Talk:Joseph C. Wilson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Use headings to organize

This line from the article is totally inaccurate:

In August 2006 the public learned that the first person to reveal this information to Mr. Novak was then Deputy Secretary of State, Richard L. Armitage. [1] Neil A. Lewis. "Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role", New York Times, August 30, 2006. This line, and the press citation, shows the folks in the officially sanctioned press corp are circling the wagons to protect the Bush regime. Someone at the NY Times-Washington Post consortium, a.k.a., Pravda Center For Political Correctness (established to cover the naked-as-a-jay-bird emperor), has been given their marching orders, “Cover King George’s bare buttocks, and NOW!” Stunning ridiculous disinformation by a clear Bush hater. The New York Times and the Washington Post are ultra-liberal news wings of the DNC. The line I am questioning shows that this page is lining up behind and marching in lockstep to the big guys downtown, making Wikipedia nothing more than a wholly owned subsidiary of the Pravda Center.

Some alternative views showing the actual sequence of events: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/091406.html http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/090206.html A quote from the second article will shed some light on the facts:

As we explain below, the evidence is overwhelming that the White House assault on Wilson was planned weeks before he published an Op-Ed on July 6, 2003, accusing Bush of twisting the yellowcake claim – and that Bush’s operatives responded by pointing journalists toward Plame’s identity.

Indeed, the available evidence doesn’t even fully support the contention that Novak first learned about Plame from his interview with Armitage on July 8, 2003. According to the Times’ own reporting, Novak apparently had been primed to ask a question on this topic.

---

rverne8

---

I'm going to edit this page at 5:00pm CDT if someone else doesn't make some changes first. This is my first time editing so please be patient. The change I intend to make will be to move the "political ties" section down to the bottom and include it with the complete factual report by the FEC. I intend to include in the opening statement of the "Political ties," section the following words, "Some people feel that...."

--Sue

The statement tying to all sorts of democratic politicians tries to paint him as a partisan political operative. clearly this is misleading, since much of his diplomatic carerr was in republican adminitrations and he was appointed to abbassadorships by republicans.

im sorry my editing isn't so pretty but i think these are three important missing links that i have readded. the yellowcake forgery, the downing street memo, and a link to the previous joseph c wilson article i included so people can read the difference. my opinon is the current layout looks better than the previous joseph c wilson artlce but the removed links mentioned above should be present where relevant because they contain pertanent informations. this way people who dont' think to read the discussion and look through the edits can have a chance and not be blind to the ramifications of this ongoing dispute and find factual referenced quotes and opinions on the issues invovled with joseph c wilson and the events invovled. ---namesakes ________________________________________________________________

I'd actually like to see some more about Joseph Wilson's diplomatic career before the current kerfuffle. He seems to have led a fascinating career.

NPOV must be maintained

Let’s revert this article to a less POV revision. It is like watching news speak in action.

-QuestioningAuthority

---

→ This MUST be an Armstrong Williams Entry! →

Look, my apologies for being so blunt, I realize that I'm very, VERY new here. No expert am I - regarding NPOV policy. ...but, I mean... ...SERIOUSLY !

The emerging FACTS on this story [Breaking RIGHT NOW!] should be directed to the original author, so that they will have an opportunity to correct themselves, examine their own research methods, adjust any medication dosages and seek some much-needed reality-discernment training.

If I had ever written something this far-fetched and myth-based, something published online for all the world to see, I KNOW that I would DEFINITELY want the chance to make a full, public retraction.

Rok 21:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm rather certain this particular page will become a target for partisan polemics. If it is not yet locked out, it may be a good plan to do so.

As far as the article is concerned, there is no question there is subjective content.

I believe Rok has a good solution so far which is to allow the original author the opportunity to include a comprehensive and objective time line of Joe Wilson's career.

All subjective references should be linked rather than asserted... In which case the author should certainly be prepared to include a great deal of depth in this entry.

My apologies if any of these are dealt with by policy, I am not fully acquainted with Wiki policies yet.

-Dr. E

Where is it inaccurate?

Perhaps if specific quotes from the entry in question could be repeated here in the discussion page and a rebuttal, making reference to links, would be helpful. I didn't write the article, but I don't see anything in it that's inaccurate or 'spun.' Perhaps if specific examples were cited, I could see what you mean..? ZachsMind 21:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Well....

The piece repeats an annoyingly common mistake of confusing the Wilson-smearing comments made by Republican Senators Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch, and Christopher Bond with the actual bipartisan report itself.

If you bring up the PDF copy of the full report, you'll see that the section in the main report dealing with Wilson's assignment to Niger begins on page 49 (by Adobe's count; 39 in the report itself.) Note also how here he is carefully referred to only as "the former ambassador."

But the comments about Wilson lying and being rebuked are actually in a supplemental "Additional Views" section starting on page 451 (by Adobe's count; page 441 in the report itself) that was written solely by Roberts, Hatch, and Bond. Note how here they casually bandy about Wilson's name and make charges totally unsupported by the main report itself.

Hardly "bipartisan" in any case.

---

It's my understanding that Wilson denies ever syaing he was sent to Africa by Dick Cheney. The article claims Wilson said that in his book, the Politics of truth. Could we have a page reference please, otherwise that comment should be removed. --agr 04:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir, Page 5, is the source for his claims that his wife had nothing to do with the trip. I see many sources for the Wilson claiming Cheney sent me to Niger, but they all appear to be secondary. TDC 16:22, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

---

The article does not reflect the fact that Wilson has been effectively discredited by the Butler Commision or DO of CIA. It also misses many key points in the report from the Senate Select Committee On Intelligence. Wilson has provenly misrepresented 1)How he was chosen for the "mission" 2)What he discovered there 3)What documentation was provided by CIA prior to his trip. Your article fails to note that Wilson was asked by the US Embassy to Niger not to contact ANY Current Nigerian officials for concern it would complicate current embassy progress on the issue. It also fails to note that Wilson donated significant amounts of money to the Gore and later the Kerry campaign while pledging to destroy the current administration.

Joseph Wilson Has Donated Over $8,000 To Democrats Including $2,000 To John Kerry For President In 2003, $1,000 To Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) HILLPAC In 2002 And $3,000 To Al Gore In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/12/05)

The crowd of people who keep POV-pushing insist on deleting the relevant facts that Joe Wilso donated to Kerry and only to Kerry in the 2004 Election, and has publicly stated "It will be a cold day in Hell before I vote for a Republican, even as dog catcher." [Scott Shane, “Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case,” The New York Times, 7/5/05) Wilson also formally endorsed Kerry for POTUS in 2003. [David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03]

“In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." (Washington Times October 1, 2003))

“The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

The talking points did not refer to the specific reporting on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, did not mention names or dates from the reporting, and did not mention that there was any such deal being reported in intelligence channels. DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. --(Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ‘Misspoken’ To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ‘Forged.’” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

Wilson’s Report “Lent More Credibility” For Most Analysts “To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports.”--(Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

“We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

Wilson Endorsed John Kerry For President In October 2003 And Advised The Kerry Campaign. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03)

In a nutshell this article is misleading by marginalizing and ignoring issues surrounding CIAs allowing an otherwise underqualified partisan operative and his wife to interjected themselves into a politically volatile issue, lie about how he got involved and then misrepresented the intelligence in order to discredit the President. This was during wartime, during an election.

It is sad to see this poor of quality coming from Wikipeida

Sincerely Gizm0id

-- I agree-obviously Wikipedia has been the subject of some serious flak from the mainstream political-correctness police; the logic of this group is "Our wonderful leaders in Washington have such wonderful amounts of power and they work in such nice marble halls that they must certainly be nice, cushy soft and cuddly people that one dasn't say anything controversial about such nicey nice sweet folks who would never kill or murder or create grusome prison gulags in dozens of locations around the world or drop bombs from 30,000 feet up to kill millions, now would they?" To think that Wikipedia has become nothing more than a gathering point for suck-upism (fancy term for sycophant) is depressing to the utomost. How does one break out of this prison?

--rverne8

Explanation of reorganization and rewrite

I agree with TDC that this needs to be discussed on the talk page. There were alot of comments about lack of neutrality on the page when I checked it before editing, but few details, and I didn't see any ongoing atempt to resolve disputes.

The content of the first four paragraphs of the previous version remain mostly intact. Most of this material by the way is unchanged from the oldest version in the history (April 2004)

I believe there were factual innacuracies, POV problems, & a confusing organization in the latter half. I believe some of the material still needs to be readded(in an appropriate place), but recast from a more neutral point of view. I would like to see a section for ==Political disputes== perhaps with subheadings like ===Wilson's credibility challenged===, ===Wilson responds===, and I like the section on political activity that's already been added as well.

Here are some of the paragraphs at issue:

The bipartisan 2004 Senate intelligence committee report has claimed that Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post in June of 2003. Wilson’s belief that the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly forged was rebuked by the committee report. The committee staff questioned how Wilson could come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. Wilson then told the panel he may have "misspoken" or confused and when commenting to reporters. U.S. intelligence agencies did not receive the documents until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

I can't find anyplace where the report "rebukes" Wilson. The other information would be more neutral if specific quotes from the report were included. I think this should be put back in, but it would be more effective (and more NPOV) to simply include the actual quote, and let readers judge for themselves:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong'" Committeee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion...when he had never seen the CIA report and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged". He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. (p. 45)

Next paragraph:

Contrary to Wilson’s claim in his book ‘’The Politics of Truth’’ that he went to Niger at the request of Vice-President Dick Cheney the Senate intelligence committee report, said his wife Valerie Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

It seems to be an urban legend that he ever claimed he was sent by the VP directly. The op-ed, his first public statement on the matter clearly says he was sent by the CIA correctly states that "agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." The information about the previous trip is mostly accurate (although he was already taking a trip there, so the CIA didn't actually send him) but I didn't think it was that relevant.

Wilson later criticized the President over the Niger claims in an op-ed essay in the New York Times, and shortly thereafter an anonymous source leaked the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. President Bush appointed U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor to determine who was involved with the leak. His investigation is not yet complete. See the Valerie Plame article for more information on this incident.

The "later criticized" is misleading, coming directly after a paragraph discussing his book and then the Committee report. The op-ed came first. I kept the rest of the paragraph, but also moved it up top with additional material. I don't think the article needs to be strictly chronological, starting with the op-ed, which seems to be what Wilson is most known for, and then going back to details about the trip I have no problem with; but if most events are kept in chronological order, it is less confusing.

In the view of partisans and others, Wilson became both a hero and a villain, depending on their opinions of the Bush administration and the nature of the evidence provided by Wilson and his detractors.

No one likes to be called a partisan, "partisans and others" is a bit clumsy ...

Bush opponents claim Wilson is a brave man who spoke truth to power, a point made in the title of Wilson's website and his book ('The Politics of Truth'). They consider Wilson and his wife the victims of an ongoing smear campaign orchestrated by a vindictive White House.

I don't like the "Bush Opponents" vs. "Bush supporters" phrasing. This is an encyclopedia biography of Wilson, not Bush. While most Bush supprters and opponents might have similar views, some Bush supporters might agree with Wilson and some opponents might have issues with Wilson. I think it should be kept to Wilson's views vs. critics of Wilson. I researched some of Wilson's own words before attributing this "orchestrated campaign" charge directly to Wilson in the Politics of Truth section.

Bush supporters consider Wilson as opportunistically pursuing political influence himself (as well as personal fame and money) at the expense of the credibility of the United States (May, Schmidt, 2004).

And I also included the critic's view in that section of Wilson's book being "politically and finacially opportunistic".

If anyone has any feedback on the re-organization, sections, or objections to specific content being removed or added, please share them.

Acerimusdux 09:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Disput?

Why is the page tagged as not neutral? Please discussion of this matter in this section and just don't add a line. Calicocat 03:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Section titled "Wilson Discredited . . ."

I've attempted to change the section title, "Wilson Discredited in Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report," to a more neutral title by simply removing the words "Wilson Discredited in."

I've also changed the following text, which is unsupported:

Moreover, rather than debunking the Iraq-uranium-Niger theory, Wilson's report actually supported it. Again, as reported by the Washington Post:

And removed the following quoted paragraphs from the Post article:

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.

The reason for removing this text is that the Washington Post ran a correction on the article from which the text was taken, as can be found in the right-hand column of the web version:

In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.

I would like to see some balance in the section on the Senate report. There was more in that report than what is mentioned in the article right now, including parts that were favorable to Wilson. I'll try to improve it later, but I invite everybody else to do so. Aerion//talk 21:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Where's the information about Wilson?

This is supposed to be an article about Joseph C. Wilson, yet most of it is concerned with the Plame affair. Why? Yes, Wilson is one of the central figures in the Plame affair, but an article about him should not be solely devoted to this one topic. This article is, I think, off on the wrong track and not in keeping with the standards of biographical articles in Wikipedia. Calicocat 04:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that in cases like this one, the information about TraitorGate should be moved to an article devoted to the topic. Because otherwise, we end up writing and maintaining the same story over and over on the Karl Rove page, the Scooter Libby page, the Matt Cooper page, the Valerie Plame page, etc. Not to mention all of the various arguments about POV and other things that must be waged over and over again on each of these pages. It would be far easier on everyone, I believe, if we went around to all of the articles touching on the subject, and replaced any information about the Plame scandal with:

For more information about this story, see The Plame Affair.

-asx- 05:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I had no idea that article existed. All Plame information should absolutely be held there, and not here or anywhere else. Aerion//talk 14:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In general I agree. However, alot of the info here is related to Wilson's trip and op-ed. I'd say that stuff and the subsequent efforts to discredit Wilson should be kept here with only a brief mention of the Plame outing at the end. In contrast all the Wilson targeted stuff in the Plame articles ought to be removed or merged here. The two disputes are obviously related, but that just means they should be cross-linked rather than duplicated in each location. --CBDunkerson 22:15:54, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

Agree.I believe that there should be more information regarding Wilson, as well. For example, why was he the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein? In what capacity was he serving at the time? Was he the Ambassador to Gabon? Or did he function in some unmentioned, official capacity in Iraq? 71.97.28.117 15:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I saw some fascinating stuff about Wilson responding to threats from Saddam by appearing for a speech with a makeshift rope around his neck (for ease in hanging). He appears to have had an interesting career. It occurred to me that this whole article is part of a general effort to channel as much as possible of the Iraq discussion into a discussion of Wilson, who is a relatively small issue compared to the issue of US foreign and military policy. Anyway, if this is an article about Wilson his entire career should be covered decently, not given short shrift.

liberal stalwart

The term "liberal stalwart" is a rhetorical device of conservative commentators and used only by them to label their adversaries; as such, it establishes a particular POV in the article. NPOV would be to provide some meaningful information, for example, party membership, of the people currently identified only as "liberal stalwarts". --JWSchmidt 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Photograph of Wilson

File:Joseph Wilson.jpg

original

File:2005JosephWilson.png

crop + sharpen

I obtained a photo of Wilson and uploaded it for insertion in this article, only to discover that, while I was doing that, someone else inserted a different photo (from the very same appearance!). I somewhat prefer the one that I obtained, but I'm biased, so I'll just give it here and leave it to other editors to decide whether to use it in addition to or instead of the current one. Someone who knows how to edit photos might usefully crop the photo a little to remove the empty space in the right-hand quarter or so. JamesMLane 06:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a new version (right). The original image was not really in focus. --JWSchmidt 12:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The new image is ugly and red on my Dell laptop screen. -- geneven

File:Joseph Wilson.jpg

Wilson prior to delivering the President's Lecture at Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, on October 17, 2005

I prefer the original photo. The one to the right is far too red and with fewer pixels, or less defined (it appears to me--on a Dell 20" UltraScan widescreen).

I think Wilson looks better in the original photo than he does in the one currently posted on the website (called "podium headshot"). I've revised the caption somewhat, using the original photo (the one to the left) in first comment. The original photo (of Wilson wearing his glasses) may have been taken while his introduction is being made (or at some point during discussion), rather than while at the lecture podium. I'm guessing at "prior"; it could be in discussion at another time; this needs clarification from the photographer.

He is wearing glasses and his sport jacket looks navy blue, as opposed to brown (in current featured photo--where the blue is so reddened, it may have become brown? Notice same effect, though not as brown, in the photo above to the right, which some find too red).--NYScholar 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Image summary

The link to press releases in the image summary for the photo currently being featured in the article (in which his face is quite red and blurry) is not a correct link. The correct link to the press release from the Clark U Communications Office is: press release (Public Affairs 2005). --NYScholar 23:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandelism by 69.62.145.88

Check out the contributions by this individual on this and other articles; every one is vandelism. Please ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

October 7 speech

"the speech given on 7 October, 2002, when Bush specifically claimed uranium was sought from Niger"
Please check this. I think this was the speech. I think the was the speech for which Tenet got on the phone and explicitly said not to mention the Iraq/Niger/uranium "intelligence". --JWSchmidt 18:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Source check

"the documents that the IAEA judged to be forgeries were not the same documents that the British based their original assessment on."
If this is true, then name the sources of the documents that the British based their original assessment on. The only other such documents I know of were "documents" written by members of the intelligence community describing the same Niger/Iraq/uranium claims that have been shown to be false.

"Two British Parliamentary reports confirmed the original intelligence."
This does not show that Bush's State of the Union claim about Iraq and uranium was based on anything other than the false Niger/Iraq/uranium "intelligence".
If there was another source of intelligence about Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium (besides the falsified Niger/Iraq/uranium claims), then cite the source. Otherwise, this wikipedia article should be changed to say that there have been unverified claims that there were additional sources of intelligence. --JWSchmidt 22:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Political Ties

In this section, the text emphasized Wilson's ties to liberals and Democrats, while giving short mention of his ties to conservatives and Republicans. I've attempted to balance this.

