Talk:John P. O'Neill

message: Is there a reason why terrorists are called militants in this article? Mere "militancy" is not a crime. patsw 01:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Militants"

message: The number of hits registered has increased from a few hundred to 9000 after the broacast of the Frontline show. Path to 9/11 miniseries essentially told the same story. Both stories portray dedicated people who were on the trail of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and Al Queda but were thwarted by bureacracy with tragic results. The Frontline piece in particular drew a map showing connections uncovered by o'Neils work, but gives the impression that powerful forces wanted o'Neill forced out and emerging intelligence kept away from him before he could fully uncover the emerging plot. Redhanker (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontline 

message: This is information is not sufficient enough, It should be more, try to expand article according to Wikipedia policies with proper citations, if you allow my self I would be happy to help you and I can certainly help you in expanding it.-- Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 11:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding required

message: Is there any reliable information on his role in the WTC, and particularly on the day of the bombing?  Was O'Neill active in rescue attempts, or killed early on?101.98.175.68 (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC Role 

message: I'm not familiar with the subject of O'Neill or his career enough to really know, but just a cursory read of the source in question makes me doubt it's veracity, neutrality and is just badly written. It and 13 seem to push an agenda with every sentence, and the writing is so terrible I can barely tell what it is it's trying to convey. Source 5 would be Kolker, Robert (December 17, 2001). "O'Neill Versus Osama". New York.
While we're at it, source 13: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jul/4/20060704-110004-4280r/ looks to be a blogging/editorial piece at best. Hardly what I'd call a credible verifiable source for an article. and it's written with a definite bias that is among other things, detrimental to it's ability to convey factual information and inherently unverifiable speculation on the part of a mostly anonymous author.Licourtrix (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone take a close look at source 5? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John P. O'Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126035853/http://secrecykills.com/transcript to http://secrecykills.com/transcript
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John P. O'Neill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/ to http://names.911memorial.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Surely O'Neill deserves a better "legacy" section than merely a re-labeled "criticism" section, amIright? While Scheuer's remarks are certainly worthy of note, this seems to offer undue weight, IMO. O'Neill may have been a careerist, or he may have been a flawed hero struggling against bureaucracy. I don't know; I'm not here to take a side. 
What I do know, however, is that he was ringing the alarm bell concerning radical Islamic terrorism way before anybody else in the intelligence community. Surely THAT should be a big part of his legacy, no?
For the sake of balance, I suggest not removing Scheuer's comments, but perhaps cutting the length down a bit and inserting elsewhere in the article and offering a more robust "legacy" section detailing how he's actually remembered inside and out of the intelligence community. My understanding is that whatever his shortcomings, he's regarded as someone who knew of the true al Qaeda threat long before others were focusing on terrorism. 
Of course, this would require a large change to the article and I would like to toss this out there to assess interest. Thoughts? Blinkfan (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy? Seriously?