Talk:Plame affair/Archive 6

message: In pursuit of Wikipedia:Summary_style I created Plame affair conspiracy theories based on the structure of September 11 conspiracy theories using the content in section "Other theories". I propose that "Other theories" be replaced with a link to  Plame affair conspiracy theories .  Any thoughts? rewinn 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.csloat 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame affair conspiracy theories (split)

message: I have modified the wording of the NY observer editorial since the anon editor wants to start another edit war over this garbage. But I don't think it belongs in the summary at all.  There is plenty of room for this sort of soapboxing in the rest of the article, where editorials on both sides are presented.  I think the summary section should stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and that there is already more than enough information on both sides of the question from editorials later in the article.  So even though I modified it, my preference is to remove that sentence completely, or at least move it to where it belongs.--csloat 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an editorial drawing conclusions from asserted facts, and therefore does not belong in the summary. Conclusions are not summary. I have moved it to the Press Reaction section. rewinn 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop the edit war now anon.  The quote is already there and nobody is objecting to that.  All that is problematic is the placement of the quote.  That has been adjusted appropriately, so don't mess with it.  If you would like to make an argument for its placement where you are inserting it, please do so here in rational terms rather than steamrolling edits that have been objected to.  Thanks.--csloat 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CS, sounds like you might have "ownership" issues here? 87.118.100.99 07:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 87, it sounds like you might have "trolling" issues here.--csloat 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that your edit also steamrolled over a bunch of other improvements to the article, including organization of the footnotes, proper url placement, and grammatical changes.  Don't start revert wars without even looking at your changes like that or I will ask to have you blocked for vandalism, since that is basically what it is.--csloat 06:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 87.118.100.99: your summary edits contain numerous POV violations. Please stop.  csloat is simply stating wikiProcedure, which is not a threat. If you violate procedure, the procedure will be executed.  You really should get a logon.  rewinn 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  soapboxing in the summary 

message: Hey guys, just wanted to give an e-pat on the back for the edits today.  Good start on trimming this down.  My own contribution are meager compared to you guys who keep this encyclopedia running.  Keep it up! Arkon 02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words! A little goes a long way ... rewinn 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good start

message: OK, I started Plame affair criminal investigation which is intended to cover the investigation, ignoring the politics, breathless newspaper reporting, and who-shot-who. This is intended to incorporate the following sections:
* 4.5 Justice Department investigation
* 5.1 CIA calls for leak investigation
* 5.2 Contempt of court: Miller, Cooper
* 6 Indictment
* 9 Criticism of Patrick Fitzgerald
I have tried to just copy-and-paste the sections, but significant re-arranging was necessary to impose some order and concatenate redundancy. Feel free to edit away! rewinn 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what should be done with the "public statements" section.  i thought of adding it to the timeline page. thoughts. Anthonymendoza 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i went ahead and moved section to timeline since it seems more relevant there. Anthonymendoza 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame affair criminal investigation

message: Plame affair criminal investigation needs to be merged with CIA leak grand jury investigation, or vice versa.  any thoughts?Anthonymendoza 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a strong opinion, but I'd say merge into the CIA leak one.  Either one would probably be ok though. Arkon 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm in the process of merging the two. i split the template:Plamefull into two parts.  template:Witnesses contains all known grand jury witnesses and is featured on Plame affair criminal investigation.Anthonymendoza 19:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i've merged all relevant info into Plame affair criminal investigation.  i'd appreciate someone looking at the two and adding info i've missed.  then CIA leak grand jury investigation should be redirected.Anthonymendoza 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: what if we merge the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section into the Plame affair conspiracy theories page.  we could also change the name of that page to something like "Criticism of the Plame Affair", or something to that affect.Anthonymendoza 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think so, since the CIA and Saudi conspiracy theories are not "criticism of the Plame affair" per se... though perhaps "Alternate theories of the plame affair" might work?--csloat 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that would work. anyone object to this merger? Anthonymendoza 01:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: i moved "criticism of plame/wilson" to Alternate theories of the Plame affair. Anthonymendoza 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame affair criminal investigation vs. CIA leak grand jury investigation