In addition, the text claimed that Win Without War is "a part of MoveOn.org," which appears to be calling out a Liberal Demon Group. A glance at Win Without War's website confirms that the group is affiliated with MoveOn, but also with a host of other nonpartisan groups which oppose the Iraq war. If an editor can substantiate that WWW is, in fact, a subsidiary of MoveOn, I invite them to provide a reference. (I also question whether speaking in front of a group constitutes "political ties." Groups invite speakers all the time—but I'll let that go for now.)--RattBoy 23:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Article in 'La Repubblica'

Is it possible to find an English translation of this article on the web? If not, there is no way for someone like me who does not speak French to know if the Wikipedia editor has accurately translated the article. If it is not possible to find an English translation, I think this portion should be deleted. RonCram 00:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, Ron. that is just lame. You can't just demand that something be deleted because you don't speak the language it was translated from. (The language, by the way, is Italian, not French). You don't offer any reason why it should be suspect. Translations are not automatically suspect -- it is your burden to show that it is wrong. If you suspect foul play, learn the language, or find someone who knows Italian to tell you what it means.--csloat 02:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Since RonCram is losing sleep over not being able to read Italian I have added references with translations. Hope this restores his tranquility. --Nomen Nescio 06:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

These suggestions just above violate Wikipedia policy for the English version of Wikipedia. See later section about this. Unverifiable articles in foreign languages are not permitted in the English version of Wikipedia: WP:Verifiability; WP:Cite; WP:Reliable sources; as I point out below, the translations are provided by a blogger (self-identified as an unemployed translator of Italian), and they are not verifiably accurate or sources that can be checked for their reliability by users of English Wikipedia. I've linked to the Wikipedia articles that cite the Italian sources (e.g., Butler Review, and section on "Butler Report" in September Dossier).

Please scroll down to the explanation of deletion of material citing these unverifiable sources in Italian and unverifiable English translations of them. (Even from the blogger's translations into English, if accurate, the articles appear to be based on a lot of unverifiable conjecture and possibly hearsay and do not meet Wikipedia's standards relating to verifiability of citations, especially given WP:BLP and WP:Cite.) --NYScholar 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since writing the above comment, I've noticed that these Italian sources based on unsubstantiated conjecture etc. are featured prominently in the article Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair. That article is tagged for disputed neutrality. I've also added a BLP tag to it today. --NYScholar 21:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrected some things. Added some links.

Wilson wasn't sent to investigate Bush WMD assertions. He was sent to investigate the potential sale of Yellowcake from Niger to Iraq.

The "Such a disclosure is a potentially criminal offense", like in the Plame Affair, seems to imply that Novak committed a crime. That is simply not true. The only people in jeopardy are those with security clearances and learn of an agent's status as a result of that clearance. It's been cleared up in the Plame Affair so I said just see that instead.

I added the inclusion of the CIA Tenet's press release as it seems the intent of Wilson was to imply the VP's office had specific knowledge of his trip. The CIA says he did not.

Tbeatty 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC) tbeatty

TDC's edits

I find TDC's edits[1] on this page very questionable, and typical of TDC's "POV warrior" style. TDC defends his actions as "pruning the fluff" but he only prunes those sections which explain Wilson's POV, and keeps in the negative views against Wilson. If TDC really wanted to "prune the fluff" wouldn't TDC delete the entire section? Why be selective about what items to keep and what items to delete? Has TDC added anything to this article or his is simply deleting again? If this behavior continues, please contact User_talk:Tony_Sidaway, who has booted TDC numerous times for revert wars. Travb 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is already 90% CSloats, and by extension Wilson's POV. An allegation is made about Wilson, it gets one or 2 brief sentences. The next sentences is a defense and it gets one or two paragraphs. When a source validates CSloats POV, it gets into the article, no matter how ludicrous the source, but when one does not validate CSloats POV, it is removed, truncated, or counter argued disproportional. It is time to bring this article back into balance. DTC 20:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That is ridiculous. I have not made 90% of this page, and I do not share Wilson's POV. I am interested in accuracy, and the claims that Wilson bragged about his wife in FOX's green room are dubious at best. It is reasonable to include sources that explain why these claims are untenable. I also do not remove sourced claims. If you see a sourced claim removed by me feel free to discuss it, but you do not just remove other sourced claims as some sort of revenge. As you said on your talk page this is not meant to be a vendetta - let's stick to making the article factual. And factual does not always mean "in balance" -- we need not "balance" the holocaust article, for example, by giving equal time to holocaust deniers. When there are published sources disputing a significant claim there is no reason to delete them. It's better to have all the arguments on the table than to selectively delete the ones you don't agree with just to maintain "balance."--csloat 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So people who question Joe Wilson are on par with holocaust deniers, well I suppose that’s one way to see this dispute. And while it is reasonable to include counter sources, it is most certainly not reasonable to quote them at 4-5 times the length. One of the problems with “facts” in this, and many articles, is the definition of a “fact”. McInerney and Vallely say that Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA; FACT, Wilson denies he’s told them; FACT.

Now, you then use a blog to “prove” that McInerney and Vallely are “lying” about it, when you know that blogs are not acceptable sources. Then you use a source Larry C. Johnson who said that the two in question were “pathetic” and had no knowledge in SF operations, when had Johnson even done a simple Google search he would have found that McInerney had 243 missions as a CAC, Valley spent 15 years commanding SF and counter terrorism operations. But, why would McInerney and Vallely risk their reputation and lie? Why hasn’t Wilson sued or taken other “legal action” as he said he was going to? Apparently these issues don’t require as much “debate”, because a blog that you have sourced says so.

Then you use Wayne Madsen, you know the same Wayne Madsen that thinks that the baby eating Mossad were behind 9/11 and the USS Cole, as an authoritative source on the article. Now, contrast this to another edit: Stephen Hayes innuendo blown out of proportion; balanced with quote from AP. We really shouldn't be citing this guy at all. So, some times its ok to quote people of dubious relevance, and disgusting character (Wayne Madsen), but sometimes, according to you, a more reputable (even if Partisan) source, like Hayes, deserves more “balance” to his comments. And naturally, that’s up to you to decide. DTC 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is one example but no I am not calling anyone a nazi, calm down. The point is that phony balance is not better than accuracy. If you think the quotes are too long, tell us why. You are only deleting quotes you are uncomfortable with. I never claimed to "prove" anything but I think it is relevant that people who have been in the green room testify that the encounters described by Vallely are not possible. I won't vouch for Johnson's knowledge of Special Forces and I was happy to see that section of the quote trimmed. You ask why the generals would risk their reputation and lie -- if they are telling the truth why would they risk jail by not bringing this information promptly to the FBI or the DOJ? Instead they wait until after the indictment and they only say it on some right wing talk show, and then Vallely changes his story about how many times it happened?? As for Madsen, I don't know anything about his Mossad theories, but I do know that he is not lying about having been in the green room, that is verifiable, and his claim syncs with others who have been there too. So he may have no expertise in the Mossad but on the green room he is as credible as Vallely. The Hayes quote you linked is a good example of how to deal with this instead of deleting -- I did not remove the quote, even though I found the source objectionable; I added a quote in order to provide balance. I would be happy to see you put quotes here defending Vallely rather than deleting the ones you don't like.--csloat 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

TDC, Csloat's POV pushing on Iraq War issues is relentless. I have observed him doing the same thing on Valerie Plame, Plame Affair, Larry C. Johnson, and Template:Plamefull. I will begin watching the page. Please let me know if I can be of assistance.--Mr j galt 04:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr galt, you can be of assistance by engaging the discussion in talk on those pages rather than revert warring as a kind of personal vendetta. Your changes have been reverted by me and several other editors because they are wrong and because you are completely unable to justify them when pressed, not because I am "pov pushing." You are the one doing this, and you are doing it so blindly you often keep reverting to versions with embarrassing spelling and grammar errors. You have lost every argument about this in talk, most of them just by conceding them after your points are responded to.--csloat 04:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Lost every argument? According to who? You? How childish is that assertion? Wikipedia is not about winning or losing arguments. It's about editing an encyclopedia. Your desire to win arguments has no place here. Wikipedia is not a debate club.--Mr j galt 05:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

According to every person commenting on that page besides you -- and you're right, wikipedia is not about winning arguments, which is why you should stop the silliness arguing over basic facts that have been proven with evidence to you over and over again. The way I see it, when you mass revert a page without justifying your reverts, you are abusing wikipedia. When you ignore responses to your attempts at justification, you are conceding those arguments -- at that point, you should stop reverting, or you are abusing wikipedia.--csloat 05:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As I just wrote on the Larry C. Johnson talk page, please don't confuse the lack of a response with conceding a point. You have made 250 edits in less than 10 days, most of them redundant. I have a life and I will not be making that many responses. For the record, unless I say that "I concede that point," I haven't. You have reverted more than any editor I have seen to push the same POV that TDC has watched you push here.--Mr j galt 12:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL, talk about redundant... I responded to this over there, of course. If you don't think your edits are worth explaining to the other editors, you have no business making them, especially when they are so controversial. You accuse me of POV-pushing but you are the one continually inserting statements that have been shown to be false, unverifiable, and riddled with spelling and syntax errors. Anyway, unless you have something to say about the Joseph C. Wilson page, this conversation really doesn't belong here.-csloat 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Protected

I've protected the article until things calm down, although it looks like the chill out process has already begun here on the talk page. Karmafist 00:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you unprotect it for a moment, at least, so that someone can fix the typo in the first paragraph? It says, "As of October 28th, 2005, this investigation has resulted in two indictment related to alleged misconduct that hindered the investigation." It should say "As of October 28th, 2005, this investigation has resulted in two indictments related to alleged misconduct that hindered the investigation."--RattBoy 11:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The article has 9-1-2006 newspaper articles - Washington Post. Not very protected!

Source Check

I respectfuly request a source check for this statement.

"However, several CIA officials have since stated that the person who wrote this memo was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen."

This statement appears in the section entitled "Sentate Intelligence Committee Report"Evensong 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some digging and I am fairly certain that I have found the source. It is the December 26, 2003 WashPo article by Dana Milbank and Mike Allen. December 2003. "CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting."

Ok, a few points here. If this is the source of the statement, then there might be a few problems. First, the source is older than the SSCI report itself. It is unlikely that in 2003 CIA officials commented on a memo referenced in a report released in July 2004. Second, the memo that the CIA officers refer in the Dec 2003 artcile to is not the same memo refered to in the Schmitt article. The one in the Schmitt article references a memo that was circulated within the CIA on February 12, 2002. It was an internal CIA memo which merely documents the fact that the CIA was interested in seeking Wilson's help on the Niger trip. The meeting on February 19, 2002 had not taken place yet. The memo referred to in the December 2003 WashPo artcile is the INR memo which reflects INR's impressions regarding the Feb 19 meeting. Evensong 14:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The memo was not written in July 2004; it was commented on in July 2004. It is perfectly possible for it to also have been commented on in December 2003. Thankfully, Media Matters have done some good work clearing up the substance of this issue here and here.--csloat 20:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the memo whose credibility is being eroded here is the "Air Force One Memo."Evensong 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification On Trip to Niger

The first couple of sentences read as follows:

In late February of 2002, Wilson had been sent to Niger on behalf of the CIA to investigate the possibility that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy enriched uranium yellowcake. Wilson concluded then that there "was nothing to the story".

The way these sentences are coupled leaves the impression that Wilson concluded to the CIA at that time that there was "nothing to the story." (That may be the case). However, this quote appears to be a from the SSCI Report and it was not made to the CIA.

The former ambassador told Committee staff that he met with the former Nigerien Prime Minister, the former Minister of Mines and Energy, and other business contacts. At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick (REDACTED), Chad. He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S. officials he thought there was "nothing to the story." Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador saying "he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on." SSCI Report.

This quote is actually what Wilson told the SSCI Committee what he had told to Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick and some other US Official (the name is redacted, but he/she appears to be a diplomat of some sort to Chad). This quote does not document what concluded to the CIA.Evensong 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't get the impression at all from those sentences that Wilson reported to the CIA, but I doubt anyone would object to this clarification.--csloat 20:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Attempting unprotection

It's been long enough. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Washing Post editorial of April 9, 2006

The Washington Post had an interesting editorial[2] today that argued that President Bush "was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons." The editorial also argued that Joseph Wilson had twisted the truth and in his Ny Times op-ed piece and that the Bush White House was right to set the record straight. It is nice to see that the liberals at the Washington Post are capable of grasping these issues.RonCram 04:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The front page of the paper also had an news article that directly contradicted the editorial. Shocking. --waffle iron 04:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is shocking because news is supposed to inform - not persuade. For a news article to have contradicted an opinion piece would be a shocking bit of bad journalism. Of course, allowing opinion to sneak into news reporting is a common mistake with the media - both liberal and conservative - so I shouldn't be too shocked.RonCram 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What does any of that mean? You're just filling space with banal banter about bias and blah blah. So there is nothing wrong with trying to persuade with statements that are demonstrably wrong and contradiced by facts in the same paper? Read what Editor & Publisher had to say. --waffle iron 04:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What facts are demonstrably wrong? Was the Post wrong when it said Wilson "twisted the truth?" Was the Post wrong when it said that Wilson's trip actually supported the report Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa? Was the Post wrong when it said the president has the power to declassify documents? Perhaps you think the Post was wrong when it said Bush was right to set the record straight after Wilson had lied? What facts in the article disputed these key facts from the editorial?

Okay, I read the piece in Editor & Publisher. It claims the article disproves two of the claims of the editorial: 1. that the White House was trying to punish Wilson and 2. that the leak was unusual. Taking the second point first, I would say leaking anything from the Bush White House is unusual but it is not unusual in the larger historical context. Many presidents have dealt with classified material in this way, but Bush has not. Regarding the first point, the dates do not prove anything. The only way they can prove the White House was trying to punish Wilson is if they can prove the White House knew Plame was supposedly covert. I have seen no evidence the White House knew of a claim to covert status. Fitzgerald truly has no case. RonCram 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)RonCram 04:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was wrong in all the points you mentioned, except the one about Presidential power. He does have the power to declassify information. But the timing, reason, and method Bush employed to authorize this leak was unprecedented and appears in violation of statute, to say nothing of the political impact of the revelation that the administration has been lying to the American people about their involvement this whole time. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, I do not understand what you are saying. Are you truly trying to say the Post editorial was wrong in all of these points? The questions I asked were all rhetorical and clearly call for a "No" answer. Even the Editor & Publisher article did not try to argue the editorial was wrong on any of those key points. By the way, the way Bush declassified the documents (if this is what happened) has been practiced by many presidents for decades. It has legal and historical precedence. No statute was violated. RonCram 05:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot be clearer. I disagree with each of your assertions. Wilson did not lie. Wilson's trip did not support the report. And the administration was certainly wrong to use disinformation and to out Plame's identity simply to discredit a critic.

In actual grand jury testimony, not polemical editorials by varying opinionists, Fitzgerald's filing describes Libby's testimony that this was unprecedented in his experience:

"Defendant testified that this July 8th meeting was the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the President’s authorization that it be declassified.” [Fitzgerald filing, pg. 23]

Moreover, I eschew cheap rhetorical devices. I'm going to bed now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon user edit war

We've got a new edit war started by 68.39.117.39 (talk · contribs), also using the ip 12.150.11.25 (talk · contribs). This user refuses to explain anything in talk or in the edit summaries but simply makes the changes without discussion. I have already reverted him but he keeps coming back. He is editing like this on several pages -- Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson, and Valerie Plame. I've asked him to stop on the 68.39.117.39 user talk page.--csloat 02:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

POV-check

Hey, anon, when you put in the POV tag you should include comments about why you think it belongs here in talk. Please do so or I will remove it. The template itself even says "Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page."--csloat 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

unsourced claims about France

Kasparoff 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC) moved from Main Page - In addition, nuclear expert Norman Dombey has pointed out that the information relied upon by the Butler Review on the Niger issue was incomplete; as he noted, "The Butler report says the claim was credible because an Iraqi diplomat visited Niger in 1999, and almost three-quarters of Niger's exports were uranium. But this is irrelevant, since France controls Niger's uranium mines."(Independent, 25 July 2004). Without proof of Dombey's claims, this does not belong in an NPOV article.

Uhh, yes it does. This is a verifiable and recognized (and respected) source making a claim that is noted in the media. Please stop your ridiculous crusade on these articles. You cannot just remove material you don't like because it represents an opinion, while leaving all the opinions of people you agree with. Your crusade is naked POV-pushing and you haven't justified your removals of information.--csloat 23:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Take comfort?

I deleted my other comment because it was dealt with. But now the article says,

"The feelings of observers who believe Wilson has mis-stated the facts, or lied outright, take comfort in the Post article above as well as the WSJ:"

I don't think that feelings can "take comfort" in anything, as this says. This is awkward and at the least needs to be recast. I think that it serves little purpose and could be deleted. Unless there is a lobby for just plain crummy writing here.

I totally agree. It is lousy writing and doesn't belong here. It is also a weird attempt to bias the article; I'll see if I can improve it. BTW, it's probably better not to erase stuff on the discussion page, even if it is dealt with. When the page gets too big it can always be archived, so there is no worry about wasting space.--csloat 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, that section was added in the spurt of near-orgiastic retrospective justification that accompanied the Post editorial 'A Good Leak'. It's really a shame that such shoddy writing can be slapped into an article. You'll notice less frothing and spilling (but a lot more factual accuracy) in today's exceptional NYTimes editorial entitled A Bad Leak. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link that doesn't require "Select Times" subscription: "A Bad Leak." The article is not yet cited as a source in the body of this article to provide more perspective on the very biased account in "A Good Leak"--the diction "good" vs. "bad" is one sign of what happens when value judgements take precedence over the accurate reporting of facts per se. "Editorials" are statements of "opinion" not necessarily fact, but the opinions are often being presented as if they were based on facts (claimed by those the opiner is agreeing w/), so such pieces need to be contextualized and their biases made clear (not simply parroted back in Wikipedia). --NYScholar 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) breaking news bulletin - noc list plume has decided to ink a book deal for the low 7 figures.

unsourced comments on book

The section about Wilson's book had the following comments lacking source. If you can find a source, it may or may not be appropriate to restore them. It's not clear that the financial opportunities afforded by publishing a book are relevant, absent documentation of the wrongfulness of earning money from publishing a book.

