Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 6

message: In an attempt to shorten this article (at least temporarily while doing that), I'm moving passages from this section to this talk page; I've added a link to Wikiquotes with some of the sentences in it already, and I added some material to that Wikiquotes page on Patrick Fitzgerald. [I also updated this article w/ some new sourced information.] --NYScholar 22:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fitzgerald investigation: press conference passages

message: Earlier versions of this article (and others relating to "Valerie Plame" and "Plamegate" [the "Plame affair"]) did not (and some still do not have) adequately-checked and authenticated reliable sources of information.  These articles still need vigilant work (in my view). (See top tags relating to WP:BLP). Given that Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia editors cannot put rumors and innuendoes and unsubstantiated "theories" in this article about a living person.  (Note: The "neutrality" of some articles relating to this one is "disputed" and subject to ongoing review by administrators.) [I re-organized some secs of my replies above.]--NYScholar 23:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for ongoing vigilance in editing BLP (biographies of living persons)

message: --I didn't have time to look over the whole article, but I deleted some of the graffiti at the top of the article.  (there may be more buried inside.)
Geoffrey.landis 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted unsigned inappropriate comment

message: I do want to show sources properly.  The current video link for the CBC interview is http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/internationalus/valerie_plame_interview.html.  However, I think after a time that link ends.  Kyle Andrew Brown 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBC link 

message: Could that section be split into smaller ones--it's hard to edit now, and a lot to read.  It also seems to me that the newer material in it makes some of the older stuff irrelevant, as more has become known.  However, some of the stuff that's wrong may still be relevant as documentation of errors that were made before the most recent disclosures. 64.160.39.153 08:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article follows a mostly-chronological organization; the material is relevant to the controversy: see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:POV as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  I consolidated the material about the hearing and put it in its own section in chronological order of article, adding a cross-ref. under heading "Career" in the article.  It is possible to find the updated information that way; that the details of her career are the topic of considerable controversy and disputes in the press coverage of her relation to the Plame affair is very important and, in my view, not to be deleted or omitted otherwise. --NYScholar 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that a considerable amount of the article text is devoted to presenting arguments for and against V. Wilson's reported status as a formerly covert CIA agent.  This issue was very much in question and couldn't be answered definitively, so the article instead gave the best available sourced information on both sides.  However, stuff that came out in the recent Waxman hearings (and to some extent in the Libby trial) obsoletes some of the prior uncertain stuff.  So I think streamlining is possible.  For example, unless someone credible is contesting it, I think General Hayden answered the covertness question once and for all, in the statement he cleared for the Waxman hearing. 64.160.39.153 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  career section