Talk:Plame affair/Archive 3

message: Whether the renaming is a good idea?
Using Google hits:
*CIA leak scandal 2,320,000 (117,000) deleted from article?
*Plamegate  709,000 (49,900)
*Plame affair 665,000 (344,000) removed name?
*Wilson-Plame Scandal 45,200 (501) new name?
*Wilsongate  949 (949)
The second number is the hits with the name in "". Apparently Google favours Plamegate and the new name is at least less common. Nomen Nescio 15:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The renaming was a stupid idea by someone who has not even been active on this page.  I wrote a note on his talk page and I tried to move the page back but it won't let me.  We need an administrator to intervene.  I'm sorry, but if someone is going to change the name -- especially after we agreed on a name after a long debate about a year ago -- they should at least mention a reason on talk.  The edit summary just calls the old name POV, which is ridiculous -- the new name is far more POV ("scandal"), and the word "scandal" was specifically rejected when discussing this page name a long time ago.  I hope someone can fix this; I tried to move it back and was stymied.--csloat 18:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's just as much evidence now to call this the 'Cheney-Bush-Libby-Novak-Plame Scandal' as the current title (which is quite inferior, imho). I fully support a restoration to 'Plame Affair', so we can get back to work, or at least reach consensus about the title. Changing it without discussion here, as was done my Merecat, seems bad form indeed. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming?

message: I have put in a request to move this page back.  This is ludicrous that someone moved it without any discussion, to an obviously inferior name.  The name violates wikipedia policy - at the least, "scandal" should not be capitalized - and it is ridiculously POV compared to the Plame affair title, which obviously has the most google hits above.  I do not know why  made this ridiculous change, but nobody should make such radical changes in a page name without proposing it in talk first.--csloat 18:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your actions (unilaterally moving a controversial article without discussion) are likely to cause consternation. Shall we focus on the move itself? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, that is descriptive; it wasn't meant to be "super nice."  Any chance we will ever learn of your reasoning behind this move?--csloat 04:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It was Merecat's edit summary that claimed the change was POV-driven.  My best guess is he wants to shift the attention away from the leak scandal and onto some kind of conspiracy allegation that implicates Joe as well as Valerie Wilson in some kind of "scandal."  It's a tedious argument that was already dealt with in the article long ago; there is no reason to turn the title into a battleground for that "debate."-csloat 07:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's a theory, Csloat.  I don't see it.  I don't see Merecat's change as POV and I don't see the previous title as POV.  So I guess the old adage that the burden to persuade rests with those who would change applies here.  Merecat, that burden is currently on you, my friend.  Evensong 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evensong, you seriously don't see how an article's title is also part (an important part) of the article's content, and therefore is subject to WP's policies on NPOV (as well as every other policy)? Why not name it "Baboon Party", then? :) The title of an article should reflect the broadest consensus on how a subject is commonly referred to, in a neutral fashion. In this case, at present, "The Plame Affair" is it, by the best available measures. Cheers! --NightMonkey 07:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so that is "what is in a name".  Yes, "Baboon Party" would be way out there.  But I am really looking for a difference in the actual titles suggested.  "Wilson Plame Scandal" versus "Plame Affair".  The best objection I have seen is that by using the names Wilson and Plame to precede the term scandal suggests that the two have some ownership over the scandal.  But that would also apply to the Plame Affair appelation:  Plame would have some ownership over the affair.  But yes, Baboon Party, we can agree, is not a good title; at least not yet. Evensong 09:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Evensong, I wouldn't need a "theory" if Merecat would explain himself.  And it was he who said the change was for POV reasons; I was just guessing as to what those could possibly be.  There was a long and heated debate about what to name this page; as I recall, there was for a long time a note on this talk page suggesting that the name was chosen after a long debate and please don't move this page without talking about it.  Perhaps I am misremembering?  In any case, it seems to me that "affair" is less obviously POV than "scandal".csloat 08:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Csloat, you made the comment that Merecat's change was POV driven.  You made that comment before your heard an explanation.  You therefore do need a theory for your position regardless of Merecat's explanation.  Now I agree you and we deserve some sort of explanation, and that a change in title does warrant debate before the change is made, but to help me vote on this issue, I need and deserve to know why the change is allegedly POV driven. Evensong 09:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the edit summary.  He says he made the change for POV reasons.  I made the comment after the edit summary (the edit summary accompanied the change itself; I am not sure how you can say I commented before hearing this explanation).  I was theorizing based on his edit summary, which said it was POV driven.  That is still the only information he has given us on this matter.--csloat 09:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have read the edit summary.  You cited it earilier.  That is the reason why I read it.  But this is a matter of simple logic. Her claim that the previous title is POV does not mean her edit is POV.  It is your claim that the change was made for POV reasons.  You have explained why.  I don't agree.  But Merecat, as I have said, still bears the burden of an explanation.  Your explanation, as it stands, will be taken into consideration. Evensong 11:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: let's not debate whatever the reason might be. Fact is that the current name is obscure by Google standards, and the previous one gets the most hits. That in itself warrants reversal of the unexplained change. Nomen Nescio 12:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not as concerned about google hits as I am about the lack of an explanation.  If I don't hear one soon, I am on board with you folks.  I'll give her [he] till the end of the day.  Evensong 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: every few weeks, new court documents are made public, and the trial itself will be rich with information.  should a new page be started that deals solely with the court proceedings and upcoming trial?  Anthonymendoza 00:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not expand this page to cover the court proceedings?--csloat 07:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, but do you think that page would get to be too long?  Anthonymendoza 16:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly; I guess it depends what you want to do.  I think a simple list of court documents (with links to them) should be somewhere in wikipedia, as well as a brief factual narrative of events; that page is pretty short right now, and such a list could easily be added.  But if it becomes an attempt to comb through the documents for juicy revelations that were missed by the mainstream media, it will not only be too long but will become yet another mess of edit wars and conjecture.--csloat 23:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there is a section called "court proceedings" on that page.  links to court briefings can be put there.  i have no desire to comb through the briefs but i see what you are getting at.  i'll get it started.  Anthonymendoza 02:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i got it started. please view it and edit how you see fit. thanks. Anthonymendoza 03:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good ... eventually the name of the article should change too, since it's past the grand jury...--csloat 19:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Libby Trial

