Talk:Sibel Edmonds

message: I have little problem with stating "three Republican judges", but it would be much better to instead just name/link the judges. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judges edit 

message: Just a guess, but shouldn't she be listed as fluent in English as well? Easytoremember 12:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, tossed it in, thanks Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Here is a interview she had with Alex Jones: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/240706insidejob.htm], it should be added to the article. --Striver 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 [[Truther]] 

message: Why is there nothing about Sibel Edmonds and what she discovered on 9/11 conspiracy theories? --Espoo (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this (I assumed he meant the CIA or the White House).
 
And furthermore her own statement that Edmonds (along with other agents) according to her own statements, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, and that no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11 boilingfrog.com, a site founded and published by Sibel Edmonds
I just think its AWWESOME that this has now been removed from the page completely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utunga (talk • contribs) 05:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] 

message: According to a page on her own website: FBI & Kamikaze Pilots Ms. Edmonds had no professional role as a translator in the matter concerning the Iranian asset and his interview with FBI agents.  She was told about the matter by another translator. Thus the claims that had been made in this article that she translated documents about 9/11 warnings were false. 
This point is reiterated by her specifically in a legal deposition:
"Q: Now, one of the other entries indicates, it says 911 For Knowledge, and I'll just read it. It says, "She claims that the FBI received information in April 2001 from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset that Osama bin Ladin was planning attacks on four to five cities with planes. Some of the people were already in the country, and the attacks would happen in a few months."
Did you -- did you make that claim?
A: I took the language specialist, Farsi speaking language specialist, senior language specialist from the Iranian Division, Farsi Division, FBI, Washington field office, who worked right next to me, to the 9/11 Commission and Inspector General's Office, and he testified on this.
He informed me and he showed me this translator Bekru (phonetic) Sharsahr, and there are documents out there that he went to
page 67
the Inspector General's Office. He gave them the documents, the translated documents on the Iranians.
I was not part of that translation. I was not involved. After I left the FBI because I was witness to that department, what they had obtained, I just facilitated Mr. Sharshar's meeting with 9/11 Commission and also with the Glenn Fine, Department of Justice Inspector General's Office, and I put him in touch with the members of media. But that's my only involvement with that Iranian case.
Q: Do you believe that that's why the 9/11 -- the families of the 9/11 victims wanted to get your testimony in connection with their case?
A: I am not sure because as far as I knew, it had to do with the government of Saudi Arabia and the Saudi Arabian financial institutions. I was not told anything about Iranian case."
http://ariwatch.com/Links/SibelEdmondsDeposition2009.htm (page 68)
This should establish the facts on this specific issue.  Batvette (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're doing original research, I looked for reliable sources that say what she said is false but there are none, they just ignore her altogether it seems. And the reliable sources for her don't say she was wrong. Popish Plot (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reference you remove could have been checked using web.archive.org. The site made of a record of the page. As it happens that page was an archive of an Independent story, so I've just directly referenced that. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Web archive is a useful tool for repairing dead links. Thanks for clarifying when Edmonds started working at the FBI.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role in 9/11 warnings 

message: Entire first paragraph stolen from the web.  Look at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/Sibel%20Edmonds.  Copied word for word. Woodsstock 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is an excerpt from Wikipedia and even has a link that says "More from Wikipedia". --MattWright (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Stolen" LOL Even if this allegation is true [which it isn't] how much did huffington lose in the paragraph being placed here? I wish people would focus more on writing articles, not on policing them. 69.155.234.250 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO questions about plagiarism are fair. ( Martin |  talk • contribs  17:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a re-write 

message: When you say she is a "Turkish-American" you're trying to imply that she is from Turkey. How is she from Turkey, seriously? She's an Iranian-Azeri, making her an Iranian-American. Just because she lived in Turkey, doesn't mean that she is Turkish. And just because she's an Azeri doesn't mean that she is Turkish either.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.5.148 (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is she from Turkey? 

