Talk:Douglas Feith/Archive 1

message: Some notes from Wikipedia guidelines that pertain to this article as a whole:
On biography writing style:  The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.
There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility.   
Much of the material added in the past two weeks fits this description.  The Washington Post and Washington Times appear too if I remember, and these would not fit such a description.  However, we have entire sections based on media of advocacy journalism, and this has been called out before on the discussion page only to hear claims of 'but it's cited!' come back. Bueller 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems with sources or cites?  Bring it up here, where the discussion belongs.  I feel personal dislike of The Washington Post and Washington Times should not disqualify them from ever appearing as sources.  This article has 51 citations, according to Bueller they are all part of some plot against Feith.  That is laughable.  I look forward to discussing specific problems with the sources, eschewing "all press are evil" arguments.  Abe Froman 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha Mr. Froman, let me repeat myself.  "The Washington Post and Washington Times appear too [in the Feith bio] if I remember, and these would not fit such a description." "Such a description" being that of an advocacy journal.  I wasn't espousing an all press is evil argument, that is laughable.  Nor did I saw that all citations are part of an anti-Feith plot.  Most of the citations from the past two weeks, though, are.  And I don't mean to overstate the issue by using Froman's "plot" terminology, but most of those sources are critical, at best.  This is un-encylopedic.  I'd appreciate if you'd read my msgs closer before launching into tirades that shoot over my points rather than engage them.  If, however, your misunderstanding was the fault of my writing, I apologize.  That's entirely possible as well.  I just wanted to address the Wikipedia-sanctioned point about differences between sources and the appropriateness\unappropriateness of certain sources in encylopedic wiki entires. Bueller 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I look forward to seeing Bueller's original contributions of new material to the article.  Abe Froman 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Froman, there is no rule stating that I am to lose my right to edit and discuss this article if I do not lend to it the 'original contributions' you are discussing. [This is ignoring the fact that I have given contributions to the article as well as edits, as can be seen in the page's history.]  There are, however, rules about sources and sourcing which I tried to discuss on this page in an adult, academic fashion.  Unfortunately, your comments--the first based on a misunderstanding of my writing and the second meant to imply some sort of bad behavior on my part because you want me to give original contributions--ignored mine about sourcing in encyclopedic entries.  Can you please not do so.  Please refer to my first comment in this thread about advocacy journalism and how it relates to this Feith bio and the sources that have been added in the past two weeks.  Bueller 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trying to tip this any positive way I can.  Agree to disagree.  If all Bueller (formerly anon 160.39.138.*) wants to do is delete  contributions, that is just the way it is.  Back to the Background section research for me.  Abe Froman 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think wikipedia has become too famous and used for it's own good, articles seem to attract people with a strong POV, before people with a neutral view, and then the article suffers.  I guess in the end people who only care about one or two articles eventually lose interest.--M4bwav 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Froman, these responses are really getting out of hand.  You've again avoided the crux of my initial point.  You're harping on this point about my lending original information.  I'm happy to do so, have done so in the past, and plan on doing so in the future.  Forgive me if I can't sit all day with time to research original things.  I have been moved though to correct the record when it gets abused by those who can sit, find and spin conspiratorially slanted pieces.  It's enough of a time commitment to try to keep the piece balanced from your original contributions.  And again, that I mainly edit for balance rather does not disqualify me from doing so.  I'm going to reprint my first comment of this thread because I'd like you to address the point about sourcing in an encyclopedic entry: "Some notes from Wikipedia guidelines that pertain to this article as a whole:
On biography writing style:  The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.
There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility.   
Much of the material added in the past two weeks fits this description.  The Washington Post and Washington Times appear too if I remember, and these would not fit such a description.  However, we have entire sections based on media of advocacy journalism, and this has been called out before on the discussion page only to hear claims of 'but it's cited!' come back. Bueller 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which parts and which sections do you object to. I agree that the article could use some balancing, but let's not be too quick to remove information.  After all, Feith has a lot critics, both inside and outside of the administration, perhaps most of the criticism is fair and accurate?--M4bwav 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I also find your comments too vague to offer any response. Let's hear what you what think should be changed and why. --Lee Hunter 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  second that.  Abe Froman 19:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new sections Feith's background, still in progress, also seem to be addressing Bueller's balance concerns.  Give the editors some time to improve the article.  Or, even better, help out by contributing to the background section.  We are up to Postgraduate work.  Abe Froman 20:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: The NY Times article previously cited can be found--I found it--on Lexis\Nexis.  Perhaps this is a problem as not all wiki users can use such a link.  Don't know what procedure is on this.  Not sure it matters either, the article around that citation doesn't seem to have substantively changed. Bueller 07:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous 