message: This seems like a great article, with all the right info in it. Now, the only way we can actually get people to read it (if that's the object here) is to cut it down to about half. Before you do that it's gonna be a brilliant article for the people who already know all about the subject. If you actually do it, it will be one of the best articles on Wikipeida... 81.101.139.130 00:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great article

message: Things are getting exciting:
:*TWO employees of the Niger embassy in Rome were responsible for the forgery of a notorious set of documents used to help justify the Iraq war, an official investigation has allegedly found.
 Nomen Nescio 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yellowcake

message: I agree with User:Evensong. I really think a new article should be created to cover the Libby indictment. As he has not been criminally charged with outing Plame, his case is more of an offshoot of the Plame Affair and should be treated seperately. There should just be a summary here with a link to the new article. This would also help in shortening this page. And for God's sake this page needs shortening! At over 100k it makes the article on World War II look small! :) --Jayzel 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Libby has been charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, by lying to investigators about his disclosure of Plame's identity. I think the Libby case is indeed central to the Plame Affair, but I don't object to a separate article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to start a Scooter Libby article 

message: I've added a bit to the NIE leak paragraph; there should probably be a separate section for this.  I believe the following should be included as well:
:"Judging from Miller's account of her breakfast with Libby, the vice president's man went well beyond the "key judgments" of the NIE. The reference that Saddam was prospecting in Africa for uranium was inserted in the NIE's back pages, along with a dissent from intelligence analysts at the State Department who were "highly dubious" about the report. A former U.S. intelligence official who declined to speak for the record due to the sensitivity of the matter told news-week that the NIE staff, writing under strict time pressures, adopted a "kitchen sink" approach, throwing in all sorts of reports that had not been fully vetted.  The dissenting opinions were included in the declassified NIE released to the press on July 18, 2003. But Libby said nothing about them to Miller when he was leaking to her on July 8.
-csloat 21:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is what i meant when i said above that we may need to start a page about the upcoming libby trial.  the released documents are a wealth of information.  i don't think any of this belongs on this page.  i only added the NIE paragraph because another user insisted on inserting it in some way. Anthonymendoza 22:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: here's a big "oops" by Fitzgerald .  i think i now understand why i didn't understand Woodentopz edits.  Anthonymendoza 22:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NIE Section