message: WP:BLP
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.
This entire article could be removed as worthless if all the controversial information that is missing references was removed as very little other than her name and DOB would remain.
Even whole sections referring exclusively to the content of a single public document have no source for that document. Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attriti0n (talk • contribs) 09:45, 19 June 2007
:Your citation-needed template refs and inline comments are appreciated, and I especially appreciate the constructive approach you've taken, rather than the aggressive and counterproductive removal of potentially contentious material as some would advocate. I wrote a bit about this disturbing trend on my user page, if you're so inclined; it's distressing, especially in the non-BLP space, that the relatively recent attention to such matters is often addressed in a bureaucratic manner, without regard for prior consensus about what topics are covered and what phrasing was worked out to stabilize the article. Such hit-and-run deletionists consider themselves heroes, but they leave behind a trail of article volatility unless they get someone to continue the aggressive enforcement. So thank you for not being one of those people.
:Anyway, I digress. You're right, we do need to improve the detail and precision of the existing citations, and we need to add some new ones, but I think you exaggerate the depth of the problems. For example, the first one of your complaints that I looked at was for a somewhat vaguely cited but nevertheless verifiable and completely accurate quote that you didn't like just because it was taken from a large PDF. I've beefed it up with page numbers, more quotes, an HTML link, and other details, but it was verifiable as it was, which doesn't bode well for your other citation requests.
:I will do what I can, but I could use some help from other folks who've taken an interest in this article. See Wikipedia:Citation templates as well as the more robust examples I've provided in the article already. Thanks! —mjb 11:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That said, it's been another 6 months and there are still large, uncited portions of the "Litigation" section. - 69.17.114.183 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder about unsourced statements 

message: Betcha $5 that not only will one of the networks take up Sibel on her dare, but we'll get a barrage of traffic related to it when it happens. q.v. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5197 ~Kylu (u|t)  00:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  for people with an eye on the article 

message: To add to article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece . Badagnani (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New revelations 

message: "US journalists ignore Sunday Times scoop on FBI nuclear scandal" from a Guardian columnist. MilesAgain (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK press questioning silence of US press 

message: I found the following extremely interesting:
 Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 17:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
 Subject: .... White House now wants Congress to approve sales of nuclear technology to Turkey
Warning! This is a fairly long post that could be regarded by some as
inflammatory and blatantly political.  It is.  It is also however,
directly related to issues of nuclear non-proliferation and security
against radiological terrorism - both topics which have been discussed
extensively on this list.  All of the topics touched on in this post
can be further researched on the internet so I have left out most of
the background material in the interest of brevity.  Those wanting more
information and references can find them very easily.  I freely admit
the fact of my own fallability and that of my sources.  Where I am
wrong, please have the courtesy to correct me.
 *[Message to the Congress of the United States  http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080123-6.html]
Comments:  Consider the following:
1)
"The Agreement was signed on July 26, 2000, and President Clinton ...
U.S. agencies received information that called into question the
conclusions that had been drawn in the required NPAS and the original
classified annex, specifically, information implicating Turkish private
entities in certain activities directly relating to nuclear
proliferation."
Note during this time frame, the FBI was investigating the American
Turkish Council (ATC) and other individuals and companies in regard to
the alleged smuggling of nuclear technology.   Sibel Edmonds has
claimed that she was hired to translate some of the wire taps from this
investigation and that they implicated high US officials, including
members of congress in what would appear to be acts of treason.  Since
testifying before Congress and the 9-11 Commission, she has been under
a "State Secrets Privilege" gag order.  Both Congress and the FBI IG's
office have stated that Edmonds claims are credible.
On the ATC, (from Wikipedia):
"According to its 2005 annual report, current American-Turkish Council
(ATC) board members include:
*Brent Scowcroft, the board chairman and former national security adviser for George H. W. Bush
*George Perlman of Lockheed Martin
*Elizabeth Avery of Pepsico
*Ozer Baysal of Pfizer
*Andy Button of Boeing
*Richard K. Douglas of General Electric
*Sherry Grandjean of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
*John R. Miller of Raytheon
*Selig A. Taubenblatt of Bechtel
ATC's advisory board also includes representatives of a number of high-
powered defense, pharmaceutical, consulting, and technology firms,
including General Atomics, BAE Systems, Motorola, and the Cohen Group
(Marc Grossman's current employer. cjb) Daniel Pipes is a former ATC
board member.
Growing media scrutiny of the ATC is a result of allegations made by
FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds regarding suspect activities of council
members in an article in the September 2005 Vanity Fair.
The ATC is where former Ambassador Joseph Wilson met his future wife
and CIA operative, Valerie Plame, leading some to speculate Plame's CIA
front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, was monitoring the same
alleged nuclear trafficking of the ATC as Sibel Edmonds."
2)
"My Administration has completed the NPAS review as well as an
evaluation of actions taken by the Turkish government to address the
proliferation activities of certain Turkish entities (once officials of
the U.S. Government brought them to the Turkish government's
attention)."
Considering this administration's connections with many of the ATC
board members, and its role in the outing of Valerie Plame and the
fictitious front company she worked for, Brewster-Jennings, what value
is its assertion that Turkey's corrective actions have been adequate to
ensure protection of US nuclear secrets?
3)
"the members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are confident that
the pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved and that there is
a sufficient basis ... to proceed with congressional review of the
Agreement and, if legislation is not enacted to disapprove it, to bring
the Agreement into force."
One need only review the Commission's "Increased Controls" (ICs)
requirements for materials licensees, and other actions regarding
security of by-product material to realize that their confidence that
the "pertinent issues have been sufficiently resolved" should inspire
none in the rest of us. Remember, four of the five commissioners were
formerly congressional aides, the other a former DOD official.
4)
Congress must act in order to stop this agreement from taking effect.
Hopefully there are enough members uncompromised by the ATC-AIPAC-BCCI-
Edmonds-Plame scandals (yes, they are all connected!) to prevent
rewarding the illegal proliferation of nuclear secrets by legitimizing
it.
END OF POST
MilesAgain (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nukes for Turkey 

