Talk:Plame affair/Archive 1

message: *Started article with a cut in of material from Karl Rove article (to be further edited), but seemed like a good starting point. Calicocat 17:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plame affair 

message: Sorry, if I'm stating (or missing) the obvious, but isn't this artilce redundant with Valerie Plame.  I actually agree with the idea of having a "Plame affair" article, but I think the matter of where stuff goes should be resolved before lots of time is invested.  It seems weird that this article is mentioned on Karl Rove, but not on Valerie Plame.  --rob 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be, I have to take a closer look there. Some editors working on Karl Rove had mentioned that there was too much on Plame affair in the Rove article and, in addition, others have mentioned there's too much Plame affair material in the Novak article and so on. Therefore, I think an article specifically about this might best serve the Wikipedia project. Watergate needs its own article apart from Richard Nixon and Iran-Contra affair needs its own and so on. I started this just today to be specifically about what I think is best called, the Plame affair. Calicocat 02:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've convinced me.  --rob 02:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant? 

message: Check here for a story with many new aspects to this affair.  I don't have the time to adjust the article, but I thought I would at least bring it your attention. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 14:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:This absolutely needs to be included, I'll get to it. Gzuckier 16:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage of 'Air Force One Memo' 

message: I think this entry deserves a few pics -- perhaps the image of yellowcake, and a few of the main characters who have testified.  Any other suggestions?  68.1.168.96 00:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing, but perhaps it's a bit early for it. However, if we were to have images, they would have to include -- Rove, Libby, Novak, Fitzgerlad, Wilson, Plame and maybe yellowcake. I remember some articles in newspapers about the Iran-Contra affair that had pictures with a caption about each person's role in the story. Maybe we can collect them in a section on the talk page and then place them into the article in some fashion. Calicocat 04:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Started creating list here Calicocat 06:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos and illustrations 

message: Article says, "Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, although not under oath. I think this is being confused with the Bush/Cheney "interviews" with the 9/11 commission?  Can anyone provide background on this? I'm checking up on it as well Calicocat 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless an actual source can be provided, the line should be removed. If we later can find a sold reference to this, it can always be added back. Agreed? Calicocat 17:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush/Cheney not under oath? 

message: This is to request that we use the word, "exposure" or similar rather than the slang term "outing."  If there's quote where the word "outing" is used, obviously that would have to stand, but in other contexts I suggest we keep to standard English. Calicocat 06:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure and not "outing" 

message: It seems that the issues of motive, means and opportunity should be addressed somehow herein. I'll have to get back to this, but any thoughts about this would be welcome. Questions of means and opportunity are becoming clear, but I think more information about motive should be included. Calicocat 19:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motive, means, opportunity 

message: Server issues are causing one save to look like many, very odd. Noted for reference. Time is 2:14 AM EDT Calicocat 06:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Server technical issues noted 

message: It is inappropriate for Karl Rove to appear in the lead of this article. There's an entire section within the article that deals with Rove's role in the Plame affair. Also, the information in these paragraphs seems to be a rather blatant POV push that selectively quotes from sources referenced whilst ignoring other information in the same references that does not support apparent damage control efforts as regards Rove. For example, take this line from the paragraphs in question -- 
:In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose the identity of a "covert agent." (see: Intelligence Identities Protection Act) To be considered a covert agent, one must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." § 426(4)(a)(ii) (again, see: Intelligence Identities Protection Act); yet it has been widely reported that Valerie Plame did not travel outside the US over the past 5 years 
It is not "widely reported" that Plame did not travel outside the US, there is only speculation about that, that kind of phrase is a Weasel word. Yet to "substantiate" the dubious claim, User:Larryfooter cites a single reference from USA today, however, he selective omits details contained in the very same article which do not support his apparent desire to exonerate Rove. Later, in the same USA Today article there appears this, and I quote, 
:Joseph Wilson would not say whether his wife was stationed overseas again after 1997, and he said she would not speak to a reporter. But, he said, "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department.
:Spokesmen for both the CIA and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating whether a crime was committed, also would not comment.
The fact is no one can authoritatively say she was in the U.S. or not at this juncture and those who might know, will not say.
These paragraphs on Rove appeared inappropriately in the lead out of nowhere, without discussion and first without any references at all. I twice deleted them, only to be find them restored with this final comment in the edit history.  "User:Larryfooter (Talk) (emphasis added) (reinsered FACTS in the lead stating that Rove has not yet been charged with a crime and that plame was not a covert agent - with sources this time - please dont remove it again)"  Firstly, of course Rove has not been charged with a crime, no indictments have been handed down as yet, only time will tell if any are forthcoming. Secondly and more troubling to me is that I find this to an example of bad faith editing which does not seek to build consensus and stand on factual accuracy, but rather seems more about GOP based talking points and spin. 
The Plame affair is likely to grow much more complex as time goes on. I would remind user:Larryfooter, who I think is a relatively new Wikipedian, that Wikipedia is not a place for political debate, or propaganda. If he (or any editor) wishes to engage in such, please take it to blogs or other more appropriate web sites.
In addition within this article and others related to it, I have also observed similar editing. For example, at Joseph C. Wilson there's language about "discrediting Wilson" from User:Larryfooter with dubious and incomplete references to a senate report. 
I've again removed these paragraphs from the lead and would suggest that User:Larryfooter review Wikipedia policy on  neutrality, factual sourcing and read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, and review the style manual on writing the Lead section for articles. Calicocat 05:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead and [[User:Larryfooter]]'s POV push 

message: I just updated the page with information from the Washington Post story regarding the AG being informed of the Justice Department investigation in September of 2003, how he called the White House Chief of Staff immediately, and how he waited 12 hours before he notified the general staff. There is an implication in the article that the 12 hour gap in somehow untoward, but no proof is raised that anything actually illegal occurred. I think as the week goes on, and more information comes out, Gonzales role and the time-table of notifications and testimonies of senior White House Staff might need its own section.--Jodyw1 07:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking along the same lines. My hope is that Gonzales' role will become clear as the case moves forward. As far as Gonzales is concerned, I think it best not to engage in speculation about illegality but rather to state clearly and factually what his actions have been, and what statments of his are on the record. There are valid question to be asked -- Why did he wait 12 hours? What took place during that time? Who, if anyone, benefited from the delay? What was his motivation in delaying giving notification? Maybe it was untoward, maybe not. Some of his own statements on this are contradictory. He was counsel to the president and now is AG, so we might see him recuse himself from the case.  We just don't know right now. More generally, I think each of the major players and key events should have seperate subsections. In time, a graphic or graphics showing links and flows of events might be useful. This is a most complex case. I find it simpler and more NPOV to parse things out now and to keep known fact seperate from spin, damage control and speculation. In the interst of neutrality and factual accuracy, I'm being very carefull about drawing permature conclusions about any of the central figures or key elements of the case. Calicocat 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alberto Gonzales Notification 

message: What do people think of combining the 'Central Figures' list and 'Known Witnesses' list?  Just specify which are known to have testified in the combined list.  That way we could list Novak and include both that he published the initial leak and that many analysts suspect he spoke to the grand jury.  Also we wouldn't have different descriptions of Karl Rove's job in each list and other similar duplication. --CBDunkerson 18:34:06, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
:I started the list of those known to have testified at the grand jury just to help parse out this most complex situation. As it stands, all those who are central figures may not be amonst those who are known to have given testimony before the grand jury, hence the two seperate lists.  Perhaps as the case moves forward the two lists will be combined into some third format that includes information about each person.  My thinking is that each of the major players should eventually have a subsection.  Perhaps at some point there will be need for a graphic or graphics showing lines of connection or some sort of visual device to aid understanding. Calicocat 21:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision whether to give Undersecretary John H. Bolton a place on that list could be contentious, as sources differ on the veracity of the claim that he testified... :) -- RyanFreisling @ 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Lists 

message: An article in the Washington Post gives summary of where things are in Plame affair. Several points herein should be useful to Plame scandal timeline and Plame affair article development. What Did the President Know? Washington Post, Mon. 23 July 2005 Calicocat 00:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What did the president know? 

message: :Report: Plame Gave Money to Anti-Bush Group
:WASHINGTON — Outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen, it was revealed Tuesday night.
:It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA. 
:The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together (search), first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets. The Federal Election Commission (search) record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."
:A special prosecutor is probing whether Plame's CIA identity was leaked to retaliate against her husband, Joseph Wilson (search), for attacking President Bush's Iraq policy after he went on an Iraq-linked CIA mission arranged by his wife.
:Wilson {... said ...} that his wife "doesn't recall listing herself as retired."
:CIA rules allow campaign contributions, but the fact that Plame gave money to the anti-Bush effort is likely to raise eyebrows. Federal rules require a political-action committee to ask all donors to list their employers.
:"You don't have to provide it, but if you do, you shouldn't provide false information on those forms — like saying you're retired if you're not," said Larry Noble of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics  
-- RyanFreisling @ 14:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's so much worse than releasing an undercover agent's name to get back and her husband for being honest to the best of his ability. Hearing that, is it long before Fitgerald pack's up and goes home? That totally trumps anything that I've heard about this case so far. (joke). Calicocat 15:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation: Blame Plame begins

message: *Plame affair visual index
*Add new images here, discuss in some other section. Someone suggested getting images together, I thought it was good idea. Calicocat 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: oh, the 'mushroom cloud' picture should definitely go in the article.  in this context it is hilarious!  (tho not funny in its original context of course) -- 71.198.189.142 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame affiar visual index

message: I would like show my appreciation to Calicocat, aerion and others for creating and working on this page and trying as best as possible to keep NPOV. Now if we could just make this the one stop shop for information on this, instead of folks trying to recreate the whole thing in umpteen other places.--Gangster Octopus 23:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow,thank you so much. A lot of credit has to go to those working on Karl Rove as well. Calicocat 23:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the kudos for Calicocat, as well as the others who've worked on this. I've added the Wilsons' photo to this article. Thanks for digging those up, Calicocat. I'll do more with the others as time permits. (Late for bed now... :( ) -asx- 05:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I also second the idea that we should encourage movement of the details of this scandal away from the other pages to this one. With the exception someone noted the other day that, for example, the Rove page would expand on Rove's role in the scandal -- without rehashing the whole story. -asx- 05:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thirded. The boxes are nice too. :) -St|eve 05:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: I moved the 3 lists into floating tables, for a couple of reasons:
#Multi-column layouts tend to be more appealing and give the browsing reader more options and encourages scrolling so they see more of the article.
#It has the effect of shortening the actual prose portion of the article. People don't usually read lists (in their entirity, like prose), so when they appear inside the flow of the article, they have the effect of breaking up the narrative. 
I know these kinds of massive formatting changes can be controversial. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. -asx- 05:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like what you are going for, but I think it would be best if the list stayed within one section somehow. I find it makes the page load more slowyly and the text column is too narrow for comfortable reading. I find it distracting.  Someone is also developing a template with a kind of similar similar function. The lists are just a basic, baseline reference and can just sit there for when they might be needed. If you need a name one, you can go and get it. I appreciate the effort and it has a kind of cool look, but I'm minded to restore it to a plain list for now. The help files say it's better to stick with just lists. The article needs much more work in terms of sections and subsections. Calicocat 11:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On my excessively wide resolution, the list of people overlaps the TOC, and so gets pushed to the left. That's mildly irritating. Disregarding that, I like the idea of getting the lists out of the way. But I'm not entirely convinced that the lists actually need to be present at all. The list of central figures may just need to be a "see also" section at the end of the article. Aerion//talk 13:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both good points, especially the latter about wide resolution. That's the problem with fluid layouts. Feel free to revert. I don't think the lists add much; they aren't bad (IMO) if they are relegated to 2ndary position in the sidebar, but right smack dab in the middle of the article, I think they are a distraction. Maybe it would be better to spin off a sub-article like the Plame affair timeline. But, whatever you guys decide to do is OK with me. (I can undo it if you want to do that, but I have to get to work now so it won't be for several hours that I'm able to do that...) -asx- 13:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, CBDunkerson moved them down. Thanks, that's much better. Good idea, asx! Aerion//talk 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Table formatting

message: Someone started an organizational template it's a good suggestion but should not be rushed or placed into articls until it's had some time to develop and expand. It was posted into one of the talk page sections. Calicocat 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plame affair template 

message: Lists of names, footnotes, references, key events and the like can be moved to subpages and eventually sorted and formatted as may be necessary for reinclusion in articles to which they might be useful. Calicocat 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists and footnotes and source, oh my!  