message: New Gallup poll suggests over 60% of Americans think Bush did something either illegal or unethical in the Plame affair.  This figure includes 3 in 10 Republicans.  They're right, of course, but the same poll also notes that 36% are not following the issue closely at all (I was surprised to see it that low actually, compared to 64% following it "closely" or "somewhat" closely, though I assume a lot of the "somewhats" mean they watch Fox news and/or the Daily Show.  Not sure what to do with these numbers though; should there be a place for public opinion about the plame affair?  I hesitate to bring it up given how easy it would be for such a section to become yet another battleground for POV-wrestling.  But I think such numbers should be followed somewhere.  (Also, before Anthonymendoza says "a-ha!", when I say people think Bush's actions might be illegal, it is not due to ignorance of the meaning of the word "leak.").--csloat 09:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallup Poll

message: Moved this from main page - 'That direct White House channel amplifies questions about the 16-word reference to the uranium from Africa in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address -- which remained in the speech despite warnings from the CIA and the State Department that the allegation was not substantiated.'
As noted on these other pages, the SotU claim was based on British intel, nothing to do with Italy or the forged documents, was substantiated and later verified by the Butler Report [that US relied on British intelligence] which the Report also confirmed was correct. 
It is biased in the extreme to keep falsely asserting that the SOTU address mentioned anything other than the UK Intelligence, later confirmed to be correct by the Brits themselves. 
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
:Uhhh, this is nonsense.  The point you deleted is crucial -- the CIA and State Department warned Bush that they could not substantiate the information.  The claim that the Butler Report relied on some other documents (which, by the way, it never mentioned) is a right-wing talking point that even the Republican party is not on board with.  The fact that is relevant is not what the Butler report may have said but rather the fact that the CIA and State Department warned Bush away from the 16 words but he used them anyway.  You are obfuscating this point.-csloat 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been uncivil.  The requirement of civility does not require one to suspend logical faculties or to treat nonsense as sense.  I am not confusing the issue; the issue here is that quite simply the CIA and State Department did not agree with the British intel claim and they did not think it should have been inserted into the SOTU.  Surely you must understand this?  Stop insisting that my POV has anything to do with this and please stick to the issue.  Please look at the WP:V page yourself, as you do not seem to understand the guidelines expressed there.  As for the second part here, about the La Republica stuff being removed, you will notice I did not put that piece back in when I edited your changes.  I did not write that (your whining about the word "seemingly" above indicates to me that you believe I wrote that sentence).  I don't agree with your reasons for removing it, but I will let someone else fight that battle as I have had a full day of trying to correct disinformation here.--csloat 01:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 16 Words