"The book also provided fuel for many of Wilson's critics, who perceived an increasingly partisan tone and who found in it what they believed were inconsistencies with some of Wilson's prior statements. Some also saw the book as both financially and politically opportunistic, particularly given its release in an election year.(May, Schmidt, 2004)."

rewinn 23:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)rewinn

Wilson information copied from User talk:Commodore Sloat

Please stop using this crap as a form of personal attack, Mr. anonymous user. Thanks.--csloat 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Who do you claim I am attacking? Wilson or you? 66.98.138.80 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You are attacking me, on my talk page, and then reproducing that crap here. I'm sorry I offended you by eliminating the loaded and inaccurate phrase "Democratic activist" from the Rove page. I disagree with you about Wilson but I have no desire to debate you about it. I also think your comments about my blog and your link to David Thibault's comments are personal attacks. Please review WP:NPA and WP:NPOV. My blog has nothing to do with any of this. As for Thibault, I never accused him of lying; I only indicated that I found the release of certain documents suspicious. But it has nothing to do with the former Ambassador that this page is about. Thanks, and have an excellent evening.--csloat 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, please stop calling me a "Democrat blogger." It's annoying, grammatically incorrect, and untrue. I rarely vote according to political party; I have voted for Democrats but also for candidates from other parties, and my affiliation in the state I reside in is "non-partisan." Thanks!--csloat 04:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

While google searching your name, it came up on that page. I didn't write those comments about you and you posting there along with your blog activites makes you notable. My linking to them is not a personal attack. You are the one using your wiki name to blog with and you have created this issue yourself. There is no way you can deny that you lean to the left. Your edits on this wiki reflect that. As for why the dialog was posted here - you threatened to delete it from your talk page, but it's important to show that I tried to dialog with you about the text you deleted. Also, since you conceded earlier in our talk tonight that you do lean "left", I will refer to you as a "well known left-leaning blogger." 66.98.138.80 04:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. But linking to them in order to discredit me is a personal attack. Using my blog, or any other associations I have, to discredit me, is a form of personal attack, as spelled out in WP:NPA. I use the same nom de plum for blogging as for editing because I have nothing to hide. As I have said, I believe your vision of "left" and "right" is overly simplistic. You're right I have plenty of views that you can characterize that way; I have other views that might be characterized as "right." I do not consider myself either. If you read my blog, besides the "leftist" views, you will also find an attack on left-wing poster-boy Tookie Williams. But this is neither here nor there. I deleted the junk from my talk page because you refused to indicate why it was relevant to anything. I'm not sure why it belongs here either except as a forum for you to continue your personal attacks. I asked you to leave me alone and you said ok, yet you continue this nonsense. I'm not going to edit war on this garbage; you want to call Wilson a "democratic activist" go ahead. President Bush 41 called him an "American hero." Shall I add "Democratic activist and American hero" to the page? If you want to put quotes from people saying such things in it's fine, but it is inaccurate and NPOV to put them in as if they were known facts.--csloat 04:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, on your last comment about the new personal attack you will use to refer to me -- I will thank you not to refer to me at all.--csloat 04:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wilson should be referred to as a "2004 Democratic activist". That would certainly be true. After all Wilson's Democratic ties in 2004 were not "passive", they were "active". Do you dispute that? 66.98.138.80 04:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So if someone "actively" has Democratic "ties," they are an "activist"? Again, you are making the term totally meaningless just so you can use it as a slur. Shall we call Bush a Republican "activist"? How about Bob Novak? This is ludicrous. As I said, if you want to quote someone on these issues, it is fine, but stating it as fact is POV pushing to the point of absurdity. By the way, if you've had your little moment of outburst about my blog, would you mind deleting the garbage below? Thanks, and have a nice night.--csloat 06:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

== Joe Wilson == (below is the stuff the anon user copied from my user page)--csloat 06:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not sugar coat Mr. Wilson, ok? [3]

Wilson: "I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa." [4]

Joseph Wilson, Liar [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.138.80 (talk • contribs)

Please do not insert POV statements of opinion into an encyclopedia as if they were facts. Thanks!--csloat 03:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a talk page and it's perfectly fine to talk like this here:

Analyst says Wilson 'outed' wife in 2002 [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242]

But, just to be sure I understand your complaint, what edits are you talking about?

Joseph Wilson IV: The French Connection [6]

Clueless Joe Wilson [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.98.138.80 (talk • contribs)

I'm talking about your claim that my edits "sugar-coated" the former ambassador; I assume you were attached to the "activist" label that I deleted. I looked and am ok with the recent edits you added so far except for the gop blog that I deleted. I notice you have been warned and blocked for vandalism before; perhaps I jumped the gun above. My question - why do you care to insert this nonsense on my talk page? I'll be deleting this section if there is no indication of what might be relevant about it. Thanks!--csloat 03:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not nonsense. You deleted information about Wilson from the Rove article. I've checked your edits - you lean hard to the left. I understand you are well known for a lefty blog. Is this comment about you?

I deleted POV-pushing from a GOP blog that was inserted by a known vandal. Your characterization of my political position is vapid -- perhaps I do support positions that can be considered "left," however, I also support such things as gun ownership and free market economics that many consider "right." But that is neither here nor there; I always attempt to keep my edits NPOV, as you should be well aware if you've checked my edits. There are editors of various political positions on Wikipedia and we all attempt to edit in a NPOV manner -- see WP:NPOV for more information. As for Thibault's comment, that is the first time I have seen it. I have never accused him of anything, so I'm not sure what he's talking about, but I will respond to it there. I did express skepticism about the authenticity of documents he published, but so did many others, and I did not claim that he made them up as he seems to accuse me of. But who cares? What does his comment have to do with your nonsense above from blogs about Joe Wilson? I first became aware of Mr. Wilson when he put a noose around his neck to dare Saddam Hussein to kill him, and George H. W. Bush called him an American hero. He may not like the current crop of Republicans much anymore -- polls seem to show that most Americans agree on that point -- but it is incomplete and inaccurate to portray him as some kind of "Democratic activist."--csloat 03:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be unfair to John Kerry to call Wilson a Kerry supporter, because Kerry made a real mistake in involving himself with Wilson. However, to mention "Ambassador" Wilson in the Rove article, while leaving out the the 2004 Kerry/Democratic ties adds a false patina onto Wilson so as to slur Rove. Wilson was, at the time he helped attack the Whitehouse, a Democratic activist. To deny that or omit that it while mentioning the Wilson context of of the Plame scandal is disgustingly misleading. Also, this is you, correct?

First of all, please sign your posts. I do not want to keep doing it for you. Second, what makes someone an "activist"? True, Wilson took a stance against Bush, does that make him a "Democratic activist"? If so, the label is meaningless. Third, what does my blog have to do with any of this?--csloat 04:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are calling me a vandal because my anon IP had some vandal edits from it, which is a lame reason to call me that. I'd log in, but you'll just call me a POV pusher. But in fact, I think your blog would suggest that you are one. And as far as Wilson being an "activist", certainly since he has been shown to be a prevaricator and out-right liar on the yellowcake-plame controversy, his polticial ties from 2004 are very important to mention. Wilson's Democratic ties in 2004 were not "passive", they were active. Do you dispute that? 66.98.138.80 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Those comments are false. Your anon ip has vandal edits which makes it likely that you used it for vandalism. I'm not here to call you names; you are using this crap to attack me personally for no reason than I removed the loaded word "activist." I realize you believe Joe Wilson lied; I believe you are wrong. Let's leave it at that? I don't care to debate you on this as you have already shown yourself to be ignorant on the matter. Just leave me the fuck alone. Thanks!--csloat 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

ok. 66.98.138.80 04:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Political ties section

Can someone else look at the recent edits to the political ties section and make appropriate changes? I am sick of being reverted and personally attacked when I try to make changes, and the personal attacks are coming from an anonymous ip that has been stalking my edits and using my affiliations to attack me. I am particularly concerned about the GOP blog site that he keeps adding -- http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630 -- which is neither notable nor terribly accurate. Most of the claims on that blog page are already contested by other evidence here.--csloat 06:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Novack's article

From Novack's article today, " I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." Ouch! Sounds like Wilson may have committed libelous actions against Rove. Novack's article Scribner 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What libel? Please specify. As you are well aware, the issue is not the name of Wilson's wife, but her status as a CIA NOC. rewinn 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Iran's uranium smuggling and Wilson statements

One of Wilson's claims was that no isolated country would be allowed to obtain uranium from Africa. The whole process was too well-controlled. Iran was recently caught smuggling uranium from Africa. [8] Perhaps now people will realize that the reports of Iraq seeking uranium from Africa was a major concern. Wilson told several lies about the whole trip. When Wilson wrote his op-ed piece, he hid the fact he learned Saddam had sought uranium in 1999. The was the most important fact he learned on his trip.[9] It certainly seems the Butler Report was right. President Bush's 16 words talking about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa was well-founded. RonCram 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhh, this article doesn't mention Wilson at all Ron. If this 1999 thing was "the most important fact he learned", why did the SSCI conclude that he learned nothing new? Bush's 16 words were based on forged documents and the administration has acknowledged they never should have been uttered. Get off the dead horse, Ron.--csloat 20:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you are misrepresenting the Senate Report again. The SSCI says the CIA gave Wilson's report a grade of "good" because it added to their knowledge of the issue. It did not provide "substantial new information" but did "provide some confirmation of foreign government service reporting" (i.e. that Saddam was looking for uranium in Africa). See page 46 of the Senate Report. Bush's 16 words were based on British intelligence (that is what Bush says in the speech!) and the Butler Report looked at that intelligence and found it was well-founded. RonCram 06:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cram, you are the one misrepresenting things. As you are well aware, the Bush Admin has acknowledged he never should have uttered the 16 words. I don't plan on continuing this argument because it is pointless. You bring up an article that mentions neither Wilson nor Iraq and claim it proves Wilson lied about Iraq. Whatever.--csloat 08:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This section had a pov title. I have reworded it npov, per stds for living-person bio. rewinn 19:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About the "fucking rope" quotation

The small edit war over Wilson's "fucking rope" quote should stop. Spelling out the whole word is important in conveying the impact of the statement. There is no need to Bowdlerize the article. Naughty words are sometimes, if uncommonly, absolutely necessary to encyclopediacity, e.g. Mother Damnable. rewinn 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to include the purported quotation. This is not Bowdlerization. See the WP:BLP and also terms and conditions of use in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read what is meant in Wikipedia by "Bowdlerization" (which differs from the common use of the term). I was, however, referring more to the lack of sourcing for the quotation (see later explanations), which struck me more than the omission of some of the letters in the word, and also the apparent non-neutral way in which the quotation appeared in this biography, lacking full contextualization of why he was saying it. (Later comments are more to the point of disagreement comment directly below).--NYScholar 01:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. NYScholar should cite more precisely than to the entire WP:BLP page; precisely what part of the quote contrary to what part of WP:BLP? The quote is not derogatory of Wilson; to the contrary, it exactly defines his courage and passion on a matter material to his biography; therefore removing it damages the article. And to replace "fucking" with "f**king" is a perfect example of Bowdlerization rewinn 22:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What is inappropriate is to quote it without giving a reliable and verifiable source. I've tried to provide one (Wilson himself in The Politics of Truth; page references still needed). I've read the book (originally in hardback, then bought the paperback ed.), so I know that he discusses this episode and that he quotes what he said. I just don't currently have time to find the exact page numbers of the citations (in the most recent, 2005 paperback ed.); they are there, however. --NYScholar 00:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found it in record time: See Chapter Seven: "A Noose for a Necktie" pages 149-74 of the 2005 paperback ed.; it appears on page 153:

"I wanted to make the point that faced with the choice of sacrificing Americans under my protection or suffering capital punishment, my response to Saddam was 'if he wants to execute me for keeping Americans from being taken hostage, I will bring my own fucking rope,' as I told the reporters that morning."

So other sources that could be cited as well are the reporters' news reports quoting Wilson; but this source is both reliable and verifiable as well, I think. I was not claiming earlier, btw, that there was an aspersion against Wilson cast in quoting this; I was alluding to the need for providing reliable and verifiable sources of such a quotation, which is part of WP:BLP too. --NYScholar 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Profanity: "obscene words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." Gamaliel 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The fuller statement is:

In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols. However, when quoting relevant material from external sources, rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written trumps our style guidelines. If necessary, you may indicate that the blanking was in the original quote by saying so in some way outside of the quote, for example by using "[sic]".

Clearly, Wikipedia policy for quotations (whether or not they include profanities) is that sources are still necessary when quoting for purposes of verification and reliability of quotations. -_NYScholar 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the part of the WP:BLP re: the importance of giving reliable sources and verifying such sources BEFORE putting material in BLP and also direction to remove unsourced potentially-negative material from BLP:

Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.}}

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view
• No original research
  
  

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

One might question the motives of the user who introduced this quotation of Wilson's using profanity in such as way that it could be interpreted as impacting negatively on Wilson for using it. I have quoted more of the context from Wilson's book The Politics of Truth to show the circumstances in which he used it. People can read chapter seven if they want more information. That's partly the purpose of giving reliable and verifiable source citations to identify where one is taking such material. In BLP it must be both reliable and verifiable and also not defamatory, although it might be interpreted as negative from one perspective (lacking context), it might seem positive (in context), and thus it must still be presented following WP:NPOV. --NYScholar 01:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So where did I assert that the quote should not be sourced when I referenced Wikipedia:Profanity? When did anyone assert that it should not be sourced? I looked through the page history and it turns out that I was the one who added the quote, something I'd forgotten about. So go ahead, question my motives. Why no source? I forgot to include it, a simple mistake. Instead of quoting large chunks of policy that no one disputes and imagining editors who want to slur Wilson by quoting him accurately, remember WP:AGF, slap a fact tag on it, and let's find that source. Gamaliel 01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Somehow you've missed the fact that I've already identified the source (scroll up). This is not a personal dispute; it's a dispute about content and format (of missing sources, citations). Please don't introduce personal rhetoric into a discussion about tone and sources, and give me time to add the citation to the source that I identified above. Wikipedia is a very inefficiently slow process and changes are not instantaneous. They take TIME. --NYScholar 01:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I applaud the effort you are putting into insuring that this article is cited accurately, but you were the person who began the discussion about personal motives, not me. Gamaliel 01:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Somehow you are still missing the point that I've been trying to make: Here is what I state above again, pertaining to a lack of sourcing of a quotation with a profanity that could be taken in various ways in a BLP:

quoting myself:

"One might question the motives of the user who introduced this quotation of Wilson's using profanity in such as way that it could be interpreted as impacting negatively on Wilson for using it." (NYScholar)

N.B.: I did not say that I took it that way, but if you scroll up through this whole section, you will see a great deal of controversy about the quotation that, we have just learned, you added, without giving a source. I can understand the claim that you "forgot to include it, a simple mistake," but, once the mistake is pointed out to you (and others), I and others would greatly appreciate your providing reliable sources for such quotations in a BLP. That's the policy. There is nothing "personal" in my pointing out this necessity; it's WP (which is why I quoted it, because you just weren't getting the point about the sources). I'd greatly appreciate it if more people took time to fix the numbered external links to bonafide reliable sources in citations in the format already provided in notes and references sections. Thank you. I'm too tired to do any more with this article. I've started people out in this process of improving its documentation of what remains in many cases highly-controversial content. --NYScholar 02:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely you must realize that if I remembered where I read the article I got the quote from four months ago, I would have added a citation already. I am aware of the policy regarding citations, etc. and I don't see why you feel you have to keep pointing it out to people. Who is disputing the necessity of a source? There is no need to argue with people when no one is disagreeing with you. What is "personal" is not you pointing out that a source is needed, but questioning the motives of a good faith edit. Once again, I applaud the effort you are putting into insuring that this article conforms to the policies you have repeatedly quoted, but I also suggest you have a look at a different policy, WP:AGF, and try to avoid questioning the motives, even in a hypothetical way, of other editors with such a flimsy line of reasoning, as it is not particularly helpful, productive, or civil. Thank you. Gamaliel 03:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate it if you would cease arguing about what I myself truly regard as a waste of time. Instead, please do work on the article by providing sources and improving it. I've clearly pointed out a number of times that I myself did not attack you or anyone else personally. I simply observed that the way the material (content) was being presented (by whomever) was problematic. Please help to fix the problems and improve the article rather than wasting time in the talk page. I have not spent any time trying to decipher who posted what, because that does not interest me (therefore I had no idea who initiated what). I'm just interested in the need to provide reliable information in the article itself. I have no interest in how long ago anyone may have inititated problematic quotations or when anyone left a source out (however accidentally), but rather in everyone's helping to supply what is needed to improve this article now. Editors need to step forth and do the work on the article itself, not waste further time on this talk page. When I post on it, I am simply doing what Wikipedia asks: explaining my changes if they might need more explanation than what is in the editing summary; or participating in discussions that relate to them. I am not interested in engaging in personal discussions or discussions about personalities or personal motives with anyone. I pointed out what I perceived as a place where other people might be getting into such problems with respect to this particular quotation using a profane word without giving any source for it. Otherwise, I focus only on content and formatting of content notes in citations and references. [corrected typo]-- NYScholar 03:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What did Richard Armitage know?

The article says this:

"Richard Armitage has, as of August 30, 2006, acknowledged that he initially disclosed Plame's employment with the CIA to Bob Novak.[1] Why he didn't reveal this information many years ago has not been explained."

I haven't read the book Hubris, but I think this needs to be clarified. My reading of the recent Washington Post editorial is that Armitage did not know that Valerie Plame was a covert operative -- he only knew that she worked for the CIA. If that is true, the article should make it clear that Armitage could not be the source for the leak of Plame's "secret identity". ChrisWinter 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Senate Intel Report (newly released)

It appears that the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded years ago that the Administration knew its claims were not backed up by ntel. The committee's trashing of Wilson is puzzling in this regard, but more to the point, its conclusions finally released that the intel was flawed or faked should be mentioned in this article since so much of the article talks about the committee. rewinn 20:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiquote

Removed the tag to Wikiquote because none of the purported quotations listed there is sourced. Added editorial comments to the page, fixed some inconsistencies in format. Before including that page, every quotation needs verification, sourcing. See Joseph C. Wilson Wikiquote page and read policies linked in the cleanup tag. The page does not currently adhere to WP:BLP tag (top of this talk page). --NYScholar 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: NPOV

This article does not appear to be neutral in point of view. That aspect needs cleanup throughout. This article also needs some reorganization; the biographical narrative is not clearly organized in a chronologically-consistent manner; it moves back and forth from topic to topic and from chronogicial events in confusing ways. I have fixed some format problems in citations. I leave it up to its earlier editors and other users to improve this article overall. --NYScholar 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section because it is currently still unsourced and not verified; moreover, its earlier placement in the article is not logical and its relevance to the article is questionable. A rationale for its inclusion is necessary and should be posted by its originator.

==2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner== Joe Wilson was in the audience for the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner, according to comedian Stephen Colbert.

--NYScholar 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations to articles published in Italian

Material moved to talk page pending further discussion, sourcing with verifiable and reliable English sources (see below too):

article in the 25 October 2005 edition of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica indicates that some of Wilson's statements about Niger were correct. The Italian article states that Nicolo Pollari, head of the Italian Intelligence Service, SISMI, knew the Niger documents were forgeries, but tried to go around the CIA to get them into the public eye in the US. The documents contained several misspelled French words and contained signatures from Nigerien officials who hadn't even been in office at the time they were signed, although Wilson did not see any of these documents during his trip to Niger.