message: What kind of sections do we need? I think the article needs to have some cuts in places and expansion in others. Here are some suggestions for sections we can work on. We'll need structural and functional sections.  What do you think?
Some subsections or other headings...I'd like to hear more about organizing the articles progress.
*Background section -- Needs attention.
(other sections I think we need)
*President Bush - public positions and quotes
*Dick Cheney - 
*Fleischer/McClellan
*Republicans
*Democreats
*Vallerie Plame -- needed
*Wilson -- needed, includes his essay, book and public campaign
*Rove -- developed, needs to be reviewed, updated
*Libby -- needed
*FBI investigation
*Gonzalas -- Notifications, statments on the record.
*Investigations, Ashcoft, FBI, Fitzgerald, then grand gury, others that may develop, such as congressional.
*The Leak -- when the name is revealed
*A trip to Niger -- 
*Media coverage -- 
*Legal 
There's still some old information and innocuous statements that Rove has not been charged with a crime and things of that nature. Calicocat
:What I think we should do is create a high-level list of the topics covered at all Plame affair-related articles, and decide which article should cover which topics. Most of the stuff should go here, but some people have suggested that information specific to a single person, such as speculation about Karl Rove or questions about Joe Wilson's credibility, should go at that person's article. That way, we can more easily identify what information exists somewhere on Wikipedia, as well as what information needs to be merged, and what information we would like to add or expand on.
:While the sections you mention do need coverage, it is an extraordinarily large amount of material to cover. I think that adding all of it to this article may make the article far longer than desired. Excessive length discourages readers and hinders proper maintainance. Is there a more appropriate place for some of this? Could we simply have one section for "Administration reaction" that would cover statements by Bush, Cheney, and McClellan?
:Splitting up these tasks may be advisable to avoid burning out any single editor. Aerion//talk 13:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your statement, "Excessive length discourages readers and hinders proper maintainance." This can't be emphasized enough. In my short time hanging around here, I've heard it said that spinning off sub-articles is not to be done; everything must be packed into a single, gigantic article. I think this information would reach many more people, and as you say, be easier to maintain, if we had sub-articles. Two examples could be "Wilson's Niger Trip," and "Plame's Covert Status," each examing those topics in depth. -asx- 02:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Question Can we create a template, something like , that could be dropped into every page with information on this topic? That way the formatting and text would be consistent across all pages, and if we needed to reword it later, we'd only have to do it once, not 98 times. If you Search the site for "Plame," you get four pages of results. Just looking at the 3 lists in the article, it's clear that there are a LOT of pages that contain information on this topic. By placing the template on the relevent pages, I think we could encourage editors of those articles to assist with the effort. Just some thoughts. -asx- 03:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections and subsections 

message: News of a third contact between the Bush administration and the media (Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus) regarding Plame's identity has come to light. NYTimes
:Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn
: WASHINGTON, July 26 - In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.
:The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.
:In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, "an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention" to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV "because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction."
:Mr. Pincus did not write about the exchange with the administration official until October 2003, and The Washington Post itself has since reported little about it. The newspaper's most recent story was a 737-word account last Sept. 16, in which the newspaper reported that Mr. Pincus had testified the previous day about the matter, but only after his confidential source had first "revealed his or her identity" to Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel conducting the C.I.A. leak inquiry.
:Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.
:Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.
:Mr. Pincus has said he will not identify his source until the source does so. But his account and those provided by other reporters sought out by Mr. Fitzgerald in connection with the case provide a fresh window into the cast of individuals other than Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby who discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters.
The news here is not that Pincus was contacted - he let that be known in Oct 2003 I believe - but that there was a third Admin official (as yet unnamed) who was a source of the information.  So we have Rove, Libby, and a third person to try for treason. --csloat 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. But also relevant and underemphasized - Pincus asserts that the admin official, who identified him/herself to Fitzgerald and the grand jury (who was neither Rove nor Novak) was the source of the info, and not vice-versa as in the case of Rove/Novak. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big news in the Plame affair

message: I'd like to include an abbreviated time line in the article and started this draft. I'd like to flesh it out but keep it short. When it's in good shape it can be included in the "time line" section of the article and those wishing more detail can check the full time line article. To develop this, my suggestion is that we add details to the draft below but keep comments above or below the (sparingly used) horizontal lines. 
The idea as I see it is not to include every detail of the vicissitudes of press reports and such, but rather to include the most significant events -- things which have material bearing on the situation, for example, indictments, convictions, dismissals, etc. Again, I used  horizontal lines (sparingly) to mark off the proposed draft time line apart from any comments editors might have regarding it. Calicocat 05:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please. The separate timeline article has mushroomed to the point where it's not a timeline any more. Gzuckier 16:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time line review 

message: On http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/20/rovenovakPicture.html there's a picture of Rove together with Novak. Rove has a button attached to his suit that says "I am a source, not a target!". Not a photoshopped image!  link to picture
80.217.225.208 01:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get permission from the photo copyright holder to grant a usage license as needed, the photo might be included, otherwise, it would be a copyright issue. Calicocat 02:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo Suggestion 

message: I replaced this paragraph:
:The keen interest in the memo stems from it being the only known source even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger, aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which wasnot written until 2004. This is the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications, and therefore implicates the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame, via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, as well as confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved., 
with the following: 
:The keen interest in the memo stems from speculation that it was the source of the leaked information concerning Plame, via someone who was on the flight of Air Force One, and would indicate that the information was known to be secret.
The mention of the Senate report is quite unecessary here, and appears to be included only to justify the claim that the memo reviewed on Air force One was "the only known source even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger." Given the limited publicly available information concerning the matter, the "only known" qualifier has no significance. And in fact, the earlier June 10 State Department memo, the notes of the CIA meeting by the unnamed senior State Department analyst, the analyst and other attendees at that meeting, and the persons at CIA involved with arranging Wilson's Niger trip, are all possible sources of the "precise information" that Plame suggested Wilson. The assertion that the memo circulated on Air Force One was involved in the leak is purely speculative at this point. The claims that the memo has been implicated as the source of the leak, that it confirms the information was known to be secret, and that Novak's statement  is "unlikely given the time frames involved" are unjustified. 216.160.109.205 16:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who believe that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible for the leak note that, to date, it is the only known document even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger (aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which was not written until 2004). This is the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications, which the administration's critics point out is consistent with the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, as well as confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved. The memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie plame" is also consistent with Rove's statement that he did not use Plame's name, or even know what it was., 
As noted above, the memo circulated on Air force One is not the only known document linking Plame to Wilson's trip. While the speculation that the Air force One memo was the source of the leak may be consistent with known facts, so are other possibilities. This speculation does not confirm that the information was known to be secret or make Novak's statement unlikely. And why isn't the memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie Plame" cited as consistent with the belief that the memo was NOT the source of the leak to Novak, since Novak called her Plame? 216.160.109.205 18:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: because he looked it up in "Who's Who in America"?Gzuckier 00:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: not too partisan there on your part, hmm? I would say, the claims and reasoning of salon.com and daily kos are probably more notable, properly attributed, than your point of view. anyhoo, i am interested in npoving it, so I've chopped out a couple of the lesser points in deference to your remarks; i figure "the blogs say this; supporters say that" format should be a fairly npov description of what goes onGzuckier 05:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Force One Memo 

message: Am I the only one who feels the Background section of the article is top-heavy with needless debate and detail about Joseph Wilson and his two missions to Niger in 1999 and 2002?  The text is needlessly confusing, and the narrative flow is broken by the flash-forward, flash-backward effect.  
The basic confusion here -- which obviously needs to be noted somewhere -- is that there were two Niger missions by Wilson, which were related to each other.  Mrs. Wilson did recommend her husband for the first mission.  She was part of the team putting the investigation together, and she mentioned back in 1999 to her CIA supervisors that her husband had old contacts with officials in Niamey, and that he was going to Niger anyway.  This first trip, which Wilson completed to the CIA's satisfaction, was an investigation of what an Iraqi government official may have said to a Nigerien official about possible business contracts, which the Nigerien official interpreted as uranium purchase contracts.
Because Wilson and his work was already familiar to the CIA from the 1999 mission, his name was at the ready when the 2002 mission was requested.  Because the mission was prompted by developments coming from the White House, it was instigated by CIA higher-ups.  Mrs. Wilson's role in her husband's second mission was to introduce him at a meeting to those CIA higher-ups before the mission began.  Her presence at that meeting was noted by someone at a de-briefing session, after Wilson returned.
All of this squares with what Wilson has said all along, and with a reading of the Congressional report.  It seemed to me early on that a kind of fog machine effect was going on, involving a deliberate confusion between Wilson's 1999 and the 2002 missions, and that fog machine was already turned on with Ari Fleischer's press comments on July 12 2003.  We don't need any fog in this Wikipedia entry.
I will revise and simplify accordingly.  In the end, I think a discussion of Wilson's two missions should be moved to a separate section further down in the article. Shariputra 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest moving it off this page entirely.  At this point, there is more stuff about Wilson here than on his own page.  We could put Wilson and the whole controversy about Niger in his article and/or the Yellowcake Forgery article and  just general background and links here... leaving this page to concentrate on the leaks and aftermath. --CBDunkerson 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate section on Wilson's two missions 

message: The person, Valerie Plame, and the scandal are distinct enough to merit keeping them separate, even if the former should be cut down to include only biographical information. -St|eve 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging not valid 

message: Someone had a sentence about this and someone else asked that it be sourced and erased the sentence -- here is one source for the claim; should it be put back in?-csloat 08:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judy Miller's book deal 