message: why is this tag on the article?  what are the specific complaints?Anthonymendoza 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At one time this article was rife with POV and conclusory matters, due in part to its tendency to accept the conclusions of non-experts such as newspaper reporters. Before removing the POV tag, it should be curried thoroughly. For example, consider the conclusion "effectively ending the infestigation" that pops up now & then in the SummarySection. This conclusion is supported by a quote from a newspaper who heard it from someone else. That's POV because (a) newspaper reporters have no control over the investigation, so their opinion on whether the investigation is over or not is mere POV; (b) the person who has control over the investigation is not quoted as saying it is effectively ended.   Some people will disagree with that assessment, which may justify the POV tag. rewinn 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the article states "A source briefed on the case told the Washington Post that the activities of Cheney and his aides were a key focus of the investigation and that the vice president was not considered a target or primary subject of the investigation and is not likely to become one. There are no other outstanding issues to be investigated, the source said, though new ones could emerge."  i inserted that the "investigative phase" is over, not the grand jury.  i inserted this because i raised it in a discussion topic above and no one challenged the notion that the "active investigative phase" is over.  i don't think it's pov, but if you object to it being included, then i won't argue.  what is left besides the trial of libby?  there have been no reports of grand jury witnesses since rove was told he wouldn't be indicted.  Anthonymendoza 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The encyclopedia shouldn't speculate just because *we* don't know what else the grand jury might do. Armitage may be under investigation. Vallely thinks Fitzgerald should interview Plame. Dean thinks the investigation is too narrow. No-one will be harmed if this article holds off on stating whether an unnamed source thinks the investigation is closed. Cheers! rewinn 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Where should the "Air Force One memo" stuff go?  Also "Karl Rove" is a really long chunk ... does it go into the Plame CIA leak affair grand criminal jury investigation investigation page?
:there is a section on the Karl Rove page devoted to his role in the plame affair.  perhaps that page should be expanded and the plame affair should just link to it.  as for the air force one memo, since the memo has been declassified, i think the section could be removed altogether. for a long time, what was in the memo was the source of much speculation and intrigue.  i'm not sure how it's relevant anymore.Anthonymendoza 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Air Force One memo?

message: Great.  Someone moved Plame affair to Plame Affair with the only justification being the unexplained assertion "it should be capitalized."  No; it should not be.  Wikipedia policy only uses capitalization of multiple words if that is the way it is for proper nouns that are usually spelled in most places you would find it; that is simply not the case for "Plame affair" (a title that is dubious even here but was chosen for lack of a better name).  The problem is now we can't move it back without an administrator getting involved; can an admin come change it for us, or do we need to take a vote on this silliness?  The Wikipedia "move" link is a little dangerous in the hands of new editors as it allows them to do a lot of damage easily that cannot easily be undone (there is no way to move a page back to its original name).--csloat 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and created articles named Plame Affair legal questions and the like, redirecting to the proper articles, in case the user who made the name change is a troll; this will prevent him from wreaking more havoc with name changes.  (It's not clear at all that he is, but I thought it telling that when I asked him to comment here, he simply deleted my note ratehr than commenting).  Anyway, I'm gonna try to figure out how to get the name changed back to conform to Wikipedia policy.-csloat 02:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 

message: That section is muddled. 
#Cooper is already extensively discussed elsewhere in this article or set of articles
#Sidney's comment is hearsay about what someone else said; it should be replaced by a quote from that person
#Mitchell/Matthes "may have taken place after Novak's article", therefore not notable
#Pincus is writing firsthand about something that took place before Novak's article, therefore is notable
#Russert & Kessler's testimony is mentioned elsewhere
#Russerts' refusal to deny telling Libby is not sourced. When there's a source it might be notable
#Woodwards statements are about himself and pre-Novak article, therefore notable
I suggest all but Pincus and Woodward be deleted. There is enough information about Woodward to give him a sub-section. I'm not sure what to do about Pincus. rewinn 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editting Section 'Other journalists with early knowledge' 

message: Hey Anthonymendoza: I see your edit about the article not being a quote; however it is still in quote marks. If it's not a quote we should dump the marks. What d'ya think (I don't wanna step on your edits ... too often ;-)? rewinn 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the sentence about woodward was not a direct quote.  the rest of the paragraph was/is.  i simply moved the woodward sentence out of the paragraph. simple edit. Anthonymendoza 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote/Not-a-quote

