Talk:David Kelly (weapons expert)/Archive 1

Untitled

The 2nd paragraph of this article read more like a rant that an encylopedia so I revert it. The paragraph was added today by User:Downwith. The removed paragraph is below. --Jjhunt (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC) " Many people believe that he was in fact murdered by the British Government because he knew the truth about the lies that had been used to start the illegal war in Iraq. It is thought by some that he was close to telling the truth, these same people thought that this was something that Tony Blair’s administration could not let happen as it may expose his and George W Bush’s war of vanity as just that. May he rest in peace and anyone who may be responsible for his death live with that weight every day they walk this earth until they burn in hell for their sins. You know who you are! "

I will probably be found dead in the woods

According to Kelly's daughter the meeting with David Broucher took place in Feb 2002 and therefore no such conversation took place, as the events refered to hadn't occurred yet.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3549

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6380231.stm

According to Kelly’s half-sister, Sarah Pape, the day after his daughter Ellen’s wedding on Saturday 22nd February 2003, he flew out to New York. Puzzled by Broucher‘s evidence, Pape remarks to the inquiry, ‘he certainly did not mention he was going to be flying almost straight back to visit Geneva.’

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/04/15/the-david-kelly-dead-in-the-woods-psyop/

emacsuser (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of subject

It is my intention to include a photograph of David Kelly in this article. If there are no objections by tomorrow, I'll put it up. If anyone wishes to object after that time, please discuss changes here instead of directly removing the image. The image I plan to use can be found here: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2003/12/29/kelly.jpg

Exemplar sententia 14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright and does Wikipedia have a licence to use it? If so, great. If not, not great. Sam Blacketer 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The rights belong to the UK Guardian Newspaper. I had emailed them yesterday (perhaps somewhat optimistically), under the impression that i would have a reply today, but as it is i cannot put it up. If anyone can find an open license picture of Kelly, could they provide a link here so that we can decide whether its worth waiting for a reply from the Guardian?

Exemplar sententia 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

To update, i have received a reply from the Editor in Chief of the Guardian newspaper, their production staff has traced it to the website "Getty", to whom i will now be sending another letter.

Exemplar sententia 15:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Turns out Getty is contractually prohibited to provide an open license for their images. I have found another image to use (http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/cgi-bin/vuImag4.pl?i=198), which appears to have a "non-profit educational" usage allowance, but i have emailed the staff just in case.

Exemplar sententia 03:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

David Martland

I am still puzzled by this whole affair. The BBC continues to refer to Dr Kelly's "apparent suicide". I thought that there had been an inquest, and to the best of my knowledge, this is not a possible outcome in England and Wales. The inquest has been completed, has it not? Also, the report that Kelly took a large dose of coproximol before his death has not received too much attention lately. Coproximol is a drug which would require a prescription, so unless he or a family member had a need for it, it would not be so easy to obtain legally. Of course anything is obtainable if one is determined. The Hutton enquiry could be a smoke screen perhaps. I, like many others, just do not know what to think of this. -- David Martland 08:50, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe the inquest into Kelly's death was opened and heard some details of the circumstances, but it was adjourned until after the public inquiry. Mintguy

The Coroner's inquest is still ongoing. It was opened and adjourned on the 21 July 2003 . It was again opened an adjourned on the 25 July to hear the preliminary toxicology results. It was yet again reopened and adjourned 14 August. So it still an apparent suicide. -- Popsracer 21:43, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I believe Hutton has officially superseded the coroner, under a rarely invoked law that allows a judicial inquiry to "serve the purpose of" an inquest. Martin 23:14, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK - that explains things. There hasn't actually been an outcome of the inquest yet. Thanks for this. -- David Martland 22:28, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dbiv

The power of the Lord Chancellor to direct that a judicial inquiry takes the place of an inquest is contained in the Access to Justice Act 1999, s. 71. Including the remarks of Dr. Hunt does not really further the case of the conspiracy theorists: his comment is somewhat ambiguous, but the only interpretation in which it assists a conspiracy theory is one in which he is commenting on the areas away from his professional expertise. Dbiv 21:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the legal issue. However I think it's a pity that you removed the comments of Dr Hunt. Although in some sense he was commenting outside his area of specific expertise as a pathologist, at the same time he cannot be considered a layperson in the investigation into the cause of a person's death. In addition he was one of the first persons to investigate the scene of the death and therefore his remarks are highly relevant. If you wish to ensure neutral point of view, then it would be better to state one of the strongest arguments against what you (and the article) label as a conspiracy theorist rather than by simply removing information.

Incidentally I think the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' is a cliché and itself lacks neutral point of view. The term is used to label theories that are considered false according to a reduced standard of proof, probably because the existence of paranoid individuals who create preposterous theories is part of popular culture. However I expect we agree that facts and their interpretation should be based judicious use of reason rather than miscellaneous associations.--Mervynl 17:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree on 'conspiracy theory'. I don't think what we have here is a conspiracy theory in the true sense as it's merely the raising of doubts without any overall theory as to who was actually responsible. Perhaps the section ought to be titled Alternative explanations. However, I still don't think Dr Hunt adds anything. He doesn't explain exactly what he means, and the three Doctors' letter implies he either made a mistake or falsified the post mortem examination (some of the conspiracy websites fairly openly accuse him of being implicated himself). How about expanding the details of the doctors' claims - say, by stating their opinions about the amount of co-proxamol found in the body etc.? Dbiv 23:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think your latest edits take care of it well. Thanks. --Mervynl 10:48, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Links

David, thanks for adding the Hutton link. I restored the BBC link so that we now have both, as I wanted a source that confirmed he was replying to the e-mails as he sat at his desk that morning, and that an e-mail he had received referred to "dark forces." The BBC article confirms both of these points. No harm in having both there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:46, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to prefer primary to secondary sources because secondary sources often have their own interpretation and it ought really to be left to the reader, but in this case the Hutton Inquiry censored the name of the recipient so the BBC News article supplies important concept. However I don't like giving David Kelly-related stories links to BBC articles because they were heavily caught up in the whole story and so they have an interest in how it is interpreted. It's a pity Dr Kelly was never able to explain this mysterious remark. Dbiv 10:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Knife... had no fingerprints on it". The link (currently number 29) to the Guardian article of Oct 15th 07 is broken. In fact, the article doesn't seem to be on the Guardian website at all any more, although copies of it exist elsewhere. I could just replace the link with some other paper that carried the AP source that day - but if the Guardian removed the story deliberately, that seems to me to be wrong. What to do? Loughrey (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim that there were no fingerprints on the knife (and sometimes none on the water bottle either) is often used by people arguing that Kelly couldn't have killed himself. What's the source of this claim? It's not in Baker's book, as far as I can see. It's not on Thames Valley Police's site, although there is a press release archive there and an FoI achive there. It's not currently on the Guardian site, although undoubtedly it once was (see here). It is still at the websites of other, less prestigious, British papers (for example the Mirror's or the Mail's). The ultimate source is a single Baker statement to AP on Oct 15th 2007 in which he claims he discovered the knife was dab-free through an FoI request. As far as I can see, no details or evidence of this request have been made public, either by Baker or by TVP. However, the report ends by saying that a Thames Valley spokeswoman had "confirmed that there were no fingerprints on the knife." Presumably someone at AP had rung TVP to check the story; this is the only non-Baker evidence for the story.

It's not much for such an important claim, but I think it is enough. I was going to change the main text from "It was discovered..." to "Baker claimed to have discovered...", but I think, on balance, the evidence is enough for the stronger wording. So I've just replaced the broken Guardian link with one from the Mirror.--Loughrey (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the Downing Street memo relevant

The Downing Street Memo could just be the tip of the iceberg of how determined Bush's administration was to invade Iraq.

In July 2002 the DSM summarized conversations between the heads of British and American Intelligence. It explicitly stated that “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.”

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

The DSM indicates more than that Bush and Blair were lying through their teeth when they said “We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.”

In hindsight, the following two examples clearly illustrate how “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” of invading Iraq.

(1) In his State of the Union Address, Bush misleadingly demonized Saddam as a man who gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds at Halabja in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. The press sensationalized this story even though the CIA had long since concluded that both Iran and Iraq gassed each other in the battle for Halabja, and that the dead Kurds' bodies indicated they had been killed with a blood agent - that is, a cyanide-based gas - which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

Stephen Pelletiere, the CIA’s senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war detailed the Halabja gas incident in The New York Times on Jan. 31, 2003 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-08.htm , but it was largely ignored in the pre-war hysteria.

(2) Bush also used his State of the Union Address to scare Americans into believing that Saddam had acquired yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Bush blatantly presented his Niger “Yellowcake” document to the UN, allegedly proving that Saddam was secretly buying uranium. Bush’s Yellowcake document turned out to be so badly forged, however, that it took the IAEA took only 24 hours to announce it was fake. http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2004/cnn21032004.html

Whether Bush’s team knew they were using a fake document is debatable, but it begs the question of how they obtained such a document without forging it themselves.

It is very clear, that Bush ignored the fact that the CIA had sent Joseph Wilson to Africa to investigate the yellowcake charges, and that Wilson determined the allegations had little foundation. Instead of Bush’s administration being relieved that Iraq most probably hadn’t bought yellowcake in Niger, Wilson’s wife was brutally threatened by Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove.