message: The anon editor 12.150.11.25 keeps inserting the false claim that the Duelfer report "proved" that Saddam bought uranium from Niger.  This is a complete fantasy.  Can you please point to the line in the Duelfer report you base this bogus claim on?  Can you point to a news media analysis of the report that supports this claim?  Here is what I see in the report: 
:Investigation Into Uranium Pursuits and Indigenous Production Capabilities
:Foreign Pursuits
:ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. As part of its investigation, ISG sought information from prominent figures such as Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far—the head of the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.
:* According to Ja’far, the Iraqi government did not purchase uranium from abroad following its acquisition of yellowcake from Niger in 1981. However, Iraq also purchased uranium dioxide from Brazil in 1982. Iraq declared neither the Brazilian purchase nor one of the Niger purchases to the IAEA—demonstrating that the Iraqi Regime was willing to pursue uranium illicitly.
:Regarding specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger, Ja’far claims that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with Niamey—neither of which involved uranium. Ja’far acknowledged that Iraq’s Ambassador to the Holy See traveled to Niamey to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq. He indicated that Baghdad hoped that the Nigerian President would agree to the visit as he had visited Libya despite sanctions being levied on Tripoli. Former Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See Wissam Zahawie has publicly provided a similar account.
:* Ja’far claims a second contact between Iraq and Niger occurred when a Nigerian minister visited Baghdad around 2001 to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger’s economic problems. During the negotiations for this contract, the Nigerians did not offer any kind of payment or other quid pro quo, including offering to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum.
:* ISG recovered a copy of a crude oil contract dated 26 June 2001 that, although unsigned, appears to support this arrangement.
:So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now. Figure 1 is the translation of this document.
Kasparoff 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at issue that Saddam bought it in 1981.  (uh, you know, when he was supported by the Reagan administration).  The report did not "prove" this; this point was already well known.  The real question is whether he bought it in 1999 or 2002, which the anon editor falsely claims the report "proved."  The rest of the page I quoted above makes clear that the report concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim of any Iraqi attempt since 1981.  So stating that the report proved that Iraq sought uranium in the past is both false (because it "proved" no such thing) and misleading (because their conclusion was quite the opposite, for the recent past).  Your claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium ore is false -- it was not "confirmed" by the Butler Review; it was asserted, and the CIA and State Department told the White House the Brits were wrong.  Since then it has become clear that the Review relied on incorrect assumptions about Niger and France.--csloat 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duelfer Report 

message: Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas reported that "Bush once harrumphed that he would fire whoever had outed Plame. No one is accusing Bush of leaking Plame's name, but he started the ball rolling that ended up with her exposure."
This is tedious, badly slanted and simply unverifiable opinion. There is no verification that Bush started any 'ball rolling' here about this topic. Thomas' opinion is just that, his opinion. 
If we want to have an 'opinion war' btw newsweek and the NYPost and the WaPo and the WSJ, we can, but it's all speculation, so let's let Fitzgerald do his job and post the FACTS as they become available. Okay?
:Isikoff and Thomas are well known and credible reporters, putting this in an acknowledged news source.  There is no indication it is not their opinion, but if you want to add "opined" that is fine.  Please see WP:V if you do not understand the meaning of verifiability for the purpose of this encyclopedia and stop deleting verifiable and sourced claims.  Thank you.--csloat 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You also deleted this: "Several high ranking CIA officials disputed the claim that Plame was involved in the final decision to send Wilson, and indicated that the operations official who made it was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen."  This is established in the SSCI report.  Also read Newsday July 22 03: "A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked ‘alongside’ the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. “But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. ‘They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,’ he said. ‘There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,’ he said. ‘I can’t figure out what it could be.’ 'We paid his (Wilson’s) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly ahat  benefit. Most people you’d have to pay big bucks to go there,’ the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses.” (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent’s cover, dated July 22, 2003)."--csloat 23:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, that first para cited, "Several high ranking..." has some POV problems (and I know I'm not going into specifics, I want to tie this together), the WaPo also has problems, such as proving a negative, and neglecting the neccesity for specific focus in a lawsuit/invesitation, and missing the point with irrelevant distraction and non-sequitor.  Currently, the investigation is about Libby lying.  Once that is addressed, then the truth can be more clear to everyone.  As to the editorial (I'm assuming here - educated guess - that its an editorial), whether wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife is not in dispute, that's standard procedure.  whether the insuniations logically follow from that - being it standard procedure - as i believe jayzel suggests, there is also insinuation in the quote above that.  In any case, Joe Wilson was not dispatched to Niger by his wife. Kevin Baastalk 09:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And second assessment, the above quote seems more interesting and informative. Kevin Baastalk 09:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with that being put in as long as it is stated tto make it clear that it is an editorial.  (It would also be relevant to include specific critiques of that editoral).  We cannot sit here and dissect the logic of each editorial statement to decide ad hoc whether it should be included; I think if it makes sense in the context of the section it is put in, that is fine.  I don't think there is a place for that particular quote in the lead, but it would be up to the editor who adds it to explain why it belongs where it does.  I also don't have a problem with the quotes I defended above being entered in different parts of the page if someone has a good reason to do that.  I just don't think this kind of information should be summarily deleted.  But yes I do think it could be much better organized; in that sense, this page could be a lot better.--csloat 09:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More unverifiable reporter's opinions 

message: including the (para)phrase "in an even more partisian...".
Mind you, it's primarily accurate, it's suffered from a little too much POV. Kevin Baastalk 09:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in White_House_reactions.2C_Bush_and_Cheney_involvement section 

message: This Talk page, like the article, is getting very long. Since there have been major developments with regard to this article's subject, does some brave editor want to take on making an Archive run through this Talk page, please? Thanks in advance. --NightMonkey 10:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Talk time? 

