Jump to content

Talk:Michael Ledeen/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Vandalism

The second paragraph of this article has been vandalised at some point; note the m link and the comment that he's anti-t. I don't know anything about the subject to fix it, and it's been there a long time.--Prosfilaes 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. In the second paragraph there's a line that starts,
Ledeen, who today claims to be staunchly anti-fascist,...
but I don't see the fragments you described. Could it be a formatting problem? An overactive filter? -Will Beback 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I had a filter that regularly killed pages, but I didn't realize it was editing, too. What the heck did it think it was doing. It looks fine here. Sorry about the message.--Prosfilaes 02:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
A while back we had an editor who was using a "filtered" computer to edit articles. The filter was removing what it thought were bad words (including word roots) from the text articles when he saved them. To other editors, it looked like strange vandalism, but he was unaware of it and became quite defensive when we asked him to stop. Somebody eventually figured out what the problem was. Anyway, your filter apparently blocks "Fascis". -Will Beback 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes made 29-Jul-2006

I've just tried to change all the links in this article to proper cite.php style. I also removed the following links (and some duplicates thereof), because defamatory blog postings etc violate two (2) wikipedia policies. (Hint: one of those policies was a guideline until recently.)

Before restoring any one of these, please demonstrate that it meets all relevant Wikipedia standards, perferably in a new section on this talk page.

I've also rewritten the Jack Huberman allegations. BTW, using the authority of "a Princeton professor" to attack Leeden was quite clever, since few people would notice that he is a professor of computer science. Most people realize that Salon.com is quite left of center, so imputing the magazine's authority to a blog posting on its site was not so effective.

I deleted the following about one of Leeden's old columns:

In one article[1], written just before the Invasion of Iraq, Leeden speculated that some European countries, in a misguided effort to contain the spread of democracy in the Middle East and the resultant increase of American influence, had embraced anti-democratic values. Ledeen outlined a possibility that France and Germany, both NATO allies of the United States, "struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs" to use "extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice" to bring down a potential American Empire. He stated, "It sounds fanciful, to be sure," but that, "If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe. And there, as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us."

Note that this was written while Chirac and Schroeder were opposing U.S./British/Australian efforts to get the UN to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1441, and that the above is my version. I argue that a single, outdated column does not deserve this much coverage in our article; if you disagree, you can put it back.

Other changes included:

  • using indentation for long quotes, instead of italicization and/or HTML blockquote tags
  • changes to some headings
  • updated links for new NRO website structure
  • Removed following sentence )from end of 1st para under "Academic and political career"):
Ledeen has complained that "It's hard to explain to someone who doesn't read very well that there's a difference between authors and the subjects they write about." [Op Cit]
Would anyone can find a link for this please restore it and add the link?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! I haven't checked any of these links, but your argumentation seems sound. I do think however that the passage you removed (and which you apparently wrote in the first time) is relevant and interesting. It is interesting seeing how Ledeen conceives US-European relations. Tazmaniacs 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear enough. There was quite a bit of text about that column before my edits. I changed that text into what appears above ("In one column ..."), then decided to move it here. For one thing, we now know another reason for France and other players to go in to bat for Saddam at the U.N.: people close to Chirac (and Kofi Annan, and Putin, and many, many others) were bribed with oil-for-palaces/food money. Cheers, CWC(talk) 03:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I restaured it, trimming the first sentence. Tazmaniacs 13:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Ledeen, who has always been staunchly anti-fascist, holds political views which stress "the urgency of combating centralized state power and the centrality of human freedom"[3] that are said to have influenced or inspired the Bush administration." One would hope he is anti-fascist, but why is it necessary to bring this up? Isn't there a controversy about Ledeen's feelings about fascism that should be discussed here? -- Random User.

POV tag?

