said as a statement of opinion. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

And that's BS. The statement already set forth that it was an opinion piece. It isn't that McConnell is a reliable source; it's that the Washington Post is a reliable source ... quite aside from that even if the quote was a press release from McConnell's office, primary sources are permissible in attributing a stance or a direct quote. That being said, would you care to explain how that edit violates WP:LLM, of all things, let alone WP:V or WP:BLP? That edit summary was specious. Ravenswing 20:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the Washington Post can verify that McConnell wrote the statement. It can. The issue is that the disputed text used an opinion piece to make a factual claim about what Colby did.

There are several policies discourage this:

WP:NEWSOPED says opinion pieces are

reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

And WP:BLPSTYLE also says BLPs should

summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources.

So, for a BLP, I do not think we should state that Colby withheld funding unless an independent secondary source makes that claim in its own voice. The op-ed can be used to make a general statement such as saying McConnell accused or criticized Colby, but I do not believe it should be used for factual characterization of a living person. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Sibshops here. McConnell and Colby are such significant political figures in the US that it's very hard to imagine that something can be significant enough to cover i.e. WP:DUE but somehow not appear in any reliable secondary source. If that opinion piece is the only thing you can find, then clearly this wasn't a significant aspect of Colby's life or political career and so there's no reason to mention it. Just because there was some dumb political feud between McConnell and Colby doesn't mean we have to mention it when no one cared about it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

References

Content deletion vs opinion pieces / source verification

Regarding recent content deletions and the topics discussed above: As a user who goes to Wikipedia to see multiple sources of information gathered in one spot, it is important to keep the references and links to different sources, including opinion pieces, so the people interested can follow the links and read the sources for themselves. In case of contested wording, the specific phrases that editors consider inadequate can be modified/replaced with different phrasing, or a warning can be added (something like: "This is an opinion piece" or "The sources cannot be fully verified", if applicable). That is OK, just please avoid deleting entire sections/multiple paragraphs and multiple sources at once (looking at you, User:Sibshops).

In terms of arms deliveries to Ukraine: at least a mention of this issue has to be included on this website. Perhaps by adding a paragraph to the section on Europe or perhaps even better under Elbridge Colby#Second Trump administration?

Proposed wording: On several occasions in 2025 and 2026, aid for Ukraine approved by the Congress and by the Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump was halted, delayed or reverted by Elbridge Colby.

In terms of sources, major news outlets are the main source of information for ordinary readers, such as:

1. https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-official-at-center-of-weapons-pause-on-ukraine-wants-u-s-to-focus-on-china-a0c90fda?mod=e2fb

2. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/01/pentagon-munitions-ukraine-halt-00436048

3. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/hegseth-halted-weapons-ukraine-military-analysis-aid-wouldnt-jeopardiz-rcna216790

4. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/08/politics/pentagon-could-divert-weapons-for-ukraine-us-stockpiles

5. https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-official-at-center-of-weapons-pause-on-ukraine-wants-u-s-to-focus-on-china-a0c90fda?mod=e2fb

6. https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2025-07-04/america-first-us-halts-arms-deliveries-to-ukraine

The last one on the list above (OSW) might not be known to Americans, it's a long-standing Polish think tank on Eastern Europe, highly respected and well known in Poland, they have their own web page on Wikipedia: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%C5%9Brodek_Studi%C3%B3w_Wschodnich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_for_Eastern_Studies I can look at their publications in the Polish language to see if anything else would be worth including here.

When verifying sources, would it be appropriate to look into the authors of each publication, or is it going too far and the news outlet's/think tank's renown is enough to consider the source reliable?

I am open to feedback from experienced editors on any of the above. YggdrasiII (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

some additional sources to consider:

https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/07/02/americas-ominous-new-halt-on-weapons-to-ukraine

https://global.espreso.tv/aid-us-arms-supply-suspension-whos-really-behind-scenes

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/why-the-pentagons-pause-on-weapons-to-ukraine-backfired/

https://usukraine.org/blog/are-pentagon-officials-unilaterally-denying-ukraine-military-support

https://www.war.gov/News/Speeches/Speech/Article/4461862/remarks-by-under-secretary-of-war-for-policy-elbridge-colby-at-the-ukraine-defe/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/02/us-halts-ukraine-weapons-shipments

https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/the-backstory-why-us-military-aid-to-ukraine-was-halted/ YggdrasiII (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@YggdrasiII A lot of the issue with the existing criticism text is not necessarily the content of the material, but that the current claims are not supported by the citations given.

Besides the earlier “rogue” wording, the problem continues elsewhere in the section.

As another example:

Colby's tenure was further marred by his decision to halt shipments of critical air defense missiles and munitions to Ukraine in mid-2025, a move that caught both Congress and European allies off guard. The Washington Post and Associated Press reported that the freeze, driven by Colby's review of U.S. munitions stockpiles, was implemented without adequate coordination with the White House or allies, prompting bipartisan backlash and accusations of undermining Ukraine's defense capabilities.

This text links to two sites:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/08/trump-ukraine-weapons-pentagon/a3ee74ce-5c2c-11f0-a293-d4cc0ca28e5a_story.html

and

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-us-weapons-shipments-halt-review-48229eb7c814419631a16067a38d6a1d

The Washington Post link doesn't exist and the AP source only supports a much narrower claim such as shipments being stopped to support U.S. stockpiles. It doesn't support the criticism language in the text.

Under the BLP policy quoted at the top of this page, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." I think that applies here. That does not mean the Ukraine aid issue cannot be mentioned, but the article should not keep contentious criticism content unless each part is directly supported by reliable sources. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey there. You have been deleting content again. As to the critical language I agree non-neutral language should be rephrased. Not deleted. You deleted not only one contested word, you delete entire sections and paragraphs. I could not respond to you sooner, I was traveling on a business trip. I will go to another trip this week. I cannot always respond to you in 5 minutes or even, at times, in 5 days. Please stop deleting content. YggdrasiII (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand that you were traveling, but the concern is not about waiting for a reply. The issue is that disputed WP:BLP material is being restored without consensus and without addressing the concerns already raised here and in Talk:Elbridge_Colby#Criticism_Section above.

Under WP:ONUS, the responsibility to obtain consensus for disputed material is on the editor seeking inclusion. Those concerns have not been resolved. In particular, editors still need to show that the proposed wording is neutral, properly attributed where necessary, and directly supported by reliable secondary sources.

I agree that wording problems can sometimes be fixed by rephrasing. But there are more concerns being discussed, here. Snice the issue is about sourcing contentious material about a living person, the material should not remain in the article while editors try to repair it.

That does not mean the Ukraine aid issue can never be mentioned. We can discuss neutrally worded material based on reliable secondary sources. But restoring the disputed material wholesale does not satisfy WP:ONUS. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2026

Please bring back the content that is constantly being deleted by user Sibshops in spite of many users protesting it. Please add a warning on top of the page to inform users that this page was subject to edit warring and repeated, extensive content deletions.

The recent deletion to be undone: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elbridge_Colby&diff=prev&oldid=1355195337 YggdrasiII (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done this is clearly disputed so please come to some consensus before your an edit request. Nil Einne (talk)