message: Placing 'Jewish American' label at beginning is gratuitous.  Firstly, it is clear from the article now that the article delves deeply into Feith's family background.  Secondly, being literally one of the first words of the article, the label seeks to define Feith, and this is unfair at best, anti-semitic at worst.  Profiles of other politicians do not have this format.  Feith, though, is a neoconservative as the article says and this Jewish label seeks to reaffirm the conspiracy theory of neoconservatism\Judaism\Protocols of Zion\Israel dual-allegiance etc... and is pretty disgusting.  Don't think it necessary.  Speaks more to POV of editor than to Feith's background.
: I agree the use of Jewish American in the first paragraph is gratuitous.  But Wikipedia has an entire thread devoted to Jewish Americans, just like it does for Arab Americans, and I believe the author was only trying to help categorize according to Wikipedia's existing system.  Only a sleeping person would read the article and fail to realize Feith's heritage.  I feel the label should be removed. Abe Froman 06:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, remove it. And please do not sideline Protocols of Zion with Feith maybe having dual allegiance, the former was a hoax, the second is a real possibility, and has been seen before.  A human 08:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Jewish'' 

message: Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and very often is.  This is to its credit and to our benefit.  This Feith entry, however, is far from encyclopedic.  The passage I just removed, for example, is an entire paragraph and story narrative based on one newspaper article.  This is not encyclopedia material.  Encyclopedias--and wikipedia--are not simply bulletin boards for stories tossed around about people and things.  Those are blogs, or google searches, but not encyclopedias.  Encyclopedias should contain information far more established, balanced and in this case relevant to what a narrative biography should be.  Turning this page into a story about neoconservative conspiracy theories is not making it a legitimate encyclopedic biography.  The passage I removed is just one example; the whole page needs a scrubbing for this problem.  160.39.138.186 22:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited passage referred to was published  in Newsday and has not been denied by Feith or the Pentagon.  The passage specifically deals with actions Feith directly authorized at the Office of Special Plans.  With cited material, it should not be removed without discussion, first. Abe Froman 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've hit on, and missed, exactly the point.  The simple fact that something is cited somewhere does not render it appropriate for an encyclopedic biography.  I hope that as wikipedians we can all agree on that.  Many things are cited once or even twice about all kinds of people and things that do not fit in a biography meant to give balanced, surely-accurate information.  Brian\Abe Froman misses the point repeatedly, and is using wikipedia as a posting board for rumors [despite his clear predisposition to believe anything publisehd anywhere about those whose politics he disagrees with, they are still rumors even if cited somewhere], not for properly vetted information meant to inform readers rather than hit them with conspiratorial political shots. 160.39.138.186 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point was received, for what it was, a tendentious diversion from the cited material in the article.  By all means, present arguments with citations that refute the accusations in the "Accusations and Refutations" section of the article.  That is what it is there for.  But spare us the sanctimonious justification for whitewashing that has become the modus operandi of the single-article editors who object to variable viewpoints in the Feith article. Abe Froman 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic entries 

message: I'm inclined to erase the entire Kwiatkowski section.  She sounds like an angry ex-employee lobbing accusations she can't support.  There's no support for her claim about Feith possibly going to jail other than her own unsubstantiated statement in a 2004 article.  Further, the mention of the leaked memo to the Weekly Standard implies that Feith was involved in the leak when he was only the memo's author.  This seems unfair.  Kwiatkowski, meanwhile, has been discredited for making false accusations in the past.  The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence dismissed allegations believed to be leveled by her as baseless in its report on pre-war intelligence  (pp. 282-283).  Until independent sourcing, rather that simply Kwiatkowski's questionable word, can be found on the matter, I think it fair to erase the final paragraph which included her claims.
:Voting keep. "allegations believed to be leveled by her", so not surely leveled by her? Well she is just as good a source as any of the other sources in the article. You could reverse your argument and say that they who promote him have an agenda since they might share Feith's political views. Her statement about him going to jail is completely hers alone, and I therefore see no problem including it as long as it is attributed to her alone. A human 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kwiatkowski knows nothing of investigations" - true, but she was in a position to know about eventual wrongdoings on his part. A human 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Voting keep.  Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked for Feith, and can speak to the environment at Office of Special Plans while Feith led it. Abe Froman 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kwiatkowski 