message: This time is long past to revise this article with the facts.  Armitage, who was a foe of the administration policy revealed Plame's name.  This was not a smear job by the President and the White House has been COMPLETELY exonerated. -- 130.126.138.6 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I would support this change, as long as we source it clearly to "User:130.126.138.6," since that seems to be the only source for these conclusions.--csloat 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another source.  --Tbeatty 01:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax. This is an encyclopedia article, not a daily news report. Most of the stuff reported is noteworthy and if it turned out that the accused are innocent, that goes into the article too. Compare O.J. Simpson and John Mark Karr  rewinn 01:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha... an anonymous Wikipedia editor and a raving alcoholic showing signs of mental breakdown; ok, now we have two sources!  Seriously, when the Washington Post reports that the White House has been "completely exonerated," I might be interested in the news.  Until then, all we have is wishful speculation on both sides.--csloat 01:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  For the sake of those who don't understand csloat's reference, the slate article proferred by Tbeatty was written by Christopher Hitchens        <<< the preceding comment, made by me, has been editted by me for the sake of civility rewinn 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discredited by whom, rewinn, and in what way?  You were discussing the need to "[f]rame all commentary in terms of improving the article."  How does this opinionated, conclusory and derisive dismissal of Hitchens help achieve that end?  Evensong 03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On 2nd thought, I'll just delete the language which may be offensive. rewinn 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest Armitage's role appears noteworthy enough to promote his section in the article, as I have done. Some of the endless details and quotations in the Novak and Rove section may need spinning off into their own article, or on to those person's own pages. Perhaps some of the quotations should be eliminated or grossly reduced; as long as there's a link to the quotation source why are there paragraphs of this stuff in the article? rewinn 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with Hitchens.  Why was he discredited?  "Slate" seems pretty credible and they continue to publish his articles. --Tbeatty 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hesitate to discuss Hitchens here since he's not even in Plame affair but FWIW I suggest you note the article cited above is editorializing, not reporting (note language such as "paranoid myth" and "Wilson fantasy") ... scarcely the neutral language of a fair man, and references his prior articles in which he makes grandeous claims about proving that Saddam sent a nuclear diplomat to Niger in 1999, and repeats all sorts of irrelevancies such as "[Novak] was never told the name Plame but discovered it from Who's Who". If you want to discuss Hitchens more, feel free to continue on my talk page. rewinn 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: CNN has now independently confirmed Armitage was novak's sources as well.  i agree that further editing is needed now that this essential fact of the case has been revealed.  i'm going to start with the Rove section.  most of it should be merged into the Karl Rove page.  i've always been curious as to why rove has his own section in this article and libby does not.  Anthonymendoza 14:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to revise this article

message: Wow, I am amazed. In less than a month, this article was reduced from a horribly bloated 170K down to it's current size of 74K! That is some impressive editing. The article is much improved because of it. Well done. Kaldari 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i personally think the page is at a good length now.  the longest section is the Novak article, but since the novak article is at the center of the plame affair i think it should be the longest section. any thoughts about further editing?Anthonymendoza 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, kudos.  I don't know who is responsible, csloat, Anthony, or others.  But you all really deserve a thumbs up.  Good job.  Evensong 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations on a job well done 

message: i'm going to begin the long task of properly labeling all the references.  feel free to help :) Anthonymendoza 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i condensed alot of information into the background section.  i didn't realize how much duplicate info there was/is in this article.Anthonymendoza 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Nearly all of the controversy about covertness has nothing to do with improving the article. The passion on all sides is sincere but, please, let's not argue about subjects that just don't improve the article. Otherwise I shall have to comment on the question whether a CIA agent loses her covert status when she marrys an Ambassador. Geez. What better cover than as a blonde bimbo Ambassador's wife? You get to travel the world, play tennis with anybody, et cetera ... it's practically "I Spy" minus  Bill Cosby.    rewinn 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a semantic argument at best.  As a term of art, she had "Non-Official Cover" (i.e. Brewster Jennings).  I think that would be the only term the CIA would use.  But CIA chose to report this as a violation of revealing classified information.  Colloquially, "under cover" or "covert agent" implies more than what she was.  She was certainly not a foreign agent or "spy" at least in the years leading up to this incident.  They didn't seem to believe IIPA was violated.  My objection to "undercover" is that it implies more in common usage than it means in usage by the CIA.  She was an employee of the CIA, she worked at CIA headquarters but her relationship to the CIA was classified.  I don't think anyone can argue that her employment wasn't classified.  As far as I can tell, "classified" doesn't have colloquial meaning beyond the government meaning.  It has been reported that the CIA PR person confirmed Plames employment.  This alone would have triggered the referral to Justice for revealing classified information.  --Tbeatty 06:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the CIA said "under cover" as well as "NOC" as well as "classified."  The only word there really is dispute about is "covert."  Second, your claim that "she was certainly not a foreign agent or spy at least in the years leading up to this incident" is impossible for you to say with certainty, unless you yourself are a high placed CIA official or have personal knowledge of Plame's actions during the time in question.  There's a reason people involved have been pretty tight-lipped about this, and I don't think we can assume that we know with any certainty what Plame was up to, where she travelled, who she interacted with, spied on, etc.  We do have some evidence that she was working on WMD issues regarding Iran, which is disturbing, but we don't have much detail about precisely what she was working on, and we should not pretend we do.  If her employment was "classified," that means she was "undercover."  Your claim that "classified" doesn't have a colloquial meaning is misleading.  "Classified" refers to information withheld by the executive branch for national security purposes.  When someone's job and employer is "classified," that indicates she is working "under cover."  Especially when there is explicitly a "cover" set up for her to operate in a "covert" manner.  The only one of these words with a "special" meaning in this case is "covert," which has a specific definition in the IIPA.  However, in it's colloquial meaning, Plame was certainly "covert" - that we can say with certainty (at least, assuming that Moscowitz, various CIA officers, Pat Fitzgerald, and her former classmates are not conspiring to lie to the the public about this), even if she did not meet the legal definition of "covert" in the IIPA sense.--csloat 06:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe you are wrong, merely that some terms are more disputable than others.  "under cover" and "covert" to me, in a colloqial sense, implies spying and foreign service.  It is simply a perception of the word.  Since, as you say, we don't know any of that, it makes it disputable.   I agree with you that she fits the dictionary definition of all those words.  She had cover, therefore "undercover" technically fits.  If she is "under cover" she could also be called "covert", etc, etc.  You could even argue she was a "spy" because she worked for the "spy agency."   Yet common usage makes me cringe at "covert" and "under cover" but not "classified."  "Classified" seems more appropriate given what we know and the common usage of the terms.   "Non-official cover" can be used to describe her classified employment as this really has no colloquial usage.  --Tbeatty 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK :)--csloat 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance to article???