An anon editor inserted the POV tag based on speculation about the political affiliation of those who edited the article. I think such a claim is ad hominem and does not provide a reasonable basis from which to change the article. I am removing the tag until someone provides an actual reason for it so that the article can be changed if necessary. Thanks.--csloat 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

On the recent edit by an anon. Please do not revert this, but only reincorporate any information that is fully sourced and verified. On the "plagiarism" part, if replaced this should use the form "The Washington Post alleged plagiarism etc." and not the form "He was denied tenure, for among other reasons, charges of plagiarism [1]". Preferably, there should be another source for this if it's reintroduced. As you might have guessed, Wikimedia has had mail about this article. Thanks for your care folks -- sannse (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the "plagarism" part, you suggest it is accurate to say "the Washington Post alleged plagiarism". This is strange logic and simply not accurate. The Washington Post reported the statement of Ledeen's department head who said that in a department vote on Ledeen's tenure "there was no other reason to vote against him" than Ledeen's use of "the work of somebody else without proper credit". To attribute this assertion to the "Washington Post" is silly. The sentence in the second paragraph in of this page captures the importance very well: "The vote by the history department faculty at Washington University is worth noting since it represents not just a single opinion, but a consensus among a group of scholars tasked with evaluating Ledeen’s work."
Below is an excerpt from "Ledeen Seems To Relish Iran Insider's Role," Charles R. Babcock. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Feb 2, 1987. pg. a.01. Note that some of his academic colleagues were more forgiving than others. But even the gentleman who is identified as having voted in favor of Ledeen's tenure acknowledges there were problems with Ledeen's work ("I would just tell him not to do it again"). Why does a mention of this incident belong in the article? Ledeen is a controversial figure with many supporters and many detractors. There many people who over many decades have questioned the veracity of Ledeen's scholarship. The decision by the history department to deny Ledeen tenure and the reasons going into that decision are relevant to Ledeen's status as a scholar. To identify Ledeen as a scholar and to cite his other academic credentials without some mention of the circumstances under which he was denied tenure does not provide an accurate picture of Mr. Ledeen.
Several of Ledeen's former colleagues at Washington University said they were surprised to learn he had played such a sensitive role in a momentous foreign policy gamble, because Reagan administration officials knew about the plagiarism allegations that cost Ledeen a tenured position 15 years ago.
Ledeen said, "Any suggestion that my scholarship was less than professional is nonsense." He said Rowland Berthoff, head of the history department at the time, told him the allegations didn't play a role in the vote.
But Berthoff disagreed. "He seemed to have used the work of somebody else without proper credit. There was no other reason to vote against him."
Richard Walter, the current head of the department, said, "Serious questions were raised about the quality of his scholarship and the research that went into it." He said government background investigators were told about the tenure issue before Ledeen was hired as a special adviser to Haig in 1981. "I think the people who appointed him showed bad judgment," Walter said.
Robert C. Williams, now dean of the faculty at Davidson College in North Carolina, said the charges "involved deceptive use of prime sources . . . . Some would call it plagiarism, some wouldn't."
Solon Beinfeld, a professor who said he is a friend of Ledeen who voted in his favor in the tenure dispute, said, "It seems unfair that people raise this now as some sort of proof he's been a shady guy all along." He said Ledeen was popular with students at the university and the "quasi-irregularity" at issue didn't warrant the negative vote on tenure for Ledeen. "I would just tell him not to do it again."
Ledeen moved to Rome in 1974, where he studied Italian fascism and terrorism. In 1977 he moved to Washington to join the Center for Strategic and International Studies affiliated with Georgetown University. He continued to visit Italy often, and acknowledges being paid by the Italian military intelligence service in 1980 for "risk assessment" consulting work-as has been reported by The Wall Street Journal.

As a teacher, I believe that information about Ledeen's possible plagiarism must be included in the article. This is one of the most serious offenses in the academic world--only fabrication of results would rank higher. Everyone seems to agree that Ledeen did something wrong (except Ledeen); the only disagreements concern the seriousness of the offense. All of this can and should be included in the article.Trilateral chairman 08:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be added san POV

The Think Progress blog says:[1]

Michael Ledeen, another prominent neoconservative quoted in the Vanity Fair article, now claims he was “opposed the military invasion of Iraq before it took place.” He’s lying.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.246.111 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC), and edited per WP:BLP in March 2007

Neither this blog, nor the blogs it relies on, are reliable sources. CWC(talk) 17:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mosse- false claim to co-authorship removed

I have removed this from the references section as there is zero evidence that Ledeen co-authored this book. Mosse is the author. Ledeen was a grad student at the time and may have run to the library for Mosse but Ledeen was not credited by the publisher as co-author. Mosse is listed as sole author. the following is a false claim that is now removed from this article:

co-written with George Mosse Nazism : A Historical and Comparative Analysis of National Socialism, New Brunswick, N.J. : Transaction Books, 1978 ISBN 0-87855-661-3.

