Talk:Douglas Feith/Archive 2

message: Team B was an operation in the 1970's.  It was famously leaked during the 1976 election.  Feith was in law school at this time.  The references to Richard Pipes contained in the speech that was linked to were about his 'lectures and books' at Harvard, and then his job at the national security council at the same time as Feith.  Feith was at the national security council in 1981-1982, not the 1970s when Team B was operating.  The passing reference to Feith having had the pleasure of being on the council at the same time as Pipes does not at all seem to be him saying he was on Team B (at the age of 21 or whatever it would have had to have been).
As I said before, Feith in his own words ascribes his intelligence critique method to Pipes.  As Feith has written:
"I deepened my intellectual engagement in that cause as a student here at Harvard and benefited especially from the lectures and books of Professor Richard Pipes, who headed Harvard's Russian Research Center.
We were part of a rather small minority in Cambridge who thought that working to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union was not only a noble pursuit, but a realistic project. Richard Pipes joined the Reagan administration to implement that project and I had the honor and pleasure of working with him on the National Security Council staff before I crossed the Potomac River for my first stint at the Pentagon." 
Feith not only studied under Pipes, he worked for him at the National Security Council.  I am replacing the passage, because the primary source for its information is the subject of this article himself.  Abe Froman 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team B 

message: Feith is a neoconservative, not a conservative.  --HowardJ87 13:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Neoconservative" is a factual appellation, not a derogatory one like the ones you mentioned and I have removed per WP:BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NeoCon 

message: This story, originally printed in Gordon and Trainor's Cobra II, does not fit into the category of Franks's professional criticism of Feith.  It's taken out of context.  If anything, the story deserves to be in a section criticizing Franks.  If read properly in the context of Cobra II, a reader learns that Franks was foul-mouthedly dismissing a plan to integrate Iraqi troops into the American invading force so as to speed up the development of the Iraqi army, the slowness of which would ultimately hurt the American effort in the post-major combat period.  As the quote is now placed, it is seen just as Franks telling Feith he had no time for him.  Further, in fact it wasn't even a briefing given by Feith, but that of a deputy of his.  
This quote is out of context and is framed as an indictment of Feith when in fact it could be an article of indictment for Franks, the speaker!  Now I'm not recommending going and moving this to some 'criticisms of Franks' section even if it exists.  But at a minimum this quote\story is far too complex to be placed where it is here.   Bueller 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very postmodern interpretation.  I prefer the plain meaning of the passage.  Is there any evidence from Cobra II, the book, to provide a contextual update?  I did not see any in the previous passage.  I am readding the passage until the context allegation can be substantiated.  Abe Froman 16:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page 107 of Cobra II, top paragraph gives the context of the Franks-Luti-Feith 'fuckin bullshit' comment.  It was the pet project of Bill Luti, one of Feith's deputies, not of Feith.  Franks turned to Feith in a corridor to give him the foul-mouthed comment, implicitly just because Feith was in earshot.  Even if there were more to it than that, if for example Feith was both in earshot and was associated with the project Franks did not have time for (a feeling which ultimately hurt the war effort), it can hardly be placed fairly as a criticism of Feith worthy of placement in the wiki encyclopedic entry.  160.39.139.144 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a citation, so other editors can confirm this context?  As for Luti, Feith ran Office of Special Plans, not Luti.  Abe Froman 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems unfair for you to re-place the inapt story because you want confirmation of the Cobra II account which you haven't gotten to.  That's your failure as an editor, not anyone else's.  It's page 107 of the book, top paragraph.  Anyone is free to look.  They will see that this is not a fair anecdote to put on this page.  It should be removed.  And should not be put back unless you somehow find look at the Cobra II account yourself and convincingly see otherwise.  160.39.139.144 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   There is no dispute that Franks made this criticism.  Anon can certainly add contextual detail.  Removing the passage is not appropriate since the content is not in dispute, only the context.  Please quote the context directly from Cobra II so it may be confirmed.  Without it, your argument does not meet WP:V.  Abe Froman 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Franks quote 