message: #Isn't it more accurate to associate Feith with the Cold War neocons? I believe that's when the change in his thinking seemed to occur.
#Doesn't the original version have more information than the current one?
Also (in an unrelated note) that last paragraph is horribly POV, and I'll have a crack at it now. Meelar 23:28, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 criticisms of the most recent edit:

message: This entire article needs a good scrubbing for POV. As it is, it reads like a poorly written PR piece. --Lee Hunter 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably is a PR piece, you know staffers have been editing articles lately.  BTW can we change that picture, everytime I look at it, I think he's just heard a joke (...about selling out the America longterm interests, don't quote on that(too late))--M4bwav 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: User 160.39.138.186 keeps deleting entries about One Jerusalem. And One Jerusalem own website has also removed him from their list of founders and it is today only evident from Google's cache. But he did cofound it. And that is important simply from the very fact that they might be engaged in trying to cover it up. Such activities are always suspecious. Leave the One Jerusalem entry in place please.   A human 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, clearly some of the anon's must be whitewashers, that's all the more reason, that we keep the One Jerusalem (since it's a referenced fact), and make sure that further POV motivated whitewashing does not occur.  Let's take everything real slow.--M4bwav 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Israeli connections

message: Brian--I take serious issue with your removal of the bipartisan, cited, sourced, on-the-record statements of 3 offical groups:  The WMD commission, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Silberman-Robb Comission.  These were the conclusions of these intense investigations on Feith, and they came to support Feith's innocence in all cases.  They are germane, especially considering that they relate to the Office of Special Plans, as do the accusations listed and linked to Raw Story, Lobe, Counterpunch, etc.  That they are in direct response to the suggestions laid out in paragraph 1 of the section don't mean they shouldn't be published.  It seems you are inclined to cut them because they can be seen as supportive of Feith.  I actually think that this should tell us something about the nature of the accusations in paragraph 1--they haven't even been looked at, further weakening their credibility, no?  I'm putting back in the section.  People can decide for themselves whether they feel the various commissions have answered these exact accusations, but they should know what hte commissoins said about Feith. 160.39.138.186 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian says: See answer under "Accusations", above.  01:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweeping removal 

message: This section which I've deleted should remain deleted for many reasons.  Firstly, Abe Froman criticizes my 'mass delete' but I think his thinking is backward.  I agree that you can criticize deletions-without-discussion.  But it's many times more unacceptable to print erroneous rumors; we should be most cautious before writing, not only with deleting.  Now Jim Lobe seems to be a reliable source for unreliable material, but not even he actually put forward the rumors mentioned in this retirement section.  Both links 16 and 17 link to an article 'Losing Feith' written by Lobe.  Nowhere in the article, though, does Lobe connect Feith's retirement to the Larry Franklin sentencing.  In fact, the Lobe article comes from January 05, when Feith initially annoucned his retirement effective summer 05.  The Franklin [mis]information was about August 05.  All Lobe says in his article about Franklin and Feith is: "Feith's position was also undermined last summer when it was disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating whether one of his analysts had given classified material – specifically, a sensitive document on U.S. Iran policy – to an Israeli diplomat via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful lobby group. A grand jury in the case has since been impaneled and AIPAC's offices subjected to two searches."  This has nothing to do with the contemporaneous August sentencing of Franklin and Feith's actual departure from government.  It's reckless for us to say such things, especially in the supposedly encyclopedic forum of wikipedia, when many things are overly speculative even when in fact written in publications like Lobe's.
Bueller 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have been over this 3 times.  See the "Feith Leaving Office" section of the discussion page.  Journalist Jim Lobe thinks the events are linked.  Feith mentor/boss Richard Perle, does not.  Both opinions are accurately portrayed.  Disagreement with a source on nakedly political grounds does not disqualify them, or justify whitewashing an article.  For that reason I am replacing the mass deleted passage.  Abe Froman 10:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing as I argued in the earlier section above.  I should have trusted your writing even less, for I don't think I checked Lobe's article last time and took your word that he linked Feith's departure with Franklin's sentencing.  But, upon reading the link, 'Losing Feith,' I learned that he did not even do so.  For explication of this point, see my previous post in this section.  The Lobe article is from January 05, 8 months before August 05 and the link you make between Feith's departure and Franklin's legal status circa August 05. (For the record, it reflects quite poorly on the writers of this entry that Lobe doesn't even make the connection you ascribe to him.  But moreover, even if Lobe shared his opinion that they are linked, such information would not be proper for this entry--but we can get into that in later postings.  It's a moot point, for Lobe doesn't make this connection.) 70.108.212.86 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with 70.108.212.86. Lobe does mention Feith and AIPAC but only to say the scandal undermined his position, and he does clarify that Feith was not implicated in the scandal. Also, as a side note, it was a bit strange that Lobe was described as a "neoconservative critic" which made me think that he was himself a neoconservative and a critic.--Lee Hunter 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retirement section 