Skywriter 02:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably look at other edits by whoever added that one. csloat 06:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, that book is not listed here, so I agree. Good work, Skywriter. It turns out that book has been listed in the bibliography as long as we've had one. Looking at that user's contributions, I'd bet he was misled by whatever source he was using. Huh. Cheers, CWC 15:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

shady organizations

SISMI is not a shady organization, although P2 is. Contacts of Ledeen with SISMI are well-established, including that of then SISMI officer Francesco Pazienza. Intangible2.0 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

off-topic POV essay?

I don't understand why the following paragraph is here:

However after the fall of the Soviet Union, several Russian officials have confirmed some state sponsored terrorism. Former Russian Vice Premier Sergei Shakhrai released documents in 1992 that detailed Soviet sponsorship of terrorism, against American and Israeli targets during the late 1970’s, the height of Détente. Shakhrai said that the weapons and munitions supplied to groups like the PFLP were intended for "operations against American and Israeli personnel in third countries, to carry out acts of sabotage and terrorism". [9] Russian Information Minister Mikhail Poltoranin released documents in 1992 confirming that the Kremlin maintained contacts with some terrorist organizations until 1991. [10] More details of these operations have come from former Eastern Block defectors such as Vasili Mitrokhin, Oleg Gordievsky, and Ion Pacepa.

This doesn't say a word about Ledeen. It's an offtopic attempt to perform original research, synthesizing different sources to make it sound as if they are writing about Ledeen. We don't need this stuff here. Why not find an article by Ledeen making this point and cite it directly? I think he said as much in National Review, surely those who want this material in the article can dig up the copy of that National Review piece and cite that instead. I'm not going to edit war over this stuff but it needs to be cleaned up; this should be a biography of Ledeen, not an offtopic rant about terrorism allegations. csloat 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A few things, Ledeen has expanded on the archival information in his book "The War Against the Terror Masters", so its not really off topic, and can be cited to his book instead. Secondly, Goodman's comments, especially in hindsight, make him look like a grade A ninny (that and he has apparently jumped onto the 9/11 Truther Wagon), so if anything, Goodman's comments here are not only not relevant, but severely undermine his credibility as a reliable source. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's cite the book then - as I said, I am not going to edit war over this as I will be accused of POV shifting. I don't care about the POV here, I just don't see the point of an original research essay about terrorism allegations that has nothing obviously to do with Ledeen. So please cite Ledeen directly on this topic or delete the whole section. As for Goodman, I don't think your estimation of his "ninnyness" is really relevant to this page at all, and it is probably in conflict with WP:BLP policies. csloat 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, no edit warring, but Goodman's alleged ninnyness (9/11 Trutherism and No Soviet Sponsored State Terrorism) is certianly a big strike against his credibility. On the other hand, I would rather see this rolled into a new seciton about Ledeen's views on terrorism in general. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. This shouldn't be about defending whatever Ledeen got right; it should be a biography of Ledeen describing his views that are notable and what has been said about those views by other notable figures (ninnies or not). csloat 19:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Consultant on terrorism section

I would like to address the issue of my deletion of TDC's paragraphs on the supposed proof of The Soviet Union being responsible for international terrorism and this proving that Clair Sterlings book was right.
First off is TDC's libeling of Melvin Goodman as a ninny. Goodman, the head of Soviet affairs at the CIA from 1976 to 1987 is a ninny because he called the great Michael ledeens claims crazy. It doesn't matter that the whole bulgarian plot to kill the pope has been discredited. Also it was not just Goodman, just about every senior inteliigence official considered the terror network book false. Basically Sterling took CIA black propoganda operations planted in european newspapers and passed them off as fact. Only in extremely delusional right wing circles are sterlings claims still considered credible.
As for the 9-11 truth smear, as TDC probably well knows there are two 9-11 truth movemnts. One that thinks the Bush administration had prior knowledge of the attacks and did nothing and the other more extreme movement that thinks that the adminstration actually were the ones that carried out the attacks. Goodman has signed a letter from the former group. As far as I know Goodman has never made any statements saying the adminstration actually carried out the attacks themselves.
So TDC's accusation comes down to a 21st century version of red baiting. This shouldn't suprise anyone sense on TDC's personal page you find this little gem:

