Talk:Mary McCarthy (CIA)

message: It would be interesting to see this expanded. What was she doing up until the age of 39?
:Well, if she's a PhD, she was in college until around 22, masters program until around 25, and PhD program until around 27-ish.  That's assuming she went straight through. As for the remaining years, I have no idea. ⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She has two masters, from two schools, and a PhD in history can easily take 7 years. We also don't know how long her employment was at the Swiss firm. We should probably source the biographical information and also add the JD she seemed to have gotten at night school. Links anyone? (I believe the bio bits were from a CSIS biography that's cached on Google.) ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career 

message: DaveThomas, please see trialsanderrors discussion on the topic of the label. Just because I have given money to the Republican party, it doesn't make me an activist. Further, even if she is an activist, you need to cite references to making such an assertion. Where in any of the material does it point to her being an activist? Stop reverting the changes made to the page and start some dialogue. You can definently say that she has contributed to other organizations affiliated with left wing causes but you need to put it in context. I also know that she worked under Richard Clarke, but I can't make the wild assertion that she was somehow involved with his targetting of the Bush administration. We need to let the facts speak for themselves. Based on DaveThomas's same logic, we can just start throwing around the term left and right wing to any Wikipedia bio where they have given donations to a political organization. This is a bad precedent. --User:Unreal128 17:36, 22 April 2006.
: I just wanted to immortalize DaveThomas's latest modification: "As the term is used in Jack Abramoff's article it is clear McCarthy is an activist. Unlike Abramoff, McCarthy is a left wing activist." This has nothing to do with the relevance or newsworthiness of this person. MOC is in the news for leaking documents not making campaign contributions. Clearly we are outside encyclopedic territory here and well within the confines of political speech. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To add to that, I think this whole problems comes from a misinterpretation of what activism is. Activism appropiately describes Abramoff because that is what he was: a lobbyist (being a duty of activism.) Mary O. McCarthy on the other hand was an intelligence analyst. We can't imply intense partisanship (especially to deserve a left-wing activist label) unless there is material to support such claims, not just donation records. This claim implies that anyone who makes donations to partisan groups is an activist. Should I be considered a philanthropist because I have donated to poverty outreach organizations? --User:Unreal128 19:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Deliberate disclosure of her zip code (that she gives out publicly) is a smear?  Don't worry though.  I suspect there will be an AfD on this soon. --Tbeatty 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disclosure of ZIP code by itself is not a smear. But if someone adamantly tries to equate contributions to Democratic campaigns with "left wing" and "activism", someone seems to have an ax to grind. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Proof?   Abramoff directed money to both Democrats and Republicans.  That hardly makes him a Republican activist yet Wikipedia's standards allow that POV description of him.  OTOH, McCarthy has given only to Democrats, as such she is even more of an activist than Abramoff.  --DaveThomas 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DT, Abramoff shouldn't be classified as a 'Republican' activist, and good work on the fight over there at the Abramoff page.  However, McCarthy isn't an activist because she donated a couple times.  Anyways, keep up the fight. Macwiki 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Donating money to parties is not activism and therefore not listed among the activities considered as activism. Lobbying is. Your term for McCarthy was "left-wing", not "Democrat". There is no evidence that she held left-wing beliefs. It would help if you actually read the entries you link to. As about your disagreement with the Abramoff label, take it there. ~ trialsanderrors 03:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The American people did know through their elected representative.  Are you arguing that the Government should have no classified information?  No Spies?  When Congress learned about the leak they wanted to know who leaked it, not the details of the program because they already knew.  She is not a "whistleblower."   We have "whistleblower" laws that recognize what is whistleblowing and what is felony crime of disclosing classified information.  If she wanted to just "whistleblow", she could have contacted her Democrat congressperson and arranged a classified briefing.  She used to be Special Assistant to Clinton so she should have known how to do this.  Instead she chose to "leak" it in an illegal way.  With  all the options she had available, she chose the one that would cause the most political damage to the administration.   One has to wonder why.  --Tbeatty 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is patently wrong to confuse the legal doctrine of whistleblowing with the common definition of whistleblowing. Apart from the multitude of cases of whistleblowing which are not put to a legal test, we would have to exclude everybody who blew a whistle before whistleblowing laws were enacted or who is a citizen of a country where no such laws exist. It is especially problematic in governmental whistleblowing, where the government is both judge and defendant. The common definition of whistleblowing is to pass organizational information about misconduct on to outsiders. Also the idea that the right to have classified information is a shield against whistleblowing is nonsense. Similarly companies could and often do claim that whistleblowers violate trade secrets or confidentiality agreements. About the potential self-interest, this is also not an excluding criterion. Important is the act, not the motive. ~ trialsanderrors 05:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So I guess, by your definition, Scooter Libby is a whistleblower because he uncovered wrongdoing at the CIA by disclsoing the inappropriate relationship between CIA operative Plame and Joe Wilson?   I think not.  There are accepted avenues for disclosure.  You can call her a whistleblower, but don't be upset if others call her a traitor for the same action.  The important thing is not the act, it's the damage her actions caused.  She breached the trust that policy makers put in the hands of executaive branch employees.   She can claim anything she wants, if she betrayed her oath for political gain, she should go to jail.  --Tbeatty 06:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: by your definition, Scooter Libby is a whistleblower - To my knowledge he didn't disclose wrongdoing, unless Plame being an operative falls under wrongdoing. don't be upset if others call her a traitor for the same action. - Where did I say I was? the damage her actions caused - to U.S. relationships with its allies? So is it the disclosure that caused the damage or the initial act? ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what he/she means is that Plame failed the government. Clearly, Plame should have murdered her husband since he was opposed to the Bush administrations lies which is illegal from what I can gather. I guess ideally she probably she have been executed according to Tbeatty. At least this is what I assume based on comments I've read Nil Einne 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Left Wing Activist?