La Repubblica also claims that Pollari met with Stephen Hadley, previously the Deputy National Security Advisor, on 9 September, 2002, to discuss the documents without going to the CIA, who had reservation about the documents. That meeting occurred before . . . .

It is not the policy of the English version of Wikipedia to link to articles in foreign languages that are not verifiable by English readers of this version. (See the policies in WP:Reliable Sources etc.)

I've also removed references and citations to blog entries according to WP:Reliable Sources; they are not in keeping with WP:Verifiability:

"Berlusconi behind Fake Yellowcake," "Yellowcake Dossier Not Work of CIA," and "Nigergate Great Nuclear Centrifuge."

[I added the titles for ease of reference in this quotation; they were numbered external links previously.]

While these "translations" of the Italian articles could be accurate, there is the possibility that they are not accurate. These blog sources are not verifiable either. More reliable sources for what the Italian articles say need to replace these citations. They need to be verifiable reliable sources accessible by all Wikipedians and all Wikipedia English readers. I've added the article titles etc. being cited by earlier Wikipedia editors in the main body, but I still question their being cited, since they are in Italian. More "reliable sources" for English translations of these articles or citations from reliable secondary sources are needed for citations in the body of the article. --NYScholar 22:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is already a cross-reference in the "See also" section of this article to Yellowcake forgery and to thus to its section Yellowcake forgery#Butler_Report, as well as to Butler Review (a redirected link for "Butler Report"), and these Wikipedia articles already document the relevant contexts of such Italian sources (appropriately in English). Interested readers can find the contexts of the Italian claims by clicking on these and other related Wikified links already supplied throughout this article. It appears that earlier editors may have added material from that page into this article, when a cross-reference (as it is now) might suffice. If one has comparable English-language sources to add as citations, please post the details here or in the article (following its current notes and references format). Thanks. (Some editors might want to add details about the Italian sources to the above-mentioned articles if they are currently not provided--but again, to verifiable reliable sources in English which help to contextualize them for WP:Verifiability.) (updated)--NYScholar 19:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the entire article

[Added formatted heading preceding comment added by an anononymous user "rverne 8" on 9/15/06 in a non-Wikipedia manner below (beginning "This page. . ."). --NYScholar 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)]

This page should just be deleted completely. As an example of political correctness-see my comments above, it is exemplar, as a source of information, it is useless. These two articles do a much better job of giving in depth context as would a close reading of thenation.com (after doing a serach their for 'Plame') http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/090206.html http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/091406.html I've also given some references at politicsusaweb.com. I will scrupulously avoid Wikipedia in the future and implore all of my associates to do the same. rverne 8 09/15/2006

The above comment is not signed by a Wikipedia user; I've incorporated the two verifiable sources from consortiumnews.com cited by him/her; however, the link that he/she gives to his/her own website is not-verifiable and appears to be to a personal website or blog whose listing is is not in keeping with WP:Reliable sources, and I recommend against adding it. Instead, I would suggest that the person who posted that comment might register as a user with Wikipedia and attempt to edit this article in keeping with WP:NPOV. It still needs total reorganization and further work to make it conform to Wikipedia policies. I've made a few minor and cosmetic changes; but the substance of the article needs a lot of work, and I don't have time to do it. I hope that others well-informed about the subject will contribute their efforts to improving this article, which, as the previous comment by "rverne 8" suggests, needs vast improvement still. --NYScholar 20:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing conversion of multiple numbered external links to citations

Having checked sources linked only as numbered external links in the body of this article, I have noticed that not all of them are what WP terms "reliable sources": WP:Reliable sources. Several are citations to blogs, some more reliable blogs than others. In the process of converting these numbered external links to bonafide citations (citing authors, titles, places of publications, dates, page numbers, etc.), I am checking the reliability of these sources.

In the process of such source-checking, I have providing some lengthy quotations from more reliable sources in the actual notes; these are there so that other users/readers/editors can check the veracity and accuracy of the claims being made in the article, particularly in places where no citations of sources were given at all, or where the sources were apparently-biased newspaper reports whose reliability is questionable. Not all newspaper reporters or journalists are providing what W refers to as NPOV (neither objectivity nor WP:NPOV; some are making erroneous claims when they present and summarize the findings of U.S. Senate Committee reports; this is true of an article by Susan Schmidt, which was relied upon by an earlier editor/earlier editors for presentation of such a report. The primary source is the report and her claims need further fact-checking against the report itself. I've provided the links so that other people can continue this process of fact-checking and source-checking and attempting to improve this article and to make it conform to WP:NPOV. It still has quite a way to go in that direction, imo. --NYScholar 03:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

After further source- and fact-checking, I've removed the lengthy quotations; those interested can find them in the article's history. --NYScholar 07:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Most unfortunately (from my own pov), the vandals attacking this article have lost all my changes mentioned in this section. They took many, many hours for me to produce; they are probably in history somewhere, but I cannot "revert" the essay to them. I hope that some administrator will step in and help out. I really intended to remove all the very long passages of quotations from the notes (and some of the text) and I very economically edited them, but those were reverted in the vandalism (or the effects of someone's editing changes that were made while I was at work. I had actually saved all those changes in the article, but someone did something that lost them. I had saved and checked the article and it was fine, and, then, all of a sudden, everything I had produced over most of the past day was gone. Adding citations is very difficult; one has to check each numbered external link provided by earlier editors and then type in the correct information; I had done that for every single external link, but now that work is gone. It's very hard to recover from history, because a simple cut-and-paste job won't do it. I'm tired, and I can't do anymore. Too bad, I think, for other readers of this article interested in following WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. The users who have reverted my changes are apparently unaware of or willing to follow neither. Typo corrs are needed also; ones I corrected and ones introduced via the vandalism and my attempt to correct it, which is not "taking." I have reported the vandalism as such. That's what it appears to be to me. These are not users with active "contribution" histories in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 08:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether I would like your edits or not, but I sympathize with your evident frustration with vandalism. It puzzles me that anyone would bother to do this, since it is not likely that anyone will change their opinion of Wilson as a result of anything posted on wikipedia. But ... anyway, relax, your work is appreciated! rewinn 23:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism attack

An anonymous vandal attacked this article and reverted many of the citations and other changes that it took me hours to make in the past two days. The changes can be found in history. The citations that took hours to check are there somewhere. If the vandal reappears and attacks this article again, I will report the IP address to administrators. --NYScholar 07:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

I am issuing a WP:3RR warning to the vandal(s) attacking this article. This is the third time one or two of these vandals has removed a cleanup tag from the article.

This article is likely to be locked again in the near future if such vandalism continues. --NYScholar 08:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

After recovering from the vandalism attack and administrative assistance with getting tags restored to the article, I finished the copy-editing and revisions that I planned to make. I also removed the remaining cleanup tag. (updated) --NYScholar 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

Career Section

I suggest the Career Section needs to include Wilson's major postings; there doesn't seem to be much before his posting to Baghdad during Gulf War 1. As it stands, this article seems to unduly emphasize material most relevant to Plame Affair, for which I blame no-one, since after all Plame Affair IS pretty interesting; however if this is to be an encyclopediac article about a public servant, it should systematically cover his public service. I will try to get to this over the next week or so (...it's an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, so what's the rush?) but I urge anyone faster to do so. rewinn 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In external links I already posted the links to biographies that many, many articles about Wilson seem to draw upon for information about his career, and I added the section on "Honors," most of which are drawn (copy-edited for greater accuracy) from those online professional and talent-agency biographies (which it would appear were vetted by him or his agent). Wilson lists information about his major postings throughout The Politics of Truth, which people can use as a more-detailed source of his career postings. His career is quite extensive, and he did have foreign service experience in the U.S. State Dept., as a career diplomat, which led to his posting in Baghdad. The story of how he came to take over administration of the embassy during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm is an interesting one and one that he relates in great narrative and descriptive detail in his memoir. I added the "Honors" section to conform with the format of other biographies of such public servants in Wikipedia. I agree that the Career section needs greater dev. I hope others will work on it. I think I've spent enough time just trying to revise what appeared to me to be POV in this article and to provide adequate sources and citations.

I've added the chronology of Wilson's public service (with source) and retitled a section "Diplomatic career," and I've provided some additional citations to sources of extensive biographical details from Wilson's "A Diplomat's Memoir" (The Politics of Truth). Having read this book, I am aware that what earlier editors have tried to present as Wilson's "political ties"--espec. his work as a "Congressional Fellow" (which were also part of his diplomatic career) in the offices of Senator Al Gore and Representative Tom Foley--were actually means by which he was devloping his career as a diplomat, more like internships that provided him with stepping stones to further professional diplomatic advancement via such prominent connections in Washington, D.C., a kind of building of his future networking skills and possibilities. His work with Senator Gore who later became Vice President Gore serendipitously developed into a "foot in the door" in relation to his subsequent position as a "political advisor" in African foreign affairs to President Bill Clinton's NSC. But his work and his identity in the White House were still primarily those of a career diplomat, not of a politico or a politician in the making (or on the make). The "politics" that he would have been advising the NSC about in 1985-1986 was African politics (based on his experience as a diplomat posted in several African locations), not American politics, and certainly not presidential politics (it seems to me from reading his account of what he did then).

I think that readers of this article need to keep in mind that Wilson was already several years into his retirement from the diplomatic corps in 2003, when he encountered what he knew to be inaccuracies in President George W. Bush's "sixteen words" in the State of the Union address. Particularly because Wilson considered GWB's father (GHWB) a friend and a supporter during his career in the first President Bush's administration, it is really difficult for anyone to claim that he initially was motivated by ill feeling or some political animus against GWB. From my reading of his book, the opposite would seem to be the case. After his positive experience in the administration of the father, it seems to me, Wilson became very disappointed by the administration of his son.

The fact that he gave money to support the campaigns of both the Republican and the Democratic presidential candidates in 2000 suggests that he was not playing partisan politics, but rather keeping his options open politically. The war in Iraq in 2003 changed all that. In the presidential election of 2004, there would have been no way that he would have considered voting for GWB. I've added the (now potentially ironic) fact that Wilson grew up in a strongly-Republican family. I believe his description of himself as basically a "centrist" prior to 2003. Now, many observers (based on Plamegate) seem to consider Wilson (I think wrongly) politically a "liberal" and a "leftist"; but those labels do not fit the rest of his career experience as recounted in his memoir, it seems to me. Liberals and leftists, however, have found "common cause" with him in his battle with this current administration. It would seem that he would have preferred to have lived a more quiet life than what his NYT Op-Ed propelled him into living, as it moved him into the limelight.

It seems that he was rather trying to correct what he perceived to be an inaccuracy in the President's 2003 SOTU address, and then "all hell broke loose." I don't think that it is accurate to say that he wanted to draw such attention to himself, though it is hard to know what his ambitions were at the time he wrote that op-ed.

I suggest reading his book to get more of a handle on how he perceived himself throughout his diplomatic career and a much better sense of the amount of time he spent in service to the government of the United States. It is hard to claim that he is anything but what one terms a "devoted public servant." But that is my take on it having read his book and much of the controversy in the press relating to Plamegate as it was developing. I think it important for the public record to keep this article in Wikipedia as even-handed and adhering to WP:NPOV as possible, because it is read and a source for other publications in many languages throughout the world due to Wikipedia's policies. That is one reason why I have attempted to provide better documentation throughout it and to revise what seemed to be POV into more NPOV. --NYScholar 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about this article's "unduly emphasiz[ing]" the subject of "Plamegate": If it were not for Wilson's "Op-Ed" "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which he believes led to the subsequent leaking of his wife's being a CIA operative, which, in turn, led to the Fitzgerald investigation popularly referred to a as "Plamegate" (the Plame affair), there would probably be no biographical article on Joseph C. Wilson in Wikipedia at all, because he would not be on most Wikipedia users' and editors' "radar." He might not merit a BLP (as WP:BLP refers in general terms to: the criteria for there being articles about living persons in Wikipedia), which seem rather clearly defined. If he wasn't in Wikipedia as a result of his professional career work in the U.S. diplomatic corps prior to his Op-Ed and "Plamegate," then that suggests that this emphasis is not "undue," but rather one of the rationales for his inclusion in this encyclopedia project. If not for those controversies, people would probably not be searching for centrally-located articles on the internet about him and more extensive biographies than are otherwise available (which are actually designed to promote him and thus not necessarily "unbiased" or in keeping with WP:NPOV. The fact that the focus of his own memoir (as subtitled) is right smack on the issue of the revelation of his wife's covert CIA identity suggests how central and not "undue" emphasis on the connections between those events and the rest of his life are, imo. That emphasis, btw, was already in the version of this article that I first encountered in Wikipedia; but the version was replete with bias and POV and lack of clear sourcing and sometimes any sourcing; I've tried to add appropriate reliable and verifiable documentation of sources (not just numbered external links, some of which were broken links or to unreliable secondary or tertiary sources; if blogs are cited, it is because they have verifiable or authoritative material, pertinent firsthand information, or provide means of reading articles otherwise unavailable online to non-paid subscribers of news sites). But I have tried to steer the article away from leaning only to one side or another and to present various sides that are represented in discussions of Wilson, including his own, which is well documented by his own book and discussions about it by others.

By adding so much new material on his diplomatic career, I've tried to show how it provides useful context to understanding the more recent events for which he has become as well known a person as he has. His publication of The Politics of Truth further placed him in the public eye (espec. as a trade paperback in 2005), and anyone who wants to know more about him is, of course, free to read his book. I've only supplied information that relates to parts of the article that pre-existed my editing of it, as a means of balance and enabling it to conform better to WP:NPOV. Everyone who reads what he says, for example, has access also to other sources which present additional perspectives on what he says, from official government reports and Grand Jury news releases from the Office of the Special Counsel to U.S. and British intelligence accounts and numerous media articles and programs. One wants to provide an accurate and fair-minded account of this subject (a living person; see the WP:BLP tag above), not a "hatchet job," and I have tried to provide more resources for the former.

If subsequent anonymous users or even registered users of Wikipedia regress to going back in the opposite (POV) direction, there is material in the history for correcting such problems. I hope that there will be no further vandalism of this article, as these efforts took a lot of time, and I would not like for all this work (by me and by others) to be undone. If people have differences of opinion about the content, please post comments on this talk page for future discussion rather than to make substantive changes in the content arbitrarily and/or without strong rationales. That too is Wikipedia policy. Please do not engage in "edit wars" (see earlier sections) over this article anymore; doing so, in my view, is not productive. It is, rather, counter-productive to improving the article. [See the comments by Jimmy Wales linked in the notes at the foot of this page.]--NYScholar 02:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has greatly improved recently. Good work! rewinn 16:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotation by Madsen

[See editing summary in History in article: <<21:59, September 20, 2006 TDC (Talk | contribs) (→Responses by others - How does the Madsen quote keep getting in here, Sloat you got some splainin to do!)>>

I do not think that this particular quotation by Madsen should be removed. Perhaps the word "crap" could be edited out by starting with a later sentence and paraphrasing that sentence, but the rest of it presents a valuable perspective, imo, that counters the claims of the generals, claims which they have backtracked on considerably. Please see my earlier comments above. The "Support for Wilson" section needs more development to balance the negative criticism presented in more than one section of this article (see editorial note embedded in the article (which shows up only in editing mode).

Recently, I (not "Sloat") added (or restored) this quotation to the article, by the way; what Madsen says relates directly to what the others cited say and it adds to what they say. It seems to me to be reliable first-hand statement about his own experience in the Washington, D.C., green room of FOX News. It jives with what the earlier quotations say, as well, and it can be authenticated, as it is written by him and posted on his own website, which, like TalkLeft and others cited, features links to professional biographies of its creator-editor-main contributor(s) for purposes of authority-checking and verification. (updated) --NYScholar 00:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone has removed the information with no reason given. I've restored it. --NYScholar 04:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no convincing reason to remove this information, yet people keep removing it. Madsen is talking about his own experience in the green room in question, and his experience parallels that already cited and adds to what is claimed by others who have been in the Fox green rooms in question: I am restoring the passage (which follows). Just because a reader doesn't like Madsen otherwise is not a reason to remove it. That does not follow WP:NPOV. --NYScholar 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Former Naval intelligence officer and NSA analyst Wayne Madsen also doubts Vallely's claims:

As someone who spent a fair amount of time at Fox News' Washington green room, I can say that . . . [w]hen you are booked by Fox to appear, a car is sent around to pick you up. The car arrives with enough time to transport you to the studios at 400 North Capitol Street, usually 15 minutes before air time. However, most of that time is spent checking in and sitting for makeup. If you happen upon another guest in the green room before sitting for makeup, they are likely only minutes from air time –– certainly not enough time to engage in a biographical rendition about your family with a total stranger. If two guests appeared at the same time at Fox in Washington, they were taken to different studios.

Madsen does not qualify as WP:RS. End of story. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just seen the disputed neutrality tag on the talk page of TDC. --NYScholar 22:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In terms of WP:RS with respect to evidence of being in the green room at Fox's Washington studio, Madsen qualifies as:

A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, a letter, an eyewitness account, an autobiography, or statistics compiled by an authoritative agency. Primary-source material may require training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or subject to "Using online and self-published sources" section of this procedure, and may use them only to make purely descriptive claims. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

TDC's decision that he does not qualify as a primary source may relate to the above passage, but it does not take into account that Wikipedia does allow the use of blogs in some cases. And this article does cite other blogs; see the main article, as does Plame affair and Plame affair timeline (frequently). It is not the "end of story"; the use of the information requires more consideration than he has preemptorily made (in my view). Madsen, in this instance, is an eye-witness account of first-hand experience in the green room (as are others cited). What he says substantiates what is already quoted. TalkLeft is a blog. Madsen's account is in his personal blog. The two blogs are given as primary sources of experience in the Fox studios. That is all the accounts are being used to relate to. The article already does state what he states; what he says adds further agreement with others' experiences of being in the green room at Fox studio in Washington, D.C. It is his firsthand account of his own experience and for that reason it appears to be "authoritative"; he is the authority on his own experience, and that is the subject of the passage (as quoted); I ellided the part that doesn't seem appropriate. --NYScholar 22:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If blogs are used as a primary source in any instance, they should be removed, thats WP:V and WP:RS policy, and it is very clear. [comment removed] Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not Wikipedia policy; there are exceptions given throughout the sections relating to blogs (self-published primary sources): The primary source in this case is talking about his own experience in Fox green room as a context for attempting to evaluate highly-dubious and unsubstantiated (and later withdrawn) claims by two other people whose reliability is disputed by many reliable sources and the subject of legal challenges by the subject of this article (Wilson): See [10] and see the article in Wikipedia on Wayne Madsen; moreover, Madsen's website is among the links in "external links" section of the Wikipedia article.