I also find it amazing how often people like William Blum, Howard Zinn, John Pilger, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, and last but not least Noam Chomsky sound exactly like Osama bin Laden.

Great Voice of moderation aren't we.
As for the two articles TDC posted they are irrelvant sense neither deals with Ledeen or the claims in sterlings book. Also the way the articles are presented in the article give the impression that these documents were actually released, but if you actually read the articles you see no mention of the documents being released, just a russian official claiming this is what they claim and saying he will release them soon. Were these documents actually released, if so were is the reference to them. TDC is outright lying when he says that Russian governement has admitted to supporting terrorism. An official who worked with Yeltsin claiming that the Russians supported terrorism is not a formal admission of a government. The article TDC cited even states that the government still officially denies the claim. It's also somewhat ironic that the article in question is written by Michael Dobbs, a conservative commentator who now disagrees with ledeen on the plot to kill the pope theory. The fact that both these articles are 15 years old doesn't strike anyone as suspect and that one of them is written by a man who now disagrees with ledeen?
That brings me to the hart of the matter which is the third sentence written by TDC that has no citation to support it:

More details of these operations have come from former Eastern Block defectors such as Vasili Mitrokhin, Oleg Gordievsky, and Ion Pacepa.

It's interesting that TDC would have the courage to put a crackpot like Ion pacepa as a source and then have the nerve to call Melvin goodman a ninny.
Here is a sampling of Pacepa's views:
Iraq & WMD

Ion Mihai Pacepa has strongly supported United States military action against Iraq. In opposition, large anti-war demonstrations were held in cities across the world. Pacepa contends that these protests were contrived and "anti-American", in which Moscow had a controlling hand.[4]

Pacepa also alleges that the Russians helped Saddam Hussein transfer and hide his weapons of mass destruction prior to the American invasion in 2003.[5]

[edit] Kennedy assassination In a 2006 article, Pacepa describes a conversation he had with Nicolae Ceauşescu, who told him about "ten international leaders the Kremlin killed or tried to kill", among them US President John F. Kennedy.[6]

In a 2007 interview with FrontPage Magazine, Pacepa intimated that the KGB was responsible for his assassination. He says that KGB fingerprints are all over Lee Harvey Oswald and his killer, Jack Ruby.[7]

Pacepa has since published a heavily detailed and footnoted book on that topic, "Programmed to Kill: Lee Harvey Oswald, the Soviet KGB, and the Kennedy Assassination," 2007. ISBN 1-56663-769-1 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum.

That's right the Russians helped saddam hussein hide is weapons of mass destruction and they killed JFK. I think it's clear that TDC is basing most of his views on Pacepa's rantings.
The article should stand without these sentences and include ledeens claim that the Stasi files prove he was right. That is a fair and honest compromise that is actually relevant to this article. annoynmous 04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this section should read as the Robert Gates confirmation hearings... Intangible2.0 11:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neo-conservative lede revert

Although a better ref may be found and I’ll work on it, I base my revert on a quick look through this[2] and this[3]. While I really do not care how the term ‘neoconservative’ is brought into the lede, it still should be included. As the referenced category discussion states, the usage should be discussed on the specific talkpages; there was no consensus. I also note That Ledeen and the term are used descriptively from what appears to be both the right and left. I personally do not see the term as a purported epithet, but I do see it as highly descriptive and indicating a political bent that is decidedly non-paleoconservative and off the conservative mainstream. Their particular views both birthed the ‘neo’ term and additionally fostered the need for the ‘paleo’ distinction.