message: Can we get better sourcing on the Condoleeza Rice comments?  What is the Nelson Report?  Has anyone but one journalist--Lobe--cited this story?  The reliability of Rice's comment is not on par with that of the other detractors' comments, which are not hearsay etc.. Bueller 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nelson Report is a 20 year running "daily briefing on international economic policy issues, foreign and security policy matters and their relationship to politics in Washington. This daily briefing constitutes the core element of relationships with clients who also have direct access to Mr. Nelson for confidential communications in response to their specific needs and policy interests."  .  It is used in Washington as a semi public pulse on what is happening in government.  Since it names the actors involved in the alleged Rice quote, it is hardly hearsay.  Abe Froman 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:    
Hearsay is
1.  Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony. 
Now I realize this isn't a courtroom, so you can even disregard the second definition if you'd like.  But this is certainly rumor. And it is objectively true that the reliability of this supposed Rice exchange is on a different--lower--scale than the reliability of the other comments about Feith.  We shouldn't deal with too much at once, so I'll leave the questionable appropriateness of the other detractor statements aside now.  But one way or another, those statements are at least properly sourced.  For this damning exchange to be included, a much higher threshold of evidence should be met. Bueller 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Nelson Report is 20 years old and well respected in its field.  Do you have evidence editor Christopher Nelson was mistaken?  Journalist Jim Lobe cited this article, as well as the Inter Press News Service, a news aggregator.  I find it suspicious a whitewasher attacked this article and mere minutes after the vandalism was undone, a logged-in user magically appears to take the whitewasher's POV.  Abe Froman 23:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, Abe Froman, your comments on this talk page and on the history page have an ad hominen twist to them that is impolite, unnecessary and distracts from the issues at hand.  Reasonable people should be able to discuss the merits of these entries without that.  As long as you've mentioned 'magical' tactics, though, I'll address them.  To start, using terms such as 'whitewasher' and 'vandalism' without support is improper.  But moreover, it seems you and I appeared on this site at the same time, not the anonymous writer and I.  Now does that suggest collusion between you and I?  I don't think anyone has to worry about that.  Or is it that you alone are allowed to see updates on pages and act accordingly?  Anyway, as I said, this is all beside the point.  The point about the Nelson Report is not whether I have evidence saying the exchange did not happen.  That is precisely the problem with hearsay--it's almost impossible to argue against, yet has no proof except the word of the speaker.  This is why we have systems of verifying facts.  And in this case, the burden of proof is on Nelson, and\or on you, if you want to include this in what should be an encyclopedic entry.  If there were a pro-Feith story relayed only in a hearsay manner, it wouldn't be acceptable either.  But no praise of Feith is anonymous, all of it is sourced, etc...  We can't say this of this rumored discussion.  Bueller 23:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a venue for original research.  The Nelson Report made the cited claim in dispute.  Journalist Jim Lobe and the Inter Press News Service picked up the story and disseminated it.  Bueller, feel free to find evidence from Condoleezza Rice or a meeting participant indicating Condoleezza Rice did not say this.  Abe Froman 23:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, there's a difference between original research and showing proper respect for encyclopedic standards regarding sourcing.  The Nelson Report doesn't even have a website that we can check.  So we're taking the word of an advocacy journalist on an unverifiable article discussing an exchange that is unverifiable!  As for your request that I find other information, I will look to see if I can find comments by Rice--that she put her name to, not that are just rumored.  On a related matter, I appreciate the precedent you lay out in your previous post.  My finding Condoleeza Rice saying she did not say this would render this a moot point--we would have to remove this section on Rice's criticism of Feith.  Why, though, when Judge William Clark explicitly, in print and in addressing the exact issue at hand, said that the Security Clearance accusation against Feith was false, did you refuse to remove the erroneous accusation?  I agree with you; Clark blasted the rumor to bits.  The rumor, therefore should be removed from this entry.  If you still hold on to your belief that the rumor is somehow true, it's one thing to link to an article saying so.  But to include it in the written entry is hardly up to encyclopedic standards.  I'm glad we agree on this point.  I'll look to therefore clean up the Security Clearance part presently.  Bueller 23:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any non laudatory material on Feith is regularly deleted by Bueller.  As far as I am concerned, the material is cited correctly, and has not been refuted by any evidence from Condoleezza Rice, Feith, or a meeting participant.  Abe Froman 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  "encyclopedic standards regarding sourcing" So not up to our standard but good enough for a Harvard academic study? http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011, and that is not only any university, but the same Harvard school Feith himself is employed at right now.  A human 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rice's comments 