message: The link to this article on the main page states that:
 "The CIA fires a high ranking analyst, reportedly Mary O. McCarthy, for disclosing the existence of CIA-operated black sites"
However, there is no reference to these "black sites" on this page.  Someone care to add the details? Meighan 15:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pure speculation.   It's interesting that it qualifies who was fired with "reportedly" but absolute fact that it was "CIA-operated black sites".  It's the exact opposite of the emphasis in real news articles.  It sounds to me like this is a POV attempt to justify the leak instead of reporting the news.--Tbeatty 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: umm, whats speculation. The black sites are, its just wheter or not thats the reason she was fired. But it should be mentioned that it has been put forth that the info was about the Black Sites. 12.220.94.199 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the main page sentence?  It says unequivocally that was the reason she was fired.  Seems pretty irresponsible for an encyclopedia.  This article is about McCarthy, not whether black sites exist or not.  And an article that Priest wrote  is about the Black Sites.  That has not been linked by either McCarthy, Priest or the CIA to McCarthy.  --Tbeatty 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A CIA Analyst, later identified as Mary O. McCarthy was dismissed for releasing classified material to persons unauthorized to receive the material.--Tbeatty 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but isn't there also a pretty solid link between her and Dana Priest as far as the leaking goes? If this is true, then I think it would be needed to mention the type of information leaked and possible link to McCarthy regarding black sites. --Unreal128 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't think any of that is confirmed.  The connection to Dana Priest is taht it was her article that launched the investigation.  I don't know that Priest is the only person that she leaked.  It is not clear that she is the only person that leaked or that her leak was the black sites.  It has not been released what McCarthy confessed to and Priest has not said who her source or sources are.--Tbeatty 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Sites

message: The NY Times article dated April 23 said her polygraph 'indicated the possibility of deception', not that she 'failed a polygraph' as stated in the Wikipedia article. --Anchoress 01:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I made your suggested change.Jeff Fenstermacher 04:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The change is fine, both mean the same thing.   The Washington Post reported she "failed more than one polygraph test." RonCram 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would put "failed" back in and maybe relegate the more precise terminology to a footnote. ~ trialsanderrors 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygraph 