In addition, I have changed the ‘academic’ to ‘pundit’, since the word indicates considerable teaching, which he doesn’t do, and at least one of the Goggled refs makes note of Ledeen being a ‘failed academic’. The ‘pundit’ also implies the previously suggested ‘expert’, but encompasses something more, that of an opinion-leader. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the exact deal is, but I know that an editor has been adding neoconservative to lots of bio's leads. It sure looks agenda driven. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That editor is equally unsure of what is really happening, but he notes in all honesty (proved by diffs), that his editorial reaction is more factually motivated by the recent disappearance of the specific term from several pages than any attempt to add something that was not already there. Respectfully, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My general take is that neoconservative has several possible meanings (see our article on the topic, if it hasn't been distorted past the point of utility by now), is frequently used as a political epithet in discourse, and is thus a vague and unhelpful term. I give it a pass when the use of the term is clearly justified by historical connection to one of the classic uses of neoconservative -- that is to say, when information that verifies that the subject was a liberal who converted to conservatism (to use the oldest sense), or, alternatively, is one of the "Scoop Jackson" style hawks who joined the Reagan Administration. There are also several other senses of the term, in more restricted categories, that I'd be okay with.
My particular issue with the citation here, and the use of the term in reference to Ledeen, is firstly one of accuracy and secondly one of verifiability. The source here does not make any real attempt to connect Ledeen to any of the accepted uses of "neoconservative"-- it merely has somebody calling him a neoconservative, and thus fails verifiability. Indeed, given his connections with Italian intelligence, which predate the Reagan Administration, it's safe to say that Ledeen was an antiterrorist hawk long before the Scoop Jackson Dems converted; furthermore, there is no evidence presented here that he was once a Dem. Neoconservative is not a wishy-washy term for "conservative politics off the conservative mainstream," a nebulous and difficult to define concept if there is one (and it might be helpful to note that as a significant contributor to NRO, Weekly Standard, and with past affiliations with both the State Department and NSC, Ledeen is quite in the mainstream of Republican foreign policy, even if he's a touch eccentric). It has precise meanings, and current "evidence" is so scanty as to verify none of the above, and indeed, the information in the article seems to be counter to it.
On another note, there is an agenda driven editor who's been running around tagging people as "neoconservative" -- (begin sarcasm) to include such luminaries of the movement as Karl Rove and Gary Bauer (end sarcasm). I've been cleaning up after him, but it's starting to strain my patience. He's quite uncommunicative, and while I don't think he's acting in bad faith (the only thing which has kept me from seeking administrative sanction), I think he has serious issues with understanding and bias, but that's not a topic for this page. RayTalk 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Ledeen secondhand

Why is there a section of alleged statements by Ledeen that sources a Ledeen critic? Either find a direct source for the quotes, or admit they're hearsay and throw them out. Either is fine with me. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. Either it's a reliable source, according to the wikipedia's rules, or it isn't. If it is, it stays in. In any case, what others say about somebody are usually as important as what they say about themselves.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
But, Wolfkeeper, there's an important distinction between talking about somebody, and putting words in somebody's mouth. The latter is hearsay, which is disallowed as evidence in many legal system. Granted Wikipedia isn't a legal system, but the *reason* for the hearsay rule is because hearsay is considered unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.2 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't any quote one reads in a news article hearsay? Here on Wikipedia, if it's not hearsay from a reliable source, it's original research. No? Katsam (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Misreports and Rumors

Ledeen has twice made false reports about Ayatollah Khamenei, once reporting that he was in a coma, once that he was dead. I'm not going to add to the article, because I don't know where it belongs, nor do I have time to monitor the article. But it seems worthwhile. Note that Ledeen was the major source in publicizing one of the rumors. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/oct/15/khamenei-iran-rumour-death; http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/11/04/stephanopoulos/index.html. JustinBlank (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Leeden Doctrine Quote

"Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business," which Goldberg remembered Ledeen saying in an early 1990s speech. <snip> Goldberg himself has stated that he is "not sure" if Ledeen ever actually said this.