message: csloat replaced the following intro:
::Plame Affair refers to the U.S. political controversy and criminal investigation resulting from a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak which identified Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA "operative". Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, alleged that her identity as an undercover agent had been intentionally exposed by White House officials in order to destroy her career, to punish him for publicly criticizing the Bush administration's justification for the war with Iraq. The CIA requested an FBI investigation of a possible violation of criminal law concerning unauthorized disclosure of classified information, but after more than two years a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, Patrick Fitzgerald, had not brought any charges concerning the disclosure. 
with this:
::Plame Affair revolves around allegations that one or more government officials revealed Valerie Plame Wilson’s classified employment status.
csloat, In what way do you think that is an improvement? 71.212.31.95 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been extensively discussed before. Introductions should be short, so readers can tell quickly what the subject is about, and dryly npov, which has been a problem for this article. Your additional are redolent with pov.  rewinn 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: rewinn, an intro should briefly summarize the essential information concerning the subject of the article, sufficient to satisfy the needs of a reader with casual interest. csloat's intro is clearly insufficient. Please be specific as to what you think is pov about my revision. 71.212.31.95 16:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review prior extensive discussion in Talk:Plame affair. For one example, calling Plame affair a political matter is pov disparagement of the non-political aspects of the matter.  rewinn 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: rewinn, please reread my intro. It says the Plame affair refers to a political controversy and criminal investigation. If there is some other aspect of the matter that you think needs to be mentioned in the intro, by all means feel free to include it. What are your other objections? 71.212.31.95 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We went thru all this last month. Plame affair has legal (both criminal and civil), security, political, financial, journalistic and other aspects. Once you start expanding the introduction to include everything in the article, you are on the road back to making this article longer than History of the World, which would be undesirable.  rewinn 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the intro summary cannot include every detail of all aspects of the subject. But it should briefly describe the essential facts regarding the most significant aspects. My intro is a good faith effort toward that end. If you think there's something else that needs to be mentioned, please add it. 71.212.31.95 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please review the previous discussion. The word "political" should not be in the introduction becaue it places undue weight on an aspect of Plame Affair that is scantly, if at all, mentioned in the article. The article's content focusses on legal battles with a heaping helping of journalism; very little of the article concerns politics. Feel free to start Plame Affair (politics) if you want an article that emphasizes it; I'm sure that would be full of interesting content.  rewinn 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro revert 

message: User:Anthonymendoza et cetera: Good job summarizing the Rove section! One can quibble forever ... but the essence is there and a link to the article where more can be found. Good job!
Of course, the reward for good work is to solicited for more. How about tackling the Novack section the same way? (I see that you're on it already...)  rewinn 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i finished all the references (i forgot to sign in on one edit). i think the article is a good length. i'll look over the novak section and see what can be merged with his page.Anthonymendoza 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summarizing Rove section

message: Relax! this is only wikipedia. No-one is going to change their opinion of the topic by what they read here. So sit back and enjoy a cookie!  rewinn 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, time for a WikiCookie 

message: Please focus on improving the article, not blogging. Wilson's claims in the NYT article that lead to the Novak article are beyond dispute; if you disagree, quote Wilson's article directly.  It's a waste of time blogging on a wikipedia talk page, since who reads this stuff anyway?  rewinn 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ...just more blogging on the talk page...

message: to all editors: please properly cite references when making edits to this page. a lot of work went into properly labeling all the works cited. thanks!Anthonymendoza 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: why is this tag on the page?  what are the specific complaints? Anthonymendoza 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm removing the tag since there seems to be no dispute. Anthonymendoza 15:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: i personally think the article is as short as it's going to get. any objections to removing the summary tag? Anthonymendoza 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i removed the summary tag since there were no objections.Anthonymendoza 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary tag