message: There was a ton of Plame Affair stuff on the Karl Rove page.  More than 80% of it was identical to the text here.  I removed it all from that page and merged in the few differences here.  The one section I didn't fully rework is 'Legal Opinions'.  This seesm redundant with some of the existing text here, but not largely identical like most passages.  I encourage others to merge the 'legal' sections or I will do so myself later.  Thanks. --CBDunkerson 01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though this may be painful, I think this needs to be brought up again in the Rove article. I haven't bothered to return there as the partisan fighters all seem to be still smarting, but perhaps a braver soul could again try to remove the redundant material there? --NightMonkey 07:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the editors over there aren't particularly interested in 'encyclopedic'... they want "one stop shopping" from a Google search on 'Rove' directly to all the info on the Plame Affair. Still, I have managed to whittle it down by chopping out all of the stuff not related to Rove (about half of it) and am planning to replace the long section of legal speculations with a brief summary of any actual legal repercussions for Rove once the indictments come down.  That'll just leave the massively bloated 'denials and revelation of involvement' section to be trimmed to a summary once that kind of minutiae is no longer the subject of so much partisan zeal. --CBDunkerson 10:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved Rove stuff in 

message: Removed reference to Tim Russert to make it more clear that "Judith Miller of The New York Times," was the only person "who spent 85 days in jail for failing to divulge the identity of her confidential administration source to a grand jury."--FloNight 11:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rm: Tim Russert 

message: I added Judith Miller to Known grand jury witnesses List. Will spend a few minutes this morning checking sources to update the list. Will find sources for everyone on the list.--FloNight 12:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known grand jury witnesses  

message: Just added Yellowcake, Scooter Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove and Matthew Cooper to the article. Also added George Tenet, and moved plamefull down to next sub-section to accomodate. --NightMonkey 02:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added images to article 

message: : Wilson described the situation so, that one source told him, he avoided any talk about subjects, when he once met with an Iraqi official. And never understood what kind of commercial contact the official wanted. 
This wants rephrasing to be coherent and grammatical, but I don't know the source material well enough to rewrite it myself. "avoided any talk about subjects" - what subjects?  --Jim Henry | Talk 20:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent sentences 

message: It is becoming more widely reported that Vice President Dick Cheney may be directly implicated in this investigation. This would, upon reading this article, appear to require a major revamp of the core ideas represented here.
Boomberg, LA Times, Washington Post, The Independent (UK)
This would seem to indicate a need for less focus on Rove, and more focus on Libby/Cheney. --NightMonkey 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And so... Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report, New York Times, October 25, 2005. I added Cheney to the list of those implicated, and added a reference link to this article. But, this article needs to be combed through to remove old recenetism from it, I believe. --NightMonkey 07:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy news 

message: They promote the related view that those White House officials who talked on background about Wilson were, rather than trying to punish him by exposing his wife, trying to prevent reporters from believing Wilson's disinformation.
Why is it disinformation? Daemon8666 18:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't. It is proof of, at best, flawed information being used by the Bush admistration. Since apparantly (see Downing Street memo) Bush and co had already decided to invade, it is clear any information discrediting their stance was NOT welcome. Hence Wilsons story had to be defused. This is done by 1 implying nepotism (his wife) and 2 saying his story is disinformation.  --Nomen Nescio 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Goethean for editing it Daemon8666 20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wilson's Disinformation

message: "Aide to Cheney Appears Likely to Be Indicted in C.I.A. Leak Case "
http://nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?ei=5094&en=f4b9e5edc0a35fdf&hp=&ex=1130472000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
Is this enough to justify adding new content to the article?
::Yeah, why don't Bush and Cheney resign from their respective positions within the U.S. government. All their ideas to get the U.S. back on track seem to revolve aroun imaginary chicken viruses that have only killed 60 people that may or may not have died of a chicken virus anyway. And now, this thing about f'cking a CIA agent, that's pretty bad, yeah, even worse than Clinton getting BJ's in the oval office. A BJ doesn't put an intelligence agent's life and job in danger.66.201.171.15
:::Really, this is just inflamatory and not helpful here. Can we remove this comment, please? --NightMonkey 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NY Times Article

message: A CIA leak implies there is something that is a secret.  Plame was not covert at the time.  So any mention of her would have not been illegal.  The indictments at hand are for lying etc. before a grand jury, which was completely co-operated with by Libby.  The question remains, if he was inconsistent in his testimony, okay, however if he was questioned with no crime being commited--then, is this nothing more than punishing someone for speaking inconsistently with the notes he (Libby) had turned in as requested?  Point being....he has been charged with no crime based on his testimony for which he was originally called into question.  He is being criminalized for what he did in committing no crime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.81.182  (talk • contribs) 13:04, 29 October 2005
:Welcome to Washington, DC, where the coverup is always worse than the crime.  Also, See my above comment on 18 USC 793 Descendall 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you concede that at some point she was covert. By revealing her status, which was top secret, it endangered the lives of everyone who she dealt with and most likely blew the covers of numerous other NOCs. Try not to spout administration talking points when you're not logged in/registered and this is your only edit. --waffle iron 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some debate over whether Plame had worked overseas recently enough to still be "covert" as defined by the IIPA.  However, there is no question whatsoever that her employment by the CIA was still "classified".  Leaking classified information is a different crime than leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, but still a crime.  Libby has been found to have made such a leak... the only thing preventing him from being indicted on that charge is the need for proof that he knew it was classified information when he leaked it.  There is sufficient evidence of this (his comments about the leak being likely to cause problems with the CIA and his inability to discuss it over an open line) that I expect Libby WILL eventually be indicted on that crime as well. However, as Fitzgerald explained, two years of lying and obstruction delayed the gathering of evidence and preparation for a case on that crime... hence the new grand jury. --CBDunkerson 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plame was not covert. 

message: I am trying to write about this affair for the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I have a little linguistic problem: While in most of the text of this article Palmer is referred to as a "CIA agent" (a term which has a direct and common translation), Novak, in his original column, is referring to her as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction", a term that I am not sure how to translate. 
So is there a difference between "agent" and "operator" in this context?  If so, what is it?
Thanks, eman 00:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA generally uses the term 'operative' to describe someone who goes out into the field to investigate things and 'analyst' for those who review and compile intelligence information.  Both can be 'covert' in that their employment by the CIA might not be public knowledge, but this is far more likely to be the case for an 'operative'.  As for, 'agent'... the term simply means 'someone working on behalf of' and could thus be applied to either group, but is probably more often used in describing 'operatives'. --CBDunkerson 14:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  operative/agent 

message: "Many critics of the United States' invasion of Iraq say that the series of sanctions and diplomatic maneuvers were not made in good faith; that the Bush administration had evidently decided to invade Iraq shortly after the September 11 attacks, and that the WMD "evidence" was only found (or produced) in order to provide a pretext for an invasion that was already a certainty. (It should be noted that there was evidence, in some cases, of large-scale moves at some facilities that were scheduled for inspections.)"
:I realise that many critics have said this, but do we have an article that goes into this in more depth? If not, could we source the main critics? As it currently stands it appears to be opinion leaking into the article. 
:Also, phrases like "it should be noted" are very much frowned upon as peacock terms. Could we rephrase this? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blame where blame is due... who says this on both sides? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications requested 

message: The article states "The central issue of the whole Plame affair is whether the officials who disclosed this information about Wilson's wife a) even mentioned her name and b) knew about her "covert" status before doing so."
(a) seems absurd -- "Ambassador Wilson's wife" pretty much identifies Valerie Wilson; it's not as if Wilson is married to several women.  I realize some right wing talk show hosts have made this point, and it may even appear in republican talking points, but it's just ridiculous to cal it "the central issue".  (b) is also not "the central issue"; certainly not now that we know Libby was running around inquiring specifically about her status.  Can we just erase this misleading summary?-csloat 03:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with removing a). However, regarding b), while the scope has widend with Libby's indictment, knowledge of her covert status is still in play, I believe. I think if Fitzgerald actually finds enough evidence in the course of his ongoing investigations to support actually indicting under the outing statute, he will do so. So, perhaps b) should be ammmended to reflect this. --NightMonkey 04:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  central issue?? 

message: Someone just edited out some things based on the argument that VPW's covert status is "a matter of opinion."  While I agree with some of the edits (see above), someone's covert status is a matter of definition, not of opinion, and it is quite clear that by definition, VPW was "covert."  There may be a question about whether she qualified for protection under the particular law (which may require overseas travel - an issue independent of covert status).  Nobody seriously questions whether or not she was actually covert except right-wing talk show hosts.  It's generally agreed she had non-official cover status, which is "covert."--csloat 07:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a matter of definition, legal definition; However, a definition outside of the IIPA appears elusive. As a leagal matter, if th eEspionage Act is prosecuted, then her classified status at the CIA becomes the important fact, not her cover. Evensong 23:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a definitional dispute. In common (and CIA) parlance VPW was "covert" because her employment was a secret. However, for the purposes of the IIPA the term "covert" is defined to include the 'undercover overseas assignment within previous five years' condition... which may or may not have been the case for VPW. In any case, her employment was "classified" and knowingly leaking classified info is ALSO a crime. I'd suggest we avoid the term 'covert' where 'classified' would serve as well, and explain the meaning of 'covert' being used when that term is required. --CBDunkerson 12:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Covert" is the appropriate term for an agent with NOC status; the IIPA definition is not accurate.  It is meant to limit the application of that specific law, not to actually define the term.  I suggest we use "covert" but add the necessary caveat only when directly discussing the IIPA. That is how the mainstream newspapers talk about the issue, for example.  --csloat 16:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  covert status 

message: Since Plame is married to Williams, shouldn't her name be hyphenated as "Valarie Plame-Williams" or something like that? Pacific Coast Highway 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo caption 

message: Aside from acknowledging it as an alternate name for the scandal, there really is no need to use such a loaded and idiotic term.  It's the same kind of bias that follows FOX News labelling suicide bombers as "homicide" bombers.
The only institution with a penchant for it is network news, which habitually label every scandal with a -gate suffix for reasons that strike me solely as a lack of creativity.... and really, we're a lot more objective than those sensationalistic idiots aren't we? Kade 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *It doesn't go here, that's for sure, but people who really can't stop thinking about it that way may want to make sure it's in the list of scandals with "-gate" suffix. That would be the proper way to vent your obsession over the terms. Jacqui ★ 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop using the "-Gate" suffix. 