At a minimum, these two statements are contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.157.152 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

See the links here. Ledeen himself admitted to saying this. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Crappy little country quote"

User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has repeatedly removed (assuming bad faith and calling my edits vandalism) a quote by Ledeen that is verifiable in reliable sources, with the stated reason that it is a "crappy" quote, that it is "POV" (even though Ledeen himself has verified that he said it, and several reliable sources have quoted it), and that it "violates WP:RS" (without giving any indication HOW using quotes from reliable sources violates WP:RS). I have added two more reliable sources for this quote, and a discussion of the "controversy" over it. I would like User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling to come here and discuss the changes before reverting again. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no vandalism involved in Jrtayloriv's edits. It was simply an honest misunderstanding by one or both of us as explained fully here. As to the quote, it is the quote as recalled by a third person--it is not an actual quote. The source itself admits it may be an unreliable quote. To me, that violates RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh my, I see this has been added to the article: "The term 'Ledeen Doctrine' is often mistakenly attributed to Michael Ledeen himself. Goldberg himself has stated that he is 'not sure' if Ledeen ever actually said this or thinks along these lines." So now the Wiki article itself now says the source is not a RS.
I ask people to consider that the quote and the explanation that it may not be accurate is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see the additional citations that I added to the quote. Ledeen himself has admitted to saying this. He stated that it was "out of context", but he never stated what the "context" was that would have changed the meaning of it, and regardless, he verified saying it. As far as the quote Ledeen Doctrine' is often mistakenly attributed to Michael Ledeen himself. Goldberg himself has stated that he is 'not sure' if Ledeen ever actually said this or thinks along these lines., I have removed this, since none of this is backed up by the source cited. This should not be reinserted into the article until a reliable source for these claims has been found. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Attack on John Paul II

We've had two versions of the (longish) paragraph about the 1981 attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Here's the BtFR version ("blame the far right"):

It was during this time in Italy that Ledeen supported the "Bulgarian connection" conspiracy theory concerning Grey Wolves member Mehmet Ali Ağca's 1981 attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The theory has since been debunked by various authors and journalists, including Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs, who initially believed the story. Despite this, it was revived, with the same arguments, in 2005 by the controversed Italian Mitrokhin Commission. A competing theory points toward Gladio, a NATO network believed to have supported the Turkish ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves and the strategy of tension in Italy, which had been supported by Gladio and SISMI agents. Gladio stay-behind networks directed responded to SACEUR. According to Craig Unger, "With Ronald Reagan newly installed in the White House, the so-called Bulgarian Connection made perfect Cold War propaganda. Michael Ledeen was one of its most vocal proponents, promoting it on TV and in newspapers all over the world."<ref name="Unger"/>

The other version I'll call BtC ("blame the communists"):

It was during this time in Italy that Ledeen became a strong proponent of the Bulgarian and Soviet involvement in Mehmet Ali Ağca's 1981 attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Although controversial at the time, most evidence today suggests that then KGB director, Yuri Andropov, hatched the plan to assassinate the Pope using Bulgarian and East German secret services to carry out the mission. Metodi Andreev, a former official in charge of the Bulgarian KGB's files, had seen correspondents between Stasi and the Bulgarian intelligence agents regarding the conspiracy to kill the pontiff as well as an order from the KGB to bury Bulgaria's connection to the plot.<ref>Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Attempted Assassination of John Paul II, April 6, 2005</ref> An Italian commission, relying on documents found in the files of the Stasi led them to believe “beyond any reasonable doubt"” that the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II was ordered by the KGB.<ref>Victor L. Simpson, Italian Panel: Soviets Behind Pope Attack, Associated Press, March 2, 2005</ref>

(In both cases, I've shown the <ref> elements in small text.)