message: McCarthy did this during a time in which many CIA officials were (are?) in open warfare against the Bush Administration.  I see the leak as related to the actions of Joseph C. Wilson, Valerie Plame, Michael Scheuer, Paul R. Pillar and Richard A. Clarke.  Former Senator Zell Miller has called for a new law (the Plame Rule) that would prevent CIA officials from using their spouses to attack the president the way Valerie Plame did.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514509/posts]  George Tenet allowed Michael Scheuer (while he still worked for the CIA) to publish a book critical of President Bush in an attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 election.  The fact Tenet approved the book's publication is what got Tenet fired.  Scheuer also wrote a book in 2002 that talked about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda but later, after the invasion of Iraq, went on television talk shows to say no evidence existed of the relationship. (Note: You may have to read the Scheuer Talk page for more information on this as one wikipedia editor has been in a censorship mode to prevent readers from this fact).  Richard Clarke is guilty of a similar change in viewpoint on the topic of Saddam and al-Qaeda.  Paul Pillar leaked a National Intelligence Estimate that he believed supported Pillar's chosen policy path in an effort to criticize President Bush.   Newspaper articles and op-ed pieces have been written about the CIA's open hostilities to the Bush Administration and how CIA officials are attempting to control foreign policy through illegal and unethical means.  Shouldn't this article on McCarthy reflect that reality? RonCram 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article, like others on Wikipedia, should reflect reality as portrayed by authoritative sources.  It should not reflect various conspiracy theories that individual Wikipedia editors find compelling.--csloat 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shouldn't McCarthy's leaks be put into historical context?

message: >She reportedly was fired on April 21, 2006, for illegally leaking classified information to The Washington Post regarding black sites and other classified topics.
This is biasedly worded. Black sites themselves are illegal under international law and conventions. Treaties that have been signed and ratified clearly supercede national legislations, this is the most basic principle of international law. Therefore she was NOT illegally leaking the information because the information itself was evidence of a crime under international legislation that supercedes US federal and state laws.
She was legally disclosing information about crimes, in fact she was obliged to disclose the information under international law, else she could be convicted of assisting in crimes against humanity in an international criminal court. Claiming to follow orders is no excuse for crimes as has been clearly established in the Nurenberg. If you are in CIA and know of other outrages against e.g. Geneva and Hague you too should come forward so that you gain future immunity from the UN tribunals. 195.70.32.136 11:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, exactly what she leaked is not known by the public at this time. The Washington Post reported that she "failed more than one polygraph" test, so it quite possible they were asking her about different leaks.  The language used by officials speaking on background seems to indicate the same thing.  These people are saying the leaks adversely affected U.S. national security and the investigation is not over with this firing.  MSNBC is reporting that McCarthy had over 12 unauthorized contacts with Priest and that "information about other subjects... may have been leaked as well."  So the firing is not about a single leak but multiple leaks.  McCarthy seems to be acting on purely partisan political grounds in an effort to damage President Bush, but in doing so she has also damaged national security.RonCram 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's quick followup.  The NY Times reported, "Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from a pattern of conduct and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post."  RonCram 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't recall any ruling by an authoritative body that a treaty was violated.  Is McCarthy the arbiter of treaty violations such that she can unilaterally decide what is or isn't illegal?  As I recall, that authority remains with the president.  I don't remember her being on the Presidential ballot.  --Tbeatty 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also no ruling by an authorative body that what McCarthy was doing is illegal. If we employ this standard the word has to be stricken. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Though her actions, or at least what we believe her actions were, are (arguably) illegal under american law, nobody has yet ruled on the matter. Moreover, it is not yet known precisely what she did, so arguments for or against are pointless.  Perhaps you could put a footnote saying that she has not been even charged with anything.--CSTAR 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the text, under Leak Scandal. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My language was that she was fired for disclosing classified information to persons not authorized to receive it.  I don't think there is any reason to speculate whether it was legal or illegal.  I object to the premise that was put forward that this was unquestionably legal for the reasons that were given.  --Tbeatty 06:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is reason because the word was inserted into the intro paragraph, as copied above. I disagree with the poster who claims it was not illegal, but that does not justify the insertion of "illegal" into the language. As I pointed out in one of my edits, the firing offense was leaking. Legality or illegality has to be determined by a court of law, not the CIA. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  There is no evidence that rendition is illegal in any way.  There is no evidence that she was preventing crimes against humanity or any other such nonsense.  Exactly why she did it is unknown.  I contrast her leak with the FBUI whistleblower who came forward publicly and with a clear conscience vs. hiding behind a leak.  It seems incongruous that someone who would ostensibly think they are preventing crimes against humanity would worry about their job and continue to work for the administration they so opposed.  To bring up Nuremburg, as the 2 back previous poster did, the "I would have been arrested if I didn't participate in genocide" defense didn't work either.  --Tbeatty 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: Please note that this change  is a reversion.  Making a minor change to bypass the 3RR doesn't work. If you are unhappy with this policy then please submit it to an RfC--CSTAR 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DaveThomas had 4 reverts yesterday, coming off a 12h block for 3RR violation (see my Talk page on it). I have no idea how to report those, but maybe someone else wants to. ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm an admin, but I generally prefer to convince people that such behavior gets them nothing, rather than block them. I mean, we don't have to agree on the politics to at least get the facts straight. Other admins will be less tolerant. --CSTAR 04:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be more convinced if DT himself was less quick on the trigger. ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd just like some edit summaries that tell me what exact he is doing. --waffle iron talk 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the ones from yesterday: 1. reinserted the Chapter 115 (Treason) link, 2. reinserted the "left-wing activist" language, 3. re-removed the whistleblower categorization, 4. reinserted the "later criminally sentenced" wrt Sandy Berger. If needed I can dig up the time stamps. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sigh, no not necessary. Look at the cat and mouse game on the redirect at Mary McCarthy. User:DaveThomas if you are upset by something why don't you try to constructively engage in editing the article by adhering to the NPOV rules? In this case, they're not that complicated, because no one has even been charged with anything.  The facts are meager and are reported in the press. --CSTAR 05:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt he reads this site. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy on reversions 