message: The introduction to the article is confusing (the first paragraph is a single convoluted sentence!), and doesn't make sense to somebody who isn't already familiar with the subject.  I know everything is probably explained in the remainder of the article, but the introduction is supposed to give a basic overview.  
I'm pointing this out because I haven't been following current events for a while, and I'm totally in the dark on this topic... like future readers and the target audience for this article.  :) --Foofy 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing introduction

message: 1. "Later investigations (the Butler Report in the United Kingdom and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 7, 2004) verified the intelligence from multiple sources that indicated Iraqi attempts to purchase the material."
If this is true, then wikipedia should list the dates of these "attempts". Is there any evidence that the "multiple sources" were based on anything other than the the false claims about an Iraq/Niger uranium connection? --JWSchmidt 14:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really misleading - it is likely that Iraq asked to buy uranium and that Niger responded 'no.' The way it os written it looks like there is confirmation of furthur discussions between the two parties, which is bogus.--csloat 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I have read is that there was one or more visits by people from Iraq to Niger in 1999. Apparently, once the cherry picking was done, this turned into "intelligence from multiple sources" indicating that, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." I think that the words "verified the" in sentence #1 (above) should be changed to, "repeated the unverified claim that there was" --JWSchmidt 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  verified the intelligence from multiple sources 

message: The conspiracy theory of Zel Miller is already discussed under "Reactions of Congress" - we don't need additional links to it, nor for it to be represented as a more widespread belief among others.--csloat 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen this conspiracy theory associated with her; I have only seen her claiming that the law she helped write does not apply to VPW.  Can you provide other sources?  I also agree with the stuff below; Wikipedia really isn't a place for this kind of speculation, but I will refrain from deleting it since I know if I remove it the vigilant defenders of Libby/Rove/etc. will jump up and down screaming POV about it.  But in any case there is no reason to put it in the intro - this is hardly a theory accepted by anyone credible that I am aware of.--csloat 06:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zel's Conspiracy theory 

message: First, when I leave a reference, it is not Original Research.  Second, by changing the section title, we can include criticism by committees and not just pundits.  Please have a good reason before you make changes to my edits. RonCram 06:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are already sections for the reactions of the Senate and of other people; the reactions of pundits seem to belong there.  The Committee should be a separate section as it is not reaction to the plame affair per se.  It trivializes the senate committee conclusions to include them in the same section as the reactions of various pundits.  The "original research" I was referring to was the claim that Vallely's memory is poor, which may be true but appears to me to be your own speculation rather than something backed up by evidence.  I'm also not sure why any of this is necessary.--csloat 07:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: csloat's unnecessary reverts

message: I have a question about the following, added by RonCram:
:In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries. The Senate Select Committee criticized Wilson for saying his trip to Niger had proved the documents to be fake. Actually, Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S. (Pages 44-45)
Perhaps this is my own confusion, but I was under the impression that Wilson's article claimed that his trip to Niger did not confirm that Saddam purchased yellowcake, not that he was the one who found the documents to be forged.  Can someone other than Ron enlighten me here?  (of course Ron should feel free to add his comments too but I would like to hear from someone less one-dimensionally partisan who has been following this... not to question Ron's good faith, despite his belief in "MindWar"; I just think his ideology often seems to cloud his interp of facts).  Thanks.--csloat 07:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, I gave the page numbers for the Senate Report where the criticism is found.  All you have to do is read it yourself. BTW, I believe it was in Wilson's testimony before the committee when he claimed to have disproved the documents and not in the op-ed.  I could be wrong.  Memories are fallible but at least you have the citations so you can look it up yourself.  As always, I am committed to truth. RonCram 14:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is inconsistent with everything I've read about it being recently reported, and I just listened to a piece on NPR yesterday or the day before where this claim was specifically responded to.  I realize that is what the Senate report says but it seems to be incorrect.  On the NPR show they had Wilson specifically agreeing that he did not have the documents prior to going to Niger.  They had some other people on saying that the Senate report mischaracterized Wilson's earlier claims.  In the editorial that started it all clearly admits that he didn't see the documents but heard on the news that they were forged -- the substance of the editorial is not about the documents being forged but about the fact that Wilson spoke to everybody who would have had knowledge of such a transaction and concluded that there was no evidence for it.  The news was already reporting them as forgeries according to that editorial of July 6 2003.  It seems to me to be a complete red herring to focus on proving that Wilson was not the one who figured out the docs were forgeries when he never seems to have claimed that.  I'm open to being convinced that Wilson distorted this, but I don't see the evidence for it here.  As for your final sentence -- I believe you, even more now that I better understand your notion of "truth".--csloat 21:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Senate conclusions

message: Nomen, I clearly stated the information on Wilson's distortions was now located in the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section.  Since you were not able to find it, I have reproduced it for you here. 
:Wilson was criticized by the Senate Select Committee on PreWar Intelligence because he claimed his trip to Niger proved that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger. Actually, the former Prime Minister of Niger told Wilson that a delegation from Iraq did meet with him in June 1999 to discuss "expanding commercial relations," which the prime minister took to mean a desire to purchase yellowcake uranium. The prime minister let the matter drop due to UN sanctions against Iraq. (Pages 39-44)
:In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries. The Senate Select Committee criticized Wilson for saying his trip to Niger had proved the documents to be fake. Actually, Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S. (Pages 44-45)
I hope this helps. RonCram 22:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron please read the comments above about these passages.  I am sure Nomen is well aware of them too.  This is a red herring.  It's obvious you have not yourself even read the Wilson editorial you are so mad about.  He never claimed to have proven the documents fake.  What he did was talk to everyone in Niger that would have known about such a transaction in order to investigate whether it existed.  The news was already reporting that those documents were forged.  Perhaps you did read the editorial but you are ignoring the facts that are inconvenient for your worldview, to continue your practice of "MindWar."  It's quite telling that you prefer innuendo from a discredited source (general vallely's smear of fitzgerald, which you just added -- should we add every crank who says something silly about this case?) to facts such as these.--csloat 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying Wilson's Distortions 

message: The following passage belongs in the Intro:
:A series of unusual events (including reports Wilson openly talked of his wife's job at the CIA) have led critics of Plame/Wilson to view the Plamegate affair as a covert CIA operation by a rogue agent (or perhaps Agency) designed to pull down a sitting president.  Plame's husband is thought to have played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger. Wilson learned the former prime minister of Niger had been approached by an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding commercial relationships" which the PM interpreted as seeking uranium. Wilson then published his op-ed piece claiming his trip disproved the story Iraq sought uranium.  In addition, if any CIA employee had published information on a classified trip, it would have been illegal. Critics are calling for a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent CIA employees from circumventing the law through their spouses.  
This is not redundant but provides an introduction to the fuller accounts in the appropriate sections. More of the information in this section is not repeated in any form in the article.
Readers of Wikipedia articles should not be forced to read the article before learning of criticism of the main players.  Please do not delete this passage again. RonCram 21:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see above Ron, this stuff belongs in the conspiracy theory section only, not the intro.  It is crap spewed by a few right wing loons; it is not supported at all by the Prosecutor or even the White House.  There is no reason to duplicate silly and obviously false conspiracy theories all over this article.  The intro should only provide info that is accurate and confirmed and clearly summarizes the info below; your changes make this fringe material seem as if it were actually credible.--csloat 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but a section with the denigrating title "Conspiracy Theories" is not NPOV.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  The page is not supposed to be a shrine to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.  As for this being fringe material, I cited the Wall Street Journal, LA Times and an article by former Senator Zell Miller.  These are mainstream publications and a well respected Democrat, a former governor and Senator.  This belongs in the Intro and you know it. RonCram 22:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely does not belong in the intro. It's 'fringe' (not based on mainstream reports), based on opinion pieces only, and is unsubstantiated. Let's keep on point here - Wikipedia is not a talking points platform, nor a means of character assassination. Corroborate it with independent fact (the pieces/sources you provide are opinions - not fact). -- RyanFreisling @ 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, here are the facts. Wilson and Plame are controversial figures.  They have been criticized in mainstream publications across the country.  Opinion pieces are quoted in articles throughout Wikipedia.  When people or events are controversial, an introduction to the issue is found in the Intro.  There is nothing fringe about LA Times, Wall Street Journal or Zell Miller.  If you want to prevent readers from learning this information, you are going to have to come up with better reasons that you have given so far. RonCram 22:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron please read what vandalism is before throwing around accusations.  The criticisms you wish to hilight are already mentioned in the article and do not belong there twice.  They are from fringe sources -- the LATimes and WSJ do not endorse these opinions; that is why they are op-eds.  And quit whining about censorship; the info is already in the article and nobody is preventing readers from learning anything.  --csloat 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: csloat, deleting interesting and informative information for reasons of censorship is the moral equivalent of vandalism, regardless of whether the vandal bothers to leave a vacuous entry on the Talk page or not.  You well know there is nothing "fringe" about LA Times, Wall Street Journal or Zell Miller.  Op-eds are used in Wikipedia all the time.  Your attempt to change the standards when you want to censor the information is patently bogus.  Your claim the entry is redundant is similarly bogus.  My entry was general in nature as befits an Introduction.  If you applied the same standard to the rest of the Intro, it would be blank. I suggest you show some good faith and stop deleting this entry.  Wikipedia readers have a right to this information. RonCram 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron: Please read the WP entry on vandalism, especially the section entitled What vandalism is not.  Zel Miller is definitely fringe, as are Boot and Toensig -- you are just trying to mask that by using the names of the papers they wrote their editorials in.  And for the last time, I have not deleted this information; I have just put it where it belongs on this page.  There is no need to put every fringe theory in the intro; we should stick to stuff that is actually part of the mainstream discourse on this topic -- if even the White House has not suggested this bizarre theory in its defense, it does not belong in the intro.  I realize it makes you feel morally superior to accuse me of "censorship", but that claim is simply at odds with my actions.--csloat 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, okay, I reread it.  What I took as "page blanking" vandalism is really an "NPOV Violation."  I understand this is a lesser offense.  Zell Miller has been elected as both governor and senator.  He has spoken to both the Democratic and Republican conventions.  He is the most middle of the road politician I can think of.  He is definitely NOT fringe. He is fiery maybe... but not fringe.  I know less about Boot and Toensing except Toensing helped to write the law protecting covert agents.  The main point is that op-eds are subject to editorial review.  Op-eds based on known lies do not often get published.  The facts underlying the op-eds I cited are not in dispute. If the facts were in dispute, you would have disputed them by now.  Instead of taking the honorable road of disputing the facts, you call the writers "fringe" and banish the Introduction to a section labeled with the derogatory term "conspiracy theories."  This is one of your favorite tactics which does you no honor. If you want to debate the facts, fine.  Start debating.  Otherwise, stop your silliness and allow the passage into the Intro where it belongs. BTW, does you above comment mean you will stop censoring valid entries? RonCram 14:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron I have never censored valid entries.  Please stop you phony posturing about my "honor."  I have been debating the facts, and I have censored nothing -- I simply moved this fringe material out of the intro, because it doesn't belong there.  If you think Miller is "middle of the road" that just shows how far to the right you are.  You probably think Lloyd Bentsen is a leftist?  Op-ed pieces are not fact-checked as reporting because they are not reporting -- the pieces in question are sheer speculation on the part of individuals with an axe to grind.  And they are properly referred to as "conspiracy theories" -- loony ones, in fact, since they are beyond unlikely.  Why do you wish to censor their authors' names?  Perhaps in order to blame them on the newspapers that published them?--csloat 23:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Nomen, I am not sure what to say to you except please read the entries below from the Senate Report. I think you will find them both interesting. RonCram 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Plame/Wilson in Intro 