message: The Nelson Report, used in the Rice passage, is a respected, long running subscription only insider newsletter, as attested below:
"Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report runs one of the single best daily US-Asia policy and national security issues analysis letters in Washington. Normal beings can't subscribe, and it's not available on the web." 
Abe Froman 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson Report 

message: There is a dispute whether "Douglas J. Feith was born on July 16, 1953 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Dalck and Rose Feith."?  The Neutrality moniker should go where there is a dispute.  Abe Froman 05:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any further comment on the neutrality moniker?  Abe Froman 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has been improved since the moniker went up to merit its removal. Bueller 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Which section needs improvement, and why?  Abe Froman 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there going to be a specific complaint?  If not, the neutrality moniker should be removed.  Abe Froman 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Moniker 

message: This article has extensive use of primary sources.  Is Douglas Feith himself not considered a primary source, for example?  I feel it should be removed.  Abe Froman 17:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed primary sources citation.  This article is cited 58 times to its primary sources, and has an extensive reference list.  Abe Froman 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are extensive problems with the use of sources in this article, and it seems we're unable to remedy them through the discussion page because of people interested more in scoring dirty political points against Feith than in having wikipedia remain an encyclopedic forum.  The article is full of advocacy journalism and the citing of such material, of rumor and speculation that barely makes it into the fringes of the media, let alone into a supposedly encyclopedic entry.  For this reason, I thought marking the article as NPOV and weak on sourcing was absolutely valid.  Anyone who comes here should know, pending further cleanup--yes, cleanup, not 'whitewashing' as you've termed it, but cleanup to keep wikipedia from being a grounds for thh airing of political grievances--that this entry is a hatchet job on Feith.  The fact that there is both praise and criticism means nothing if the criticism is unfounded and\or rumored etc..., which it is.  It's laughable that we still, for example, have a section about a Security Clearance revocation when the man in charge of such a thing--Clark--said it never happened!  In the morphed, politicized view of some wikipedians, this has only equal merit than the word of a the initial scurrilous rumor-passer.  It's pathetic.  This page is not a valuable resource and deserves its tags.  Bueller 19:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a specific refutation of a passage reported in the primary sources?  If that refutation can be cited, we can improve the article by adding it.  Abe Froman 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure! Why in the world is Cannistraro's claim still in if Judge Clark came out and said it has no truth to it?  That's a refutation if I've ever heard one.  It is not proper to just balance rumor with refuation, even if any responsible reader will see that the refutation blasts the rumor to bits.  It still links Feith with a serious offense with which he actually has no connection.  Absolutely unfair, slanderous in effect if not intent. Bueller 19:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The passage is there, covered from both perspectives, making a full explanation of the issue.  Vincent Cannistraro, head of National Security Council intelligence at the time disagrees with Judge Clark.  Both would be in a position to know any unofficial reasons for Feith's departure.  Therefore, the controversy is covered from both of their perspectives.  Seems fair to me.  Abe Froman 19:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense.  How is there an 'issue' if Clark says--directly, naming Cannistraro by name etc..--no such thing happened.  The issue then is Cannistraro, who wasn't even in a CIA administrative post until 1984 [according to his wiki, and ill trust it, leaving irony aside..].  He was doing work in Europe and the Middle East during this period, which was when Feith left the NSC.  There is no way to claim that Cannistraro's word is only equal to Clark's as if they're two balanced sides of an issue.  Cannistraro has also been an outspoken critic of this Bush administration; we know his comments to be politically motivated.  