message: Apparently news reporters have gotten the story wrong. The CIA never officially claimed MOM (sorry, her initials are just too inviting) had leaked information on secret prisons.  Because MOM had contact with reporter Dana Priest, it seems news reporters and anonymous CIA officials were speculating the leak had to do with the story by Priest about secret prisons in Europe. But recent comments by MOM's attorney and now the CIA say that simply is not true.
* "Though McCarthy acknowledged having contact with reporters, a senior intelligence official confirmed yesterday that she is not believed to have played a central role in The Post's reporting on the secret prisons. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing personnel matters." 
So that makes several quotes in the article appear to be misleading, including the last portion of this one:
* The New York Times reported, "Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from "a pattern of conduct" and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post." New York Times, "C.I.A. Fires Senior Officer Over Leaks," April 22, 2006 by David Johnston and Scott Shane 
One quote I believe we can trust is this one:
* CIA spokeswomen Michele Neff is quoted as saying "This CIA officer acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly shared classified intelligence, including operational information." New York Daily News, Secret Prison Leaker at CIA Gets Canned, April 22, 2006, by Kenneth Bazinet. 
The phrase "including operational information" is a technical term hinting that a criminal prosecution may follow.  I am not claiming they will prosecute, but leaking "operational information" is a crime. At the very least, this arrest and official comments are a message to other CIA officials not to leak "operational information."
This clarification of the facts (that MOM did not disclose information about secret prisons) also calls into question the relevance of the comments by Mr. Vivas. I do not see how MOM can be praised for something she did not do.
Someone needs to work on a rewrite and address the fact the initial news stories were wrong. I don't have the time. RonCram 11:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments on Black Sites.  I agree with you (actually agreed with you before you wrote it or the MSM figured it out.).  --Tbeatty 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where the more recent news establish factual incorrectness. If we were to follow the lawyers comments, she did nothing wrong. So far we have three interpretations of facts proffered by different parties: 1. leak, black sites related, 2. leak, not black sites related, 3. no leak (correction: no leak of classified info). I don't think it is our job to pick the ones we like the most, but make sure the viewpoints are properly attributed and put in relation to each other. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Btw, RonCram, I'm pretty unhappy with the reordering of the Leak scandal section. It breaks up the flow of 1. Factual interpretations, 2. Critical responses and opinions, and leaves the "mixed responses" abstract dangling in mid-air. If you want to break it up, Adding a section on "Responses" would do the trick better. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis of the news reports

message: One of the more interesting aspects of the story as I heard it reported on the radio was that one of the journalists that formed the other side of the leak won a Pulitzer prize. I wonder if it would be reasonable to add that somewhere within the article. It's an interesting and related factiod. KellyCoinGuy 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. ~ trialsanderrors 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Journalist wins Prize

message: Could I ask you to use the footnot format instead of direct references.  These have numerous advanrages.  For instance, you can paraphrase and give the direct quote in the footnote, give part of the quote in the article, the rest in the footnote etc. --CSTAR 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnote format