Which version should we choose? I invite discussion here. Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Most evidence to date points to the latter, namely that Leeden was correct and Andropov ordered the hit. Although some still cling to the theory that the CIA did it as a “false flag” attack, the vast majority of reliable sources disagree with this. WP:WEIGHT would suggest that while there are still a few notable individuals who agree with the BtFR version, they are so far in the minority of opinion that the BtFR version gives their POV way too much ink. I would also add that most of the BtFR crew, Herman, Parenti, Goodman, have all been pretty quiet on this subject since the revelations of the past 5 years. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
NPOV requires to abstain oneself from claiming such things as "the vast majority of RS disagree with this", since this is obviously false and POV statement. NPOV requires to give both sides of the story, and it is a publicly-known fact that Ledeen was one of the main proponent of the "bulgarian connection" theory at the beginning of the 1980s, and this is important to state. It is not just a coincidence if he happened to work with the SISMI, as he has recognized. Furthermore, this conspiracy theory has been denied by the Pope itself, Washington Post reporters who used to support it, and even some CIA agents declared that it had been a manipulation. That the controversial Italian Mitrokhin Commission revived recently the theory, on the grounds of one photo (sic) is just another demonstration of the political motivations behind this commission which is now being investigated by another commission. We may attempt to find a middle-ground, but simply deleting this part is not acceptable. Tazmaniacs 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Will you tell of Francesco Pazienza also? Intangible2.0 16:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"I've snipped this part: A competing theory points toward Gladio, a NATO network believed to have supported the Turkish ultra-nationalist Grey Wolves and the strategy of tension in Italy, which had allegedly been supported by Gladio and SISMI agents. Gladio stay-behind networks directly responded to SACEUR. While Ledeen's "Commies dunnit" theory looks like a conspiracy fantasy, it was Ledeen's theory and is therefore germane to his bio page. Whereas the "NATO false-flag" theory is just somebody else's conspiracy theory, which has nothing to do with Ledeen at all. It seems to have been gratuitously inserted in here, in a format which creates a bogus "either-or" impression. If somebody wants to peddle the Gladio idea, then they can try to get it into the JPII shooting article, subject to RS and NPOV policies. Solicitr (talk) 05:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bridge writer

What did he write? --P64 (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Six months later I removed this page from Category:Bridge writers because our text and notes do not support that and none of his top 20 listings at WorldCat is a bridge book. --P64 (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Ledeen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Surname

What is the national origin of his surname? It actually sounds a bit Arabic rather than Jewish. Badagnani 07:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Some Jewish surnames sound Arabic; see Paula Abdul. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


Why nothing about his parents and family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.4.180 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Involvement With SISMI

There is this odd unsourced line in the article:

"Ledeen has acknowledged being paid by the SISMI in 1980 for 'risk assessment'." This does seem to be substantiated by a few sources - but what is interesting to me is that Ledeen is a bit inconsistent in what he has said about his services for and remuneration from SISMI:

  • Tale of Intrigue: Why an Italian Spy Got Closely Involved In the Billygate Affair --- Journalist Michael Ledeen, Pursuing the Story in 1980, Got Agent Pazienza's Aid --- What Is the Haig Connection? By By Jonathan Kwitny, The Wall Street Journal, 2285 words

Aug 8, 1985

"He says a consulting firm he owned, ISI, undertook work for SISMI either late in 1980 or early in 1981 and the price 'may well have been $100,000, I can't remember.' SISMI may have paid another fee for other work in 1980, Mr. Ledeen says. He says his travel expenses were also paid. And he says, 'I had, I think, for a period of a few months, a personal account in Bermuda.' He declines to discuss further 'any of my personal finances.'"

  • Ledeen Seems To Relish Iran Insider's Role; Charles R. Babcock. The Washington Post, Washington, D.C.: Feb 2, 1987. pg. a.01

"But he denies the claims of a jailed former Italian intelligence agent, Francesco Pazienza, who testified that Ledeen received $200,000 from the Italian agency, known as SISMI, for a counter-guerrilla course. "That's a total fabrication," he said. "And journalists who keep repeating it are being malicious." "I've said to every journalist who asks about this, `Find the money and you can have 80 percent of it.' I could use it. I have three kids and a dog." He said State Department, CIA and Defense Department investigators all checked Pazienza's charges at his request and found them false.

He also discusses his involvement with SISMI in this article "Conversations with Machiavelli's ghost: Denials mark neoconservative's account of past and present scandal," Larisa Alexandrovna, March 7, 2006 http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Conversations_with_Machiavellis_ghost_Denials_mark_0307.html

Ledeen said: "I think in the late seventies, when I was invited to participate in a desktop exercise dealing with how to communicate with friendly countries. What to ask, what not to ask; who to ask, who not to ask; how to ask, how not to ask. An exercise in bureaucratic communication..."