message: Rawstory meets WP:V.  From WP:V: "Verifiability, not truth" is its standard.  Rawstory's information also has been "published by reputable publishers," because Rawstory's news stories have been carried in "The New York Times, The Guardian, L.A. Weekly, the New York Post, the Toronto Star, The Hill, Roll Call, The Advocate."   Furthermore, the passages Rawstory is cited in are introduced as being from Rawstory.  Not only is there zero violation of WP:V, but this is a textbook case of how to follow WP:V correctly.  Abe Froman 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RawStory Meets WP:V 

message: A new anon whitewasher ( 128.59.157.26 ) who mass deleted earlier just happens to originate from the same IP block as another, registered whitewasher.  Curious.  Abe Froman 05:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new whitewasher strategy appears to be adding monikers for neutrality and primary sources, sans discussion.  Abe Froman 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Discuss mass deletions and label monikers in the talk section before amputating or washing the article.  Abe Froman 19:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon WhiteWashers 

message: We've discussed anonymous sources before, especially with regard to those sections that bring against our subject serious accusations.  I won't even add more of my own words on this, but cite precedent: 
I've removed the comment from an anonymous government person. Even with a source, it's not encyclopedic. It could literally be anyone from an assistant clerk to a completely made up person. There's no indication that the person is really qualified to make this comment. We should only be quoting named persons. --Lee Hunter 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced mass deleted passage.  Political disagreement does not disqualify a source a priori.  Is there a source claiming the investigation is moving ahead without delay?  We can include it.  Abe Froman 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't respond to a single point I made above.  Substance-less talk page contribution doesn't qualify a source.  Moreover, if we had a source on the record saying the investigation is moving without delay, we wouldnt simply 'include it,' it would disqualify the initial anonymous source.  How are these differences in sourcing not clear?  Bueller 18:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's wait for comments from others on this matter of using anonymous sources for serious accusations before re-posting the controversial, currently-deleted section.  Bueller 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The removals are whitewashing.  The Rawstory news organisation has reported on this.  Pat Roberts reply is included.  The new passage is directly related to Senator Pat Roberts claim in the previous passage.  Carrying both viewpoints makes for the better article.  Carrying one, is whitewashing.  I am readding the passage and citation.  Is there any sources that claim the investigation is moving forward?  Include it.  Abe Froman
The Rice reference is anonymous and not allowed under BLP guidelines. I am removing it on sight under those rules, which dont require discussion. That entire "criticism" section reads like a laundry list of negative quotes dug up against the man, with very few substantive facts backing them up. It reads like a smear. Some of the slurs are directly contradicted on record by those purported to have made them. Therefore, they should not be included. I'm removing the more egregious ones.66.96.196.85 (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous sources 

message: The Talk Page is getting large.  I propose we archive all but the 2 most recent talks.  Abe Froman 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archival of the page is not deletion.  Users can click on the archive to see the old talk.  This page takes several seconds to load, already.  Other editors, thoughts?  Abe Froman 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: I have replaced the following section
:When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon."  
with
:Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own."
Let me know if that's a problem.  My reasoning is: (1) The news.com.au story is now a dead link, (2) I don't see how TomPaine.com meets WP:V - there's no discussion of their fact checking policy for original articles and they're a self-published arm of a left wing think tank; (3) the TomPaine article doesn't even have a direct quote, which makes me more leery about it, and (4) American Prospect has a similar quote (which I included) that is a lot closer to WP:V - American Prospect is a publication with fact checkers, and it uses a direct quote rather than a paraphrase.  Thanks,TheronJ 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit.  Abe Froman 14:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilkerson 

message: That neutrality tag has sat there for most of this year.  I want to remove it unless anyone objects.  Abe Froman 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say, go for it. The tag shouldn't really be used unless someone has articulated specific problems. --Lee Hunter 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  Editors aren't expected to be mind-readers.  It's easy to repost, but with an explanation, if someone feels strongly.   John Broughton  |  Talk 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Tag 

message: It is important to mention that he is Jewish. That is something he should be proud of and is something that is important for everyone to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.161.66 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is is redundant.  The article already had the information.  Reverting.  Abe Froman 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life 

message: Its obvious that several people writing here have negative opinions of Feith.  THey allow it to color the article by adding modifiers like "controversial" to nouns.  
Is this article just a discussion page for leftist college students to chat about who they dislike?  Or a neutral encyclopedia article?  Brittanica does it better!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Being obviously POV does not help you become a better editor.  Abe Froman (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this leftipedia? 