The comment that [comment removed] is the opinion of TDC; it is not in the Wikipedia article on Madsen, and making such statements about a living person violates WP:BLP whether such statements appear in an article about the living person, in an article about another living person, or anywhere else in Wikipedia. You need to delete the comment so as to delete the potentially-slanderous and libelous comment. See notes below to policy. According to his own talk page, TDC is clearly partisan and not a neutral editor or observer relating to this subject (Wilson) or Madsen). I am issuing a pre-3RR warning to TDC at this stage. --NYScholar 23:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Madsen is not notable and [comment removed], plain and simple. Trust me, if this goes to an RfC, it will be removed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC, please do not make defamatory comments about living people on Wikipedia talk pages. BLP also applies to talk pages and persistent violators have been blocked for such comments on talk pages and even their own userspace. Gamaliel 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Section: Wilson's New York Times Op-Ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa"

That section contained an assertion about the content of the Wilson Op-Ed that is not supported by the text of the op-ed. The assertion is that in the Op-Ed Wilson said he was sent by the VP personally; whereas in fact such a text in not in the Op-Ed. To treat this as a simple controversy (one side says this, the other side said that) this gives undue weight to a claim that is obectively false. An encyclopedia can not give equal weight to all disputed statements, when the truth is easily ascertained by reading the referenced text. The approach I suggest, and have tried to implement, is to note the claim (since it is notable) and in the same sentence note that the text that the claim asserts to exist, does not in fact exist. rewinn 02:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

RattBoy's edits just now are improvements. Wish I'd worded it that way in the 1st place! rewinn 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Editorializing moved out of Introduction

The introduction ... which was already extraordinarily long ... contained a lengthy POV and conclusory editorial attacking the subject of this article. I have moved it to a section of the article which contained similar editorializing, although I question why it should be included at all; the opinion of an editorial writer cannot be admitted for its truth. rewinn 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Editorials are inherently POV

I question the inclusion of editorials in a biography article. Unless the article's subject is the author of the editorial, it would seem that editorials are simply opinion and should not be in an objective biography at all. However I am reluctant to delete them without discussion. rewinn 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The editorials (as opposed to Wikipedia editors' "editorializing," which is not NPOV) are sourced evidence of the controversies defined in the article; citing that such points of view exist and documenting and quoting them are matters of factual development (not presenting W editors' own opinions). Such facts need only to be stated once, however; someone had moved material from their chronological placement in body of article earlier to the introduction. Headings are now revised to indicate the controversies that are the subject of the article about Wilson. Wilson is a controversial figure. If it were not for the controversies pertaining to Plamegate, there would probably be no article about Wilson at all in Wikipedia. He is a "public figure" now. The article is a "biography" and more than a biography; it is also an article about his role in a historical grand jury investigation that reaches into the top echelons of U.S. government and that is of great political significance. The editorial writers present their opinions about the facts of the controversies defined in the article (and related articles cross-referenced in this one). The article is still maintaining neutral point of view ("objectivity" is not required by Wikipedia policy; see WP:NPOV, but "neutral point of view" is). Neutral point of view presents fairly more than one side of subjects of controversy. Wilson is a subject of controversy. The sources document different points of view on the controversy, but the article is not itself "taking sides"; it is presenting many sides of the controversy: "pro" and "con." Earlier versions of this article were far more negative representations of Wilson; the current version is more balanced, it seems to me. There is perhaps room for further development, but most aspects of Wilson are covered now, it also seems to me. And, it seems to me, that while some people have anonymously tried to tilt the article one way or another, deletion of such attempts brings it back in balance. Due to such attempts, one still needs to remain vigilant about this article.--NYScholar 08:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps such controversies need to go to Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair. A biography should make note of the existence of controversies but thrashing them out thoroughly, albeit in an evenhanded way, gives them undue weight. Wilson's notability comes not from the question of who-met-whom in the Fox Green Room so that entire section, yet at present that controversy gets more verbiage than his entire political career. Perhaps the best way to handle editorials that provide evidence of a controversy is to note that they exist and to link to them; it is not necessary to quote them at length. rewinn 20:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

On suggestion "Perhaps such controversies need to go to Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair"

See the tag on that page and the talk page (including Rewinn's own remarks about how those so-called "theories" are unbelievable and how he himself doesn't believe them).

The neutrality of the "article" called Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair is disputed (see tag on that page). In my view, the "article" is not even worthy of being called an "article" (hence the scare quotes) in Wikipedia and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It "presents" the so-called alternate "theories," which are made up mostly of unsubstantiated rumor and innuendo that are not from reliable sources according to WP:Reliable sources; most are blogs and editorials (See comments by Rewinn above about editorials being POV). Basically, that "article" breaks Wikipedia's editing rules about BLP, reliable sources, and NPOV. (Hence, the tag.) I believe that it should be deleted entirely. It is cross-listed in this article because it currently exists and the material in this article serves to provide facts and sources that are not presented at all or emphasized in it.

Moreover, it would be absurd to take the attempted balanced and NPOV presentation here, including the information about Joe Wilson's legal challenges of some of those "theories" as presented in this article on him, by defaulting (in effect) to the disputed non-neutral POV of that piece. I strongly urge against that path. One needs to examine the whole talk page here and the entire history of this article to understand the problems involved in defaulting to such a disputed "article" as that one. I also bring to people's attention the fact that that "article" does not adhere to WP:BLP even though it deals primarily with living persons (Valerie E. Wilson--whom it calls "Valerie Plame Wilson"--not really her name) and Joseph C. Wilson, IV. What happened to the warnings in the tag above. The BLP tag belongs on the talk page of that "article" as well [I added it today]. --NYScholar 20:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, cool down! Nothing on this page is personal; it is all about making the best possible article.

1. This talk page is not the place to discuss whether Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair should exist. If you were to review the history of this article, you would see that the content of Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair for the most part started as part of this article and, to avert edit wars, were spun out to Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair
2. My opinion of the content of Alternate theories regarding the Plame affair has nothing to do with what is the best thing for this article. So keep me out of it
3. The editorials disparaging the subject of this article are not reliable sources of factual information. They are admittedly non-objective. Their content does not belong on a biographical page. If a contributor feel strongly that there should be a reference to non-objective content, then there is a simple procedure: briefly refer to the content and link to it.
4. If a contributor feels strongly that wikipedia should copy significant passages of non-objective material concerning a living person, that content should not go on a biography page, but on a page whose objectivity is in doubt. Continuing to post such material on this page will require a "non-objective" tag to be put on this page, which is undesirable.
5. Again, none of this is to dispute the hard work of other contributors. The sole objective is the best possible article about the subject of the article. rewinn 01:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reply really doesn't make much sense to me. I did not take what you said as "personal" (or related to me personally). My arguments are purely logical. Editorials express points of view on the subject that are part of its history. "Objectivity" is not a policy of Wikipedia; "neutral point of view" is. Wikipedia itself makes that distinction; cf. NPOV and WP:NPOV.

I really think that you are confused about those terms ("objectivity" and "neutral point of view"; there are differences in them as Wikipedia uses them). Editorials published in newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other national newspapers of that order are considered reliable sources in Wikipedia, and they are cited extremely frequently as reliable sources in many Wikipedia articles (including many versions of this article and others relating to Plame affair.

It appears to me that rewinn is simply inventing his own criteria. What he argues above (for so-called "objectivity") is not Wikipedia policy. The policy is for "neutrality," not "objectivity." Wikipedia makes a clearcut distinction in NPOV between WP:NPOV and what is otherwise called "journalistic objectivity." (There used to be more material in NPOV; now there is only a link to "objectivity"; "objectivity" and "neutrality" are not synonyms in Wikipedia. Read the various articles in objectivity.)

Wikipedia eschews arguing one point of view over another point of view, but it allows the presentation of conflicting points of view and giving verifiable evidence of what they are. In order to document what the conflicting points of view on a subject are (as presented by what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources" (WP:Reliable sources), one must define them (the points of view) and give citations verifying that they exist (are published in reliable sources and/or by reliable authorities). Editorials are evidence of such points of view. In defining what they are, a Wikipedia article is not arguing in favor of one or the other (to define them is not to present bias for or against them; there is no "bias" in defining a point of view, if it is one of several points of view being defined).

Presenting a gamut of points of view that are defined in what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" is part of writing an encyclopedia article about the facts about a controversial subject. What makes such a subject "controversial" (a subject of "controversy" and debate) is illustrated in the definition of different points of view about it that covers all such points of view as established in reliable sources (not every single "theory" presented in non-reliable sources). If one wants to define a subject of "conspiracy theories," perhaps it can be an illustration in an article on that subject ("conspiracy theories").

Wikipedia is not required to present every single far-fetched "theory" that exists about a subject if such a "theory" is not verifiable in a reliable published source (if it is offered only by anonymous sources). Wikipedia has a policy on WP:BLP WP:NPOV; the article that rewinn recommends moving material from this article to (on alternate theories on the Plame affair) does not currently adhere to that policy and appears to violate it. Its neutrality is disputed (it's tagged; I did not put the tag on it; it was already there.) There is nothing "personal" in this comment

I pointed out that rewinn himself disputes the material in the article on those "theories" (despite his recommendation), because he is arguing (I think hypocritically at worst, illogically at best) on leaving out editorials from reliable published sources in the article on Joseph Wilson.

It appears to me that Rewinn simply does not want to include the material in this article--even though it pertains directly to the subject, Joseph C. Wilson--and so he wants to move such material to the disputed article on "alternate theories." The claims (such as those by the retired generals, which have been broadcast on TV programs on Fox News programs) were originally cited by other editors.

Since other editors added those commments to this article, I have tried to present the countering points of view to them, as they too relate directly to this article; thus, if they are to be included, Wilson's and others' countering points of view on those claims need to be included too. Pointing out various points of view, claims, and counter-claims presented in reliable sources achieves more "neutral point of view." In contrast, leaving in the claims without also including countering commentary from reliable sources would appear to be "biased" in favor of those claims.

Giving a cross-ref. to "alternate theories" is a method of sending readers to those theories without addressing them directly and defining the counter-claims to them in this article. Suppressing evidence of the claims entirely would be to do a disservice to readers of this article, who would encounter them elsewhere (e.g., in the "alternate theories" article), but see no accounting of them in the article. I still think that the "alternate theories" article is weak and not a legitimate article; what are the "theories" "alternate" to? There is no published consensus on which "theories" about "the Plame affair" are anything but "theories" at this stage; stating that there are "alternate" theories implies that there are "primary" theories, which suggests a value judgment, and hence a bias. [I've taken out the cross-reference to the disputed article.]

Wikipedia has no policy for omitting evidence from editorials because they are editorials.--NYScholar 04:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some relevant passages relating to the above comment (as quoted from WP:NPOV):

All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example."

This page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles,

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Finally, I would not be or have been referring to the article on "alternate theories regarding the Plame affair" at all if rewinn had not recommended moving material from this article to that article (see his comments above this section). (He brought it up, not I.) That article still has disputed neutrality, and I do not think that it is an article to recommend reading or referring people to read. Unfortunately, some other editor already put a cross-reference in this article to that article. Otherwise, I would not refer people to it. [I just removed the cross-reference in this article to that article due to its disputed neutrality. It already cross-links this article (which is not tagged for disputed neutrality, and which I do not think [currently] deserves to be tagged. Of course, that could change in the future, though one hopes not!]--NYScholar 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some relevant passages from WP:Verifiability on self-published sources, including websites and blogs--and "opinion-editorials" ("Op-Eds")

Such sources are frequently cited in Wikipedia articles as evidence of points of view, even though they are "largely" not "acceptable" as "reliable sources":

Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. (Italics added.)

In the case of the material that other editors originally placed in this article from such self-published sources (e.g., about the two retired generals' claims): these claims have been disputed by Wilson himself and others, and the countering points of view are presented (some of it in the self-published sources, wherein Wilson's lawyer's e-mails are cited), including interview comments by Wilson countering them. [For the record, I myself did not put the original claims in the article, but I attempted to present a neutral point of view on them by citing the countering points of view.] (See the history of this article.) The claims and counter-claims are part of the history of the controversies in which Wilson has become embroiled as a result of his 2003 NYT Op-Ed "What I Didn't Find in Africa." He became more of a "public figure" as a result of that and his subsequent memoir The Politics of Truth and public debates (in print and online publications) have ensued.--NYScholar 04:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is an intriguing irony that I propose rewinn consider: Wilson's own "Op-Ed" ("opinion editorial" [?]) entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" is the initial impetus for much of the controversy currently surrounding him and his wife Valerie E. Wilson ("Valerie Plame") and of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury investigation. Is rewinn (scroll up) arguing that one cannot cite and quote from "What I Didn't Find in Africa" in other articles that are not on the subject "Joseph C. Wilson" because it is an "editorial" that expresses an "opinion?" If not, he really needs to apply consistency in his stance on the inclusion of editorial and opinion articles as reliable and appropriate sources in Wikipedia articles! If the positions taken in the op-eds are evidence of such positions, one does need to cite them in articles on subjects that they pertain to (such as controversies). [For more perspective:

See also: Wikipedia: Information suppression

from the Wikipedia archives.] --NYScholar 08:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI--Op-Ed originally meant OPPOSITE Editorial, as in, opposite the editorial page or column (i.e., that written by an editor). Op-Eds were thus written by guest or syndicated columnists who were not editors. I think the "opinion-editorial" meaning is something like a backformation or backronym. MJFiorello 04:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; but I've never heard or seen a term "bacronym" before. It sounds like a neologism. I'll check out what you say later. Can you please provide a verifiable and reliable published source for the claim? [I added a question mark now in brackets.]

Many of the Editorial columns in American newspapers currently appear in sections headed with the title "Opinion" and "Editorial." The "original" meaning is not necessarily germane. I have used "Opinion-Editorial" (referring to the section in which it appears)--see current NYT headings for examples)--and others have changed it to "op-ed," so I tried to clarify: I am talking about what are currently (in the 21st century) being referred to as "opinion-editorial" and "opinion" and "editorial columns; articles by guest writers (usually) appearing signed and on pages of sections of newspapers headed "Opinion" and "Editorial." (The NYT refers to Wilson's piece as being on the "Op-Ed" page and to him as an "Op-Ed contributor." The term's derivation does not seem that pertinent to me. I am concerned about accuracy in calling the article the proper term. At any rate, the common parlance in referring to the particular article from the July 6, 2003 New York Times that Wilson wrote entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa" has been consistently in the news to refer to it as his "op-ed piece" or his "op-ed" or his "Op-Ed." (I think that the NYT capitalizes "O" and "E" in "Op-Ed" because they come at the top of the page, as a heading (title) of the page/section. In the same section (see link), the NYT also has the heading "Opinion" and "Editorial." Whether or not the Wikiipedia editors (just about everyone) who refer to it as an "op-ed" or an "Op-Ed" all know the derivation of "op-ed" (as "opposite editorial page," I do not know. If I am incorrect in glossing it as "Opinion-Editorial", one can change that to "article" or "essay" or "editorial" or "op-ed." (I changed the heading so it is now just the title and author of the piece.) But this is an encyclopedia article and abbreviated terms are generally frowned upon in the editing guidelines; more formal language is recommended. That is why I originally tried to avoid using "op-ed" in the first place; I was trying to use more formal language, citing the "Opinion" and "Editorial" headings of those pages. But I would not want it to be incorrect. I am not an expert in newspaper language. --NYScholar 10:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Notice also the NYT's use of the generic term "articles" for what all these so-called "Op-Ed contributors" are contributing: Contributors. --NYScholar 10:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also: Given the prevalent references to online sources in Wikipedia, there is no way to see actually that a so-called "Op-Ed" article appears "opposite" a so-called "Editorial." One does not see the page configurations that way online. So the etymological distinction would appear to be extremely obsolete (the younger the reader perhaps too!). --NYScholar 10:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed my own note

Re: notes at bottom of page, because other users prefer to use the + feature to add sections in talk pages. The notes refer to material already cited in prev. secs. of talk. --NYScholar 22:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe Wilson has an agenda

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both.” [11] -- Joseph C. Wilson

This quote seems to be correct. It's repeated by John Dean in the article I linked to. Samdira 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So? When he refers to himself as "nonpartisan," it doesn't mean he isn't mad at the people who dragged his reputation (and his wife's career) in the mud; it means that he doesn't identify with a particular party affiliation. --csloat 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

CS, the fact that you haven't recently edited on this talk page, but now appear here in rebuke of my posting, makes me think that you are monitoring my edits. Is that true, are you monitoring my edits? If so, I don't think that's very nice and I'd prefer that you didn't. As an alternative, I'd prefer that you make a better effort at Talk:Plame affair. Specifically, I'd like you to respond to my suggested modifications for the introduction of that article. In particular, I'd like some feedback from you at that talk page regarding this suggestion of mine. As I see it, if you are interested enough in my edits to comment about one of them here, then you should also be interested enough to help me improve Plame affair. Samdira 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:AGF. I'm not stalking you, I've had this page on my watch list for nearly two years. csloat 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

See the editing history; warnings placed on User talk:Tim Osman#Joseph C. Wilson and User talk:Tim Osman#48 hour block re: perceived Wikipedia:Vandalism. --NYScholar 19:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC); please see tagged notice on the article page and read the archived talk pages of this article re: controversial edits and place discussion of intentions re: such controversial edits on this current talk page prior to making them. Please see the notices in the templates at top of this page; see the policies and guidelines linked via them. Wikipedia policy is to remove on sight potentially libelous statements made in biographies of living persons. All statements need to be documented with "full citations": WP:CITE. Core policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Again, please see tagged notices w/ links to policies and guidelines in them. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC) --[Updated w/ the pertinent links; see below. --NYScholar 08:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)]

For discussion, see Archive 12 and Archive 13 of my user talk page. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [Added additional archive page link. Updated. --NYScholar 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)]

[The following offensive series of comments was placed by User:Tim Osman and not signed. I deleted it due to its belligerent attacks on me. I have been asked to restore it. I do so under protest. It is a personal attack in my view and it does not belong on this talk page. My comments above were a record of the fact that I had placed a template re: vandalism (level 3: "Please stop") in a civil manner on that user's talk page on July 20. For more information, see User talk:NYScholar, User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12, and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 13. Thank you. --NYScholar 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC); Updated. --NYScholar 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)]

I want NYScholar removed from this site. He/she repeatedly vandalizes the entry on Wilson, Joseph C., despite being warned about it, and having been blocked for his/her vandalism. There is obviously someone in love with censorship here. They are dangerous and need to be removed, forthwith.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) User:Tim Osman

[Note well: I have never been blocked for "vandalism"; that is a false statement. I was blocked for my reverts of what I regarded as the above user's vandalism, after I filed a report in WP:ANI regarding what I perceived as his vandalism to this article on Joseph C. Wilson. --NYScholar 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)]

I, too, would like to follow a policy in which there are no names being used, but when someone appoints themselves as a censor I get angry. As someone who has marched for free speech all of my life, to see people fight free speech because they do not like it irritates me to my core.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) [by User:Tim Osman (see editing history for date and time)].—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) User:Tim Osman

The statement that I am acting in any manner "as a censor" is absurd. I am following Wikipedia's own core policies, which are tagged in templates at the top of this page. This article is "controversial"; editing it requires using "full citations"; and editing it requires not inserting potentially-slanderous statements in it. WP:BLP, WP:3RR#Exceptions, Wikipedia:Vandalism. New users to Wikipedia need to familiarize themselves with talk pages of articles and Wikipedia policies and guidelines before making controversial edits to the content of articles, especially those which are biographies of living persons. --NYScholar 05:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since posting the above material, I have added some material to the lead section of this article and updated a section on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Reports (plural), with appropriate note citations to primary and secondary sources. --NYScholar 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Length issue

The user who tagged the article did not discuss how to improve it in any detail. Previously, editors who added "synthesis" (summary) engaged in contentious point of view editing wars (see archive pages). It appears that there is a great deal of redundancy in this article; e.g., the whole section Joseph C. Wilson#Initial dispute between Wilson and the White House, which repeats information already in this article and cross-referenced Wikipedia articles on the Plame affair. The article needs to be reorganized with sections less redundant and better integrated while still using full citations required by controversial articles, reliable and verifiable sources, and neutral point of view. It is a big task. I don't have time to do it. But perhaps others do. --NYScholar 08:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What archive pages are you talking about? There are no archive pages in this talk page.