message: I see that Sholom removed the NPOV tag again, without making any effort to respond to the NPOV concerns (see below). Somehow I'm not surprised by this. 71.212.31.95 23:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to give you one last opportunity to explicitly state every single POV issue you have with this.Here is format that I would suggest using:A copy and paste of an exact line from the article that is POV with the offending part bolded.Commentary on why the line is POV. Continue as needed.No more "just scroll up" or any of that; just examples and assertions.--sigmafactor 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe you should get that when more than five people politely ask you to do something and you don't, they will get extremely frustrated. --sigmafactor 00:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look. The NPOV problem indicated below had already been indicated above, as I repeatedly pointed out. Don't you suppose it's also frustrating when people keep asking for something that's already there, and won't make even a minimal amount of effort to see it? Can you understand why this might lead one to believe that they aren't really interested in NPOV at all? 71.212.31.95 01:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More NPOV tag :( 

message: here's a link to the actual memo  Anthonymendoza 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for adding this.  Here's a discussion of what the classification on the memo means.  I know some people on this page will whine about the source, but he certainly is in a better position to understand these indications than the NY Sun :) -csloat 09:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: while informative, i think Larry Johnson is assuming too much.  in the paragraph that identifies Valerie Wilson, two lines are blacked out and the paragraph contains about six sentences of information.  to simply assume that the (S//NF) label was applied solely because valerie wilson was mentioned in the paragraph is a bit of a stretch.  plus, she's mentioned as a "manager", not an agent.  i'm not sure what "manager" implies, but it doesn't sound like a covert label.  Anthonymendoza 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, are you still trying to argue the "Plame wasn't undercover" point?  I'm pretty sure that's been soundly refuted throughout all these discussions; I don't think the information in this particular memo helps make your case.  You may be right about Johnson assuming too much, but his point appears to be that the information in the paragraphs marked S/NF is in fact secret, not to be shared, not even to discredit a former ambassador who has become a thorn in your side.  In any case, the bottom line for me is simple - the only authority who can tell us with certainty whether or not Plame was covert is her employers, the CIA, and they have made their case clear when they asked for the investigation.  (Further, acting CIA officials continued to make the case in conversations with reporters.  I know of no acting CIA official who has been quoted stating otherwise, anonymous or not).  But I don't want to reopen that debate here -- it's over and done with.  Suffice to say that I am all for keeping a section in the article that indicates that for *some* people Plame's undercover status is disputed.--csloat 02:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh!! Larry Johnson states: "When a paragraph is labeled S/NF (Secret/No Forn) that means the information is SECRET and not to be shared with foreigners. The mere mention of Valerie Wilson's name required that the paragraph be classified. If she was not undercover, the paragraph could have (and should have) been classified as LOU or FOUO." this is a silly argument.  Valerie Wilson was mentioned once in a detailed paragraph containing information that wasn't allowed to be declassified, so how can he say "If she was not undercover, the paragraph could have (and should have) been classified as LOU or FOUO."  and i brought up the "manager" description to further the argument that the S/NF label was most likely not applied to the paragraph because valerie wilson was in it.  yes it's true the paragraph was marked secret and wasn't to be shared. but that's not larry johnson's point.  he specifically argues the mention of valerie wilson was the sole reason the paragraph was marked secret.  your not representing his argument correctly.  Anthonymendoza 17:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fair enough; it appears I was attributing my own reasoning to Johnson without re-reading his statement.  I just don't see evidence on the question of her covertness either way here.  Like I said, there are other reasons for believing she was undercover, first and foremost, the fact that the CIA has said that.-csloat 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing that this partially declassified memo (remember, a number of central sections remain redacted) does show us is that Plame's employment at the CIA and her involvement with WMD was part of the information contained in the memo. It was part of a classified document marked 'secret'. By definition, the assumption is that EVERYTHING in a classified document is to be considered 'secret' unless specifically demonstrated not to be, or declassified according to procedure. Legally, the fact that the information is contained in this secret report places clear burdens upon the disclosers of her identity.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, i agree with everything you both just wrote.  i was just responding to the Larry Johnson piece, which i found lacking.  Anthonymendoza 00:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: July 7, 2003 State Department Memo Declassified 