message: it is some weeks since i have looked over this section. (I was, of course, prompted by the recent Woodward remarks). It was a shock to see how much it has been moved toward a bushists talking points piece. Sad really. For at certain stages it was a really useful document. Are there simply more running dogs of the current regime out there, or are careful historians just thin on the ground. I would point, for example, to the use of the word "distortions" in the piece, which now, as far as i can see, almost exclusively refer to statements of fact that contradict the Libby/Rove line. sad indeed.86.42.132.16 22:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be a concerted campaign by pro-Rove wikipedians to riddle the VPW-related articles with Bush talking points.  I have tried to address these but they just keep at it.  I wonder what they will be saying when Fitz comes down with the next series of indictments in his investigation.  It is tragic to see the Rovistas going out of their way to smear Valerie Plame Wilson, whose only crime was trying to do her job defending this country.  And they do all this just to defend a lame duck president.  They are playing politics with national security, exactly what they accuse democrats of doing.  Bizarre.--csloat 20:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "distortions" 

message: At the end of the first section in Legal Questions 
This may be seen by Bush's political opponents as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks, and Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if indicted for violating Section 641. It would appear to me that it is more important that Fitzgerald might see it as legal precendent.
In fact it probably is seen by Bush's political opponents as such.
Also while Rove would most certainly face consequences (at least until pardoned ..) if indicted under that statute, he would only face greater consequences than Randell if convicted, not just indicted for such a violation.
Anyway just something that stuck out to me.
Is it okay if I say well done to those who have managed to compile a very balanced dry account of what we know so far in this affair despite the ghost of ronnie trying to scupper the NPOV -- theaulddubliner 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Questions 

message: A large section of material was added to "CIA Conspiracy" that seems completely irrelevant to the CIA.  The article used as a source is written in Italian, a language I cannot read to verify its contents.  Secondly, without access to the article, there is no way to check the logic used.  Can we just wait until some English language paper picks up the story to see if it really fits here? If it is a big story, someone will pick it up. RonCram 14:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron we discussed this on another page and you slinked away in embarrassment.  I'm sorry you cannot read Italian, but that alone is not a good reason to impugn the translation of another editor.  There is certainly a way to check the logic and translation -- learn Italian, or find someone who knows it, if this is so important to you.  I am not speaking to the details here, just to your bogus logic that because you don't know another language that anything translated from that language is automatically suspect.  What I think should be done is the original passage in Italian be included alongside the translation; but it is bogus for you to demand that it be removed until an English source picks it up (or, presumably, until you take Italian lessons).--csloat 21:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If La Repubblica is correct this shows the CIA has not been involved in setting up the Bush administration. To me this is relevant to the allegation. Since you are anxious about using this info I have inserted more references. Among which a translation of the articles. Hope this sufficiently explains why this is warranted.--Nomen Nescio 04:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, I did not slink away in embarrassment.  I've never done anything to be embarrassed about.  As you know, I sometimes do not make it back to earlier conversations. Whenever possible you try to score points on this fact, but my life simply does not allow me to revisit every discussion on a Talk page.  As I said before, if this article was important and valid, it would be picked up by a major English news source.  Citing a source in a foreign language is a process that is more complicated (by necessity of a translation), making the interpretation more difficult and is subject to mischief by the translator/interpreter.  The translator may or may not be exercising NPOV.  The translator may not be competent to translate/interpret.  And there are no checks and balances on the process.  I fear that Wikipedia will become a laughingstock for publishing articles based on poor translations. csloat, you have complained previously when a conservative writer from a US publication wrote something damaging to your POV and you demanded that the story be picked up by a major news outlet before it appear in Wikipedia.  I thought your position was bogus then.  But this story is is far more obscure and unconfirmed that the US story.  And the relevance is not at all established. I am trying to be kind to everyone involved. Please do not make me become anymore blunt. RonCram 07:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making you do anything Ron.  Don't criticize me for the content at issue here -- I said clearly both here and on the Joe Wilson page where you made this demand last time that I am not commenting on the content (I have not even looked closely at it).  My comment was on your flawed logic that claims that translated entries should be deleted as suspect.  If you have reason to suspect the translation, let's hear it, or get an Italian speaker to check the translation; you don't just delete it for that reason.  Perhaps the person who translated it to begin with can help you with it.  This has nothing to do with the notability of the article, which I have not commented on; you're the one trying to "score points" here by pointing to a phony contradiction.  And I was not trying to score points when I said you slinked away embarrassed -- I thought that's what you did because I thought that was what was warranted by the situation.  It's what I would have done had I gone to a page and demanded that something be changed because I was too ignorant to understand it -- imagine if I (a nonscientist) were to go to, say, this page and demand that the equations be removed because I did not have the mathematical training to check if they were correct!--csloat 09:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ron I apologize for any offense. If you did not slink away in embarrassment, I guess what I was saying is that you should have.  That you continue to insist that your ignorance of other languages is a realistic justification for excluding information that has been helpfully translated into your own language is even more embarrassing. But I am not trying to insult you; I am just saying that if it were me making such ludicrous arguments, I would certainly be embarrassed.  In terms of the substantive issue at stake here all you have to say is that my analogy "does not obtain."  I'm not sure what that means but I think the comparison was pretty clear.  In any case, I urge you to look up wikipedia's policies concerning material translated from other languages yourself.  I don't speak Italian either, but I am not going to use my ignorance of that language as an excuse for trying to censor quotes that I don't like, especially when they appear in English.--csloat 19:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, I am amazed at you.  You apologize for one offense and then go out of your way to commit a greater offense.  For one who has complained that I did not practice Wikiquette, your behavior does not measure up.  I did not complain that my ignorance is justification for excluding information. I stated that I did not and do not think an Italian source should be cited in an English-language encyclopedia.  If Wikipedia's target audience was international scholars, then I would see no problem with it.  In addition, I do not trust the translation or the interpretation assigned to this article by the editor who posted it.  I am not here accusing him of bad faith, although the process of allowing people to use foreign language sources could quickly get out of hand and be open to mischief. How would you like it if I began to link to Arab newspapers and provided my own translation? RonCram 09:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: don't be so sensitive, Ron; I'm not trying to offend you but I do find the argument laughable.  I must be honest about that fact, but my feelings are directed at the argument, not you.  Do you read Arabic, Ron?  You do have a point -- I have seen you misread articles in plain English often enough that I would not trust your translation of anything political.  If you have specific reason not to trust the contributor's translation, that would be an analogous situation, but you haven't articulated one.  But I still would not demand that the translation be removed because I did not understand Arabic.  It would be my burden in such a situation to demonstrate that your translation was faulty, preferably by finding an Arabic-speaker to check it. Demanding that it be removed is just childish, and that is why I thought you should have been embarrassed.  Again, no offense intended here, really.  And as far as the process getting out of hand, that is not the case.  Flag suspicious translations in talk or dig up an Italian speaker on the Italian version of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia does have a policy on this and it allows such translations provided that they are accompanied by original source language material so anyone can verify the translation.  One more thing on the point about linking to Arabic newspapers; that is already happening when you link to memri (I am not accusing you of excessive links to memri, just making the point) -- those articles are translated by someone with a particular agenda and viewpoint, and they are often translated in a particularly one-sided manner (and of course the selection of articles alone is one-sided).  This is well known by Arabic speakers who read memri, and it is not a controversial point.  Nonetheless, I have no problem with links to memri because as distorted as their worldview might be, the translations attempt to be accurate, and they are not pulling things out of thin air.  A translation from RonCram (assuming you read Arabic) would be no different from this -- while I do not trust the way your ideology shapes your perceptions and your ability to read something, I don't think you would just make crap up.  Anyway I'm going on too long about this; sorry to have offended you, but I do think the argument is ultimately just silly.  If you suspect a translation is bad then do the research to critique it rather than demanding that it be removed.--csloat 11:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article by La Repubblica

message: I do think there are some good things about this article, but it is also battered by edit wars and full of political bias.  I have attempted to correct some things on one small section of the page, but I have no doubt that I will have to fight tooth and nail to keep such corrections in, and I'm not sure I have the time.  Hot political topics in general are bad ideas for featured articles - things change too fast, and the articles are often the targets of people interested in spreading disinformation and conspiracy theories.  All the plame-related articles give far too much credence to the ridiculous conspiracy theory spread by Limbaugh, et al, that Plame and Wilson are some kind of traitors trying to bring down the bush presidency.  Of course such theories should be mentioned here, but they do not need this much attention.  Anyway, my point is I think a NPOV tag here would be more accurate than a "good article" tag at this point.--csloat 07:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I spend much more of my Wikipedia time on non-political articles for just such reasons as you state. I really only watch for outright vandalism or extreme POV on the political and contreversial subject articles nowadays. What is  especially worrying to me, especially in light of recent Wikipedia events, is that I believe that this situation can help to create more poorly monitored "holes" in Wikipedia where poorly crafted and poorly sourced articles can survive much longer than they should, since many quality Wikipedia editors run as fast as they can from articles where there are attracted large groups of single-issue-centered editors. --NightMonkey 04:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Good Article"? 

message: The Washington Post is reporting that  Novak Says Bush Knows Who Leaked Name (subscribers only, at the moment), as is the AP:   . And from Newsday in New York: . Very big news. It is also being reported that this development has negative legal consequences for Karl Rove, and brings several more journalists into the glare of the legal investigation. --NightMonkey 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novak: Bush knows who leaked 

message: I looked through the history of this article, and it clearly shows that their have been some edit wars going on, a lot of reversions and removals and more reversions. Since one of the requirements of GAs are to be stable, I'm wondering whether or not this article should continue to remain under GA status. 
Also, the lead is too long and quite unwieldy. It's readibility is hampered by the constant external links, which should be changed to inline citations. Also after a brief overview of the article it seems to be NPOV, but it seems according to the history that a lot of POV is seeping into the article. 
Finally, at 144 kb, the article fails (by far) to remain at appropriate length. It should be summarized and divided into subarticles. AndyZ 00:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This is definitely not a good article and deserves a rework. RonCram 17:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, certain editors insist upon inserting opinion in stead of presenting facts. This might be a good opportunity to revive the use of referenced facts and ask these editors from refraining pushing political views.--Nomen Nescio 23:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible delisting from Good Article? 