message: Contrary to the claim by McCarthy's lawyer that she never confessed, FOX News is reporting the CIA is reiterating the claim that McCarthy confessed to leaking classified information.  The video is available on www.foxnews.com.  Unfortunately, FOX uses a javascript method that makes it difficult to link to.  If anyone knows how, can you please set a link on the page to the FOX News video report? RonCram 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't seem to find the link. I'm sure it will appear in print soon if the report is indeed true (Note: I believe you about the report, it's just that who the principals are is often not clear in a TV broadcast. I prefer the written word). This is still a very fluid story, though, and I think the only sane thing to say at this point is that "it is a very fluid story".--CSTAR 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The video on FOX is readily available under the "Politics" section, but when I copy the shortcut I get a javascript that will not work as a link.  Someone has tried to link to the story and only linked to the jpg image, so I removed that.  However, I was able to find a NY Times story that reiterates the CIA's position that she did confess - although the CIA is not saying she confessed (or is even thought to have been the source for) the secret prisons story. RonCram 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A big "Thanks!" to whoever took the time to find a way to link to the FOX video clip.  The clip is very informative. RonCram 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FOX News video report

message: Re: CS recent edit. The sentence is not properly sourced..By that I mean, with the original source. I have no objection to your putting the quote in, but please make the effort and find the original Newsday reference, with title, date and author. Thanks.--CSTAR 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original source is no longer online.  I will get it off lexis/nexis and add that information.  But it is easily verified, since it is also quoted in a number of other sources.  Anyway, I'll add that info shortly.--csloat 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted (and restored) sentence

message: What happened to this section? It's absolutely relevant.  I saw it here the other day.  Why was it removed?  If I don't get a satisfactory explanation I'm going to find it and put it back. Censorship of well sourced relevant fact should not be tolerated here or anywhere else.  --Kirby Morgan 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re It's absolutely relevant. Really? To what? She hasn't been charged. Do you know she will be? DO you know with what she will be charged?--CSTAR 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point trialsanderrors, I agree the reference is not unreasonable, but I don't think it is appropriate to have lines in the text like the one I originally deleted about leaking being a federal crime under title 18, at least until such connections are made by authoritative sources.--csloat 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sharing federal intelligence is a federal crime, and since the exact words have been used by CIA spokespersons this might also have libel implications. We should make clear that the CIA alleges two different things, which have different legal implcations, and that the lawyer takes different positions on those. It is better to put the link into context than just have it dangle in the references, but it should be followed with a qualifier that no charges are pending/quote that charges are unlikely, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with this as long as an authoritative source is cited as the link between title 18 and McCarthy.  Otherwise it is WP:NOR.  And of course that section of Title 18 does not outlaw all such leaks.--csloat 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your criterion? Someone saying she should be sued for Title 18 or is sued for leaking class info enough? ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If nobody else brings up Title 18 (or whatever other law), it is not up to wikipedia editors to do it.  That is not my criterion; it is Wikipedia's, as I understand it.--csloat 18:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know NOR. That wasn't my question. The official title of § 798 is "Disclosure of classified information". So do you think NOR applies until some public figure actually mentions "§ 798"? In any case, I'll leave it up to you to enforce it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not here to play the enforcer, but I don't see the point of adding this if it is something that no authoritative source has seen fit to mention.  Certainly we can wait for newspapers or scholars to mention it before putting it into an encyclopedia?  I am sure the meaning of NOR is debatable, but I don't think it's that unclear in this case.  If this is really that relevant, why aren't news commentators or pundits mentioning it?--csloat 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Just from reading the first paragraphs I agree § 794 is complete bunk. I'm sure some fruit loop will argue that some of the EU countries investigating the CIA flights are "enemies" but we should still kick it off. ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 18 

message: The people who sacked her are the ones who make people hate America enough to die for the chance to kill an American. They should all be locked up as traitors, but so many Americans are just too insular to get it. 62.31.55.223 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss the content of the article. You are entitled to your opinions about the events, but this isn't the place to express opinions. It would be encouraging if we can get people who obviously disagree on the politics, to at least agree on facts.--CSTAR 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note to DT. Could you please use less incendiary vocabulary? You may have a point about excluding blogs (see note above) but you could please tone down your language? What may be crap to you may not be to other contributors.  For better or for worse you have to work with them. Thanks.--CSTAR 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is unbelievable