As part of a smear campaign, Libby and Rove told the press (Judith Miller) that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA agent. This clearly had nothing to do with Wilson’s credibility, but only served as a brutal threat to anyone wishing to share contradictory evidence on Iraq’s WMDs. Undaunted, Wilson later publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence on Iraq.

These two examples (among several others) confirm that Bush’s administration was willing to fabricate information to scare American’s into invading Iraq. The second example also shows how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to indirectly threaten the life of Valerie Plame to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs.

What other crimes did the neo-con cabal commit? It’s unlikely that the Plame leak was the beginning and the end of their crimes. Why was the Bush administration so uncooperative during the Plame Investigation? Why was the Bush administration so uncooperative during the 9-11 Commission Investigation? What are they trying to hide? Were Bush and Cheney just Lewis Libby and Karl Rove’s flunkies through the whole scandal or were they more complicit?

Is the neo-con cabal continuing to fabricate evidence to support the invasions of other oil-rich countries like Iran and Venezuela (Note Bush’s claim of Hugo Chavez rigging the election in Venezuela even though Jimmy Carter supervised the event and claimed that it was far more transparent, honest and fair than the USA’s federal election in the State of Florida. The intrigue in Syria is also surprising considering that all Hariri’s assassination accomplished was to speed Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon.)

Fabricating evidence to support the invasion of Iraq might go to a whole new level, however, when you consider the Anthrax scare.

Pundits loudly announced that the only people who had anthrax were the USA, Russia and Iraq, and then hysterically demanded to know why Americans weren’t connecting the dots. Unfortunately there are a few more dots to take into consideration.

ANTHRAX MYSTERY? Is it surprising that the CIA and FBI haven’t exposed the anthrax killers? Are the anthrax killers near the top of the FBI’s most wanted list? We do know this about the anthrax murders:

1. The letters contained highly classified weaponized anthrax (Ames Iowa strain, weaponized at Fort Detrick Maryland) developed by the U.S. military and/or the CIA.

2. The letters were mailed from Trenton New Jersey while the Republicans were trying to jam through the Patriot Act that would give President Bush unprecedented power to disregard Americans’ civil rights, increase defense spending, control the media and wage war.

3. Anthrax letters were mailed to:

a) Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News (A fairly balanced news network)

b) The New York Post. (A high profile, fairly balanced newspaper)

c) A boy died of anthrax after visiting ABC news (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)

d) A editor for the National Enquirer died of anthrax (A very widely distributed and widely hated tabloid that is prone to sensationalize conspiracy theories)

e) A mailroom worker contracted anthrax at CBS News (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)

The media was driven into hysteria from the Anthrax letters and fervently backed the war on Terror. Note that anthrax letters were not sent to war loving media giants FOX or CNN.

f) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (Democrat, S.D.) received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Patriot Act.

g) Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vt.) received an anthrax letter after he expressed reservations about the Patriot Act. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill.

4. No Republicans received anthrax letters. George Bush Sr and Collin Powell didn’t receive anthrax letters. No CIA agents, Military Personnel, Weapons Dealers, Oil Companies or Jewish Organizations receive anthrax letters. No large public gatherings were targeted with anthrax. (This all lends serious doubt that either Arab militants or Saddam Hussein were behind the letters)

5. The Letters contained scribbled words “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” that were written by someone worried that his handwriting could be traced. Tom Brokaw, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy and the NY Post have no obvious connection to Israel. The anthrax letters, instead, looked like they might have been forged to frame Islamic militants. After receiving his anthrax letter, Senator Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Patriot Act, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the appropriate balance.

6. The letters were precisely targeted and perfectly timed to unite the media and the opposition (Democrats) in the War on Terror, the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq.

7. The letters (only 4 were positively identified) did not kill their intended targets, but the anthrax material was so sophisticated that the spores passed through the envelopes and infected people all along their path--including secretaries and postal workers. Five people are known to have died from inhaling spores from these letters, and 13 others were infected but survived.

8. The Anthrax Letters created the maximum amount of terror with the minimum loss of life.

9. Dozens of hoax anthrax threats have been widely publicized in the media. The CIA and Bush administration have promoted some of these hoax threats – encouraging many American to buy gas masks and seal off their houses with duct tape. Faulty (read: fabricated) CIA “intelligence” about Iraqi Anthrax built hysterical U.S. support for an invasion despite serious doubts from Americans, Brits and most of their closest allies. Hoax anthrax scares are still creating front page headlines and extreme terror throughout North America.

10. The day after the anthrax letters were mailed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (6 days before either Senator received the letters), the original batch of Ames strain anthrax was destroyed with the permission of the FBI --- making tracing this anthrax type much more difficult. Could it be incompetence, conspiracy or cover up that, two months after the anthrax attacks started, the FBI still had not investigated the only facility capable of producing weaponized anthrax -- the biological warfare program based at Fort Detrick Maryland.

11. Within a ten day period, immediately after the USA Patriot Act was passed, three top anthrax experts with knowledge of the U.S. bioweapons program died under suspicious circumstances. Within four months 8 more world-leading microbiologists were killed. Coincidentally, the controversial coroner of one microbiologist (Don Wiley) was later found wrapped in barbed wire with a live bomb strapped to his chest.

12. British microbiologist, weapons expert and would-be whistle blower David Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly) died in an “alleged suicide” on July 17, 2003 – amidst world wide publicity that the U.S. and Britain had invaded Iraq largely based on fabricated “intelligence”. Half the world was anxiously waiting for further news releases on Kelly just before his mysterious death. It is notable that on the morning of his death, Kelly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller (of Valery Plame leak and Lewis Libby Indictment fame) and told her that many dark actors were playing games. (Email sent by Dr Kelly to Judith Miller on July 17, 2003) Were some of these dead microbiologists capable of exposing the anthrax killers? Had they been e-mailing each other about the attacks? This stuff has got all the makings of a detective thriller other than creating any serious doubts as to who was responsible for the letters. The only thing that really has to be established is a motive.

(A) Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they honestly believed that the American people needed to be shaken up – even after 9/11 – in order to face the threat of suicide bombers?

(B) Did the perpetrators mail the letters to cash in on hysterical support for:

a. Increased Weapons Spending? Hundreds of billions of dollars are going into somebody’s pockets.

b. An Invasion of Afghanistan with its strategic presence along the east border of Iran, and the oil-rich Caspian Sea?

c. An Invasion of Iraq (on allegations of stockpiling anthrax and other WMDs) with its strategic presence along the west border of Iran.

d. An invasion of Iran with current (delayed) allegations of its complicity in 9-11 and the terrorist attacks?

e. Complete control of the oil-rich Middle East?

f. Note that Shell Oil is paying $150 million in fines to the SEC and FSA for overstating its reserves by (at least) 20%. Shell’s auditors warned the company as early as January 2000 that its reserves were overstated. Could other oil companies also have been overstating their reserves and pressuring the U.S. and British governments for access to oil in Iraq, the Caspian Sea, Iran, (and Venezuela)?

(C) Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they wanted to create a massive distraction from the financial meltdown on Wall Street that was being caused by widespread exposure of corporate corruption (ENRON, WorldCom, Merck, Arthur Anderson, Halliburton etc. etc. etc.)?

The people who profit the most from a crime are the people most likely to have committed it. Who profited the most from the Anthrax letters?

I really hope that the answer to the above multiple choice question is (A) but it makes you want to get some straight facts from the people Americans are trusting with their lives.

It would be better than Santa Clause if there was a believable: (D) None of the above; answer

Who else has a clear, believable motive to precisely target the media and the opposition with anthrax?

Remember how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to pre-emptively threaten the life of Valerie Plame (by leaking her identity to the press) to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs? Remember how Bush was willing to use the forged “Yellowcake” document? How much of a stretch is it to assume that one or two members of Bush’s administration were willing to brutally threaten the media and the main senate opponents to the Iraq war????

Remember that some of the people that were so desperate to invade Iraq were among the few people in the world capable of accessing the weaponized anthrax from Fort Detrick.

It's chilling that it might only take a few hundred people, a few billion dollars, some orchestrated scare tactics and a lot of greed to completely hijack a government with an annual budget of a trillion dollars.

Even with all the inconsistencies surrounding 9/11, Bush's team figures that it's in their best self-interest not to co-operate with investigations. What are they trying to hide? Are people just too apathetic or dumb to need to know what's going on in the world?

Like Bush said, terrorists have to be brought to justice—no matter who they are.

It would be best if the whole Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfwitz, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Trent Lott, Richard Perle etc) was put on polygraphs to see if they know of any conspiracies around the WTC bombings, Anthrax letters or Iraq invasion.

For consistency, other Washington insiders like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry etc should also be put on lie detectors.

It’s laughable that lowly police officers and CIA agents are rigorously tested with polygraphs, but the directors appointed to control the agencies are considered “untouchable”, “beyond suspicion” and “above the law”– even during global debacles like 9/11, the War on Terror and the War on Iraq.

