Talk:Vincent Cannistraro/Archive 1

message: moderators please. If necessary I will go through each claim and add footnotes to source documents such as newspapers, websites and books if any of the facts are disputed, but I feel he has made his intentions perfectly clear by simply deleting everything I write and then accusing me on his talk page of using "propaganda". If the New York Times is "propaganda" then I really don't know what I should be using to find relevant information... Ryan4 15:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: I have now cited my sources for all claims that I made referring to Cannistraro. Ryan4 23:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References Added

message: These links are dead so I moved them here.  I also do not think they are reputable given the URL but then again I never got a chance to read them.  --70.48.240.217 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead external links

message: Vincent Cannistraro, [user:Vincecan] has repeatedly edited this page and removed information that has been extensively documented by the media about him that he obviously doesn't want people to know. Will a moderator please prevent him from stifling free speech and the dissemination of facts about him that he finds embarassing. Surely the constant removing of proven facts with an obvious agenda to decieve constitutes at least vandalism.
Ryan4 19:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia has no moderators. In my view, the user was acting reasonably fine. The Wikipedia isn't free speech. Free is as in libre to distribute, not as in freedom to edit. It is important to remain inside WP:NPOV. Computerjoe's talk 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vincent Cannistraro 

message: I have to say, my friend, that you are really something else. You call my sources, that is, AP, UPI, the Washington Post, a book on Iran Contra, and a PBS interview that you gave, propaganda? I never once acknowledged that they were propaganda anywhere, but you slip that in completely out of nowhere to discredit my claims, and then finally, the real kicker is you then deny having had anything to do with so called "Samoza forces". This may lead people to falsely think that you had nothing to do with the Contras, even though the forces we are talking about are one and the same thing. You have really shown your true colours - it is you who are the expert propagandist. Ryan4 17:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: This Vincecan, who claims to be Vincent Cannistraro, repeatedly removes claims that are footnoted and sourced, without providing a single counter claim or footnote to back up what he is saying. What are the wikipedia guidlines about someone who does this? Is this not vandalism? Ryan4 18:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dealing on user talk page.--Commander Keane 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Help

message: I am currently awaiting his response on which facts are incorrect. I will attempt to please both subject and neutrality.  --  Zanimum 19:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all well and good, except that, of course, if he really is Cannistraro, then he will go out of his way to lie about his role in this entire affair. That's why we need footnotes and documentation to support our claims. We do not just trust that someone must be telling the truth because they know better than anyone what they did. Surely my footnotes and documentation are enough to convince even the most skeptical of Cannistraro's past. The fact that he is obviously ashamed of it and is willing to lie to cover it up should not mean that we should back down and allow him to win this childish game. If he has a single factual source that counters my claims, then let him present it, like a reasonable person, on the talk page. Given his actions concerning the editing of this page, should we really just take his word for it? Ryan4 20:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannistaro has emailed Wikipedia 

message: I will restate just two quotes, first of all
(1) Following the 1984 flap over a CIA-sponsored manual for the contras that advocated assassination, North helped arrange a job on the NSC staff for Vincent Cannistraro, the CIA officer who had run the agency’s task force on the contras.
Except from: Tale of Two White House Aides: Confidence and Motivation; North Viewed as a Can-Do Marine Who Went Too Far in Zealousness, The Washington Post, November 30, 1986, Sunday, Final Edition Correction Appended, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 2694 words, David Ignatius, Washington Post Staff Writer, FOREIGN NEWS, NATIONAL NEWS, BIOGRAPHY
(2) Cannistraro, a former CIA agent in Central America, was assigned last summer to work with North on Contra affairs, and in his role of coordinating intelligence programs throughout the administration, he headed several inter-agency meetings on aid for the rebels.
Except from: Walsh draws testimony from NSC officials, United Press International, June 15, 1987, Monday, AM cycle, Washington News, 519 words, By LORI SANTOS, WASHINGTON
One if from the Washington Post, the other is from UPI. These are neither "propaganda vehicles", nor are they irrelevant to the claim that you were involved with the contras.
Next I will simply say this: you say you are Vincent Cannistraro, but that doesn't mean you necessarily are. Therefore, what you say must be backed up by some kind of verifiable sources. When a user comes to wikipedia, the fact that somebody called Vincecan edited the Vincent Cannistraro page will not mean that they should therefore accept a long list of claims with absolutely no factual documentation. The wikip
edia articles that are well written and accurate, for the most part, have sources and footnotes that are there for the reader to check the claims made in the articles. I have include such materials with every one of the claims in the article. You categorically refuse to do so, and have provided not one shred of evidence to support anything you say. Furthermore, if you actually are Vincent Cannistraro, then wikipedia guidlines suggest you should not be editing a page about yourself, especially as it is abundantly clear that you cannot keep a cool, level demeanor.
Ryan4 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vincecan's Constant Tirades