message: :Companies:	Central Intelligence Agency (NAICS: 928110, 928120 )
:Author(s):	KNUT ROYCE. WASHINGTON BUREAU
:Section:	NEWS
:Publication title:	Newsday. (Combined editions). Long Island, N.Y.: Nov 14, 2004.  pg. A.06
:Source type:	Newspaper
:ProQuest document ID:	735774481
:Text Word Count	667
:Document URL: :http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=735774481&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=24448&RQT=309&VName=PQD
--CSTAR 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsday article 

message: The article states:
: The relevant parts of the Espionage Act of 1917 is in U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37. Deliberate disclosure of classified material for which one is entrusted access fall under Section §794 and Section §798.[8] [9] The laws carry penalties of up to Capital Punishment or up to 10 years imprisonment, respectively.
Relevant to what? Relevant to McCarthy? There is no supporting evidence for the claim of relevance, since McCarthy hasn't been charged with anything. Please provide a reference. Note the refernced NY Times article does not discuss what parts of the espionage act is applicable.--CSTAR 05:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's redundant because the same passage already pops up in the Leak Scandal section (preceding current footnotes 11 and 19). It's also original research beyond a link (internal or external) to Espionage Act of 1917. ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus, slightly in favour. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 09:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Espionage acts 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose as per discussion above.  This Mary McCarthy shares her name with a very famous author.  Merely adding an O. to her name will not help wiki readers distinguish her from the author.  How the move was done is irrelevant.  One complainant has attempted to connect this title discussion with the controversy over the Plame Affair title.  That controversy should not be brought here. Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) accurately describes the subject of this article and the title should remain as it is.--Mr j galt 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
Is this survey really necessary?
Although I prefer the name article's original name "Mary O. McCarthy", I had the impression the new name "Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee)" was also generally acceptable, for now at least. If someone raises a WP policy issue, then we may have to revisit that.  The name seems to be completely neutral, although if someone believes (and is willing to argue) that it isn't, please speak up. I would just request that in the future any large changes be discussed here first.  That seemed to be an issue above. Thanks. --CSTAR 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What CSTAR said. FWIW, her 9/11 Commission testimony was as MO.McC, while her book publication and her Georgetown facebook photo have her as MMcC. So the O. usage is at best ambiguous. The earlier claim that she was never known as Mary O. was wrong though. I guess that means I'm on the opposed side unless people continue fiddling with it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Responding to myself, after some googling it seems that MO.McC was indded her professional name. From the CSIS bio: Prior to joining CSIS in August 2001, Mary O. McCarthy was a senior policy adviser to the CIA's deputy director for science and technology. 9/11 Commission testimony: Statement of Mary O. McCarthy to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, etc. I guess that means I'm changing my vote to Support ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: Undiscussed name changes.
You may wish to bring on RFC if you believe you have a case of serious and persistent abuse. However, RFC's generally are protracted and in my opinion (definitely a minority opinion) a waste of time.--CSTAR 17:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that directed at me? I'm quite certainly on the minority side here too. ~ trialsanderrors 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, although "directing" sounds a little too beligerent. --CSTAR 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Meecat says: The current name of Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) is best. This woman's name is now linked to this scandal and to the CIA in the mind of the reading public. We need "CIA" in the name to help with those who google and yahoo their way to the wiki. I am the one who made the most recent name change here. I changed it from Mary McCarthy (CIA employee) to Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) a few days ago. I did this for the obvious reason she no longer works at CIA. In my view, going to Mary O. McCarthy would be a step backwards. Anyone searching for "Mary O. McCarthy" will find this article as that name already re-directs here. Merecat 19:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that you changed the question on this survey. Please only edit or remove other people's comments on a talk page if they are prohibited by WP policy. --CSTAR 19:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Re Cstar, please don't start with that angle. You mean to request that you don't edit or remove other peoples comments? Are you suggesting that is unreasonable? I'm making an effot to keep the dialogue here civil. If you believe the question was off kilter, then by all means say so, and reformulate it below yourself, but without deletion of someone else's post.--CSTAR 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Merecat, you deleted the reason the move was proposed in order to bias this debate, to make it seem like no reason was offered.  Please consult WP policy concerning page moves -- something you should have done before moving the page in the first place.  The person requesting the move is supposed to include the reason for the proposed move.--csloat 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Merecat I am only suggesting the use of WP policy on this, which requires the reason for the suggested move be given along with the request.  It is not meant to bias the survey.  The reason WP policy requires that seems to be so that the admin, who is likely not a regular reader of this page, can easily find the main reason for the requested move by looking at the  "Requested move" heading.  You have a lot of nerve even suggesting that I did this to bias the survey, given that you made the name change without even stating a reason or consulting anyone else here!  Please don't worry about what makes me look good or bad, it's really not your concern.  Thanks.--csloat 19:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This move requires the assistance of a WP admin, thanks to you having moved it here in the first place without discussion.  Page moves should not be done on a whim.  I don't agree that we need CIA in the title for people to find the article -- I've said before we should put CIA on the disambiguation page, so that if one types "Mary McCarthy" they will have choices that include the (former CIA employee) designation.  But the title should not be so unwieldy if it can be avoided, and at this point the simple O will do so.--csloat 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Btw & jfyi, on the offered rationale Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) {more accurate - helps people find the article; she's in the news because of "CIA"}: If I do a Google search for Mary McCarthy former CIA employee wiki I end up on the MMcC the author page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialsanderrors (talk • contribs) 
:A Google for mary mccarthy cia, returns 2,080,000 hits.
:A Google for "mary o mccarthy", returns 106,000 hits.
:Frankly, unless we are saying that the CIA aspect of her career is not notable, then there is no reason to take "CIA" out of the page title. And if are saying that, then why are there 20 times more hits for Mary McCarthy + CIA than without?
:Merecat 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google for mary mccarthy cia Cut down to 585,000 if you actually include the quotes, but that doesn't mean much because most news articles that start out with the formal O. will refer to her later without the O. Better do a search of public documents. ~ trialsanderrors 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This doesn't even make sense. If you do an unquoted search for MMcC+CIA they automatically will include all finds that spell her name as MOMcC. Plus a variety of "John McCarthy & Mary Miller" finds. How is that supposed to be a relevant result? Plus, 106,000 finds = Not widely used??? ~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google test 