message: I have started an RfC on this page and on Valerie Plame because the revert wars have not yet been resolved.  I believe the main issues here have been addressed clearly on the Talk:Plame affair#csloat_recent_edits page and spelled out there.  The stasis of this dispute lies in the question of whether Valerie Wilson was an undercover agent when she was outed (there are also some minor issues including spelling errors and such but this seems to be the main bone of contention).  This issue is a non-issue: the CIA asked the Justice Dept for an investigation.  The CIA is the only entity who can tell us whether or not she was covert -- it is their call.  Newsday reported on July 22 2003 that at least two senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent.  That is verifiable published evidence of this information.  The fact is the Justice Dept is still investigating this - if she were not covert, there would be no investigation -- as I have pointed out over and over, all they have to do is call the CIA and ask.  It is of course notable that there are some voices claiming otherwise, but the bottom line is it's the CIA's call whether or not she was covert.  The other issues are explained on the talk page and even numbered for the convenience of those who would like to respond.--csloat 08:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commodore, my two cents is as follows:  (1) as I understand it, the page uses three terms about Plame's status: (a) whether she was "covert", (b) whether she was "undercover", and (c) "whether the status of her CIA employment was classified."  Some section on the page should explain whether those are diffirent terms.  Covert in particular isn't defined anywhere and isn't linked to any definition, so it's hard to pin down the argument, much less reach a conclusion.  (2) More generally, given that there is a debate, I think the best bet is to fairly explain both sides.  As I understand it, you think that the CIA referral is conclusive proof that Plame was covert; while other people think that other evidence, particularly Fitzgerald's explicit refusal to state a conclusion on the issue, indicates that the CIA (might have been/was) wrong.  You're a thoughtful writer, and I personally would trust you to draft something that clearly explains both sides of the argument - do you want to take a crack at it?  Thanks, TheronJ 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see the difference between "covert" and "undercover."  I have read a lot about the CIA, and while I know people who have worked in intelligence, I never have, and I don't claim to be an expert on this.  I just read and write a lot about it.  So perhaps there is a difference that I don't understand but I have seen no expert explain it.  As for "classified" - that word is used to describe information, not individuals.  An individual's status might be "classified"; that would (to me) make that person "covert".  But that does not mean they are on a "covert" mission -- or, indeed, that they are doing anything of importance. If those who think that "covert" means something different than "undercover" would like to explain the difference, I will be interested to learn what it is they think.  As it is, this makes no sense to me -- jgalt posts a letter proving the CIA thinks plame's identity is "classified," and claims that is proof that she is not "covert."  I just don't understand what he means.  There is the legal question of whether a certain law was violated, and therefore how much jail time the criminals will receive, but that is really not a significant issue -- either way, exposing Valerie Wilson's identity was illegal, immoral, and it undermined national security. --csloat 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: One more thing - I wanted to address the point about "Fitzgerald's explicit refusal to state a conclusion on the issue" since galt brings it up a lot too.  He was not asked to state a conclusion on the issue.  He was clarifying a point that he was responding to, and reminding everyone that this was not the point of his investigation.  My interpretation of that is that he is acknowledging that deciding Plame's status is the job of the CIA, not the Justice Department.  He made the statement in a press conference where he was asked not whether she was covert but whether he thought that Libby knew that she was covert when he outed her.  It's clear from the question that even the questioner thinks she was covert.--csloat 16:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on this page and [[Valerie Plame]] 

message: :"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.  
-- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IAEA Cite

message: Looks like we definitely should handle the ongoing controversy about her covert status, in an appropriate and factual way, along political lines. There have been many individuals in this case but James Guckert, the former male prostitute who, as 'Jeff Gannon' had 2 years of day passes into the Washington press pool and who had such controversial access to the Plame memo, is a core figure AND also stridently believes Plame was not covert and is repeating that assertion today on his blog (without any evidence, however).
:The media is getting just what it wanted: a Bush administration official on trial in the Valerie Plame affair. But as the old axiom warns: "Be careful what you wish for."
:As I have been saying for some time now, journalists will be called to testify - and without ANY protection - about what they knew about Valerie Plame and when they knew it. Plame was NOT covert, no matter what the CIA says. More than a dozen journalists in Washington knew she worked at the agency long before Robert Novak published his column. Each of them will have the opportunity to confirm that UNDER OATH in the very near future.
:Bob Woodward didn't come forward out of conscience. He was tipped off that he would be on the witness list. Ohter journalists who didn't come forward have yet to face what will surely demonstrate that the entire mess is a liberal media generated phony scandal.
:If you recall, I was the first reporter to confront Joe Wilson about the memo that proved he was less than honest about how he came to be chosen for the mission to Niger.
:I'm ready to testify - in fact - I'm looking forward to it. 
::LOL... I'm looking forward to that too; as if this thing isn't enough of a circus as it is.  Gannon, of course, has been spreading a lot of this dirt from the beginning.  It will be interesting to see how much he's willing to say under oath.  Does he claim to have known Plame's identity before Novak outed her?  Anyway I think you're right, this section should be about the politics of it, as there is no question this viewpoint is being put out there prominently, and it's being put out there for a reason.--csloat 02:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The contention that Guckert had access to the INR memo was soundly debunked about a year ago.  Lefty Blog Debunks  Righty Blog Debunks.  The story was a dead end. 63.229.212.32 02:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff - The Wall Street Journal article was October 17, 2003 and the Wilson/Gannon interview in which Wilson was asked about the memo was October 28, 2003. The Washington Post article that made the false connection is here. Thanks anon! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jeff Gannon agrees with Mr j galt

message: Every major news organization, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters, and the White House correspondents, joined to filed a friend of the court brief  on behalf of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper.
They said:
:"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the “deep cover” required of a covert agent.  See 50 U.S.C. § 426 (“covert agent” defined).  She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley.  She had been residing in Washington – not stationed abroad –  for a number of years."
Thirty-six news organizations have adopted this position in their court brief.  To restore NPOV, this will probably be the first thing I insert into the article once it is unprotected .--Mr j galt 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That brief authored by... Victoria Toensing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So you're working under the assumption that if enough people say something, it's true? The news media put their cursory support behind her because they didn't know what she wasn't saying.--waffle iron 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty sure that Wiki policy is that if enough secondary sources say something, it's at least worth reporting.  TheronJ 11:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between reporting the news and filing an amici curiae.  To be fair, the brief does make some good points.  However, it was written with a purpose in mind (to advocate for Miller and Cooper and is not equivalent to fact but rather opinion.  To state the opinion of these news organizations as facts reported by them would be misleading.  I see nothing POV about mentioning the brief in the article, though I'd like to know exactly how jgalt would like to phrase it.   ⇔    | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be reported here too, but of course as an opinion, not as a fact.  Indeed, several of the news organizations concerned have printed that she was undercover, a NOC, and/or covert in their articles.-csloat 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Every major news organization is on record as saying no covert agent was outed

message: Apparently  has decided to ignore Wikipedia policy on disputed content and circumvent the RfC on these pages.  His recent edits to Karl Rove, Downing Street Memo, John Ashcroft, Scooter Libby, James Marcinkowski, Non official Cover, and yellowcake forgery are all blatant attempts to circumvent the RfC on Plame affair, Larry C. Johnson, and Valerie Plame by spreading the disputed content to numerous other wikipedia entries.  This is a destructive and uncivil way to deal with disputes over content, and I feel that this has gone way beyond a content dispute and into a conduct dispute.  This is certainly grounds for a user conduct RfC; Mr j galt, I once again implore you to stop violating Wikipedia policies and engage in a civil discussion on these issues.  Please revert your changes to those pages until the RfC process is complete. --csloat 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is plenty of evidence of bad conduct on your part on this page and others to justify an RFC on your conduct.  If that's where you want to go, we will do it together.  I do not believe the RFC on this page prevents me from editing those pages.  What policy are you referring to?  I am new to wikipedia and I am unfamiliar with such a policy.  Please cite it.--Mr j galt 06:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said the RfC prevents you from editing those pages.  The problem is not that you edit other pages; the problem is that you are deleting items on those pages based on disputed content that is directly part of the RfC.  It is Wikipedia policy that an RfC be resolved through discussion geared toward reaching consensus.  You are circumventing that process by spreading the disputed content to other pages instead of first resolving the disputed content.  I should not have to explain this to you as you are well aware of what you are doing.  You seem to have decided that you are losing the relevant arguments here, and instead of trying to think of reasons to dispute those arguments or trying to move toward consensus, you have simply imposed your POV on other pages.  Is there an explicit wikipedia policy against this kind of abuse?  I don't know, but I am willing to bet that most Wikipedia admins would agree that such behavior violates the spirit of the RfC process. --csloat 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User conduct problem 

message: Exactly as I suspected: Csloat is making up wiki rules that don't exist.  As he acknowledges, there is no policy that prevents me from editing other articles and he has since edited them himself!  He has been floating his conduct RFC strategy to bully and silence me since the day I began editing.  Apparently this is his m.o. to silence new users.  It is he that has displayed bad conduct, not me.  He is the one who has ridiculed the contributions of others here and launched ad hominen attacks in violation of the wiki policy on civility.  He has attempted to turn this article and others into an extension of his own anti-Bush/anti-Iraq War blog[ in violation of the wiki NPOV policy. His bad conduct needs to cease immediately.  He is again warned.--Mr j galt 12:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are accusing csloat of bad conduct - which he has not displayed. You, on the other hand, have consistently dismissed and ignored the discussion points of others, and consistently (and trollishly) parrotted the claims and complaints of others made against you, reversing them against your accuser. It is your conduct here which is at issue, which includes personal attacks, incivility, misrepresentation and deceitfulness... and it is unacceptable. Straw man complaints like yours are extremely transparent. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Moreover, I've just noticed you have just begun making erroneous edits to nearly a dozen Plame-related pages. Will correct, and unfortunately, I think I'll need to file an incident report. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikistalking is not only bad form, it is a violation of the wiki policy prohibiting harrassment.  Please refrain from following me to other articles I edit and reverting my edits.  You have been warned. --Mr j galt 05:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you make groundless and unfounded edits, I will correct them. If you feel that is 'wikistalking', I would ask you to re-read the policy again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Your behavior is trollish, galt, and turning around and accusing me of bad conduct does not cut it.  You are intentionally misrepresenting my point, clearly explained above, about your conduct with regard to the other articles that you have spread disputed content to.  As for the conduct RfC, if you read my comments with regard to the RfC, you will see a decision to hold off on the conduct RfC in order to try to pursue this through the article RfCs.  I have not been trying to bully you into silence with the RfC; on the contrary, you have been given over and over every opportunity to make your case here.  Instead of trying to engage in dialogue, however, you persist in repeating the same arguments over and over, which have been decisively answered, and then you gave up even on that and simply took your disputed content to numerous other pages in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make your point.  This is an obvious and objectionable attempt to circumvent the RfC process, and it is a naked attempt to avoid dialogue when you don't have the evidence to back up your assertions.  Once again, I implore you to cut it out.--csloat 18:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, you're not a "new user" and the RfCs on these articles did not start "the day you began" -- according to your user contributions page you created the account in August 2005, and your anonymous mayhem on the Larry C. Johnson page and the Valerie Plame page began shortly thereafter.  Apparently you were wreaking havoc on other pages too as your anonymous user talk page confirms.  Your edits have been attempts to do two things: (1) insert original research implying that Larry C. Johnson is a liar at the heart of the Plame affair, even though no published account supports this assertion, and (2) insert an intentionally misleading interpretation of the quote from Fitzgerald's press conference in order to supposedly support the claim that Plame was not covert.  (He says "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert."  You take that as evidence that she was not covert.  He is asked if he knew whether Libby revealed her covert status knowingly.  You take that as the question "was Valerie wilson covert?")  You ignore all evidence that she was operating undercover and you insist on more original research to justify nitpicking over different interpretations of the phrases "classified," "undercover," and "cover was blown."  You have persistently made these edits and arguments in a hostile, uncivil manner, and you have now avoided discussion altogether and simply taken your edit warring to other articles.  It is tedious to keep repeating this since everyone here knows it.--csloat 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to your ad hominem attacks on me and others who do not share your POV, I now must add wikistalking to your list of offenses.  Everywhere I edit, you follow me and revert.  That, my friend, is a violation of the wiki policy prohibiting harrassment.--Mr j galt 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr galt you are unbelievable.  You avoid dialogue on all the issues, you arrogantly take your edit war to a dozen other articles without responding to the disputes, and when you get called on this conduct you divert attention by calling me a wikistalker.  I'm not trying to harrass you galt.  I could not care less about you.  But I do care about the truth, and your attempt to distort it by making bad faith edits all over wikipedia are the problem.  Take a close look at what I reverted; in every case I was preventing you from spreading disputed content to other pages (you'll notice, for example, that I left your many repetitive -- and false -- edits calling every single VIPS member "an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and the Bush Administration.")  So don't flatter yourself - I'm just not interested in stalking you.  You are just trying to circumvent the RfC on the Plame issue by taking your false and disputed content to other pages.  This is disruptive, and you are only doing it to make a WP:POINT.  Cut it out.--csloat 05:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr galt, I see you have experienced the same thing I did.  csloat seems incapable of pursuing facts with a NPOV. His favorite tactic is censorship.  He will do almost anything to keep facts out of an article that do not comport with his worldview.  Unfortunately, csloat has a number of fellow wiki editors who are willing accomplices. I have not had much time to edit recently, but have read your comments on a few occasions.  Keep up the good work. RonCram 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Cram I'm not sure you've been following any of this very closely - can you please indicate what facts I censored?  I have, in fact, resisted Mr galt's censoring of facts, not the other way around.  I realize you and I have had our differences, but you're now stating things that are completely incorrect.--csloat 18:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CSloat's conduct