message: The NPOV tag indicates to the reader that some editor(s) believe that an article does not conform to NPOV (Neutral Point Of View). An editor can and should include this tag if he definitely believes that the article does not conform to NPOV. Agreement from other editors is not needed. The tag should be removed when there is general agreement (including agreement by those who have indicated their concerns) that the article now conforms to NPOV. Please do not remove the tag until general agreement is reached that the article conforms to NPOV. You are, of course, welcome to join the discussion and assist in revising the article to help achieve NPOV as needed. 71.212.31.95 19:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no dispute in the section you linked to.  TheronJ made a proposal; NightMonkey suggested he proceed with that proposal; I concurred with the overall gist, as did you, as did csloat.  We had a civil discussion, which is now proceeding towards a consensus.  What's the dispute?  The NPOV tag is used anytime an article isn't perfect, none of them are.  It's used when there is an on-going, specific, and temporarily intractible disagreement.  You fundamentally misunderstand generally accepted use of that tag.  All I see in that section is a reasonably polite discussion, lasting one day, which is evolving into a consensus.  Derex 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "dispute" I mean "to question the validity of".  I definitely believe that the current text of the article is not NPOV. So I "dispute" the NPOV of the article. The specific reasons are being discussed on the Talk page (including the section I linked to), and have not yet been resolved to my satisfaction. So the NPOV of the article is still disputed. When there is general agreement that the article is NPOV, the NPOV will no longer be disputed, and the tag can be removed. The primary value of the NPOV tag is to let the reader know that the NPOV of the article is questioned within the Wikipedia community. Otherwise they may assume that the POV of the article has Wikipedia's full endorsement. Readers don't need to know whether there's a heated debate or a civil discussion on the Talk page, or whether there's an impasse or good progress is being made toward an eventual consensus. What they need to know is that the NPOV of the article as currently written (in other words, what they're looking at) has been questioned. 71.212.31.95 20:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shh! Even before you start. That was a preemptive Shh. Just know I have a whole bag of Shh with your name on it. Dr. Evil 20:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhh, you haven't identified what you think is NPOV about the article.  You seem just to be trolling.--csloat 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've already said, the whole NIE paragraph needs to be relocated and rewritten so it doesn't read like Democrat talking points. I can give you more detail once the NPOV tag is in. I obviously can't deal with the substantive issues while you're wasting my time over the NPOV tag. 71.212.31.95 21:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Uhh, no; that isn't obvious at all.  If you have substantive concerns you may state them at any time.  Let us deal with the one assertion you are willing to make.  You state that the paragraph "reads like Democrat talking points."  My response:  No, it doesn't.  Now that that's out of the way, can we move on to other things?  Thanks.--csloat 21:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, thanks (finally). You think it does. I think it doesn't. That means we have a dispute. So I'll go ahead and put the NPOV tag in and we can go from there. 71.212.31.95 21:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shh! Let me tell you a little story about a man named Shh! Dr. Evil 21:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Derex, why does the history page indicate that these childish messages supposedly from Dr. Evil were posted by you? 71.212.31.95 21:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Knock, knock ... Who's there? ... Shh!  Dr. Evil 21:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Derex has obviously lost it. I won't be responding to him further. 71.212.31.95 21:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shh. Shh-Shh. Shh-Shhhhhh-Shh. Shh-shh. It's Morse code. Dr. Evil 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me decipher...it says 'Shhhhh!' Dr. Evil 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV TAG - Please Read Before Removing 

message: The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  yellowcake