---

That is all speculation and your POV. Not encyclopaedic. David | Talk 08:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, 'm inclined to agree with User:202.37.96.11. First, the date: that the memo was written in July 2002 doesn't tell us anything about whether Kelly may or may not have been referring to the same type of distortions (if there were any) in September 2002. Second, the U.S./UK distinction: it's true that the memo discusses what the Americans were doing. But there are no expressions of disapproval, and the Americans seemed quite happy to let the Brits in on it. Most importantly, British intelligence and U.S. intelligence on Saddam ended up being entirely consistent, and yet the Americans seem to have admitted, and the Brits accepted, that U.S. intelligence was being fixed around policy. Yet British intelligence (not fixed around policy, for the sake of argument) ended up with the same thrust, which is remarkable, and which means the Americans needn't have bothered fixing anything.

You're right that the above is speculative, but no one's suggesting we write it in the article. It's just an argument in favor of including the link, which is, as I said earlier, arguably relevant. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Another sterile argument. Kelly said that the dossier was "sexed up". Kelly was castigated for the suggestion. It has been since shown to be substantiated to some degree. By the memo. So the memo is interesting in the context of Kelly, even if you think it proves nothing. It doesn't precisely say "and we will fix our facts accordingly" but it's suggestive. Grace Note 06:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing David Kelly with his interrogator Andrew Gilligan. What Kelly said may not have been exactly what Gilligan reported. By all accounts Kelly's remarks concerned solely the drafting of the September dossier and while Kelly's account was basically correct from his perspective, the story as reported by Andrew Gilligan was substantially incorrect. It certainly has not been substantiated - in fact it has been disproved by the evidence submitted to the Hutton Inquiry.

There seems to be a general assumption that David Kelly was some sort of anti-war campaigner. He wasn't. His primary motivation in speaking to Gilligan appears to have been dislike of interference in his work as an expert, not lack of support for government policy. David | Talk 09:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize

• Kelly's work as a member of the UNSCOM team led him to visit Iraq 37 times, and his success in uncovering Iraq's biological weapons program caused Rolf Ekéus to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Being nominated for the Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official and not necessarily prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements. Altogether, I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Willmcw 08:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, since Kelly had a named, prominent nominator I think this meets a higher standard than most "Nobel Peace Prize" nominees. I'm not going to remove it. -Willmcw June 29, 2005 09:43 (UTC)

Bahai? of cours bahais are allowed to work with goverment organisations. they just don't have to work in ore with political partys

David Naccoche and his 'decrypts'

I've just removed this paragraph as Original Research. David Naccoche has indeed developed a system for trying to make educated guesses at the content of blacked out portions of documents and if you look at page 711 of the linked PDF (warning, 38.9 megabyte download) you'll see that he's run it on Hutton Inquiry exhibit CAB/11/0077. However it's far from clear what was found: the sentence "We are now doing a note now giving the detail on Iraq and AQ" is in the clear. The rest is only partially found: "it is becoming XXXXX are some XXXXXX although there is nothing XXXXXXXXXXXXX". Naccoche, however, does not make any conclusion on what the full sentence read. David | Talk 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

POV claims

"Kelly believed Iraq had retained biological weapons after the end of inspections. He was privately supportive of moves to invade Iraq and remove the government of Saddam Hussein, and made the case to friends and family when they discussed it with him. After the end of the ground war, he was invited to join the inspection team trying to find any trace of weapons of mass destruction programmes, and was apparently enthusiastic about resuming his work there." Can someone add some sources for this claim. It seems like a specualtion and POV to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.250.170 (talk • contribs)

You want sources? I got sources.

Kelly's belief that Iraq had retained biological weapons has multiple sources. Perhaps the best is the evidence of Susan Watts to the Hutton Inquiry, on page 174: "Q. What was your understanding of Dr Kelly's views about the prospects of finding weapons of mass destruction, he thought that they were there but they were well hidden? A. My impression is that he felt very definitely thought that there were weapons programmes. That if there were to be any evidence of those, it might well be a lengthy search to find that evidence and it would be a process of pulling together many, many bits of information and that that process is really only beginning."

Kelly's support for the war was testified by his wife to the Hutton Inquiry on September 1, 2003, at page 8: "He had some trepidation though about the war coming up. He believed in it but was obviously sad that we seemed to be moving towards that position." (my emphasis)

That Kelly made the case to others for the war is testified by his sister on pages 93-94 op cit:

"Certainly I myself, and my husband, and I know from conversations my younger brother, we were not convinced of the need for war now. We could not understand: why now? Why not last year? Why not next year? Why now? And in discussions that we have had since my brother died we have realised that each of us changed our minds before the war itself actually happened and that we attributed our change in mind to individual conversations that we had with my brother. I actually thought he would agree with me that there was no new indication for war. I knew that he felt that the sanctions had hurt the Iraqi people very hard but had not made that much difference to Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, and I was very surprised when he was absolutely and utterly convinced that there was almost certainly no solution, other than a regime change, which was unlikely to happen peacefully, and regrettably would require military action to enforce it. He explained it in detail that I probably did not understand at the time, in a very convincing way, and made me realise that the war was not only inevitable but that it was entirely justified in the light of what the Iraqi regime could produce in the future." (my emphasis)

Will this do? David | Talk 12:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Killed by Baathists

Have added this speculation to alternative theories, as far as i know only one considered by the Hutton Inquiry. BillMasen 00:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement of his religion?

Why is his religion entered here? Is this common practice in wikipedia? Not wanting to be a "PC Thug", I nonetheless believe that it should be discussed whether a significant person's, one who is in the Wiki database, religion should be outlined as it is in this article; at the very top. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.90 (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

It is commonplace in American biographies of people in public life to find religion listed. In the UK it's only done in cases where the religion is relevant or notable. In Dr Kelly's case, his conversion to the Baha'i faith was remarked upon, and some people have seen it as relevant in the light of Baha'i teachings against lying and against suicide. Personally I think it should be kept in. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Filmography

The Nick Drake video link seems to imply that this is the official video of the song when it is in fact not (just someone who obviously likes the song and decided to make a youTube video with a David Kelly theme). It should either be removed or have its relevance toned down significantly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.155.84 (talk) 07:42, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Improvements Needed!

There are lots of non inline references, infact the article is pretty shabby. Could those who are interested try and intergrate the references properly. Use this tool to create references easily: Reference generator Chendy (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New material

Have you guys seen this news about the book he would be writing to expose the government secrets?

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/111971/Kelly-s-book-of-secrets —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiohead "Memory Hole" Reference

"Radiohead's website also includes a section entitled "Memory Hole," a possible reference to Kelly's 'deep within the memory hole' quotation."

I find it much more likely that this is a reference to George Orwell's 1984, in which Winston Smith destroys photos as his job at the ministry of truth using a device known as a memory hole. The use of this in connection with David Kelly appears to be rather conjectural. I have thus removed this reference.

Ryan Fitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.15.87 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper use of 'allegedly'

The entire article is prefixed by 'allegedly's in relation to his suicide and the manner in which he killed himself. As an inquiry, and the police, and the coroners all ruled that he commited suicide, why is allegedly being used? The legal verdict is suicide. This use of 'allegedly' stinks of conspiracy theory POV. 90.218.86.214 (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above IP: the use of 'allegedly' in this article is inappropriate. In cases like this, WP:NPOV demands we stick to the official verdict; our article on the 9/11 attacks doesn't say that Al-Qaeda were 'allegedly' responsible, but that they were. Conspiracy theorists may dispute it, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, David Kelly's death was suicide. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Daily Mail article

The Daily Mail has published an article on David Kelly's death and the following inquiries. See Daily Mail: Dr David Kelly: The damning new evidence that points to a cover-up by Tony Blair's government.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your changes, firstly as large sections of it was copied verbatim from the source, so a copyvio. But even if that were addressed the length of your insertion place undue weight on a single source, that seems just to be based of the various conspiracy theories and offers no new information.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick note: I haven't seen either my change nor your revert on the page history and simply "tried again" to edit the article. More later.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "source" in the sense of "one individual's viewpoint". It's an article that reports on a larger number of issues related to the Kelly inquiry. I don't think it has received undue weight, as this newspaper, the Daily Mail, is not the only one that has reported about doubts and allegations about the Kelly inquiry as well as about Kelly's death itself.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give further reasons for your revert?  Cs32en Talk to me  00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation is where a copyright source is copied verbatim, and your first edit had paragraphs copied from the source, though I did not take time to check all of them. Undue weight is when too much emphasis is placed on minority views, which the views published in the Daily Mail certainly are; mostly the article seems to be rehashing existing conspiracy theories, and ignoring the evidence of the independent inquiry, for political reasons - they despise Tony Blair.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I am disappointed in you, Wikipedia.