[Sorry; I really thought there were. Surprised that there aren't as the article has a long history of contentious editing. Please consult the whole history of the article in the current talk page and its editing history then; editing summaries are helpful to use for each edit, esp. if the edits are not actually "minor." Please use "show preview" feature as it will save a lot of time in the future. --NYScholar 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)]

Are you referring to the article history? I honestly have no POV about this whole thing... I checked out of this news story early on and did not keep up because all the details were too confusing. I came here through WP:RANDOM and saw this ginormous article and just want to make it readable with less quotes. I don't have any specific suggestions because currently I'm just summarizing quotes. When I'm done with that and have a sense for what's on the (enormous) page I'll be able to describe in more detail. But obviously 150kb is way way way too long! We should be shooting for 32kb of text. Calliopejen1 09:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

One suggestion, actually: what is the Richard Armitage as Novak's "primary source" section doing here? It seems pretty remotely related to Joseph C. Wilson, the actual subject ot the article. Is there a better place this section could be moved? Calliopejen1 09:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please scroll up and read the previous discussion about that. Thanks. I'm logging off. --NYScholar 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing disputes

I don't want to get in the middle of NYScholar and Tim Osman because I don't have the energy for it. However, can both of you look at my changes that I made and incorporate them into whatever version you decide on? I think they're all NPOV cleanup changes so hopefully you both can get behind them. Calliopejen1 10:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was fine with most of your changes Calliopejen1; I was just correcting typographical errors. Unfortunately, the other user has been deleting all your work (and mine). Please consult my linked archive page 12 linked earlier. Thanks. I follow a strict no personal attacks policy (WP:NPA). --NYScholar 10:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. I did not mean to attack though, but just to remind you to be less critical in your edit summaries. I understand that this is a contested article, but edit summaries taht only focus on negative aspects of other users' contributions will scare helpful editors away. Hopefully I'll be back to do more cleanup later, but for now I don't have time to go through this all. Calliopejen1 10:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, Callipejen1; I think you were taking comments that I intended only as descriptive as personal. They were not meant to be personal. I just needed to indicate that I was correcting minor typographical errors ("m") and I did perceive that you were not using the "show preview" function of Wikipedia; it is important to use it; one makes many more typographical errors otherwise. Even using it, I still make typographical errors that I come back to correct ("tc" = "typographical corrections" in my editing summaries). I appreciate all your hard work, but I'm afraid that some of it may have been lost. I restored the article to one of your versions, but doing so may have lost some of my subsequent typographical (format) corrections, and I haven't time now either to reconstruct them. [moved to below] ... Thanks again. --NYScholar 11:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Book section

The section on the book needed some work; I suggested restoring some of the content previously deleted; it's not in the book article, though perhaps it could be added to that. The jpg file took up too much space and overlapped sections. That was hard to fix .... I added an infobox Book to the article on the book and made the jpg file here smaller. Editing summaries in the book article have brief explanations. Have to log off Wikipedia now. --NYScholar 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Update on cleanup

Some of the citations links placed by previous editors a long time ago are outdated and still need checking and replacement with functioning links. There are embedded editorial interpolations that indicate that more cleanup of citations and missing citations need further work. I've done what I had time to do, but have now run out of time. I have also cleaned up other problems. --NYScholar 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted personal attacks from this talk page

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Notice: I delete personal attacks from Wikipedia. --NYScholar 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Administrators

[Restored my heading deleted by another user. --NYScholar 03:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

Source citations; neutrality issues

Recent edit by another user without prior discussion on this talk page has damaged the citations formatting throughout this article and left missing citations in places. See previous discussion of problems in the article. The current version damages the integrity of this article and violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. See the linked policies and guidelines in tagged notices at top of this talk page for further guidance in editing of biographies of living persons in Wikipedia. WP:BLP. --NYScholar 01:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

The image that that User:Tim Osman has added is not a "CIA memo" that "proves" what that user's biased caption states; it is a memo from the State Department (INR), and it is part of a much larger context of properly-sourced information (with properly-sourced citations) that the user deleted in his recent editing. See WP:BLP/N for my addition of "Joseph C. Wilson" to the noticeboard due to these problems.[12] I believe that the changes that this user has made to this article damage it and Wikipedia and that they amount to Wikipedia:Vandalism: see WP:3RR#Exceptions in relation to WP:BLP, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) The image that that User:Tim Osman has added is not a "CIA memo" that "proves" what that user's biased caption states; it is a memo from the State Department (INR), and it is part of a much larger context of properly-sourced information (with properly-sourced citations) that the user deleted in his recent editing. See WP:BLP/N for my addition of "Joseph C. Wilson" to the noticeboard due to these problems.[13] I believe that the changes that this user has made to this article damage it and Wikipedia and that they amount to Wikipedia:Vandalism: see WP:3RR#Exceptions in relation to WP:BLP, especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --NYScholar 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[The user below has violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines by completely removing my prior comments; I just re-added them. [See my heading "ATTN:Administrators"]. --NYScholar 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

Talk pages of articles are the appropriate place for discussion of how to improve articles in Wikipedia. Wikipedians do not have to go to user space to discuss these matters. The above user has totally disregarded previous warnings to familiarize himself with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:BLP, and other Wikipedia policies pertaining to the editing of this article. See User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked for more information and my own talk page archives: User talk:NYScholar (archives are in next to the table of contents box there). Thank you. --NYScholar 01:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC

More Personal Attacks

Hmmm...I was told "no personal attacks...attack content, not contributors." Yet user: NYScholar goes ahead and does just that, saying that posting articles from The NY Times and The Washington Post is somehow wrong and not a "neutral point of view." I notice that the previous edits by said user contain entire quotes from Wilson without any challenge, which does not sound like a "neutral point of view." I notice that the said user posts from Senator John Kerry's website (something he himself admitted), which does not sound like a "neutral point of view." The user posted one side of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial (which should not all be in the Wilson article) which condemned Libby, but left out the other side of the argument, which does not sound like a "neutral point of view."

So, if the administrators wish to have slanted articles, be my guest and keep the edits done by user:NYScholar. And if the administrators only wish to punish me for a personal attack, and allow the user: NYScholar to attack and vandalize and remove edits and destroy someone's work while allowing he/she to continue, then be my guest and keep things as they are. I have tried to fix this one article and all I get is grief, and blocks, and edits, and removal of my work. Enough is enough. It is your call to fix this or let it remain as it is - in which case I quit.

Tim Osman 03:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman

Response to "Image Caption"

The image comes directly from the US Senate Intelligence Committee report, which is a CIA memo discussing the very issue being talked about in the Wilson article, to wit: that the CIA notes taken at the meeting show clearly that Mr. Wilson's name was pushed for the trip to Niger by none other than his wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, and that she told the US House that she had nothing to do with it under oath, clearly a perjurious offense. I have merely posted the CIA memo - let others decide for themselves whether or not this shows what it is claiming to show. I for one am for the freedom of others to decide these issues for themselves.

Tim Osman

This user is not correct. My previous version of this article cited the sources properly; the image is not from a "CIA memo"; it is also not from the Senate report that he cited. The memo as properly cited (since restored by another Wikipedia editor) is identified properly in the note that the user deleted. It is a State Department INR memorandum. There are two different reports, one dated 2004 and one dated 2007. The New York Sun is the source of the memorandum, and the user has uploaded images to Wikipedia without identifying them properly or providing proper rationales for them in the past. This is one of them. I provided a proper and accurate caption to the "Notes" image (which he incorrectly calls a CIA memo in the original image that he uploaded), and I gave sources for it, properly. The memo was written by former employees of the INR (State Department)--two drafts: one of June 10 and the other of July 7--and is referred to in the Senate committee reports; the "Notes" on the meeting that Wilson had on February 19, 2002 is an attachment to the July 7th memo: I included proper source identification, such as the State Department date of release in my note (which is currently back in this article due to another editor's reverting the user's deletions).

User:Tim Osman confuses the provenance of the memos. I'll try to straighten this out further if I have more time. There is currently misinformation provided by earlier Wikipedia users in the section on the first (2004) report. I have read the section on Wilson's trip (section II: "Niger"), and it does not state what the current presentation says. I was in the process of deleting the whole section and replacing it with accurate information when the other user's deletions of most of the content and sources that I provided in the past several days intervened, and I received an "editing conflict" message. I do not currently have time to work further on this article. I have other things to do. But when I do have time, I will try to clean up the problems in the section on the report. The report does not state that Mrs. Wilson "suggested" her husband for the trip to Niger; the historical background section in A. and B. of section II on "Niger" is much more complex; it is only the INR memo writer (State Dept.) who says that she "offered up" her husband's name in relation to that, but the report itself is more specific in setting forth the chronology of events. The INR memo is but one of several points of view that the Senate committee report cites, and the section on "Niger" sets all the points of view out clearly. They do not jive with what the section in this Wikipedia article on the 2004 report (its bulleted items) current state. I have been working offline on it in word-processing, but the changes that I introduced ran into the editing conflict and did not post due to the other user's edit intervening. After spending many hours (the whole day) on it, I have not got time to do anymore today. --NYScholar 03:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, someone is not doing their homework. This is "not" a "State Department memo," as is clearly noted. It is a CIA memo of the meeting where Wilson was selected to go to Niger. It shows clearly that Valerie Plame Wilson not only recommended her husband, but was deeply involved in his selection.

Once again: not a State Department memo, but a CIA memo which has been declassified. State Department memos are not declassified. Why do I have to argue this point with someone when I have seen the memo, filmed it myself, and posted it here?

Tim Osman 03:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman

Correction once again to above misinformation: please see #Regarding the State Dept. (INR) memo of June 10 (draft) and July 7 (sent); the "Notes" on the meeting are an attachment to the State Dept. (INR) memo of June 10 (draft version) and July 7, 2003 (sent). See current note [41] in article.[14][15] The note provided documents the memorandum and its attachment. See WP:NOR for further guidance as well as WP:CITE and WP:Attribution. --NYScholar 03:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated note number; changed after later changes to article. --]

Source citations

I am cleaning up this article, as it was said to be way too long (and it was!). I have cut out many of the partisan sources and replaced them with mainstream sources, such as from The NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. I have even included The New Republic, which leans to the left, to be fair. I realize that as of now (July 30, 2007) that there are no footnotes - this is my fault, and I intend to finish them in the next few day, if people will be patient with me. In the meantime, if anyone has any reasonable edits to make that I can incorporate into the finished product, please post them at my Usertalk:Tim Osman page.

Tim Osman

The reasons for the lack of footnotes has been discussed with another, who has understood. They will be fixed and changed in the coming days. I appreciate the assistance of anyone who wishes to add to the final product.

Tim Osman

Repeated Vandalism

I see that there have been repeated attempts at vandalism here, and I am not happy. I am merely trying to bring some order to this biography and yet my motives are questioned, which is a personal attack and which I assumed was not allowed. Perhaps an administrator can straighten out those who have already been banned for vandalizing my work and now are making false allegations against me here? I thank you for your time.

Tim Osman

I have warned user NYScholar that his personal attacks on me will not be allowed, and I ask the administrators to block him for a period of time for them. This is out of hand. I am trying to clean up an article, and all I get is grief. This is too much already. I am 58 years old and not in the best of health. The user NYScholar is driving me to an early grave, and I cannot accept that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

See WP:3RR

I have reported the above user for violations of WP:3RR. (I will return to post the link.) These redundant and unsupported claims that I am "vandalizing" him are absurd. (I was blocked twice recently for 48 hours each for reverting what I regarded and said that I regarded as his vandalism to this article, which he is continuing to do (see the editing history) and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12 and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 13. Since returning from his week-long block, he has repeatedly been removing my legitimate comments from this talk page on Joseph C. Wilson. I will restore them when I have time. The user is clearly not familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, has not bothered to familiarize himself with them, and is not even signing his comments properly with four tildes (a sign that he has not read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). I do not use an active link in my signature, but you can find my talk page at User talk:NYScholar, which includes archived talk pages (see 12 and 13 for prior discussion of problems with the above user and his own talk page: User talk:Tim Osman#48 block and User talk:Tim Osman#Blocked, where he was warned not to engage in the very behavior that he is engaging in above. He needs to consult Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:CIVIL. I hope that administrators will look at the changes that he made to this article and the problems that they have caused; they violate Wikipedia's quality standards relating to WP:BLP. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

The above user has continuously, and with malice, vandalized the work I have been doing on the article on Joseph C. Wilson. The edits I made were done because the article is too long - as someone continues to say - so I made it shorter, getting rid of content which has nothing to do with Mr. Wilson or which slants the article way to the left. I have removed numerous sources such as "Buzzflash" (what is that anyway?), yet the user NYScholar continues to post them as if these are somehow credible. They are not.

If the editors of Wikipedia wish to have a biography of someone that is slanted to the left and larded down with biased sources, let me know and I will be happy to leave things as they are. If, however, you want an article based on the truth, based on mainstream sources, then by all means tell NYScholar to cease removing my work and let me finish the darn thing already. And please block NYScholar for his unceasing personal attacks on me. I have warned him time and time again, yet he continues to remove them from this site and his talk page and act as if what he is doing is alright.

Okay, Wikipedia administrators...here is your time in the sun. Do you want crap or the truth? Let me know and we will see how serious you are about having this site taken seriously.

Tim Osman

Note well: I have not made any content changes to this article since this user began changing it [on July 30] [until after his changes were reverted by an administrator]. I simply added the "neutrality" template and corrected the date of the "current" template and then deleted that template and added the "missing citations" template; since [the above user's changes to this article after the expiration of his week-long block], other editors (not I) changed the article. For evidence, see the editing history. Thanks. [Updated.] --NYScholar 08:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Restored my comments previously deleted from this talk page

Removing the above user's continual personal attacks from my own talk page is permissible in Wikipedia, and that has been pointed out by an administrator to the above user, who is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. I suggest that he read them before trying to edit this or other articles in Wikipedia. Especially regarding biographies of living persons, editing articles in Wikipedia is more complex than he may realize; see all the tagged notices at the top of this talk page for further guidance. He is also repeatedly violating Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and WP:AGF when he claims that I am vandalizing this article. I worked very hard to provide proper sources for this article over the past several days (which he deleted). Despite his violations of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, due to concerns about WP:3RR, I did not make any changes to the content that he created [and I did not revert any of his deletions at all] after he returned to this article (July 30, UTC). [My changes to the content of the article occurred only after an administrator reverted his changes.] [Updated in brackets]. --NYScholar 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

I have, however, attempted to restore my own comments to this talk page after he deleted them. They are comments that pertain to improving the content of this article. (See tagged notices at top of this page; please sign comments with four tildes as per talk page guidelines.) For my own user page, see User:NYScholar; for my own talk page, see User talk:NYScholar. Thanks. --NYScholar 03:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

Regarding the State Dept. (INR) memo of June 10 (draft) and July 7 (sent)

Currently (unless changed again) note 41[16][17] details it: the "Notes" on Wilson's Feb. 19, 2002 meeting at the CIA in the current image are an attachment to it; Carl Ford, a now-former State Dept. employee (2001-2003), sent a (June 10, 2003) version to an undersec'y of state Marc Grossman, who requested that it be sent on to Colin Powell, then sec'y of state:

See "Notes - Niger/Iraq uranium Meeting CIA, 2/19/02" (as illustrated above), one of six attachments to a subsequently-declassified "Secret" State Department memorandum entitled "SUBJECT: Niger/Iraq Uranium Story and Joe Wilson (S/NF)", sent by former "INR - Carl W. Ford, Jr." (2001–2003) to "The Secretary" (former Secretary of State, Colin Powell), dated July 7, 2003, and "released in Part B6, B5, B1, 1.4(D), B2", by the United States Department of State Review Authority: Sharon E. Armad ("Date/Case ID: 31 March 2006, 200503144"); cited in the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (2004); later published by The New York Sun and multiple other news sources in April 2006, accessed July 27, 2007.