message: :Libby's Lawyers Seek Papers on Plame's CIA Employment
:Attorneys for Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff urged a court yesterday to force a prosecutor to turn over CIA records indicating whether former CIA operative Valerie Plame's employment was classified, saying the answer is not yet clear.
:The defense team for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby also asked that the court require Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to turn over any informal assessments conducted by the CIA to determine whether the leak of Plame's identity in July 2003 damaged national security or agency operations. 
I guess if the CIA complies with Libby's lawyers' request to release classified information regarding Plame, we might get formal confirmation soon. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby wants CIA to confirm Plame's classified status

message: There have been some pretty major developments involving a number of aspects of the Plame affair in the past few days - and with the article protected, we're stuck on talk. This is why the kind of edit warring behavior we've seen is so bad for Wikipedia.
:Ex-Aide Libby Wants Classified Materials
:By TONI LOCY The Associated Press, Tuesday, January 31, 2006; 8:35 PM
:WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for a former top White House aide want access to classified intelligence briefings to show that he had more pressing matters on his mind than lying about leaking the identity of a CIA operative to get even with her husband for criticizing President Bush.
:In a 21-page filing in federal court Tuesday, lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby accused prosecutors of withholding evidence they say they need to mount a defense.
:Specifically, Libby's lawyers are seeking copies of the highly secretive President's Daily Brief, a summary of intelligence on threats against the United States, given to Bush from May 6, 2003, to March 24, 2004.
:"Based in part on the documents, Mr. Libby will show that, in the constant rush of more pressing matters, any errors he made in his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony, months after the conversations, were the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory, rather than a willful intent to deceive," the lawyers argued.
:The dates of the intelligence briefings are significant to Libby's case. May 6, 2003, marks the first time the media referred to Wilson's findings in Niger, and March 24, 2004, was Libby's last appearance before the grand jury.
:Libby's lawyers also want a federal judge to force special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to provide copies of notes that Libby took during the same time period and any security assessment made by the CIA to determine whether any damage was done by the Plame disclosure.
:"It is material to the preparation of the defense to ascertain whether any damage to national security in fact resulted from the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment status," Libby's lawyers said.
:In a Jan. 9 letter to Libby's lawyers, Fitzgerald said he believes he is obligated to turn over only documents in the FBI's possession. 
:Fitzgerald also said he did not have _ nor did he request _ many of the documents that Libby's lawyers want.
:"As you are no doubt aware, the documents referred to as the Presidential Daily Briefs are extraordinarily sensitive documents which are usually highly classified," Fitzgerald wrote. "We have never requested copies of any PDBs."
:Libby's lawyers said they believe Fitzgerald should obtain the documents from the CIA and the vice president's office and turn them over to the defense team. The defense lawyers said they reserve the right to seek records kept by other government agencies, including the State Department, Office of the President and the National Security Council. 
However, in the NY Daily News, James Meek claims Fitzgerald DID receive PDB's and other classified materials in the course of his investigation:
:Leak prober got supersecret files
:BY JAMES GORDON MEEK, DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU, February 1, 2005
:WASHINGTON - CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald collected 10,000 pages of documents - including the most sensitive terrorism memos in the U.S. government - from Vice President Cheney's office, he said in court papers released yesterday.
:Without serving any warrants in his probe of who outed CIA officer Valerie Plame, Fitzgerald even obtained censored copies of the President's Daily Brief, the supersecret CIA threat memo for President Bush.
:Now Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney's disgraced former chief aide, is asking a court to force Fitzgerald to fork over all the documents to fight charges of perjury and lying to the FBI.
:Libby will show that "any errors he made in his FBI interviews or grand jury testimony, months after the conversations, were the result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory rather than a willful intent to deceive," his lawyers argued.
:The special counsel got the presidential briefing in his hunt for any files concerning Plame or her husband, Joe Wilson, a diplomat sent to Niger in 2002 to see whether the African regime sold uranium to Iraq.
:Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy. 
Fitzgerald, in his response letter to Libby, dated 23 January 2006, claimed that White House emails had been improperly destroyed:
:"In an abundance of caution, we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal achiving process on the White House computer system." 
Moreover, he states:
:Lest there be any doubt, we do have some documents responsive to your request which we are electing not to produce because we do not agree that we are obligated to provide them. {...} 'We are specifically withholding subpoenas (and correspondence) which were addressed to reporters whose testimony was directed towards government officials other than Libby. 
It's getting interesting! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is!  It's only a matter of time that this edit war, and the silly republican talking point that it is over, will be pretty much obsolete.  I don't know why Libby's lawyers want the PDBs, but if those become public, I expect we will be learning about a lot more than just whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert....--csloat 19:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why edit warring is so bad for the encyclopedia

message: Feel free to use this as scratch pad for info to be added at that point.
 Article about when Scooter Libby knew things from the National Journal
:Analysis of this by a liberal blog
I haven't had a time to read either in great detail, but they look to add quite a bit more to what is known about the chronology of who knew what when. --waffle iron 05:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information to be integrated after the article is unlocked 

message: I could not find a reason on this talk page for the protection of this page. I checked and found it had been protected on Jan 23 due to an edit war. Protection is used in this case as a cool down period. As it is now over a week later, I am unprotecting this page, but welcome any discussion about this here. --Zippy 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On further review of this talk page, I do now see the reason. I believe the discussion has cooled down somewhat, but would understand if an admin desired to re-protect it in order to aid the process of coming to a consensus. My read of the discussion is that the discussion is in the process of winding down, but I welcome comments from those actually involved in it as to whether they agree. --Zippy 06:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection and Unprotection 

message: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
:Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
--waffle iron 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you waffle iron -- I think this pretty clearly puts the content issues here to rest.  I do hope Mr galt can now be persuaded to accept that she was indeed covert and stop misquoting Fitzgerald to try to prove the opposite.--csloat 00:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that it's an important new development.  And I do think it shifts the presumption to covert.  It doesn't end the controversy--Fitzpatrick did not provide any evidence and said contrary statements in his later press conference--but like the judge, I will assume more details will be forthcoming.  We shall see. If he doesn't charge Libby with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or ultimately produce any evidence, it will change things.  I look forward to his new report, new press conferences, new charges, answer from Libby's defense attorney, the Libby trial, etc. and I will especially watch for any developments in the covert matter. I also think his new foray into the yellowcake documents will be very  interesting.  Have a great day!--Mr j galt 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason it doesn't end the controversy is because people like you are determined to revive it.  Fitzpatrick never said anything "contrary" to this.  It's hilarious to me that your whole BS viewpoint has until now been predicated on your interpretation of what you thought Fitzpatrick was saying, and now it is clear that he never said any such thing.  Rather than admitting you were wrong, you now make the indefensible argument that Fitzpatrick contradicted himself. The judge said clearly that the reason Libby was not charged under the IIPA was because Fitz could not show that Libby knew Plame was covert -- not because Plame might not have been covert.  Now I realize none of this will convince you, but your insistence on living in a fantasy world should no longer hold up wikipedia, right?--csloat 11:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to disparage my contributions (suggesting that I live in a fantasy world) in violation of the wikipedia policy on civility.  I will again ask you to refrain from such comments. --Mr j galt 11:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: And please stop referring to my viewpoint as "BS."  That's a violation of the Wikipedia policy on civility.--Mr j galt 11:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This revelation on Plame's covert status is new. You were premature in your covert claims in the past.  It is a big story in Newsweek exactly because it is a new revelation that addresses an ongoing controversy.  Stop gloating because the story cut your way.  It could have just as easily gone in the opposite direction.  I have a feeling this story will have a lot more twists and turns.--Mr j galt 11:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Stop gloating because the story cut your way.  - this isn't about sides, it's about what is and isn't factual. This was a fact before this particular piece of the puzzle was produced... numerous sources including the WaPo, NYT, and MSNBC all described her status as 'covert' since the leak by Novak. No one is gloating, we're just trying to make the articles factual, and I myself am hoping you will start to see your contributions here not as defending 'a side', but as helping identify 'the truth'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree fully with the above comment.  And I certainly did not intend to "gloat."  So let's have a section for the "lingering doubts" about her covert status but otherwise let's stick to the facts.--csloat 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Newsweek's take

message: At http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/ (look for "Plameologists Go") there are lots of links to source documents.  Should we incorporate those links in here?  Where?  Thanks.  (Offbeat idea: what about in Template:Plamefull?  Or, can one make a sub-category of External Links, as I'd date to see this buried amongst links to articles -- as these are actual court documents) -- Sholom 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of Links to Source Documents 

message: There's no reason for the introduction to be this long.  Does anyone want to take a stab at writing a two paragraph neutral intro and moving all the analysis below the jump?  TheronJ 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I agree, although I'm not sure I'm up for the task myself.  (I guess what I'm saying is that I would support your efforts to do so!) Sholom 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Introduction Is Way Too Long 