After many years of being a fan of your npov policy, i find it shocking and shameful, that a few liberal voices are churning the incident of a depressed mans suicide, and it is suicide until reliable third-party opinions are expressed otherwise, to the idea that this horrific incident was a conspiracy to fraudulantly paint the Iraq war in some good light. Just because people believe the Iraq war is wrong, doesn't give them the right to refer to pop cultural musicians, trying to intimate the Blair government was responsible for some kind of murder cover-up of David Kelly's death. It is disgraceful to pass that kind of judgement on the suicide of such a man, just as disgraceful as if the Blair government were to have intimated that al-quiada caused Kelly's death. This article is shockingly and saddeningly voyeuristic, and I thoroughly believe, personally, it needs to be wholly redone. Disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymbelmineer (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Cobblers. The article reports the facts surrounding the death, and adds that some disspute the findings of the coroner and enquiry. Just like all the other articles about issues that are disputed. It would be POV if it didn't mention the disbelievers. I think you're accusing others of an agenda in order to further your own (notice you mention 'liberal voices', do you not like liberals then?) Pollythewasp (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The inclusion of the Queen's Counsel and former senior coroner Dr Michael Powers stating that "there is a need still to address many of the issues which have already been raised and which these reports do not answer" is entirely relevant. The guardian and BBC ref include this.

-The repeated removal by one wikipedia editor of Dr Powers statement, and the insertion of the journalist Mathhew Taylors opinion that the report "undermines those who have questioned the official version of events", in the intro of this article is controversial at best and massively pov pushing at worst. That editor (user:Davidpatrick) needs to address this here in the talk page rather than reverting 62.239.159.6 (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Powers is a coroner - yes. But with absolutely no first-hand knowledge whatsoever of the case. His opinions are just that. Speculation by one individual based on press reports. Including his opinion in the lead of an encyclopedic article is like including the opinion of a psychiatrist (however eminent) about Michael Jackson's mental state. If the psychiatrist had not examined Jackson but simply read reports in the media - his opinion would not be considered encyclopedic. At best the tabloids would say "an eminent psychiatrist with no first-hand knowledge of Mr. Jackson has offered the opinion that...." The fact that a newspaper on record as having doubted the verdict of the Hutton Report felt compelled to acknowledge IN ITS NEWS STORY (not an opinion piece) that the postmortem "undermines" the case of the conspiracy theorists is a significant development. Davidpatrick (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

He's a retired coroner with no links to the case, and is the same person that in January (ref #3) said ‘What is it about David Kelly’s death which is so secret as to justify these reports being kept out of the public domain for 70 years?’. So he is now saying this secret report with vital information should can be disregarded as 'there is still a need to address many of the issues'? I don't think we need to give any weight to this changing of his views so he's not contradicted by the now published facts.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

POV text in article

The article has been riddled with POV and opinion. Most of it snide about any who had the temerity to question Kelly's actions and motives and simperingly gentle about Kelly himself as though he was some type of angelic child. I don't know anyone who doesn't think it sad that Kelly killed himself. But that does not mean that Wikiepedia article about his death should be accusatory in nature nor overly-protective of Kelly. It needs to be NEUTRAL.

eg the section about Kelly being questioned by MPs - which is actually the FUNCTION of MPs on committees. To seek the truth from witnesses it calls

However, some of the questioning was extremely pointed and appeared disrespectful to Kelly

To precisely whom did the questioning appear extremely pointed and disrespectful? Everyone? Someone? On the other hand did some people perhaps think that the questioning of a man who had admitted an unauthorised meeting with a journalist who it subsequently transpired had some issues with candour - was simply pertinent and direct?

We Wikipedians do not make such judgements. We collate and convey what has been reported. If a considerable number of eminent people thought that and it has been reliably reported - it can be mentioned - citing the sources. If others had a different interpretation that should be conveyed too. Or more appropriately we just report that the exchanges took place - quoting pertinent points from the exchange. Including the fact that the Chairman of the Committee ruled that MacKinlay's question to Kelly - asking him which journalists he had met with WAS a question that Kelly had to answer.

But omitting POV words that spin the facts to suit those who have an agenda either pro-Blair government or anti-Blair government. That is not our purpose on Wikipedia. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Good adherence to NPOV is promoted by avoiding certain words, and by being guided by the sources. We often find that the best results are arrived at via consensus in talk. --John (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On similar lines, in the newly added section "Confirmation of Hutton's finding of suicide", the assertion that the release of the postmortem material 'completely undermines' the conspiracy theories is surely POV language. I don't believe in the conspiracy theories myself but I do think that readers should be left to make their own determination of to what extent they are undermined.--Lopakhin (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A better way to deal with them would be to pare back the coverage of the conspiracy theories. The enquiry report, the postmortem, all the political parties, almost all the main papers now seem to support the official version of events. Only a handful of people are expressing serious doubts, and only the Daily Mail still seems to be providing a platform for them - a lot of the opposition seems to have evaporated in face of the facts, though it's probably also political as the Tories and Lib Dems no longer push for it, and many papers take their lead from them. Certainly a lot of it seems trivial: for example letters to a newspaper are not an indication of anything. As it is the article accords the conspiracy theories and theorists far too much weight, as per WP:UNDUE.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Biographical details

I noted that a lot of information was removed today under the basis that this is about an event not a person. However, given that Wikipedia has no David Kelly article OTHER than this one, I feel it would actually be appropriate to have these categories/infoboxes. Especially as the article includes a biography. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to argue that Dr Kelly is notable enough for a biography and that it could be written separately from this article, concentrating on his early career and then linking here with a {{main}} template. But until this article is written, this article is his biography and the details removed earlier today should be restored. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Geoffrey Wheatcroft

Geoffrey Wheatcroft is hardly the best source for deciding whether any accusation against Tony Blair is proven. The author of "Yo, Blair!" (which is in its very title a misquotation), a very clear summary of where he is coming from is in this review: it "wastes no time trying to be balanced". I suggest we forget Geoffrey Wheatcroft entirely and source Rawnsley's view to Rawnsley's book directly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Further, if Wheatcroft says that Blair talked about "revealing" the name rather than "leaking", then he is wrong. Contemporary reports make it clear that Blair's emphatic denial was about "leaking": Guardian report. For what Blair did authorise, see his evidence to Hutton. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Geoffrey Wheatcroft is an award-winning historian.
• Andrew Rawnsley is a journalist 'among other things' (click on the academic background, and you will appreciate that you insert 'journalist' is slightly POV, as if he was just one of your Fleet Street hacks, rather than being a well-reviewed historian of labour).
• The New York Review of Books does not hand out review assignments randomly to partisan hacks.
• It's not your business to challenge Wheatcroft or suggest misrepresented the facts, when Wheatcroft in that review is citing one of the books under review.
• The text you are trying to write paraphrases a direct quotation from a book, among 3 reviewed, concerning, for example, the interview with Blair on the flight to Hong Kong.

'When one asked, "Why did your authorise the naming of David Kelly?' he answered, "That is completely untrue,' and repeated, "Emphatically not. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly.'

• Your edits appear to be interfering with what the source used clearly states, and this looks like WP:OR. Find a source that backs your version of this, and the verbal distinctions you would wish to introduce, and they can be inserted as an alternative.
• The charge that this is a WP:BLP violation is nonsensical. Two reliably sourced statements have been introduced to the text. No conclusion has been made in the text regarding Tony Blair.Nishidani (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Wheatcroft's book review (which is not verifiable since it is behind a paywall) is clearly a tertiary source. Under WP:RS, "Tertiary sources .. should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion", which is exactly what is being attempted here. Furthermore, he is quite clearly partisan, and "Partisan secondary sources should be viewed with suspicion as they may misquote or quote out of context". The guideline doesn't even mention what should be done with a partisan tertiary source. To found a major accusation on a partisan tertiary source would be questionable. To use it as proof that the accusation has actually been established as fact is manifestly unacceptable even were it not disputed by the WP:BLP subject of the accusation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no problem with the paywall factor. I have that copèy of the NYRB and can type out the relevant paragraphs.

This is not a 'detailed discussion', so Tertiary source protocols are irrelevant. It is simply a matter of adding new information, not in the prior text, on two small points.

I've only your word for it that Wheatcroft is a partisan source. I very seriously doubt that the NYRB customarily chooses its reviewers on the basis of their notoriety for bias.

There is no 'accusation' made. Two items of information are added. No conclusion is drawn (you are drawing the conclusion). The items are bare statements of what an historian of New Labour, and even Mr Blair, are reported to have said.

There is nothing 'manifestly unacceptable' in those edits. It comes wholly within the normal practice of wikipedia, and your attempts to force your hand here not convincing. I suggest we wait to hear from established editors on this page. Edit-warring is not where we should be going.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that either Wheatcroft or Rawnsley got it wrong. Here are the contemporary reports of what Tony Blair said on the flight:

"That's completely untrue," .. "That is emphatically not the case. I did not authorise the leaking of the name of Dr Kelly." – The Sun 23/7/03 p 8

Asked by journalists if he had authorised the leak of Dr Kelly's name, Mr Blair said: "That's completely untrue." – The Guardian 23/7/03 p 5

"But in reply to what was being said earlier did I authorise the leaking of David Kelly's name. That is completely untrue." – Daily Mail 23/7/03 p 4

Sources occasionally get things wrong. Tertiary sources more than most. Here we have a partisan tertiary source. And WP:BLP is definitely engaged: Tony Blair is a living person, and this is "contentious material that is poorly sourced". If you want to include it, cite Rawnsley's book and attribute it to Rawnsley. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wheatcroft is drawing his material from 4 books, not 1. In the flight to Hong Kong passage whose veracity you challenge, it is not clear which of the 4 books is the source. Whatever, I prefer RS written with historical hindsight, and wide-ranging multi-documentary and archival research to what journos of the day, with a deadline to meet, may have written. The 'partisan tertiary source' gambit doesn't work because it is not Wheatcroft paraphrasing things, but citing directly one of those 4 books.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that whichever book got it wrong, it doesn't really matter. But the point about Wheatcroft being a partisan tertiary source is that the article can't use his book review as a foundation for the statement that it has been "firmly established" that Tony Blair (still a WP:BLP subject) did something he has always denied doing and which a judicial inquiry found he did not do. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V. Look you're far too experienced not to know that verifiability is what counts, not the truth, and I can't take your word about this against what one, two or several reliable sources may say. And, again, there is no WP:BLP violation. Rawnsley is sourced vias Wheatcroft for the remark that a meeting at Downing Street decided Kelly's identity was to be revealed. Where's the BLP violation in reporting that? Before I added that content, the article read:

implementing a government decision to reveal Kelly's name as part of a strategy to discredit Gilligan though no credible evidence has substantiated this opinion.