Later in the article he says "the sum total of my work with SISMI consists of one half day in Rome." It is not clear whether he means this literally or in the context of contacts with SISMI that occurred in connection with December 2001 meetings between American officials from the Pentagon (Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode) and Iranians who Ledeen said had information about the mullahs’ plans to attack Coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Sign to allow for archiving Darkness Shines (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The article states, "At Washington University, Ledeen was denied tenure, for among other reasons, charges of plagiarism." This must be sourced to be included, otherwise it appears libelous. Also, what's it purpose other than to poison the well? Doright 18:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Doright, I will add a reference. However, this information is well established and has been discussed. If you do a little reading above, you will see that the sentence was carefully constructed based on the information provided in a Washington Post article. In that article, the head of the Washington University history department is quoted as saying: "[Ledeen] seemed to have used the work of somebody else without proper credit. There was no other reason to vote against him." Without any doubt, Ledeen was denied tenure based on the belief of the department leadership that he had inappropriately borrowed material and his research wasn't up to par.
You ask what purpose this information serves. Elsewhere in the article there is information on Ledeen’s writings and scholarship. Ledeen is a controversial person. There certainly are many admirers of his writings and work. There are also many people who over many decades have questioned the veracity of his work. The vote by the history department faculty at Washington University is worth noting since it represents not just a single opinion, but a consensus among a group of scholars tasked with evaluating Ledeen’s work. Even Ledeen’s friends, such as Duane Clarridge, have noted that Ledeen has advanced ideas – such as the Soviet’s alleged extensive involvement in sponsoring and training the Red Brigades and other terrorist organizations in the 1980s – that lacked any solid foundation.--68.221.111.61 15:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Mitrokihn said that the training of the RedBrigades by Moscow was what caused the split between the ICP and the Soviets. *SOURCE? - other than Clair Sterling and Michael Ledeen and misinformation planted in European newspapers and in the wikipedia Red Brigades page?*
Still confused why references in the article to Ledeen's "improper attribution of sources" and subsequent action by the Washington University history department were removed. We're any of the three department members quoted in the Washington Post article misquoted? Did any of them change their mind? Is there a source that explains the history department's vote differently? Even the one colleague quoted in the WP artcle who sticks up for Ledeen by saying the improper attribution of sources didn't warrant the negative vote, didn't deny that Ledeen's attribution was not up to standard nor that the negative vote on Ledeen's tenure was based on the allegations of improper sourcing.

Sign to allow for archiving Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"Philosopher", Historian", really ?

It's not enough to have a PhD in History or Philosophy to be qualified as an "historian" or "philosopher". One must have a good publication record in academic peer-reviewed journals and confs. This seems not to be the case here: Leeden only publishes in partisan think-tanks or in journals on subject not related to history or philosophy. Buzzor (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Getting the PhDs is the qualification, any publications afterward are not relevant. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
No kidding ? Every Philosopher or Historian as a speciality. What's his ? Buzzor (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You said he was not qualified, obviously he is. Have you edited Wikipedia before. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
So, what are his specialities in History or Philosophy ? Buzzor (talk)
I neither know nor care, he is obviously qualified. Any reason in particular you ignored my question? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't care. OK. And obviously you don't know. About your question, answer is yes, in the french wiki. Why do you ask ? Buzzor (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I was curious as to your use of wiki mark up, citation added and a copy edit to sort your objections regarding his philosophy crap. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"Philosophy crap". Appropriate. Buzzor (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated subsections

the Clinton emails and project veritas sections exclusively discuss Ledeen's wife. They are clearly not relevant to the article subject since they do not mention him once. I will be deleting them. If someone feels those are noteworthy events for her then she should have a page made for her, not tacked onto this page with no context for him. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Strange quote formatting

The Iraq war advocacy section quotes one sentence after another in the following manner: "a" "b" "c." This does not indicate relative order of sentences, distance between statements, and overall is a manner that is not used in English speaking. I am going through the original source, an article from the national review, and fixing the quotes as needed. Bgrus22 (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference L031003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Ledeen/Archive_2&oldid=1248615888"