message: Wasn't it a rule of thumb to keep blog entries off WP? To quote one of DT's editorial comments: (Keep the extreme LW blog crap out or I'll add conservative blog crap for balance. Wikipedia's policy is to be neutral.) ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I have noticed DT (an d a few others) periodically removing what they call "blog crap" or "blog nonsense". My contribution to this most recent edit was limited to copyediting (and correctly spelling Hinderaker). I'm sure Joshua Micah Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo might have something to say about Mary O. McCarthy.--CSTAR 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already got a link to Larry Johnson's blog entry at TPMCafe. Unlike Hinderaker he actually has personal experience with McC. I didn't consider his position worth summarizing since it's a blog entry, but if we're turning the Opinions section into a dumping ground for partisan conspiracy theories, we should give equal time to cranks from both ends of the spectrum, is all. ~ trialsanderrors 20:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crank corner 

message: The move vote seems unfortunate.  The move was made by a sockpuppet without any consensus, and then the sockpuppet participated in the vote.  I believe the default should be for the page to be moved back to Mary O. McCarthy, and the sockpuppet's vote should not count towards the consensus.--csloat 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The move was a good one.--Tbeatty 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you support letting pages be moved by known sockpuppets of banned users without consensus, and then allowing the banned user's sockpuppet to vote against moving the page back?--csloat 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So who do you think is the sockpuppet? User:Merecat or User:MZMcBride? Evidence for sockpuppetry? ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merecat.  I don't know McBride.--csloat 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks. McB moved the article from O. to (CIA e). ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see; then Merecat moved it again; merecat's move was last.  I do not see why his vote should count here or why the page should not revert to the default (O.) title before the undiscussed moves.  It's a minor issue, so I'm going to let it go, but it raises significant procedural questions.--csloat 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Mary McCarthy (CIA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424100544/http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/lawsecurity/events/arewesaferbios.html to http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/lawsecurity/events/arewesaferbios.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423184027/http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098 to http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427141307/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502041120/http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB8Y25FBME.html to http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB8Y25FBME.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506072821/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1114-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1114-01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512035954/http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4534_0_3_0_C/ to http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4534_0_3_0_C
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427141307/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423184027/http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098 to http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mary McCarthy (CIA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527102415/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)