No source given, no proof, no evidence, and even a choice of language that reflects some editor's personal judgement of the evidence, and you apparently found nothing wrong with this malpractice.

That was what caught my eye. I provided a source, and you are almost arguing that Wheatcroft is not credible, Rawnsley unreliable. I.e. your objections seem to favour reinstating the unsourced judgement I replaced, since you appear to think 'no credible evidence' exists for what Wheatcroft reports and Rawnsley documents. And I have only your personal guarantee against what two, perhaps even more, good sources report?

Judicial enquiries are not the last word, esp. when they are appointed by governments whose activities themselves are under investigation. They should always be used via secondary sources that assess them historically. That is why historians like Wheatcroft and Rawnsley, several years after these events, tend to be more reliable than primary reports swept up in the immediate pressures and controversies of that period. This should be obvious. Nishidani (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am arguing that according to WP:RS, Geoffrey Wheatcroft's book review tertiary source is not a reliable source for what you wish to use it for. It should not be used at all when Rawnsley's book is freely available as a secondary source. Rawnsley's views should be attributed to him as his views, and then set against Blair's evidence and Hutton's conclusion - which, if you look, is exactly what I did. The WP:BLP violation is in saying that Tony Blair, a living person, has been "firmly established" as doing something which he has consistently denied doing. That is contentious material and it is poorly sourced. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stick to the point. You have not made a case that WP:RS excludes my use of Wheatcroft. Go to the RSN and argue the case. He was reviewing Rawnsley and several other books. He is recognized by historians as a very competent historian of contemporary British politics, was commissioned to write on these books by the New York Review of Books. The text does not say it has been 'firmly established' Blair is a liar, as you try to put over. It says in Wheatcroft's judgement, . Rawnsley . .has 'firmly established that at a secret meeting at 10 Downing Street on July 8 presided over by Tony Blair, it was decided that Kelly's identity must be revealed.' Why distort this?

To report what an historian of the Labour Party says of the Kelly incident, in an RS, is perfectly acceptable. This has nothing to do with Blair's private life, but with the public records. What is deeply troubling is the precedent you are setting here. You are effectively arguing that while any politician is alive, wikipedia cannot report what historians say of his past if their reconstructions happen to be at variance with, or contradict what the said politician's narrative maintains. Nonsense, dangerous, Orwellian nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia decisions on using information from any one source are to be done in the context of all the relevant literature on the main topic of the article. Ask yourself: Will the proposed use of information from Wheatcroft's book neglect major facts? Will the proposed use of information from Wheatcroft's book result in not placing the subject in context? Will the proposed use of information from Wheatcroft's book result in the article lacking a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature? Is the proposed claim sourced to from Wheatcroft's book also verifiable against multiple, high-quality reliable sources? Will the use of the proposed information from Wheatcroft's book cause the article to veer from being focused on the main topic and/or go into unnecessary detail? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary for dummies is needed here

Any chance we could get a summary from each side here explaining briefly what activity by Blair is at issue, and why it allegedly makes Blair look bad? I gather that there's an assertion Blair ordered that Kelly's name be released as the identity of a leaker. Why would Blair want an alleged leaker (Kelly) to be publicly identified? Does Blair deny it? Do any reliable sources back up Blair, or deny the accuracy of whoever accuses Blair of this? If Blair really did it, would it have been an illegal action by Blair? An unethical action by Blair? An unpopular action by Blair? Sorry for the questions, but I'm a dummy relative to this matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As background, the underlying point behind the alleged decision to name Dr Kelly (which is characteristically missed by many people) is that the main accusation which Andrew Gilligan reported his source as making concerned the actions of Alastair Campbell, and Dr Kelly was never actually in a position to know what Alastair Campbell was doing. Therefore, if Kelly was Gilligan's source, the story that Gilligan reported was basically undermined and shown to be wrong.

What actually happened on 8 July, after two meetings at 10 Downing Street were held, was that the Ministry of Defence issued a press statement reporting that a civil servant had come forward claiming to be Gilligan's source, but not naming him. It gave a general description of where he worked. From this information, several well-informed journalists worked out fairly quickly that it was Dr David Kelly, and when they asked the MoD to confirm or deny his identity, the MoD confirmed that it was indeed him.

The fundamentals of this dispute are in whether the meetings in Downing Street intended to leak the name of the civil servant. Tony Blair denied it at the time, and also in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry (a full judicial inquiry into the affair) and the Hutton Report found that this was not so – also explaining that there was a good reason why it was not so: the people at the meeting could not be sure that Dr Kelly was actually the source, and if it was actually someone else then that would strengthen the story rather than weaken it. Link to the report is above.

When Kelly's name became known he was put into the public spotlight, a position he found extremely difficult. It is generally accepted that the publicity was the most important factor lying behind Kelly's decision to commit suicide: Hutton conclusion quoting Professor Hawton. So linking Tony Blair personally to the revalation of Kelly's name is significant.

Nishidani wishes the article to state that it has been definitely established that Tony Blair personally did decide to leak the name. He bases this on a paywall-hidden book review by an author who openly despises Blair of a book by an author who condemns Blair. I think that it should be written as a claim and cited to the person making the claim, then set against the Hutton finding to the contrary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no dispute. Two facts were added. What Tony Blair said on a flight to Hong Kong. What Wheatcroft says Rawnsley, a Labour historian, has ascertained apropos a meeting on July 8.

Blacketer is objecting because, linking these two facts, he deduces I am deducing Blair is a liar. Both Rawnsley and Wheatcroft are cited for the two facts, and no deduction made by either is reported. Blacketer is after the truth. I am concerned to register the facts as reported by all parties, independently of what the truth may be. Therefore, he wishes to invalidate the reliability of either Rawnsley or Wheatcroft or both. I think this best taken to RSN, and if I have the time today I will do so.Nishidani (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What Nishidani states to be a fact is not a fact. It is an opinion. In addition, in reporting what Tony Blair said on the plane from Shanghai to Hong Kong, Wheatcroft's reported speech is clearly a misquotation. What I am after is an accurate article, which should describe a difference of opinion on this subject. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that Blair made comments to reporters on his flight to Hong Kong. It is a fact that at a meeting on July 8, the issue of Kelly's identity was raised. Wheatcroft reviews 4 eminently reliable sources for the New York Review of Books. He cites from one of them, unidentified, regarding the content of Blair's remarks and therefore Blacketer is saying he personally thinks what Wheatcroft quotes verbatim from one RS is not true. Note that Blair's words are not Wheatcroft's paraphrase, but a direct cite by Wheatcroft from one of the books he is reviewing. Blacketer is, it appears to me, violating WP:V, instead of doing what all editors should do in these circumstances, i.e., allow, 'according to Wheatcroft' Blair said, according to another RS Blair said. He asserts the former is misquotation, presuming to know what was said. I don't know, nor does Blacketer. I don't presume to know, Blacketer does. I follow a reliable source, Blacketer would rewrite it according to his personal judgement of the truth. It's quite simple. The article before I touched it on this point was no accurate, it made an unsourced judgement contested by sources I am familiar with. I gave one source. If Blacketer dislikes this, he can provide a source with a variant account.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear me. As I have pointed out above, Geoffrey Wheatcroft's book review is a tertiary source, and under WP:RS a tertiary source is not to be used when there is a secondary source available - which there clearly is: the book being reviewed. A book review is not a reliable source when the book itself is available. And as I have also pointed out above, what apparently appears as reported speech in Wheatcroft's review, wherever it has come from, is contradicted by what a multitude of contemporary sources (which are secondary sources and reliable) directly quote Tony Blair as saying. What the article said before is irrelevant and I really would ask that Nishidani does not presume to read my mind. I am going from what the reliable sources (which don't include Wheatcroft) say. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia decisions on using information from any one source are to be done in the context of all the relevant literature on the main topic of the article. Ask yourself: Will the proposed use of information from Wheatcroft's book neglect major facts? Will the proposed use of information from Wheatcroft's book result in not placing the subject in context? Will the proposed use of information from Wheatcroft's book result in the article lacking a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature? Is the proposed claim sourced to from Wheatcroft's book also verifiable against multiple, high-quality reliable sources? Will the use of the proposed information from Wheatcroft's book cause the article to veer from being focused on the main topic and/or go into unnecessary detail? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dearie me, indeed. Blacketer opposes the use of Wheatcroft, a widely respected journalist and historian, writing for the New York Review of Books. I happen to prefer books to newspapers, but the information, and the wording indeed, of the material quoted by Wheatcroft is readily available from many newspaper sources, not as good as the NYRB. To cite but one example:

Richard Norton-TaylorR, ‘Blair must be held to account’ Guardian, 17 October 2003

the prime minister was confronted by journalists on his aircraft as it prepared to land in Hong Kong. "Why did you authorise the naming of David Kelly?" he was asked. "That is completely untrue," replied Tony Blair.