Further information: Marc Grossman § Valerie Plame Affair

Marc Grossman was the intended recipient of the June 10, 2003 version of that State Dept. memo (with its attachment of the Notes on the Feb. 19, 2002 meeting that Wilson had w/ the CIA, who asked that it be directed to Powell). The writer Carl Ford is a former employee of the State Dept. The memo is quoted in the 2007 Senate Committee report and referred to in the 2004 report. The 2007 report volumes are follow ups to the 2004 report. Links to the reports are given in the note citations (which the other user had deleted in his edits earlier and which another editor came along later and restored). --NYScholar 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Note also that the "Notes" on the February 19, 2002 meeting are notes composed by INR (State Dept.) personnel (not CIA personnel); the INR analyst(s) attended the meeting with Wilson that occurred at the CIA (CPD); at that meeting "the idea" was proposed (by those at the meeting, which Mrs. Wilson did not attend) that Wilson go to Niger; INR did not think it necessary; the 2004 Report quotes them as saying that it seemed "redundant"; however, CIA decided to send him. The Report then goes into a lot of detail about his visit, who he met with, its conditions, his not having been asked to sign a confidentiality agreement, his debriefing of the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, his report to the CIA and so on. [The Senate Report itself does not state that it concludes that Mrs. Wilson "suggested" her husband to go on a trip to Niger. It states that some of its sources (interviews and e-mail memoranda etc.) have stated that. It goes into those points of view in detail.] The full text of her memo of February 12, 2002 is quoted in the 2007 Senate committee report; her statements to the Committee are summarized in detail in the 2004 report. News reports and blogs have mischaracterized the 2004 and 2007 reports. It is up to Wikipedia to check sources and render accurate information, especially in biographies of living persons. I provided the note citations to the full texts of the sources (for both 2004 and 2007 reports) so that people can read and verify statements made in this Wikipedia article about Wilson. --NYScholar 04:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The 2004 report discusses the various points of view of the CIA and INR analysts on Wilson's meeting and report and points out their divergences. The CIA graded Wilson's meeting report a "B"; information is in section II ("Niger") of the 2004 Senate Committee report. The bullets in the Wikipedia article need a lot of work; they are currently not accurate. Due to this "editing conflict" encountered with user Tim Osman, I have no time to correct the problems, which I had been doing prior to getting the Wikipedia-generated "editing conflict" message. The conflict became very time-consuming, due to his charges of "personal attacks" and "vandalism" for my attempts to make this article accurate and neutral. --NYScholar 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated in brackets. Please see #Temporary edit below. Thanks. --NYScholar 08:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

Note also that the later Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the current one) published a follow up report (May 25, 2007), which is also discussed in the Wikipedia article on the Senate Committee's reports (plural). It includes multiple volumes. Mrs. Wilson's e-mail memo predating the February 19, 2002 meeting that she helped to arrange between her husband and her superiors at the CIA Counterproliferation Department (in which she worked) is dated February 12, 2002, and it is quoted in full in the 2007 report. In the February 12, 2002 e-mail memo to (redacted) superior(s), she does not mention sending her husband on a trip to Niger; she refers to his having been sent by the CIA on a trip to Niger in relation to a 1999 Nigerien matter (acc. to section A preceding B on "Former Ambassador"), she had pointed out in 1999 that he was already going to be in Niger on business.

According to the State Department's INR memo (June 10 and July 7, 2003), the interpretation of the INR analysts (which differs from that of the CIA analysts and others) is that she "offered up" his name for the trip. But the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2004 Report does actually not state that as its viewpoint; it summarizes various points of view, including that viewpoint of Carl Ford of INR (State) (who left his position in 2003).

There is a lot of summary in the 2004 report also of what both Mrs. Wilson and former Ambassador Wilson told the Committee; none of it states that she "suggested her husband" to travel to Niger (to go on a trip to Niger). The "idea" of Wilson's going on a trip to Niger was discussed in the meeting of February 19, 2002 by those present (not her); the Senate Intelligence Report cites her and others as stating that she brought him to that meeting but did not stay to attend it. (She was not present when the "idea" to send him on the trip to Niger was discussed among those at the meeting.) The "idea" was that of the CIA, not Mrs. Wilson. She offered to bring the Niger matter to his attention to see if he would be willing to assist the CIA in its attempt to find out whether the "foreign service agency" reports of Iraq's alleged attempts to purchase yellowcake uranium--see Niger uranium forgeries (previously called yellowcake forgeries)--had basis in fact (how he might do so is not something that she suggests or even mentions in the Feb. 12, 2002 e-mail memo; she even seems reluctant to make any "suggestion"; "however", she adds, he might be willing to help).

The attempt to give various additional (mis)interpretations of what Wilson's wife ("Valerie Plame"/Valerie E. Wilson) said in her Feb. 12, 2002 memo in the bullets in the Wikipedia article on the Senate's 2004 report violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If one looks at the actual source (the Report)--as I did earlier today but ran into the "editing conflict" when I was going to correct the bullets by trying to remove them and replace with much shorter material)--the source (the 2004 report) does not match the current bullets.

I think that a separate article on this subject may be warranted; it would deal with section II of the report on "Niger" in more detail and with the conclusions of the 2004 report. The current Wikipedia article on the report includes a lot of unsourced statements by way of summary. Often the summary of what the report actually states is not accurate. Direct (verbatim) quotations would be more accurate.

As its stands, this article makes claims (in the bulleted items) about what the 2004 Senate Intelligence committee report states that are not supported by the report itself. [It appears to me still to be a biased account of what the report states.] [Updated.] --NYScholar 05:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Info. about State Dept. memo

Please also scroll up to earlier discussion by other users about this memo in #Source check (2nd occurrence above), which cites, for e.g., an article by Media Matters for America about it (identifying it, as I have done in the note citation, as a State Dept. (INR) memo: giving links: ["Thankfully, Media Matters have done some good work clearing up the substance of this issue here [link] and here [link].--csloat 20:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)"]. (Updated. [--NYScholar 14:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)])

The first source link given is to R.S.K., "Articles on State Dept. Memo on Plame Ignored That CIA Officials Have Challenged Its Claim That Plame Suggested Wilson for Niger Trip", Media Matters for America, July 20, 2005, accessed August 4, 2007. (I [added] this source about the State Dept. memo's unreliability as another note citation to a reliable and verifiable source re: this memo in the main text of this article on Wilson, in the approp. sections., relating to the citation of this memo in the sec. on the 2004 Senate Comm. report and in the following section re: the NYT article by Schmidt.) --NYScholar 13:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Updated: I also added the second Media Matters for America source citation linked in #Source check (2nd occurrence above). It is: A.S. "Media Repeated False GOP Talking Point on Authorization for Wilson Trip to Niger", Media Matters for America, July 14, 2005, accessed August 4, 2007. --NYScholar 14:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Temporary edit

[pertains to Joseph C. Wilson#The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Reports relating to Wilson's Niger trip (added sec. title). --NYScholar 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

For the purposes of others' consideration, I have replaced the erroneous bullets with information directly from the report; it is long; I provide it so that others can verify it with reference to the full 2004 report (in the citations); other editors can see how the previous bullets were not accurate and not neutral. An accurate and neutral summary needs to be based on what the report actually states. I've provided the material from the report. Again, this is the 2004 report. The 2007 report is cited in the following section. The memo from the State Department's INR former employee Carl Ford is reproduced in full in the New York Sun article that I have also cited (see above), referring to [note 41] of the article; the numbers will now be different, due to later changes. A full scan of the memo is produced in the New York Sun's document, as cited. It is a memo from the State Department, not the CIA, and the "Notes" on Wilson's Feb. 19, 2002 meeting at the CIA (CPD), which was attended by personnel from CIA, State and Defense Departments, was written by State Department personnel, not CIA personnel. It is the State Dept.'s point of view on the meeting with Wilson, not the CIA's point of view on that meeting. According to the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee Report, the CIA CPD personnel and the State Dept. INR personnel differed on the possible value of sending former Amb. Wilson to Niger; the CIA overrode the objections of the State Department, and the "Notes" and the memo to which it is attached (written by the State Dept. INR personnel) must be viewed in that historical context, as it is reported in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report (2004). The updated findings of the reconstituted Committee appear in the May 25, 2007 Report, also cited in the main text of this article. --NYScholar 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Made new article for section

See Joseph C. Wilson#The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Reports relating to Wilson's Niger trip: resolution of length problem. --NYScholar 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessarily Long Entry

As I have argued here time and time again - and as a notice placed on the bio backs me up - the edits to the original article made it far too long. Much of the material is about other people - Scooter Libby, Marc Grossman, etc. - and not about Wilson, or what Wilson said and did, or what kind of evidence exists regarding Wilson. I have shortened the article to include those facts pertaining strictly to Wilson, and not to other people. Once again, other users see fit to change the article into some screed for bias based on outdated or partisan hack sources, which I have changed to reflect those from mainstream sources. "Buzzflash" is not a source - The Washington Post is. Whole interviews or whole pieces taken verbatim from "Senator John Kerry's old website" are not sources - The New Republic is.

Once again, I have reinstated these changes which clean up the entire article, making it shorter and far more concentrated on Wilson and not others peripherally involved with him. I intend to insert new footnotes in the coming days - right now I am busy helping a neighbor whose husband has Alzheimer's. To me, that has far more priority than some edit war over changes that need to be made.

Once again, I ask the administrators to ban user:NYScholar, who continues to futz and vandalize my work instead of assisting in the massive revision I have taken on at no profit to myself.

Tim Osman 12:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman

Violations of WP:CIVIL

Please see WP:CIVIL#Examples. Thank you. Such examples of incivility need to be removed from this talk page by administrators if they are not removed by the above user. For the history of this problem as it affects the editing of this article, please see User talk:NYScholar/Archive 12 and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 13. Thank you. --NYScholar 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of length problem

See section Joseph C. Wilson#The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Reports relating to Wilson's Niger trip (cf. #Temporary edit comments above). --NYScholar 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Given others' deletions and changes, removed material not clearly-enough related to Wilson himself (the subject of this article). Some of the changes rendered a previously-neutral section misleadingly negative about Wilson; the point of view of the source (Schaffer) had been entirely deleted; the quotation also contains a transition to the next section (on the film); adding the direct quotations from the source illustrates his point of view on Wilson and previous media criticism of Wilson; the writer (Schaffer) is an example of a perspective on that recent other media criticism. Leaving it out distorts the section entirely, making it appear that Schaffer has a different point of view from the one that he actually states. For this proper use of quotations and guidance in using them to develop and illustrate points of view in controversial articles, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles,Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:POV). One is supposed to be developing various points of view on the subject in an accurately neutral manner, not skewing presentation so that a source's own balanced presentation looks as if it were entirely or predominantly negative. To do the latter is to distort the point of view (perspective) of the source. Thank you. --NYScholar 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Length of Article Needs Revision

I have been working on a revision of each portion of the article, cutting it down immensely, and, at the same time, keeping the article straight and to the point on Wilson and the controversy behind him and nothing else. The Plame Affair has its own article and I intend to work on that once I have completed the article on Joseph C. Wilson. After that, I intend to edit the article on I. Lewis Libby. Each of these will have new and updated footnotes, and updates made to each article so that it responds to newer readers.

Any help from people who intend to work on the betterment of these articles, and not those who want to slant or vandalize, is most appreciated.

=Please Stop Removing Revisions

I have asked, and have been asked, to revise this article. Please stop removing my revisions.

Tim Osman 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman

See Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles, WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Manual of style; WP:CIVIL; Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines

These notices tagged in templates above contain pertinent policies and guidelines for editing controversial articles on and relating to living persons in Wikipedia. Substantial edits need substantial discussion prior to making them and consensus building on the talk page of the article. One does not remove an appropriate image of the subject from an article or other already reliably- and verifiably-sourced information from leads. For the number of paragraphs (approx. 4) that are considered appropriate for articles of this nature, see Wikipedia:Manual of style. Editing in Wikipedia involves following policies and guidelines. Especially in editing biographies of living persons. This article is already listed in WP:BLP/N. --NYScholar 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Cease Removing Revisions

I have asked, and have been asked, to revise this article. Please stop removing my revisions. I have asked you many times. Please cease or again I will ask to have you blocked.

Tim Osman 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman 22:29, 6 August 2007

Trolling and Vandalizing of the Article

I have asked nicely that the revisions I made not be changed, but users Rockvee and Commodore Sloat have gone ahead and done just that, as has NYScholar. I cannot understand why I am now being labeled as a "troll."

When you folks get yourselves together and stop ruining all of my work and calling me names, I will come back here. This is getting pathetic.

Tim Osman 22:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Tim Osman

I've reported your 3RR violation. The reason people think you are a troll is that you do not explain your massive edits, and a quick read of your edits reveals the deletion of relevant information and the inclusion of editorializing and a massive POV shift that is not warranted by the information available, and you never even bother to try to justify your edits. Hopefully the block that your actions will result in will prompt you to reconsider how best to contribute to Wikipedia. csloat 22:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of reliable and verified sources to article

Over the past several months, the references in the "References" list were removed from this article and considerable material which had been verified and documented with those sources was also removed. I have restored the source citations (some of which had formatting errors due to those deletions) and the material that had already been verified as appearing in reliable sources: Please see Wikipedia:Manual of style for the related policies and guidelines pertaining to WP:CITE, as per core Wikipedia policies: WP:BLP, WP:V#Sources, and such related guidelines as WP:EL. Please do not vandalize this article by removing such material that is already, via long-standing consensus, well-sourced according to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. Many of those edits in the last several months were made without any discussion on this talk page or any apparent consultation of previous discussions (see archived talk pages of this and related articles and the templates with tagged policies and guidelines for such controversial articles as this one). Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Huffington Post blog

Personally, i'm astounded at how quickly Joe Wilson went from hero to villian among left leaning democrats. But while his attacks on Obama are noteworthy, I think the sentences outlining his position on the democratic primary need to be rewritten. The references used may also become dead links relatively soon. any thoughts on how to approach this??Anthonymendoza (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the blog stuff there. And characterizing the New Republic as "left" is a little strange but that's neither here nor there. I think it's fine to state as it does now that he attacked Obama in the HP as that seems well known. I think it's an exaggeration of immense proportions to claim that he went from "hero to villain among left leaning democrats." I'm not sure most people on the left ever considered him either. csloat (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I jumped to conclusions, but I figured anyone with a blog on the Huffington Post would be considered a voice of the left. And after reading some of the comments left on his blog, it appears he has angered many on the left. He is very harsh on Obama and I think the Daily Kos has officially endorsed Obama, which means Wilson probably has few friends there. It will be interesting to see how much of a role he plays in the remainder of the election. If he only blogs, then it probably won't be necessary to expand this article.Anthonymendoza (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why you removed all the criticism of Wilson? A couple of those sources might fit the definition of blogs, but all were with respected national publications (Time, New Republic) which means they are usually reliable enough to be used in this manner. We're not using them as sources for some new facts, but simply as sources to show that this criticism took place. A couple others were clearly opinion editorials. And yes, the New Republic is on the left. Their wiki page says "the magazine generally supports center-left, liberal policies." However, if the whole "right" and "left" thing is the problem, I'll be fine with getting rid of that part. - Maximusveritas (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I jumped the gun; when I glanced at the sources even the New Republic stuff looked like it was from their blog. BTW do they really consider themselves center-left? I've been out of it too long, I guess; I just recall them being pretty conservative on military and middle-east issues though socially liberal. I just remember Charles Krauthammer & Morton Kondracke writing a lot for them; I guess they might consider themselves liberals but their positions on most of the stuff I was paying attention to at the time (early 90s I think) seemed pretty conservative to me. Anyway excuse my ignorance -- it's neither here nor there. I think it's accurate to say that Wilson's attack on Obama led to criticism from both left and right but I think we should have better sources for the criticism. csloat (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added back in the criticism part, but without the New Republic source, since it was definitely the weakest one. The others are fairly solid. - Maximusveritas (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree -- I looked at them closer this time; both the Time and National Review sources are clearly blogs. They should go. The other two appear to be actually published as opinion pieces. But a short paragraph blog entry really isn't a WP:RS. csloat (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll remove those two too. - 05:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears Joe Wilson has indeed taken on an active role in the Hillary campaign. he's making speeches on her behalf and is attending Hillary fundraisers.[18][19]. i'll include that in the main article.Anthonymendoza (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See below: Some material apparently added subsquent to the above discussion has been deleted; the citation format used by the user who added it is not in keeping with the citations in the rest of the article; full citations are required here; this is an article that must follow WP:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:BLP, and it must also follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V#Sources. People should not use this article as a means of grinding their own political axes. This is a biographical article, and the material added to it must meet the criteria in WP:BLP. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of improperly formatted material

Material added to this article needs to conform to WP:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:CITE; the citation format has been well-established over a long period of time. One cannot just strew in external links. This is a biography of a living person, and material added to it needs to follow all the policies and guidelines presented in WP:BLP; see top headers. The material that I deleted was placed incoherently in a section that was organized chronologically. It appears in the editing history; potentially-controversial material not appropriately added to this article according to WP:BLP and WP:CITE, WP:V#Sources, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view may be deleted "on sight" without further discussion as per those policies and guidelines. (To see what was deleted, please examine the editing history. The material cannot be added in this talk page for the same reasons that it was deleted, as per WP:BLP. --NYScholar (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

proof of yellowcake

Reliable source:

http://seattlepi.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html

216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from JasonDeanBrock

JasonDeanBrock has been edit warring to restore discredited interpretations of material that's already in the article. His interpretations include grave BLP violations (accusations of lying, slandering, and perjury), so they are not subject to 3RR, but I'm reluctant to risk a fourth revert anyway as this article has been a political football in the past. Does someone else want to suggest what we can do next? csloat (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You can get a "quick" third opinion.Wikipedia:Third opinion.Student7 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if he's not a sockpuppet, User:Nicholas007 has taken up the slack where JasonDeanBrock left off. I slapped a total-dispute tag on the article until the false statements and BLP violations are removed. We covered all of this material a few years ago and the article had been in decent shape for a while now; it is unfortunate but I am not looking forward to rehashing all these old debates again. csloat (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

JasonDeanBrock has removed the NPOV tag without participating in the discussion. I've warned him about his 3RR and BLP violations; hopefully he will restore the tag and try to discuss his changes here in talk. csloat (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CommodoreSloat is falsely asserting that his editing is justified. He claims justification but provides nothing other than the statement that he is justified. This must cleasly be a violation of some rules, but I am new here. It is quite clear that CommodoreSloat has a mission here at wikipedia and it is not the truth. Commodore Sloat is harrassing and causing trouble. If CommodoreSloat justifies his edits with a factual justification I will concede. My sources are accurately cited and irrefutable. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The factual justifications are in the article itself if you would read the rest of it. We have rehashed these topics for years now. In any case, you should restore the NPOV tag that you removed until this dispute is settled. You should also revert your own edits because you have violated the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR) as I warned on your talk page. You should also reconsider your personal attacks against me. Thanks. csloat (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I see you have gone on to your fifth or sixth revert in 24 hours now. Someone should report you; you have been warned twice. csloat (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The additions I have offered are either new or bring in new context that clarifies the research. The recent rulings by Judge Bates were left out of the gaping hole that is the time-line of the story. In the version that pre-dated my addition there was a leap from a discredited allegation to the idea that Plame was appealing the ruling. As for my additions regarding the Senate Intelligence Report, the Butler Report and the statements of Joseph Wilson perjuring himself, these ideas have not been codified in one place to bring all these important points together. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR is absolute, so please don't add the material again. Also I advise you to discuss it here and gain consensus for your edits. There are also some problems with scare quotes and non-neutral wording that you need to address before this material can go in. Gamaliel (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would a disruptive editor, Commodore Choat, be allowed to falsely assert that I am being disruptive? The additions I added to the article were entirely accurate. When I used words that some may find offensive, the words were chosen for clarity. They were both accurate and backed up by citations that prove the words accurate. If you lie to impugn, you slander. Lies are false and those telling lies are liars, by definition.

