Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 2

message: More information is coming out that should be reflected here, but I'm not sure how to place it given the major revamping this article has gone through.  The National Review links to an amicus brief by the media organizations asserting that Plame's name was outed by the CIA twice before the Novak article.  How do we add this information? --Badlydrawnjeff 13:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The amicus brief simply references the unsourced claims in the following Washington Times article. .  If you want to include that I'd go with the original.  The 'anonymous sources' claimed a year ago that Plame's cover had already been blown before Novak, but there hasn't been anything else on it.  Another anonymous source has claimed that Plame's identity was deliberately leaked "purely for revenge".  Generally I'd prefer not to include these things which essentially amount to 'completely unsubstantiated rumors', but if you must I'd think they'd go in the 'reaction' section. --CBD 23:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amicus Brief and Prior Leaks 

message: Could the person who added it please note their specific objections so that we may sort out any issues? I will leave this for 24 hours, then remove the tag if nothing is said. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there an NPOV tag on this article? 

message: I can't find anyone but the more vocal partisans who seriously contend that there has been no change in the President's position -- with that in mind, I altered what an anon had written, but I think it's still a little vague.  The statements (as accurately quoted -- the anon had exercised some creative summarizing) seem to me to be clearly distinct -- that is, Bush was very clear in his recent remarks about crime because he was aware that his earlier remarks were very broad.  I didn't add Scott McClellan's remark on Sept. 29 at a press briefing that "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."  Do you think it would be fair to add it, or would it seem too biased?  I don't want to slant this.  Also, can we get any kind of attribution, especially of people who claim that all of these remarks are consistent?  It would comfort me...and somebody look over what I wrote to be sure I'm being fair.  I'm doing my best. Jwrosenzweig 06:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh... oops. I'd just updated with various quotations before coming here.  I think the only way to address this is to allow people to see exactly what was said and make their own decisions.  I left in the 'some people believe' merry-go-round, though I don't think it particularly valid.  All of the 'no change' arguments I have seen arrive at that conclusion by leaving out 75% of the quotes and 'paraphrasing' (aka 'falsifying') the rest.  --CBD 11:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's consistent stance 

message: This article and Plame affair mostly DUPLICATE each other's efforts. 4.250.132.38 12:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely true... and there is alot of stuff in Karl Rove, Bob Novak, Joseph Wilson, et cetera which could really be centralized.  However, what is needed is agreement that this has grown to the point that it should have its own page and leave 'Valerie Plame' just for background on the woman herself.  Opinions? --CBD 13:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and that should happen in the other articles as well.  I think we should merge all the good information into Plame affair. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks as if its happening, and theres still enough room for Plame affair article to grow, as its currently ("only") 48k. We have talk pages that go on for over 200k. -St|eve 05:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of effort 

message: Was she born on April 19, the IP address 67.67.89.25 has been vandalizing many pagess but a few are edits where it is indeterminant if they are vandalism or not. --ShaunMacPherson 14:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: OK, Larry, we get it.  Rove has not yet been charged with a crime.  The problem is this claim is inserted both here and in the Plame Affair article as a means of dismissing everything else.  Where is the information about the threat to national security raised by Rove's actions?  Whether or not he technically broke the law, many say what Rove did was a huge blow to national security.  Take a look at the [rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter072205_identity.rm Senate Hearing] on the issue and listen to former CIA officers testify to the Senate.  This really is not a Democrat/Republican issue at all, and it is just the Bushies trying to cover Rove's ass who are making it one.  Rove (and Libby) may not have been charged with crimes (yet), but there is no question that what they did undermined American national security and was absolutely unacceptable insofar as they did it out of some twisted sense of political vengeance.  Dwelling on the technicalities of the actions -- e.g. Rove didn't mention Plame by name (as if "Joseph Wilson's wife" could have been somebody else) -- is an obvious diversion from the real issues at stake here.  That may fly in the media but it shouldn't be the position of Wikipedia. --csloat 21:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican Talking Points 

message: This paragraph has no references:
It has also been widely rumored that Plame's loose relationship as an analyst/operative for the CIA was well known to many people in Washington , including journalists, long before she was "outed". The initial reports, by her husband and certain reporters, that somehow she was endangered by this "leak" seem now to be erroneous, as the nature of her work for the CIA has shown to not be such that she would be in any danger of retaliation from anyone that she had dealings with professionally.
If it is "widely rumored" it should be possible to find a published reference that describes the nature of these rumors. 
In this paragraph (above), wikipedia is describing Plame's relationship with the CIA as a "loose relationship". This seems like the POV of those who have attempted to justify public disclosure of her identity as a CIA opperative. I doubt if anyone in the CIA would characterize a NOC operative's relationship with the CIA as "loose". Why should wikipedia?
The paragraph (above) refers to "initial reports" .... "that .... she was endangered", but provides no references. Please provide a reference for such "reports". What I have seen, is the statement that there may have been other people outside of the U.S. at the time of the leak of Plame's identity who could have been put at risk because they were known associates of Plame. --JWSchmidt 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference 

message: Does she have a George W. Bush nickname? A Desperate Housewife, I guess. -- Toytoy 02:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Desperate Housewife? 

message: I don't mean to sound ignorant (I'm Australian) but where is she now? And is she going to jail? --220.238.2.146 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For what?  She has not been accused of any crime.-csloat 09:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh-huh, I did not realise that, I just assumed she has because of the term "Plame affair".--220.238.30.231 00:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instead of making poorly grounded assumptions, consider reading the article. 68.6.40.203 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Furthermore, she can't talk to the media because the CIA would have to clear it. The CIA has yet to start their own investigation of the fallout from the leak because they're waiting for Fitzgerald to get done. Effectively she is in limbo, so that's why you always see her husband talking on her behalf. --waffle iron 01:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Okay, I was just wondering why the rest of the world should even care?--220.238.2.146 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Different people have different things they care about, for different reasons.  The scope of such interests is downright, uh, encyclopedic. 68.6.40.203 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, but nobody in the southern hemisphere cares, or even the eastern hemisphere, when they do you should include it in the "in the news" section, but right now we do not.--220.238.2.146 05:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  (See American exceptionalism)--220.238.2.146 05:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fascinating. No one in the Southern or Eastern hemispheres cares about the Iraq war, the actions of the Bush administration, or American politics in general. Good to know... explains John Howard anyway. --CBDunkerson 08:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  John Howard!? It's funny because its true!--220.238.29.159 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not an australian, but nearby... NZer. And likewise this entire mess is a little confusing and information overload. Even though I've been reading several related wikipedia pages on this affair, am at least starting to get a grasp on things. Still, can't help but wonder... if there is a short and simple summary of this somewhere? Mathmo Talk 03:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is she now?! 

message: "the October 2005 investigation" <-- this is meaningless
"Some predict" <-- speculations should not be in the introduction
"The Plame affair is connected mostly to a political war between the White House staff and leaders and a war critic, former ambassador Joe Wilson" <-- the "political war" can be described below the table of contents. The basic facts can be told in the introduction: The Plame affair is connected mostly to Joe Wilson's questioning of President 2003 Bush's State of the Union claim that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".
--JWSchmidt 13:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems above the table of contents 

message: The title of this article should be Valerie Plame Wilson, and Valerie Plame should redirect here.  Anyone object to such a change?--csloat 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding has been that she just uses 'Valerie Wilson' rather than having the 'Plame' in there at all. --CBDunkerson 21:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True - either one is more accurate than "Valerie Plame," even though that is most common in the media.  I think the Plame should stay just b/c that's what is most often used but the Wilson should be in too for accuracy.-csloat 21:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of Article