Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 5

message: Interesting:
:Handwritten notes taken by the CIA show Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide knew the name of CIA spy Valerie Plame Wilson a month before her cover was blown. Nomen Nescio 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby knew CIA spy by name before it was published

message: We've got a new edit war started by , also using the ip .  This user refuses to explain anything in talk or in the edit summaries but simply makes the changes without discussion.  I have already reverted him but he keeps coming back.  He is editing like this on several pages -- Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson, and Valerie Plame.  I've asked him to stop on the 68.39.117.39 user talk page.--csloat 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop repeating yourself.  My jokes about Cheney were not entered into articles as you are well aware.  Do not simply delete editorials because they are editorials.  As long as they clearly are indicated as such, this is not a POV issue.  Please see WP:V and WP:NPOV for details.  Thanks.--csloat 23:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon user edit war

message: The Boston Globe also editorialized: ".... Such betrayals might have been expected in the Cold War. They should not occur because political operatives in the White House want to tarnish the reputation of a critic or settle scores with a CIA they may regard as too reluctant to tailor its analyses to the talking points of a vice president or a president."
This is all unverifiable opinion, as such it does not belong on the main page. There is no proof that anyone in the WH wanted to 'settle scores' with the CIA, much less the PotUS or VP. When there is proof or testimony to such, put those facts in not this overly biased and pusillanimous jumble.
If we can all put editorials from any newspaper we want, Wiki will become useless. I am happy to put the above to dispute resolution if there is a disagreement, but it does not belong on the main page.
:We already can put whatever editorials in that we want and Wikipedia is not useless.  Please stop deleting sourced material just because it represents an opinion.  If you have counter-opnions to add from recognized sources feel free but do not just delete stuff you don't like.  I notice you only delete opinions and editorials that you disagree with.  Please stop this nonsense.--csloat 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasparoff/Geomason - again, I must ask you to please stop the nonsense. Thanks.--csloat 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Boston Globe Editorial 

message: why is this label on this article? there haven't been many significant edits lately, so we should work on how to better this article now so the label can be removed. any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it should be removed and only be used when someone has a specific NPOV problem.  Preferably it should only be used for sections that can be improved for NPOV.--csloat 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: unless someone has a specific complaint, i vote to remove the label. i think this article is neutral. Anthonymendoza 13:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Label

message: From Novak's article today, " I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."  Ouch!  Sounds like Wilson may have committed libelous actions against Rove.  Novak's article  Scribner 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a logical conclusion; the Who's Who in America entry does not mention anything about his wife's employer or employment.  "Valerie Plame" is the maiden name of Wilson's wife, who has used the name "Valerie E. Wilson" since their 1998 marriage.  The entry gives her maiden name, as is customary: "[So-and-so] married the [former] [So-and-so]." See the revised note in the first paragraph of the article. (For other W users, I corrected the misspelling of "Novak" in the above comment, and added the Wikified link to his name; the primary source for his article is given in the notes and references.) --NYScholar 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Novak's article

message: I am chan[g]ing the html links to refs. Still working on one more section. -- Shane (talk/contrib) 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Ref 

message: Cut from article:
*Clearly, Fitzgerald would not have permitted Armitage to identify himself publicly unless he was certain that doing so would not compromise the federal investigation or Libby's future trial in any way, as these matters involving Mrs. Wilson proceed through the courts.
This makes sense to me, but I don't think it is "encylopedic". Especially on such a controversial subject.
We should attribute this conclusion to a verifiable source. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: doesn't make sense to me, but this article is now rife with POV statements like the one you cut.  so much so that the POV tag may be in order.  I would hope someone with a fair minded view on the topic would go over the edits made by nyscholar.  i don't have the time anymore to edit extensively on wikipedia, and frankly, i really am tired of debating valerie plame.  anyone care to tackle this page?Anthonymendoza 19:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See previous section; as a fair-minded person, with no particular POV on this subject, I spent a great deal of time and trouble deleting highly-biased and unsupported statements and unreliable sources from earlier versions of this article; I supplied citations, quotations, and references to reliable sources (WP:Reliable Sources) throughout.  If you "don't have the time anymore to edit extensively on wikipedia," I suggest that you refrain from taking the time to disparage the contributions of others without any evidence to support your disparaging remarks. --NYScholar 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: since her role was classified, there still is alot we don't know.  it's best to just lay out the facts and not come to any deductions.  Anthonymendoza 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "deduction" is not about her; it is a summary statement about the prosecutor's willingness to state what he does or does not state.  That is based on "the facts" of prosecutorial discretion; it has nothing to do with facts about Plame's specific status at all.  You need to re-read the paragraphs relating to the statement before commenting further.  I don't think that you understand what the deleted sentence was originally referring to. It's been quoted out of context in this section of this talk page.  Return to the history and examine the original context (including notes).--NYScholar 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See here.  Thanks, TheronJ 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasoning of special prosecutor