"Did you authorise anyone in Downing Street or in the Ministry of Defence to release David Kelly's name?" he was asked. Emphatically not, responded Blair. I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. The prime minister added: Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout.'

This week, the Hutton inquiry heard the clearest unequivocal evidence that Blair was personally involved in the decisions which led to the public naming of the government's chief adviser on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programme. Sir Kevin Tebbit, the top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, told the inquiry that the key meeting from which everything else flowed was chaired by the prime minister on July 8.

"A policy decision on the handling of this matter had not being taken until the prime minister's meeting. It was only after that that any of the press people had an authoritative basis on which to proceed," said Sir Kevin. He agreed with Jeremy Gompertz, the Kelly family's counsel, that the decision which led to the naming of Kelly was therefore taken at Downing Street and not the MoD, though he said his department "concurred" with it.'

The article is about David Kelly, a dead person, not Mr Blair, and this information consisting of two lines, obviously deserves to be mentioned, particularly since the prior state of the text gave a misleading impression, i.e.,

it was alleged by some critics of the government that the Ministry of Defence was implementing a government decision to reveal Kelly's name as part of a strategy to discredit Gilligan though no credible evidence has substantiated this opinion.

The text in short was not neutral, in that it took sides with one report, and cancelled the testimony of Sir Kevin Tebbit, later endorsed by historians like Rawmsley and Wheatcroft, who said a decision was taken at Downing Street to name Kelly, not at the MoD, which however acquiesced in that decision. What right has any wiki editor to make a judgement on what is 'credible evidence' and what is 'unequivocal evidence'. We report sources, for goodness's sake.

Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary

Nishidani says, "the information, and the wording indeed, of the material quoted by Wheatcroft is readily available from many newspaper sources". So why not use them instead of the NYRB? I haven't looked at WP:RS to see what it says about tertiary versus secondary. But that issue would seem to be moot if you use other readily available sources. There's nothing so prestigious about the NYRB that makes it indispensable here. In fact, book reviews are often less persuasive than straight news articles, because the former may merely be erudite opinion pieces about how the reader liked the book.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Quite simply because Sam is challenging not only the reliability of Wheatcroft, but also the veracity (WP:V) of what Wheatcroft reported. I illustrated that what Wheatcroft wrote, citing RS, is available in many other sources. That means Wheatcroft is reporting what many other report. Therefore there is no point in either him contesting my use of Wheatcroft and Rawnsley, or preferring someone else. Both these writers have written scholarly books, the quality of their work is highly esteemed, even by historians of contemporary history, and I see no point, other than dislike, for preferring anyone but Wheatcroft, esp. when the point he makes is widely documented. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

book reviews are often less persuasive than straight news articles, because the former may merely be erudite opinion pieces about how the reader liked the book.

On the other hand, this book review covers 4 books dealing with events that took place some 7 years ago. Journalistic articles, written on the day, or within the vicinity of events, lack hindsight, and historical perspective, they are also more subject to errors, given that the more important 'facts' often only emerge over the years. As to a reviewer's POV, I cited the data given by Wheatcroft, not his opinions. He has plenty, like everyone, but the quotations and evidence he supplies are not his subjective or 'erudite' opinion.Nishidani (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is verifiability not veracity. I can't comment on Wheatcroft's veracity as his review is behind a paywall. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Some now, Sam. An old stager like you knows by heart the first line of that link reads:'The most important condition for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth;' The thread shows you object because you say what I reported from the source is not true. As to the paywall. I have the NYRB, and have offered to transcribe the paragraphs where those quotes occur. The rest of the article is irrelevant.Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with using another reliable source instead of the NYRB? That way, the stuff gets into this Wikipedia article and everyone's happy. Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Which only leads me to ask, given that there's no doubt that the contested edits have been shown to be proper, why all this waste of time over Geoffrey Wheatcroft? I've replied exhaustively to all points raised on these several pages. No one has done me the courtesy of replying to the evidence I have supplied. That is, the original challenge asserted my edit contained untruths, and that the source was unreliable. Neither judgement proved to be correct. Now I'm told: 'Oh, but change it to please the other editor!' What is this, an encyclopedia or a stroking farm?Nishidani (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's both. Consensus sometimes requires accommodation, face-saving, and suchlike. What's the problem with using another reliable source instead of the NYRB? That way, the stuff gets into this Wikipedia article and everyone's happy. Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ask Sam. The two edits refer to (a) a statement Blair said on a plane which is repeated in multiple sources and (b) a statement of what took place at a meeting on July 8 which was presided over by Blair, which is also confirmed by other sources, and indeed by the then Permanent Under Secretary of State for the Ministry of Defence, Sir Kevin Tebbit (an historian to boot) in his testimony before the Hutton Inquiry. It's nice to have just one source, instead of two distinct refs. It's more economical to use just the one source which reports both, of course. But if Sam accepts that two sources for those edits are better, I'd have no objection. The problem is, he contests the veracity of any source on these two details apparently, and I think procedurally, he should clarify whether substituting other sources for the points made by Wheatcroft is satisfactory or not, or whether he still insists that the edits were incorrect. (re accommodation. Personally I believe if one makes a wrong call, one just apologizes, or retracts, or accepts the evidence. At least that's what I try to do). Nishidani (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I had hoped it was reasonably clear what I think should be done: write that 'Andrew Rawnsley claims that the 8 July meeting decided to release Kelly's name to the media; Blair's evidence, and Hutton's conclusion, were that the meeting decided only to confirm that someone had come forward without naming him' (precise wordsmithing omitted for the time being). No need to mention or cite Wheatcroft at all; cite Rawnsley as a source for the first part, cite Hutton conclusion for the second. For what it's worth Tony Blair's autobiography is not detailed but does stress that it was at his (Blair's) insistence that 'the whole thing' was handled by the MoD and the Cabinet Office; Blair is especially anxious to exonerate Alastair Campbell from the charge of having leaked Kelly's name. Page 456 if anyone wants to check. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If Nishidani would kindly write what material he wants this article to say, citing to reliable sources that are not the NYRB and that are not behind a paywall, then I'd be glad to opine about whether that material should be in this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hang on. You asked me if I minded having another source, since several sources exist for the same material Wheatcroft cites, and Sam objected to Wheatcroft. I said no problem. Let's see what Sam thinks. Sam shifts the goalposts, dodges my offer, and you accept his new gameplan, and ask me what material I want the article to say. Christ, I only want to include the data I provided, which can be sourced to many articles and books. By the way the NYRB is WP:RS, if you look at the archives, and the paywall is no problem because I have told Sam I will copy out the contextual paragraphs from which I took my material.

The sentence 'Blair's evidence and Hutton's conclusion, were that the meeting decided to confirm that someone had come forward without naming him, as it stands, is meaningless in its obscurity.

I had hoped you would take cognizance of what I wrote earlier. It is not Andrew Rawnsley's isolated claim. Richard Norton-Taylor, ‘Blair must be held to account’ Guardian, 17 October 2003 (see link above) uses the same words that Wheatcroft is cited as using ('Emphatically not, responded Blair. I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly.')

PMJI but you appear to have changed position. Your edit, in the article at the moment and sourced to Wheatcroft, has Blair saying "Emphatically not. No one was authorised to name David Kelly" (my emphasis). It was my point that Blair was responding to a question asking whether he had authorised the leaking of the name. Here you accept that Blair denied leaking. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The Hutton Inquiry, on which you keep insisting, registered the following testimony by Sir Kevin Tebbit, who said that 'the key meeting from which everything else flowed was chaired by the prime minister on July 8'.

Richard Taylor-Norton (2003) says more or less what Rawnsley now writes (2010). I.e. that there is unequivocal evidence Blair was 'personally involved in the decisions which led to the public naming of the government's chief adviser on Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programme.'

"(Tebbit) He agreed with Jeremy Gompertz, the Kelly family's counsel, that the decision which led to the naming of Kelly was therefore taken at Downing Street and not the MoD, though he said his department "concurred" with it.'

What I wrote, and Sam challenged, was this:

According to Geoffrey Wheatcroft, in his book of the fortunes of New Labour Andrew Rawnsley has firmly established that at a secret meeting at 10 Downing Street on July 8 presided over by Tony Blair, it was decided that Kelly's identity must be revealed.'