message: This is how it works. You can't just say "I claim X" and then say that claim X is verified by book Z. You have to actually find the quote that supports your claim, and then cite the page number, etc. It is clearly you who has the inablility to document. Secondly, once you have done this, you must then analyze whether or not there might have been a reason for the author to claim X other than simply reporting a fact. The fact that your sources tend to be either former NSC officials or official government reports leads me to believe that there is a likelihood that those documents might be skewed in favour of government officials. Or are you going to now claim that the government never tries to cover up or mislead about anything they do? This is Iran-Contra we are talking about here. Surely you at least acknowledge that government officials would have a motive to omit facts or exonerate the government's actions? Either way, you have to actually present the documentation in a proper way before any analysis can be done. You still haven't done that. I have. And what's your problem with Lori Santos? Are you flat out denying the facts documented by my sources? Ryan4 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This Voluminous Evidence

message: I have never violated wikipedia standards in any way. The links to HIR are not citations or references, but in the external links section. Since the site is not my own, nor a commercial site, the inclusion of the links does not violate any guidelines.
You continue to make blanket statements without providing any cited source material, and therefore I assume that this is because you concede that my position is irrefutable.
If you want to actually improve the piece that feel free to actually gather together some factual information and then maybe we can have a civilized debate about what should be added. Otherwise, the article will probably remain as it stands.
Ryan4 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: We have all been subject to a dialogue of the deaf regarding this article.  We should not allow this article to stand without edits and without knowing who is Ryan4.  Someone who makes scurrilous assertions without the ability of the Wkipedia user community to edit or improve a biography should not hide in anonymity.  Who are you?  What is your full name and your affiliation?  Are you part of an organization, and if so, which one?  Is there a political agenda here?  Allow the readers to judge for themselves.  Mike60, 12 April 2006.
I actually have a user page you know. I have no reason to hide my identity. I think a more important question, considering that you have been acting in perfect concert with Vincecan, is - who are you? Ryan4 16:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Ryan4?

message: Your user page is short on biographical information and does not list an affiliation with a political organization.  This is the point:  Who are you really and what agenda are you pursuing?  I clearly am sympathetic to Cannistraro, having worked with him in the past, although we don't share "perfect concert" of action.  But I can recognize half digested political views when I see them in your article; you demonstrate your prejudices consistently throughout this so-called dialogue.  You must really be a form of divinity, casting down your judgements from the heavens without entertaining any dissent.  Except of course, that you are also a self-proclaimed atheist.Mike60,12 April 2006
:"Your user page...does not list an affiliation with a political organization."

X	This user is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

:And you're right. I certainly do have a prejudice:
Ryan4 21:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who am I? 

message: Hi all -- I'm here as part of the medcabal to help resolve the disputes on the page here.
First of all, just to be clear: we must all assume good faith; what this essentially means here is that inquiring into or guessing about other people's "real motives" is not OK. Secondly, I strongly encourage everyone to read the "tips" section at the end of my signature -- there is no way to resolve the dispute unless we can all work together in a spirit of good will.
Finally, so we can begin: as I understand, people want to remove parts of the bio. Can someone provide me with the diffs for these removals and a brief explaination as to why they were removed?
Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume that whatever controversy there was has died down, and I'm going to close the mediation. Please contact me on my talk page if I've made a mistake. Sdedeo (tips) 16:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: medcabal