message: Why is their nothing in this article mentioning AIPAC case? See here: "Sibel Edmonds Case: the untellable story of AIPAC" (watch the videos) and here: "Found in Translation" 86.133.26.209 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing mentioned on AIPAC case? 

message: "she claims that managers retaliated against her.[citation needed]" 
*The fact that she was fired, and that a subsequent investigation reported that her firing was probably based primarily on her warnings, substantiates her statement that her firing was a "reaction" to her warnings. 
*The fact that the investigation also states that her warnings were not properly investigated demonstrates that the "reaction" was premature and probably improper. This is enough to support her characterization of the reaction as "retaliation". 
If the question is who it was who retaliated, viz. not her managers, then [citation needed] could be restored to the text, but I suggest it be put next to the word "managers", for clarity. ( Martin |  talk • contribs  18:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue may actually just be that we need to point to where she explicitly made the claim that managers retaliated against her (that it was a conclusion by the OIG doesn't tell us whether & where she said it). In fact, although that whole paragraph is basically just summarizing material from later in the article, it ultimately will require a citation on every sentence to insulate against further tagging and/or deletion. It may just be a matter of referencing citing specific statements in the OIG's unclassified report. —mjb (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. She brought a lawsuit alleging that. Should not be hard to find a reference. Will do.( Martin |  talk • contribs  00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed [citation needed] 

message: The 'summary of changes' field helps when one is reviewing history, to find when something changed. An editor may, of course, also note on the discussion page, what thinking, or criticism, or suggestion, motivates the change, so that others can either agree and cooperate, or be more to the point if they have a different thought. Deletion of paragraphs, without discussion, seems abrupt to me, especially on this topic of substantial national interest. I am sure you agree.  :-) ( Martin |  talk • contribs  09:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder - the discussion page is available for your thoughts 

message: Here is a timeline from 2005 on the ACLU site, and you can see how many of the events in the story so far have been to suppress her allegations. It would be ironic if Wikipedia decided to participate in this suppression. ( Martin |  talk • contribs  08:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good start. It's the kind of thing I'd like to see in this article. —mjb (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Couple new Philip Giraldi articles have more info on what she has revealed, in case anyone wants to add: antiwar.com and Am. Conservative. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Giraldi articles 

message: Obviously it is the allegations Edmonds has made that make her notable. The section could make that a bit clearer including with more refs from the various high level WP:RS that have covered her story.  I'll get around to it unless someone else does first. So don't go removing it :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So we should instead note that she's been making various allegations regarding the FBI and national security in another section, as opposed to having what amount to various BLP violations in the text, right? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how you can substantiate your claim of "BLP violation", or biography of living person violation. That would amount to saying that a quotation, substantiated by a link to a video and a transcript of a sworn statement by that person, is derogatory of that living person. It makes no sense. Can you find someone else who agrees with you possibly who can explain it? And I don't see how spreading the statements around in the article would address the "BLP problem" you find. (76.180.164.161 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

text: [I have another computer now, but complications have come up, as happens. [( Martin |  talk • contribs  04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because she's making unsourced, dubious allegations about people.  We can't have that.  I'm pretty sure they should be remved at this point Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be easier if you discussed particular allegations so we could see how sources treat those allegations. Unomi (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations make her notable 