Now, even if you thought that Cannistraro and Clark could argue this point back and forth in the abstract, they certainly cannot do so in a forum that purports to be encyclopedic.  This political sand-kicking (an understatement for 'political slandering') doesn't belong on wikipedia.  And this Cannistraro thing is not the only such issue.  The point that the Larry Franklin part is guilt by association is a strong one too.  There is a line in the Franklin paragraph--1 sentence out of about 6--that says something to the effect of Feith has had no involvement and Franklin was one of 1500 people.  Yet we go on to have a full paragraph on this, in a forum that supposed to be a fair entry on a person's public office career.  It's laughable.  Kwiatkowski too.  Yes, her stuff is published.  But why is the word of one disgruntled ex-employee so important as to be in a wiki encyclopedia entry?  What if we started posting the opinions of Feith of all of his former (1500+) employees?  Also, her claims have been published but by distinctly advocacy journalism media--Prospect openly aligns itself with the political left, and Kwiatkowski posts also for Lew Rockwell and Mother Jones, which finds itself on wikipedia's specific list of advocacy journalism no-go's.  Having so much stuff by her really hurts the credibility of this entry and makes it look like a hit piece with a political axe to grind.  Don't mean to put so much in one post, so I apolgoize for that--but please, don't do as you often do, Abe Froman, and respond to 1 of many points.  I'd really like to hear justification for these things. Bueller 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disputes like whether to believe Clark vs. Cannistraro is why both viewpoints are covered equally.  Covering only one viewpoint tendentiously leaves out important data from the other from the document.  Clark has his say, and Cannistraro has his as well.  Also, your timeline for Cannistrarois incorrect.  Cannistraro was a CIA officer until 1984, and afterward Director of NSC Intelligence Programs from November 1984 to January 1987.  As for Feith's former Deputy, Karen Kwiatkowski, she was certainly in a position to observe Feith during his time at the Pentagon.  Since Karen Kwiatkowski is by definition a primary source, it is approriate to consider her a primary source for this article.  Similarly, Cannistraro and Judge Clark are also former Feith colleagues, and should be considered primary sources for the article.  I feel the Primary Sources moniker is inappropriate for the Feith article because the disputed information is cited from primary sources.  Is there a reason why Cannistraro, Judge Clark, Karen Kwiatkowski should not be considered primary sources?  and Abe Froman 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Cannistraro was never a colleague of Feith's. He's a political enemy who made a false claim.  By no fair understanding of balance could his word be balanced with Judge Clark's, as Clark was the precise man in charge of the National Security Council at the time in question.  Those who cannot see that much are blinded to reason by political ideology.  With regard to Kwiatkowski, where was she in Feith's office anyway?  I believe she was an officer of some sort; referring to her as a Deputy is somewhat misleading and implies a No. 2-in-policy status that I don't believe to be the case.  Either way, I wasn't questioning whether or not she was there or could comment on the office.  She is a primary source, sure.  But I am questionining the appropriateness of her comments being in the wiki entry.  Can any former Feith employee expect to be quoted in Feith's supposedly-encyclopedic entry, or just those who dislike him and whose positions are supported by wikipedians equally transparently critical of Feith?  Bueller 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cannistraro was Director of NSC Intelligence Programs from November 1984 to January 1987.  Feith was with the NSC until 1982.  Cannistraro, as a CIA officer, worked in the middle eastern division.  This overlapped with Feith's specialty at the NSC.  Both Feith and Cannistraro worked in the same small unit of the White House at a high level, Cannistraro should be considered a primary source.  Retired Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski is also a primary source, given her role as Feith's subordinate at Office of Special Plans.  What we have here is a disagreement over the thoughts and writings of primary sources, not a dispute over whether they are primary sources in the first place.  It is clear that they are primary sources.  Abe Froman 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources Moniker