Tebbit, before the Hutton Inquiry, says the decision that led to the naming of Kelly ws taken at Downing Street. Wheatcroft cites Rawnsley to the effect that the meeting at Downing Street was where it was decided that Kelly's identity'.

I might add any number of sources about this selective use of the Hutton Inquiry as though it were the only relevant report, specifically with regard to this point. I.e.

'The key reason for this backlash against the Hutton Report stemmed from the obvious discrepancies between its findings and the evidence actually presented during the course of the inquiry itself. . . The openly expressed desire on the part of government officials to get Kelly's identity into the public domain was disregarded as being 'not decisive on the main issue,' while Blair's denial of culpability on board the plane to Hong Kong were similarly dismissed as casting 'no light on the issues'.'Steven Kettell, Dirty politics?: New Labour, British democracy and the invasion of Iraq,Zed Books, 2006 p.142

'Anthony Scriver QC, a former chairman of the Bar, said: 'You get a conventional, conservative with a smalll "c" judge. You ask whether the Prime Minister and other members of the government have been lying through their teeth. As a conventional judge he pplies the criminal standard of proof. You give him no right to get ocuments so he only sees the documets you give him. The result is wholly predictable. . . it certainly caused Lord Woolf to question the wisdom of using members of the senior judiciary in such situations.'Gary Slapper, David Kelly, The English Legal System: 2009-2010, Taylor & Francis, 2009 p.280

In short, Sam is arguing that the 'official report' with its by now famously narrow remit, chosen by the government of the day, and exonorating that government, must be accepted for what it concluded in 2004, against what many journalists of the time said, and what historians with the benefit of 6 years of further leaks, evidence and insiders' memoirs now say.I've no objection to him citing Blair's own version of events, as an addition to the text at this point. But I see no reason why he persists in trying to frame the page according to 'official' , 'political', or self-serving autobiographies, while keeping what many historians and meritorious journalists are now writing about the same events. Wiki is not supposed to toe any party line, nor editors to 'spin' things in defense of anyone. One just registers the variety of views in RS.Nishidani (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer to that is quite simple: I don't. This is a case where there are two differing interpretations of what went on. We outline both, cite the sources, and let the reader make their own minds up. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That was exactly my proposal above, in opposition to your proposal to rewrite my version, and then add your own alternative version. So just go ahead and add the appropriate sentences, sourced to books you have, and we are done with this. Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Mintguy

The last edit says that Kelly's name was leaked to the press by the MoD. has this been established or is it still in doubt as to whether it was leaked by the MoD or the BBC? Mintguy 18:04 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

His name was supplied by the Secretary of Defence in a private letter to the BBC. The BBC refused to comment (and journalistic protection of sources is such that a source's name is not revealed). Kelly, having been a media source before was an obvious potential source. The media asked the MoD was it him. Instead of saying 'no comment' Hoon's press officer confirmed that it was their conviction that he was and that he had been named in the letter to the BBC. FearÉIREANN 18:52 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was aware of the Geoff Hoon letter, I wasn't aware of the way Kelly's name was revealed to the broader press. I've changed 'leaked' (which sounds intentional) to revealed. Mintguy 18:59 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Poll

In the "conspiracy theory" section there is a reference to a BBC poll reporting what % of people think he committed suicide vs. think the death was suspicious. I propose to delete this after a decent interval under WP:Reliable source examples#Use of statistical data which says that polls are primary sources to be avoided. If man on the street Joe Botz is not a reliable source on the question of whether David Kelly killed himself, it is hard to see why a random sampling of seven hundred Joe Botzes would become more reliable (seven hundred x zero= zero). Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Polls swing from week to week, and reflect contingent changes in what people are watching on television any one week, and how the programme is spun. I agree with your proposal.Nishidani (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you have not heard of 'The wisdom of the crowd' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds - a random sampling of seven hundred Joe Botzes would become more reliable. Did the result say he was murdered? (as you think it politik to remove such wisdom).188.220.186.57 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just rename UTC and call it CIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.236.146 (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

--> I am DEEPLY OFFENDED by this FALSE statement: "He appears to have gone directly to an area of woodlands known as Harrowdown Hill about a mile away from his home, where he ingested up to 29 tablets of painkillers, co-proxamol, an analgesic drug and to have then cut his left wrist with a knife he had owned since his youth." It's absurd to ASSUME this man took his own life. The same men who lied about David Kelly's death also lied about TORTURE and the "War OF Terror" that has slaughtered millions of Human Beings. This manipulation of David Kelly's memory is DEEPLY OFFENSIVE to me. Someone please, get the facts strait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.78.92 (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no assumption inherent in the statement. It is consistent with the published reports used as sources. The problem is, you're buying into the conspiracy theories and are objecting to a source-supported statement, preferring a stance ("it wasn't suicide") supported only by conjecture. This isn't a debate over whether he killed himself or not. It's a presentation of verified source material. If you have an objection, cite a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.5.135 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Current article is unbalanced - there are continuing controversies

I am new to making contributions to Wikipedia but am perturbed at the instant way in which what are, in my view, justifiable improvements to the article on the Death of David Kelly have been removed.

I added a paragraph to indicate that the topic is the subject of continuing controversy. That seems to me to be factual.

I added a paragraph about the recent question in the UK House of Commons. Also factual in my view.

I added a paragraph about the forensic evidence that suggests that David Kelly was murdered. I explained that in terms of what campaigners see. Isn't that balanced? If only one PoV is allowed in the article how can that be balanced?

What are Mr. Blackburne's objections to my edits?

Should I have added online links? (I don't know how yet).

There are also assorted factual inaccuracies / omissions in the article which I would like to address / discuss.

Thanks AndrewWatt2 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewWatt2 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Your change had two parts. The first was a paragraph in the lede that largely duplicates the end of the fourth paragraph which covers this, but sourced and with a neutral point of view. The remainder had even more problems: the heading saying "it was murder" though all the evidence (the inquiry, the postmortem) points the other way, followed by a list of doubts put forward by conspiracy theorists long discredited by the actual evidence. This also is already fully covered in the article, properly sourced with a neutral point of view.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Had JohnBlackburne not reverted, I would have done so. Your text clearly endorsed a point of view on this topic and has some problems with its factual basis. Let me take first your lede addition concerning consideration of a new inquest: the Prime Minister seemed to rule that out entirely at Prime Minister's Questions on 18 May. You seem to be taking your lead from what is printed in the Daily Mail which has regularly mentioned the Attorney-General's review. What the Attorney-General actually said on 18 August 2010, in an interview with the Daily Telegraph, was "If new evidence is put to me I can consider if an application should be made to the High Court that a fresh inquest goes ahead." He also said "I have been given no evidence to suggest an alternative cause of death". Since then the Attorney-General has made no public statement about a review.

To sum up, what is happening is that the Attorney-General has simply said that he would of course consider any new evidence presented to him; not quite the same as saying "ongoing consideration". It would be very strange if he were to say the opposite. The multiplicity of press stories reporting various presentations of 'new evidence' do not substantiate any claim that the Attorney-General has taken them seriously.

Your later additions in the text clearly endorse a point of view critical of the Hutton Inquiry and supportive of the campaigners. The article already reports the criticisms and claims as such. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

John & Sam, Thanks for the feedback. The August 2010 Telegraph article has been superceded by the September 2010 formal legal process, the "Memorial", addressed to the Attorney General. It's online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_01_11davidkelly1.pdf (the September 2010 date is on the final page of the "Memorial"). The AG mentioned activity re the request for an order that an inquest be held here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/chan158.pdf (page 88 of the document). See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12085257 .

Similarly I have also written formally to the Attorney General (see, for example, http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/10/open-letter-to-attorney-general.html) and have been informed by the AG's Office that the AG and the Solicitor General read what I send. (Did I mention that I am a doctor? I'm not one of "the doctors" putting forward the "Memorial"). For me, as a doctor, the postmortem and toxicology reports released in October 2010 highlighted the doubts about and deficiencies of the Hutton Inquiry decision, contrary to the opinion in the non-medical mainstream media.

The mention of 5th December 2009 as the start date of legal action is incorrect. It formally began in September 2010, although it was (as I understand it) contemplated months previously. Assuming, once you check the links I've given you, that you accept that what I'm telling you is accurate, how best is the article updated/corrected? Oops! AndrewWatt2 (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick check did reveal a Dr Andrew Watt involved in this issue. You should read pages about conflicts of interest before editing in an area where you are actually involved in campaigning. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The question at Prime Ministers Questions - feedback sought

I have tried twice to post text like the following and it's been, in my perception, "censored".

So, I'd like to ask for some feedback.

First here is the "offending" text, following which I'd appreciate some advice on what you guys consider I "should" have done.

==Question in UK Parliament==

- - The controversy about the death of Dr. David Kelly has not gone away.

- - On 18th May 2011 in the UK House of Commons, Sir Peter Tapsell MP asked the Prime Minister, David Cameron, the following question:

- - "Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con): Now that there is to be a full investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, is there not a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?

- - The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is raising two issues. First, on the issue of Madeleine McCann, it is welcome that the Metropolitan police has decided to review the case and the paperwork. On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that was carried out and the report into it were fairly clear, and I do not think it is necessary to take that case forward."