message: This is well trodden territory, just look back in talk.  The sources are verifiable.  I will remove this tag in a bit if there is no further support for it in Talk. Abe Froman (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On my talk page, AgainstthMasses claims that the Washington Post article does not back up the claim that is being made.  He is incorrect.  The only claim being made citing that source is that Feith "refused to comment on the investigation."  The article says "Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, said that 'it would be inappropriate for the Defense Department to comment on an ongoing Justice Department investigation.'... Feith did not return a call seeking comment yesterday. Franklin, who officials say is cooperating with authorities, has also declined to comment."  Perhaps we can quote this directly but it does back up the claim being made (in fact, it is even stronger than what is said in Wikipedia).  I am not sure I understand his problem with this section other than that. csloat (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The article says what it says.  As a Verifiable Source, it is not up to editors to censor things that "seem more opinionated than factual." Let the sources speak for themselves, as long as the editors cite their sources.  Abe Froman (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, you keep making this assertion about Raw Story's "tilt."  If you have evidence that they admitted to a "tilt" in this particular article, please show your evidence rather than just repeating the claim. Thanks. csloat (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This article is about Douglas J. Feith, not about the Guardian or RawStory, and it is not the place for your theories about those sources' alleged biases.  Please do not attempt to poison the well by adding such items to citations from reliable sources.  You can read more about verifiability of sources at WP:V; there is no requirement (nor is it even desirable) to insert such personal value judgements every time a source is cited. csloat (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read the material you are objecting to.  There are no "leftist theories" here; these are objective (as in observable) facts that are reported in reliable sources.  Are you suggesting the Guardian made up the interview it reports?  Or that the Washington post made up the fact that Feith chose not to respond to requests for comment?  These are facts -- either they happened or they did not, and it is not up to us to judge, but simply to report, the Guardian reported _____, etc.  If you have a reliable source indicating that these reliable sources are lying, please present your source, or stop making this argument.  The POV tag will be removed if you are unable to present a clear argument as to what is POV here and how it should be changed to reach NPOV.  All you have suggested so far are ways of censoring this information or of creating a POV problem in this article through well-poisoning -- neither is an acceptable approach.  Also, please do not make up facts that are incorrect.  RawStory is a verifiable news source with an editorial staff -- not a "leftist weblog."  Again, if you have evidence that Feith did not know Franklin, or did not work with Franklin, please present it -- otherwise you are simply whining that you wish certain well-reported facts were otherwise and you think you can have those facts censored by complaining about the source. csloat (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The burden of proof is on you to provide counterevidence to the evidence in the article that you are implying is made up.  The stories are not "obviously biased" in any way.  They state as objective fact what their reporters have learned from their sources (including that such-and-such a source has such-and-such an opinion).  This is pretty clear in the material itself, and is perfectly reasonable according to Wikipedia standards.  If you add well-poisoning adjectives to this material those adjectives will be deleted, unless you show direct relevance to the material at hand.  You have yet to do so. csloat (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  2nd that.Abe Froman (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: While I agree that this term is used correctly in the traditional sense of the word, and the modern military slang/jargon of CPA Authority or whatever is  indeed weasel words, isn't it just as weasel-wordy to apply a term that usually applies to a specifically permanent military occupation (for instance, Napoleon's stepson was Viceroy of Italy.) to this one? Seems a bit contra-NPOV to me. I'll let somebody else make the call on that one, though. Ender78 (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Viceroy" Jay Garner 