How do I gain consensus? Why shouldn't Commodore Choat be held to the same standard? He disrupted a free flow of accurate information and defended a clear disruption with nothing other than false charges (much like Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame). 76.94.88.224 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that CSloat is not helping the situation here. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 05:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Commodore Sloat

What if the 3RR rule was clearly instigated by a poster who has not properly justified his edits? What you, Gamaliel, find as flaws in my posting are minor. What CommodoreSloat asserts as his justification are seemingly inaccurate to the point of being suspect. I'll certainly work on the 'non-neutral' wording, however, it seems impossible to do so as the foundations for the Joe Wilson fame is grounded upon 'non-neutral' wording. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They are not "minor" flaws, they violate a core policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

In regards to the 3RR, you are responsible for your own actions, no one else. Gamaliel (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The core policy, then, is that what are minor flaws -- "scare quotes" and "non-neutral wording" -- are "violations of core policy". How can I argue with that? I won't. What may appear to be a non-neutral point of view may not appear neutral when the original argued assertion is not a neutral POV (Bush Administration lied is not a neutral POV; Bush Administration operatives orchestrated destroying Wilson/Plame is not a neutral POV). Reaction to a non-neutral POV is not necessarily, therefore, not neutral. The assertions of Joe Wilson, and the reason for his fame, are clearly defamatory, slanderous and not neutral.

Here is an example of what was edited out of my additions:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates determined the Bush Administration was clearly within their legal rights to defend themselves against false and slanderous charges by the Wilsons [20]. Judge Bates said, "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."

Given the judge in the Wilson case asserts that the Bush Administration was well within their rights to defend themselves against attacks by the Joe Wilson team, it is clear that any assertion otherwise by Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame are either slanderous and/or false (both accurately). Both definitions of these seemingly "non-neutral" words are accurate and their usage is correct. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First, terms such as "false and slanderous" are yours, not the Judge's. Second, what this says is that it is legitimate for the Bush Admin to respond to a critical op ed -- not that it is legitimate to ruin the career of a covert agent (disrupting national security in the process) in retaliation. Third, this opinion does not in anyway speak to the alleged falsity of anything the Wilsons have said. All it says is that it is ok for the Bush folks to respond to the legitimate criticism, something I don't think anyone would disagree with. csloat (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The words "false" and "slanderous" are accurate and mine. If I were to rely on anything other than a hard left liberal blog, you would be upset. The Wilsons Plame sought "damages" from Cheney, Libby, Karl Rove, Richard Armitage (the real leaker/Bush critic) for violating their constitutional free speech, due process and privacy rights. Judge Bates ruled against them and found in favor of all those team Wilson falsely brought the suit to impugn. When an appeals court holds up an original ruling, it is safe to say that the defamatory charges leveled by the former John Kerry adviser and his wife (both of whom lied about their role in the fabricated and slanderous Wilson op-ed) are both false and misleading. Furthemore, the Butler Report, the Senate Intelligence Committee report, and Wilson's own words put a nail in the coffin as to the baseless, false and slanderous charges upon which Joe Wilson's fame is built upon. [remove disparaging comments] 76.94.88.224 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What "disparaging comments"? Disparage means "to depreciate by indirect means". Joe Wilson and his wife lied and slandered. How should it be put? Should I say they "misled intentionally" (lied), or they defamed (syn. slander)? In a court of law if they were caught lying or slandering they would be accused of lying and slandering, or deceiving and defaming, or misleading and libeling. 76.94.88.224 (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I am unenthusiastic about Wilson and Plame, it is best to discuss such issues here in a calm manner, respecting other editor's povs. It's WP:NPOV and WP:RELY that will trump eventually. Also there may be two sides to the issue, both of which can be stated. But objectively. If we are trying to "win" here, all that can be done is to upset other editors and we will not get our own way anyway. Let them quote from legitimate sources and we can quote for equally legitimate sources. What is wrong with that? There are plenty of articles out there with more than one pov that is stated. However, we should probably avoid extreme statements; avoid stating that a person is "____" once and for all. That is labeling and most likely from an unreliable source.

Best to say that A said x, but B said y. Or source B reported fact y. Let the reader draw their own conclusions as to veracity. Student7 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Student7. Also, let's be clear here about what the quoted material actually says. It says that Bush et al have the duty to respond to criticism from Wilson. It does not say that Wilson lied about anything (and, in fact, everything we've learned since 2003 has shown he was correct). It does not say he "slandered" anyone. It shows only that Bush had a right to respond to the op ed piece, which is not something anyone disagrees with (even wilson, I would venture). It certainly does not legitimize the exposure of a covert agent and the destruction of a covert operation in retaliation, as occurred when Valerie Wilson's covert identity was leaked to Novak and others in the press. So let's not take things out of context in our rush to insult the other side. Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat says, "Everything we've learned since 2003 has shown he was correct"? Not according to Judge Bates, the Senate Intelligence Committee or Joseph Wilson's personal contradictions. Mr. Wilson has been thoroughly damaged in his assertions that Bush lied and betrayed the country. In fact it has been proven that Joseph Wilson's own lies have been revealed. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote from judge

We can either quote directly from the judge from a reliable source or it can be paraphrased. Paraphrasing can create unnecessary problems. We must omit our opinion and summarize in an extremely objective fashion. "The judge allowed the administration to defend itself." That kind of statement can be refuted but at least it is not deliberately provocative on its face. "The judge said that Wilson was a liar" is quite another matter!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

British investigation

The only independent British investigation into this matter, conducted by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (FAC), is nowhere mentioned in this article. Its negative finding (that the British white paper "should have been qualified to reflect the uncertainty") is ignored in favour of the private Butler Committee review, whose members were handpicked by the administration of Tony Blair -- one member of which, actually helped craft the white paper they were tasked to investigate! [21] — eon, 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Butler Committee only had the support of a single political party -- Tony Blair's. This, therefore, is WP:UNDUE weight. — eon, 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Butler report, coupled with the Senate Intelligence Committee report, coupled with the statements by Joseph Wilson himself, clearly demonstrates that not only is the Butler report authoritative (not needing review) but is accurate. An opinion by a blog serves no purpose other than to confuse the subject. Do you not find it ironic that you cite WP:UNDUE and then you link a suspicious blog to make your point? Just a little ironic, perhaps? JasonDeanBrock (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is completely circular, and doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. 'X plus Y plus Z demonstrates that X is authoritative and accurate'. If you intend to reply again, then please take the necessary time to consider the topic immediately under discussion. The cross-party FAC investigation should be afforded more weight than the privately Blair-picked Butler review. And for your information, Private Eye is not a blog, but a magazine, founded in 1961. — eon, 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Private Eye is a satiral magazine. My mistake. Using that link, and [[WP:UNDUE}}, to make claims that the most authoritative sources are incredible is itself incredible. Please only use credible sourcing. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Private Eye is principally satirical in nature (exposing human folly to ridicule) but it specializes in politics and investigates serious topics, and has helped bring down several high-ranking officials and British politicians. There are hundreds of results for the magazine on Google News. [22] You obviously do not understand the nature of this magazine in British political life. Other sources repeat the same observations, so it matters not. — eon, 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your most recent addition is not nearly neutral enough (and vague) to stick. 1. "The foundation for the Wilson assertions was contradicted ... [by] Joseph Wilson himself..." And 2. you once more reinsert "...to which the British Inquiry said..." You mean the Butler review said? — eon, 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The truth is not neutral enough for people like yourself. You linked to Private Eye magazine as a defense for editing my posts. Given the editorial staff here at wikipedia is on your side, I wouldn't expect any reprimand for your behavior. JasonDeanBrock (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fallacy of exclusion. I cited the wholly independent Foreign Affairs Select Committee, and their Ninth Report of Session 2002-03, including the indisputable fact (supported by countless sources) that the Butler Committee was appointed by Tony Blair, and only enjoyed the support of one political party -- his own. — eon, 23:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't see why the JDB clip can't be there. If the board was selected by Blair, that can be reported as well. This is a two sided report, not one-sided. Wilson/Plame will look like geniuses when reported by one side, sullen misfits when reported by the other. I don't think that can be helped. As far as "truth" goes, that is a bit elusive right now. Twenty years from now they may have a better idea. Student7 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It reads poorly and talks about the "British Inquiry" (presumably a reference to Lord Butler's Intelligence review) as if his were the only British investigation. It wasn't. It also includes this puzzling statement: "Some Bush critics have alleged ... that Iraq may not have been looking to acquire uranium from Niger". This need not be qualified with words like "alleged" and "may not". In addition to the FAC investigation, which concluded differently to Lord Butler, the ISG found no evidence for the British claim, and even found evidence to disprove it. For this reason, the wording is unbalanced, and should be moved here for improvement. — eon, 17:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If it reads poorly re write it so it doesnt. I dont find any of the wording unbalanced, and taken as a whole does a great deal to balance the article as a whole as the article and not each and every sentence is the unit of balance for an article. CENSEI (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"If it reads poorly re write it so it doesnt." There is one additional problem. This piece of POV-pushing is in the wrong section. Wilson's trip to Niger should discuss Wilson's trip to Niger. We already have a section that discusses the Butler Report (see Commentaries on Wilson's trip to Niger and "What I Didn't Find in Africa"). Apparently one section isn't is enough. The same information has to be repeated elsewhere too. No, the way to deal with crap is to remove it completely, and start again, in the correct section. For some unknown reason, you disagree.

"I dont find any of the wording unbalanced," It's simple. The edit deliberately omits the conclusion of two other investigations that lend varying degrees of support to Joseph Wilson. Yet the only investigations mentioned in the article, happen to be those that disagree with him. The text is patently unbalanced, in the wrong section, and any editor is well within their right to remove it. I cannot, because I have already done so, and will risk WP:3RR if I do so again. But other editors are invited to remove the offending text. — eon, 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wilson trip to Niger also contians information tha is found elsewhere in the article. If the info about the Butler report is to be removed, this can I assume that the 16 words, the IAEA report, and all other information not strictly about his time in Niger goes as well? What investiations agreed with Wilson? CENSEI (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

All information not relevant to each section should be removed. If this means tweaking the article slightly, for the better, then so be it.

For your information, the first British investigation into this matter was conducted by the Foreign Affairs Committee. "The Committee is appointed by the House of Commons. It comprises of 14 backbench Members of Parliament from Government and Opposition parties..." and has permanent cross-party support (in contrast to the Butler Committee, which only had the backing of Tony Blair's own party). [23]

They examined and tested several key claims in the British Government's white paper, including the topic of uranium acquisition. After speaking with numerous witnesses, they concluded the evidence that Iraq was trying to procure uranium was not sufficiently strong enough to justify absolute terms. Here is the relevant conclusion from their report:

"We conclude that it is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged, but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence. The assertion "… that Iraq sought the supply of significant amounts of uranium from Africa …" should have been qualified to reflect the uncertainty." The Decision to go to War in Iraq

You can read the transcripts on their website to see how they arrived at this conclusion. This inquiry also revealed that the separate evidence upon which Tony Blair (and consequently and George Bush) had relied, was also shared with the IAEA in 2003 by the foreign government that owned the intelligence reporting. It is noted by other Members of Parliament that the IAEA considered this same evidence to be flimsy. The conclusion of the ISG is also missing from this page.

So what we have in effect, is the American Government citing the British Government, who themselves were relying on a foreign Intelligence Service of another government, which had briefed the IAEA separately, but whose own experts concluded the same evidence was highly doubtful. — eon, 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, this article is, or at least was (deopending on if someone undoes me) full of non compliant sources, we should look hard at removing them or replacing them. That would be a good palce to start a cleanup. CENSEI (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the parliament Foreign Affairs Committee report, assuming that it is accurate. The tone doesn't sound unbiased. "odd indeed" seems like a WP:POV term. I'm not suggesting censoring, but it looks like stuff I would ordinarily throw out without any preliminary if I ran across it in another article. Those two words seem like "reaching." Why is this esteemed committee in full grasp of the English language "reaching" for? It is puzzling. Just eliminating those two words alone would have convinced me of its objectivity without further argument. "Poison pill" words by Blair's supporters maybe? Hard to figure. Student7 (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text

The foundation for the Wilson assertions was undermined by the Senate Intelligence Committee report (page 17)[24], the Butler Committee report [25] and Joseph Wilson himself [26]. Some Bush critics have alleged (including Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame) that Iraq may not have been looking to acquire uranium from Niger, to which the British Inquiry said “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible." [27] [28]

self-published sources

When material is in a blog that is published by noted public figures involved in the very controversy being discussed, the material can be cited in Wikipedia, especially when directly relevant to charges raised against someone in a BLP. In this case, the material which is basically calling Wilson a liar is disputed by Larry Johnson's blog -- Johnson was a principle figure in these public discussions. We've been through this whole discussion a couple years ago; it is tedious to have to do it again. Please go through the archives of this talk page to see why this material was kept in the article. Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we dont need another tedious discussion because boncensus does not trump policy:

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

I have pointed this out to you before, so it shouldnt come as a surpise. CENSEI (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reason not to remove the reference section? Its pretty much a duplicate of the "sources section". CENSEI (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please! No blogs! Hard enough trying to find reliable sources for this article without coping with blatantly biased ones already banned by Wikipedia policy! Student7 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, the consensus was established a long time ago that blogs that specifically were written by the principals involved were ok, but if we're eliminating the blog material defending Wilson from specific charges of being a "liar," we need to eliminate those charges as well since they are not notable and they violate BLP. By the way, citing BLP to remove material that defends a person from bogus charges runs against the spirit of BLP. But I won't put the blog back in. csloat (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I sort of understand the point you are trying to make. I think we have this problem with this media generally. I get email everyday purporting to be initiated by "Robin Williams" or some notable. How do we determine identity on the web? Even if it sounds real. Why hasn't a reputable publisher taken up that same information? Establishing identity is something my financial websites spend a bit of time on. A piece of email (or a website) purporting to be from me would not suffice. Couldn't I, for example, post a very similar note to the blog you are referring to, change a couple of words and "poison" the note so it amounts to an "inadvertent" confession of guilt or at least a less sure accusation? Blogs can be made to work both ways! I suggest staying away from them even though "allowed." Student7 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The concensus that was reached by a handfull of editors on this page takes second fiddle to the concensus that hundreds of editors came to when they drew up the policy on WP:RS. The charges of wilson bieng a "liar" can stay if the individuals are noteworthy and can be sourced to a WP:RS, no other qualification is needed. As for you contention that the spirit of BLP would allow non reliable sources if it defends the subject from "bogus charges", the policy is just as stringent for negative or positive sources. CENSEI (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP concerns are not negotiable. Comments that he is a "liar" will be removed per BLP. csloat (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! Unless, of course, the comments that he is a "liar" come from Reliable Sources. CENSEI (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Even then, BLP concerns are paramount; such quotes are not a priori inadmissable, but they are not automatically encyclopedic either. csloat (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

True enough, but what you are arguing (I think, it changes with every post) is that since the "good" stuff about Wilson had to go because of poor sourcing, the "bad" stuff about Wilson has to go regardless of the sourcing. CENSEI (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks, and have a good day. csloat (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Sources Section

Its over 10K long, and every link currently exists in the reference section. Any objection to removing them? CENSEI (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

About Joe's Wilson IV second wife, you must notice we were living together in Iraq and Stuttgart so your information about the couple life is wrong. We were together until 1997 but he met Valerie Plame, and we divorced in 1998. So please correct the article. Jacqueline Wilson, the second French spouse jakywilson@yahoo.fr Tel (33) 6 73 71 35 33 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.214.169 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Joe Wilson

There was a sentence here that incorrectly said that this Joseph Wilson yelled out at Obama's joint address to Congress on health care. It was actually another Joe Wilson (R-SC) who made the comment. Sirkan (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This will likely be a very hot issue in the next 24 hours. Please keep a watchful eye for incorrect additions to a BLP. We should apply for protection if misinformed edits persist. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviation of "United States"

By these edits, Pgan002 has changed every instance of "U.S." to "US", stating, "no period in acronyms, as per MoS".

The MoS says, "In American English, U.S. (with periods) is the standard abbreviation for United States; US (without periods) is the standard abbreviation in other national forms of English and is becoming increasingly common in American English." This article about an American diplomat should follow current standard American English usage. If the trend asserted after the semicolon continues, this might require change in the future, but not now. At this time, "U.S." should be restored.

Regardless of what one considers standard usage, of course, verbatim quotations should be preserved accurately. (The MoS gives this example: "The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. U.S.A. and USA are not used unless quoted or as part of a proper name (Team USA).") The cited story in the Washington Post states:

Unknown to the reporters, the uranium claim lay deeper inside the estimate, where it said a fresh supply of uranium ore would "shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons." But it also said U.S. intelligence did not know the status of Iraq's procurement efforts, "cannot confirm" any success and had "inconclusive" evidence about Iraq's domestic uranium operations.

Accordingly, that passage should be quoted with "U.S." even in an article about a British topic that was using British English. JamesMLane t c 07:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)