message: Ron, I think that's a great start - thanks for taking the effort.  I tend to agree that it's a little right-wing POV (and I say that as a right-winger).  I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but I think we should strip as much argument as we can and include it below the jump.  I would suggest these revisions to your intro:
-----
	The neutrality of this article is disputed.  Please see the discussion on the talk page.
	This article documents a current event.  Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.
Plame affair and CIA leak scandal (rel. CIA leak grand jury investigation) are common terms for a United States political scandal concerning the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA operative.  Conservative pundit Robert Novak reported Plame's status in a July 2003 column in the Washington Post. As of January 2006 a special counsel investigation continues.
Novak's column was published on July 14, 2003, eight days after Plame’s husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, published a New York Times op-ed , that was critical of the famous "sixteen words" in George W. Bush's State of the Union address regarding Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Africa. 
Wilson and others have alleged that Novak's column was the result of a conspiracy with Bush administration officials to expose his wife's identity as "political retribution" for his earlier criticism, and that Bush administration officials had endangered national security by exposing a covert operative of the CIA.  In response, various critics have speculated that Wilson's actions were part of a deliberate attempt to leak information damaging to the Bush administration, and have proposed rules preventing spouses of CIA agents from disclosing similar information in the future.
The Plame Affair includes the subsequent investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the origin and motives for the leak.  As a result of the investigation, it has now been revealed that at least two Bush administration officials, Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, together with other, unrevealed individuals, did reveal Plame's employment at the CIA to a number of reporters shortly after Wilson's op-ed was published.  Although Fitzgerald has not initiated a prosecution relating to the leaks themselves, he has indicted Libby for one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in the course of the FBI and grand jury investigations.
-------
Everybody let me know what you think.  I'd like to get something everyone can agree on, that's short and too the point.  CStoat, I've taken a shot at addressing your concern - I've said Plame was undercover in paragraph 1 and that Wilson and others allege she was covert in paragraph 2 - I would be more than happy with a section below explaining that she was "covert" as that term is commonly used but that there's a dispute about whether she was "covert" as that term is defined in the IIPA.  Thanks, TheronJ 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few edits to the last paragraph - we don't know what Fitzgerald has or has not uncovered in the way of evidence. That open question is at the heart of the controversy. We know only what he's acted upon in the way of indictments. I edited down the last paragraph accordingly. And I agree with your suggestion re: the treatment of the word 'covert' and the IIPA, in order to address the controversy around that issue. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This looks a lot better to me, in terms of POV issues, and I think it's a lot better stylistically as well.  Thanks for the work everyone has done here.--csloat 05:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an improvement over the current Introduction.  However, I do not see how it is possible to leave out of the Introduction the political controversy this case has generated.  Despite csloat's objections that the suggested "Plame Rule" is only supported by Zell Miller and a few bloggers, the fact remains that it is being considered as a change to federal law.  In addition, former Special Prosecutor Joseph DiGenova has accused the CIA of making "materially false" statements in the referral of this case to the Justice Department.  There is a controversy here about the behavior of Plame, Wilson and the CIA.  The Introduction does not need to take up a lot of these issues (the facts can be spelled out more completely in the article) but it seems blatantly POV to leave these issues out of the Introduction entirely. Since when is only one side represented in a political controversy? RonCram 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I would suggest we remove the words "CIA Leak Scandal" as that term is confusing and will become more so.  The CIA is now conducting internal investigations into several leaks of information by CIA personnel unrelated to this controversy.  If there was only one CIA leak, it would be fine, but the term is now confusing. RonCram 13:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry to have to disagree, strongly - the suggestion of a 'Plame Rule' is a marginal, partisan response to this scandal... it's not at the heart of the scandal. Nor is the conduct of the CIA/Wilson/Plame at the heart of the scandal... the scandal is about the revelation of a CIA operative's covert identity. I'm not saying it doesn't belong at all, but it's definitely not 'intro' material. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, that is your POV coming through. My POV is that the Novak and others in the administration felt something was very wrong and they wanted the press to investigate it.  They did not know Plame was covert or they would have handled it differently. Regardless of whether you see the point or not, this information is critical to readers and belongs in the Introduction. One POV cannot unilaterally decide another POV is not worthy of mention in an Introduction. RonCram 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, at every turn (including the RfC) you have consistently cried 'POV pusher', called me a bully and accused me of bias - I am NOT a POV pusher, I am trying to accurately describe this issue. PLEASE STOP! I consider it a personal attack to attempt to minimize my opinion by accusing me of having a (irreconcilable/illogical) or political Point-of-View. We ALL have points-of-view and it's uncivil of you to make these attacks. Very uncivil. Please please stop. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ryan, my comments to you have been fair.  I am sorry if you are offended, but you do have a POV, as do I.  One POV does not get to dictate to another POV what facts are important.  It is that simple. RonCram 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have not been fair - they have been aimed at me, not at my edits. At my political views, and not my contributions. I ask you to simply refrain from calling me names like 'POV pusher' and 'bully', and that you discuss the content of my edits, not dismiss them as 'POV pushing' when they are plainly about specific points, not about 'spin'. I ask you again, civilly, to refrain from such comments and to treat me and my edits as you would treat any other editor's. In this case, the basis of my desire to eliminate the 'Plame Rule' mention from the intro is that, quite simply, it's not noteworthy enough for the intro. It's an interpretation of motive that some individuals involved have expressed - but certainly not a mainstream view of what has taken place. As I've already said, I believe it can be included in the article, but not so prominently as to be in the intro. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with Ryan here.  I googeled "Plame" and got 4.5 million hits.  I googled "Plame Rule" and got 78 and most of them were on blogs.  No way is it at the heart of the scandal, and therefore it doesn't need to be in the Intro. -- Sholom 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of hits generated on google is not an appropriate measure here.  It is illegal for CIA employees to make the kind of disclosures Wilson made.  In addition, it should have been illegal for Wilson to write the op-ed, but the CIA failed to get him to sign a Confidentiality Agreement.  The reason these things are illegal is because the Congress does not want our intelligence agencies to usurp the power of making foreign policy.  When the CIA finds a way around the law, that would concern any Administration.  The issue here is central to the controversy.  Proponents of one POV cannot determine what facts are important to the other side.  It is crucial to any NPOV article that the facts are laid out in a brief way that support both POVs.  That is the only way the article can be NPOV. RonCram 16:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron you're right -- Lexis/Nexis is a much better gauge of notability than google, since it only includes published sources.  So I searched all newspapers and found exactly one hit for "Plame rule" -- an op-ed by Zell Miller.  This isn't even discussed in regular articles.  It belongs on the Zell Miller page, perhaps, and maybe somewhere on this one, but not in the intro.  Period.  As for your points about Wilson doing things illegal, you are performing original research, and it is wrong, at that.  Wilson was not in the CIA - there is no law against writing an op-ed.  (It is telling of your POV, by the way, that when a former ambassador points out that Bush was lying to get us into a war, your response is to suggest the ambassador may have acted illegally).  As for the suggestion that the CIA "found a way around the law," let's recall that there is an investigation going on.  If the Special prosecutor finds any evidence of that, I'm sure there will be published accounts of it -- at that time, we can enter it into wikipedia.  But Victoria Toensing's husband's speculation is not notable enough for the intro (and it is a pretty bizarre suggestion).  It is not "central to the controversy" -- it is a fringe viewpoint that might deserve some mention here but not as part of the intro, which should lay out the actual scandal, not some bizarre spin on it.--csloat 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Suggested Revisions to RonCram's Intro 2.0 

message: May I just say that having followed recent debates, here and elsewhere, this is turning into a very civil exchange of arguments. My compliments.-- Nomen Nescio 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impressed

message: I see Theronj put the less controversial version up - thank you.  I still have problems with this sentence and would like it changed: " In response, various critics have speculated that Wilson's actions were part of a deliberate attempt to leak information damaging to the Bush administration, and have proposed rules preventing spouses of CIA agents from disclosing similar information in the future."  I am not sure two people = "various critics."  Actually it's only one person when you add the second clause ("have proposed rules...").  There should be something here mentioning that Plame and Wilson have their critics, but the argument outlined here is far too specific to be accurate.  I think it is better if we eliminate that second clause (unless Ron can provide more infomration backing up his claim that such a rule has been taken seriously by anyone but Miller?)  Thanks.--csloat 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Version

message: While reading the talk page of the RFC on Mr j galt, I found a comment by someone I have not seen post here, Avriette, who wrote:
:I suggest all of you go back to the drawing board and try to work this out. Because there are more people on your side, you have taken that as freedom to suppress conflicting views. How could that possibly be good faith? Avriette 15:29, 5 February 2006  
Avriette has said more concisely and clearly what I was trying to say above in "Replaced Intro 3.0."  You all have to learn that when you do not hold a particular viewpoint, it is difficult for you to understand the viewpoint and the implications of it.  You are also not the best judge of what material is essential to the viewpoint.  Without doubt, this is a controversial subject.  For you to treat it as if there is only one side of the story is not fair to readers or to yourselves.  You cannot hide from these facts.  You must face them and possibly adjust your worldview. RonCram 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough of this nonsense, Ron, this has been explained clearly to you already - the issue is not censorship of anything.  Nobody is censoring the non-notable facts you keep harping on; the problem is that nobody sees them as notable enough to include in the intro.  And in all the verbiage you've produced this morning, you have not produced a single shred of evidence to change the fact that these are simply not notable.--csloat 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, your comment does not add anything to the discussion.  Your last post was a political message to your compadres saying "Don't listen to him!  We have chased off Mr j galt and Evensong and we can chase this guy off too!"  csloat, this is censorship plain and simple.  If the CIA made "materially false" statements on the criminal referral, then Fitzgerald's investigation is all about a non-crime.  If the statements had not been made, Libby would not be indicted.  Do you really think you can convince other people that these facts are not notable?  If Plame really manipulated events in order to disclose secrets in her husband's op-ed piece, do you really think that is not notable?  Do you really think the Clinton Administration would not have been upset if the CIA did that to them?  Do you really want the CIA to determine foreign policy? RonCram 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron what are you talking about?  Where have I said anything similar to "We have chased off Mr j galt and Evensong"?  This is an unwarranted personal attack Ron.  I know you and I have had our differences but there's no need to make it personal.  The point is not whether the CIA made "materially false" statements but rather about whether there is evidence that enough people think they did to warrant inclusion in the intro.  You keep whining censorship but in fact these facts are included in the article, just not hilighted in the intro as if millions believed them.  There is no evidence Plame manipulated anything -- she suggested her husband for the trip but had no authority to order him to go.  She did not run the CIA Ron.  The Clinton Administration is totally irrelevant here; that is just your effort to make this about right vs. left.  As for your last question -- no, I don't; what I want is for the CIA to operate independently of politics as it managed to do relatively well in previous administrations (even Reagan's, when it operated illegally in many ways).  Do you want the President to have accessed to independently analyzed intelligence about foreign policy?  Or do you prefer that the CIA be a highly politicized group of ideologues who will produce reports that support the President's choices no matter what the facts are?  The problem here in general is what former CIA official Paul R. Pillar (the agency's lead counterterrorism analyst) wrote in Foreign Affairs: "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized."--csloat 20:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Bush administration really manipulated events in order to lie the US into war,  do you really think that is not notable? Meaning, "what if," and "suppose" do not sound like they should be mentioned. And, why does this marginal info need to be in the intro? Shall we include all the possible "what-ifs" in the intro? Furthermore, if the CIA made "materially false" statements on the criminal referral, it will come out in the trial. Until such time, it would be wise to keep the crystal ball out of the article. Nomen Nescio 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A comment by an outsider

message: An important and provocative report has just been published that suggests that Iran was the target of much of Valerie Plame's covert investigative work and that outing her identity had far worse consequences than has thus far been acknowledged. Nomen Nescio 13:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Valerie Plame Leak Sabotaged America's Iran-Watching Intelligence Effort