message: Ethnic categories are placed based on the person's origin regardless of whether s/he identifies him/herself as such or is it just one of her parents who does. Catherine Zeta-Jones' mother was Irish and her father Welsh; both 'Irish' and 'Welsh' are listed as her origin in the article about her. Parishan (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Who exactly says that she's an Azerbaijani? Article itself calls her a Turkish-American. Urvakan 6/22/10
From http://www.pageonelit.com/interviews/KGMowla.html
"He went to present Bangladesh in 1964 and became Pakistani. Khondakar became Bangladeshi in 1971. Since June 1993 Khondakar says he is "American by heart. So imagine that I was born as British Indian, than in 1947 India, in 1964 Pakistani and in 1971 Bangladesh and now I think myself as American. "
Someone who changes his identity like a used gum is not reliable source in someone elses identity. I'm not even going to comment on the garbage 9/11 conspiracy link you added. Urvakan 7/06/10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urvakan (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

text: He doesn't "change" his ethnicity. He was British at first because his birthplace, Bengalia, was under British control at the time of his birth and until 1947, when Pakistan (originally including East Bengalia) became independent and, naturally, he automatically acquired Pakistani citizenship, which changed to Bangladeshi in 1971, because Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in that year and became independent. Later Khondakar moved to the United States and acquired American citizenship through naturalisation. Is this so difficult to process? Parishan (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we even care?  Is there a reason why we need the 4 word section about her father at all? Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether or not to include :Category:American people of Azerbaijani descent, so, yes, we do. Parishan (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descent 

message: :The account centered around her post-9/11 role as translator of a pre-9/11 interview during which an informant had told the FBI agents:
:Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks. They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this.
:The agents, along with Edmonds, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11.
A couple of the statements in this section appear to be at odds with each other.  This statement: "The account centered around her post-9/11 role as translator of a pre-9/11 interview during which an informant had told the FBI agents" appears to indicate she is performing a translation of a pre 9/11 interview post 9/11. This statement "The agents, along with Edmonds, reported this information internally at the FBI but, according to Edmonds, no one at the bureau ever asked for follow-ups or further information prior to 9/11", then appears to suggest that she was translating this prior to 9/11. The sited source indicates that she is translating this interview pre-9/11.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjohnson06 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline Issue 

message: :In September 2006, a documentary about Edmonds case called Kill the Messenger (Une Femme à Abattre) premiered in France.[32] The film discusses the Edmonds case as well as offers interviews with various involved individuals. In the film Edmonds, former CIA agent Philip Giraldi, and others say that Israel was a significant actor in the illicit activities Edmonds discovered.
The second part of this paragraph is unreferenced, here are two potential refs: ref 1, ref 2. How best to describe what is said about Israel, 'illicit activities' is vague. Edmonds purports to have insight into US, Israeli, Turkish relations. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for 'Kill the Messager', how to describe content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sibel Edmonds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/043004lb.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'd like to see reference to Sibel Edmonds' frequent appearances on the Corbett Report with James Corbett (journalist), as well as content about Newsbud, the alt media project she is founding.  I tried to add material that could have been improved but it was simply deleted.  I'd also like to see a Wikipedia page about the Corbett Report and or James Corbett (journalist).  After over a decade I tried to create my first page and it was deleted before I was finished.  I feel his material and clear contextualization is too important to be ignored even if I am not. JasonCarswell (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Corbett Report]] 

message: I'm surprised that NewsBud has not been mentioned.  I'd be happy to help write/research/edit/etc but need guidance as with The Corbett Report.  JasonCarswell (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NewsBud]] 

message: Because this page seemed long and confusing I started reorganizing a bit.  I made the subject titles more consistent and clumped some of the 9/11 and Turkey paragraphs together without editing any content.  Then I realized that maybe I shouldn't.  I don't know if that was good or not.  I thought it was helpful but I don't know if it has to be chronological or something.  I hope someone might give me a word to let my OCD organize Talk Pages or not.  Thanks in advance.  JasonCarswell (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Re-Organized This Talk Page A Bit 

message: Information to be added or removed: Please replace the link that is currently featured in citation #8 with this new link: https://www.kkc.com/whistleblowers/?id=45. 
Explanation of issue: The current link that citation 8 links to is broken— I'd like to change this link to the correct bio page on the same website as before. 
References supporting change: The current link in citation 8, https://www.kkc.com/404, leads to a 404 Page Not Found page. Instead, I'd like this citation to link to https://www.kkc.com/whistleblowers/?id=45, which I believe is the intended link to Ms. Edmonds' bio page on the same website as the existing link. The only difference between the links is that the old link is broken and the link I'm proposing to swap in is not.
.
I would also like to disclose that I am a paid editor— this information is included in my user page, user talk page, and in the Connected Contributor template that I used in conjunction with the Requested Edit template. Please let me know if there’s anything I need to change. Thanks!
Sa 3003 (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: A proposed change: fixing a broken link in citations