The quote is accurate. The reference is accurate and specifically links to the quoted text. So far so good, I thought. But apparently Hansard isn't a reliable source (if I interpret John Blackburne's comment correctly when he deleted the change).

And if the most senior MP in the House of Commons asks if David Kelly's death was "suicide or murder" how is that anything other than controversial?

And isn't the question itself worthy of mention?

Assuming that it is accepted that the question at PMQs is relevant how would one of the "editors" have handled the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewWatt2 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC) AndrewWatt2 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Politicians say all sorts of things. Hansard by law writes them all down, it is not a reliable secondary source. That a confused MP that few people have heard of got the (unsolved) Madeleine McCann case and the (solved) David Kelly case mixed up does not make it notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JohnBlackburne that a question asked at PMQs is not especially significant because any MP can wait for their name to come up and ask about a subject of their choice. The question didn't add any new information and it was already known that there were MPs raising questions about the case. (We must beware of adding peacock terms and implying that the involvement of the Father of the House makes it more likely the concerns are true.) In this case perhaps the most significant aspect of it was that the Prime Minister chose to answer in a profoundly discouraging way. Hansard is a primary source, so if a Parliamentary Question does fall to be included in an article, it would be better to find a suitable secondary source if one is available. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

References

Attorney General announcement expected 9th June 2011

The UK Attorney General is expected to make an announcement in the House of Commons tomorrow (9th June) re whether or not he will apply to the High Court for an Order that a (new) inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Whichever way the announcement goes it is likely that the current article will require some amendment.

AndrewWatt2 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

ECG pads

Dr Hunt, pathologist, said Dr Kelly had a significant degree of coronary artery disease and that four electro-cardiogram pads were found on his chest. The guardian interprets this as "Scientist had recent heart test" (title of article) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/02/uk.davidkelly3

Another article states:

• "Heart experts today said it was "unusual" for someone to wear electrode pads while walking following revelations that government scientist David Kelly had four of the special monitors on his chest when his body was found in an Oxfordshire wood."
• "If I was in a morgue and his body was presented to me I would have thought it had come out of a coronary care unit or an operating theatre," said Professor Konrad Jamrozik, of Imperial College Hospital London. "It would be unusual for someone to be walking around wearing these pads," he told the press association.

• Another heart specialist, who declined to be named, also said it was "very unusual" for someone to be found wearing the pads. "It would suggest that at some time he had been connected to a heart monitor in a hospital or, and this is more likely, he had been connected to a 24-hour ECG recorder.

http://www.realnews247.com/electrodes_on_chest_%27unusual%27.htm
I can't find a source confirming that he had a check-up that day or the day before, but I'm equally unable to find a source saying no evidence of that could be found. One would assume in a case like this that hospital records would be checked, his doctor would be asked, etc... Anyone with good sources? I think it deserves being mentioned in the article if it still is unexplained. DS Belgium (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Um, this one turned out to be a complete red herring. The ECG pads had been attached by the paramedic team who first discovered Dr Kelly's body, on the off-chance that it might be possible to resuscitate him. See On the spot: day one at the Hutton Inquiry. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Thanx DS Belgium (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Popcruft section

Generally Popcruft sections are discouraged, if the content is significant enough it can be embodied in the article. The section has a number of pretty spurious entries. The topic of dramatic representation inspired by Kelly could be captured in a couple of sentences elsewhere in the article although reference to specific representations should each be referenced.

Any objections if I embody as described in the next couple of days?

ALR (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No responses either way so I'll go ahead.

ALR (talk) 10:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" in subhead title?

We presently have this subhead title:

• 1. 4.2 Doubts and conspiracy theories over suicide verdict

However, the only mention of conspiracy in the section is an episode in the TV show "The Conspiracy Files" -- which seems a problematic (for NPOV) opener to the topic, as there were (and apparently still are) serious doubts about the suicide verdict, and continuing questions that Kelly may have been murdered, with the forensic evidence (successfully) made to look like a suicide.

Also in the following section we find the uncited claim:

The report confirmed all the findings in the Hutton Report and undermined the conspiracy theories that had been advanced...

-- which has the appearance of pejoratively labeling all doubters as "conspiracy theorists." Unless there is definite RS support for this interpretation -- very unlikely in the second case -- this language should be removed as an NPOV violation. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that’s just what THEY want you to do. 31.75.208.96 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Loaded verbs replaced with neutral

I have replace the word "determined" by "concluded", and "confirmed" by "re-iterated" in the lead of this article, as the previous wording carried an an implication of factual certainty which is not justified in the face of the continuing debate amongst medical and legal experts about the offical version of the events. DaveApter (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Good work. --John (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Content that the first could be taken either way but I'm not content that the second is reasonable as it implies that the post-mortem and the Hutton report aren't independent of one another.

The suggestion that they're not needs sources.

The ongoing debate isn't particularly significant to be honest.

ALR (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Newly released leaked email shows Blair considered the Hutton Report to be a white-wash

A leaked email seems to implicate that Tony Blair set up the inquiry into David Kelly's death as a white-wash.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hacking-trial-set-up-a-huttonstyle-inquiry-tony-blair-told-rebekah-brooks-as-scandal-broke-9139598.html

Poyani (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

English comprehension can be difficult at times, but I don't think I agree with your conclusion.

A) The email is not leaked. It was found during the police investigation which led to the current trial of Rebekah Brooks et al, and it has been disclosed in open court.

B) It's reported speech and not directly from Blair. It may be that Brooks was accurately reporting what Blair said, but we don't know that. We do not know whether the words "Hutton-style report" are from Blair or from Brooks' interpretation.

C) If we first assume that Brooks is broadly accurate in her reporting, and secondly assume the term "Hutton-style report" did come from Blair, it doesn't imply (as I think you meant to write) that Blair dismissed the Hutton inquiry. Blair was offering advice which he thought would help Brooks, whom he assumes will not face any charges - for he says that the inquiry report should be published when the police end their investigation. Blair thinks that the inquiry will "clear you"; Brooks is not so sure, but then she knows what went on internally and Blair does not.

D) The word "white-wash" does not appear in any form. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on David Kelly (weapons expert). 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/20060619195717/http://bmj.bmjjournals.com:80/cgi/eletters/326/7384/294 to http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7384/294#49907
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061013021651/http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/concerns/kellymail.htm to http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/concerns/kellymail.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 20:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Kelly (weapons expert). 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/20080723180139/http://observer.guardian.co.uk:80/omm/story/0,,1795948,00.html to http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0,,1795948,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on David Kelly (weapons expert). 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/20050418234000/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0076.pdf to http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0076.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050505151057/http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=90793&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=True to http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=90793&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=True
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7384/294
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/uklatest/story/0%2C%2C-6997401%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071224022437/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3081832.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3081832.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816045809/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23866641-experts-demand-inquest-into-death-of-weapons-inspector-david-kelly.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23866641-experts-demand-inquest-into-death-of-weapons-inspector-david-kelly.do
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://observer.guardian.co.uk/omm/story/0%2C%2C1795948%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210183522/http://www.tate.org.uk/stives/exhibitions/dexterdalwood/default.shtm to http://www.tate.org.uk/stives/exhibitions/dexterdalwood/default.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040202030348/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_1_0003to0035.pdf to http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/isc/isc_1_0003to0035.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121030646/http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/pr/2007/071127_book.htm to http://www.normanbaker.org.uk/pr/2007/071127_book.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 08:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Kelly (weapons expert). 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/20110721023210/http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter09.htm to http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/chapter09.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Was the original discussion 'unauthorised'?

Dr Kelly maintained that it was part of his work to brief the press. "when an 'unauthorised' discussion he had off the record with BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan about the UK Government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was cited by Gilligan" He was not happy with the way Gilligan reported their discussion but it was not off the record or unauthorised. The government later attempted to discredit him and the facts in the discussion by claiming it was (and that was their reason for threatening disciplinary action) but that was not borne out by the facts. I think the use of this word is biased. Alternative text: when a discussion with xxx, that the government later claimed was unauthorised, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.2.148 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Kelly's meeting with Gilligan was quite clearly unauthorised. Hutton so concluded: "Dr Kelly's meeting with Mr Gilligan was unauthorised and in meeting Mr Gilligan and discussing intelligence matters with him, Dr Kelly was acting in breach of the Civil Service code of procedure which applied to him" Source para 259 (2). Kelly himself said his discussion with Gilligan was unauthorised - see evidence of Olivia Bosch quoted in para 240: "he told me he had an unauthorised meeting with Andrew Gilligan". Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. Kelly was only allowed to brief journalists with specific authorisation and his conversations with Gilligan and Watts were unauthorised by his superiors at the MoD. He appears to have been engaging in a deniable MI6 effort to pass the blame to No.10 (as the Chilcot report showed, it wasn't actually No.10 that was lying, it was MI6 who lied to No.10, claiming the two Iraqi defectors in Germany were reliable when they were known to be frauds), and because it was deniable he was hung out to dry when he got caught. Hence, presumably, his bitter reference to 'dark actors playing games.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Israeli Dossier section needs work

The Doctors work on the Russian Dossier and the Iraqi Dossier had concluded (and published) before his death, unlike the Israeli Dossier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.3.28.147 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)