message: I have removed several sections of the "Criticism" section which are merely individuals saying derogatory things about Feith, without citing actual 4vents. Come on now people, are we going to fill the bio page of every politician or public servant with salacious quotes and people saying bad things about them? Let's stick to facts and events in the career of the guy, not ad hominem attacks and quotes defaming the guy, by some minor functionary. How in the world does this add to the informative value of the article because someone calls him arrogant? I seriously question the intent of some editors who seem just out to smear Feith, not make a serious informative article. 64.27.4.133 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is Colin Powell "a minor functionary"?  Or the former Viceroy of Iraq, General Jay Garner.  It's astonishingly rare for this kind of blunt criticism to be made such people; when it is made, it's notable and worth citing.  If these were isolated comments, one could make an argument that they weren't important.  But in fact they echo other statements, by less important people (so I won't put those back in, but they still offer confirmation) that there is considerable controversy - and thus importance - on the issue of exactly how intelligent - or perhaps "wise" would be a better word - Feith really is.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I am not digging up anything; I am restoring well-sourced material that you are deleting.  Feith was a controversial figure for good reason; there is no need to sugar coat that.  Hayden said what he said; if you want to include a quote from him backtracking later, go for it, same with Powell.  This is not about "burdening" the page with "every negative remark" -- these were well-publicized remarks discussed by prominent officials and reliable media sources.  This is not about left and right wing, and it is not about "Bueller." csloat (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, anon, you are completely wrong about Gen. Hayden -- his testimony was videotaped and while he may have backpedaled later on, which you are welcome to quote, there is no question he said what he said.  Now please stop censoring stuff on this page. csloat (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative comments 

message: The highly distorted and partisan descriptions of the Robb and Senate reports do not discuss Feith.  This is a biography.  If they mention Feith specifically somewhere we can use it; otherwise that material should be removed.  If we do leave it in for some reason, we should include more balanced reporting of what was included in the reports (including several statements that directly contradict the partisan description included by editor Calidan).  We should also put this stuff in context.  The way it is mentioned now is completely non sequitur here so it should be removed. csloat (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A reading of the reports shows that names are not used; rather, descriptions of governmental positions and offices are.  And Feith's Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy is mentioned throughout.  It's quite ironic that in the 'accusations and refutations' section of this article, there are many references to investigations of and pertaining to Feith.  Yet when those investigations turn out to exonerate him, though, they are considered non sequitur and removed.  Everything in this section means verifiability standards, and the deletion reeks of partisanship.  Calldan (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're using this article to answer charges against Feith that are not even made in this article at all.  And neither report mentions Feith or his office -- see this article, which notes in part: "neither the Robb-Silberman report nor the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar Iraq intelligence exonerated Feith. Indeed, the Robb-Silberman report does not mention either Feith or the Office of Special Plans. As for the Senate Intelligence Committee, The New York Times reported on October 22, 2004, that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) had issued his own report (pdf) accusing Feith of establishing "a non-Intelligence Community source of intelligence analysis" because Senate Republicans had prevented the Senate Intelligence Committee from assessing Feith's role in intelligence operations leading up to the war."  You mention investigations that are mentioned throughout the article and claim that you are showing that those investigations exonerate him -- that is manifestly false.  Nowhere in the article does it state that the investigations were conducted by Robb, Silberman, or the SSCI.  You're adding a non sequitur to the article in order to make some kind of partisan point and then accusing your opponents of partisanship -- bizarre. csloat (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing material that does not mention Feith 

message: In April 2008 Feith's detailed, footnoted, fact-based book replete with names and dates was published.  The title is War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.  Agree or disagree with Feith, this book will be a teasure trove for future historians, because it is not vague, conclusory or non-specific as to who said and did what.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.103.14 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on all the merits of the WaPo information; but it appears verbatim on Feith's book's page, which is linked from his bio page.  It doesn't make sense to have only the WaPo information on his bio page, while there is ~8x that much information on the book page.  Unless we're going to import all the book page information to the bio page, which is not a desirable or recommended wiki practice.  Enyce2308 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  feith's book