Talk:Peter Schweizer

message: Re: the repeated deletion of the word "author" from the lead section. He has written books, therefore he is an author. I'm not sure why this is controversial. Perhaps you think that this is part and parcel of being a researcher? Not all researchers are authors. And if you look at the bibliography, the books were not published by the organization where he is a research fellow. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 19:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author 

message: I just added some important paragraphs about Schweizer's spotty track record as a researcher. Unfortunately, the article is now out of balance. It would be good to have some more material about his other work. The Career section isn't really encyclopedic at all. It's essentially an annotated bibliography with some bullet points from his bio. 
Also, it's very unclear who he is married to. Is his wife's name Rhonda or Rochelle?Trumpetrep (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy & Criticism Section

message: Schweitzer's invaluable work on Congressional insider trading is woefully underrepresented in this section. (60 Minutes covered it twice!) Moreover, this whole section is nothing more than a listicle culled from his various bios. Surely, there must be someone willing to bulk this section up. I'd do it myself, but every time I try to add to this article, it keeps getting reverted to completely outdated versions.
Should we protect this page and build a consensus on future edits?Trumpetrep (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? GraniteSand (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

text: This seems to be anachronistic to our previous discussion. Can you be a little more specific about problems you've developed since you had the "last edit" the other night? GraniteSand (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Save us the third-person theatrics; you can read an edit summary. GraniteSand (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  May it is you that need to drop the theatrics? Edit summaries are not enough when you delete an entire section. -  Cwobeel (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Cwobeel, there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this article. It might not all be clear from the edit summary, but we discussed the best way to balance Schweizer's significant career accomplishments against his equally significant factual errors. There was a Controversy & Criticism section, but it was determined that the better way to handle that material was to interweave it into his Career section.Trumpetrep (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to put it into the CC section, there's nothing about CC in the link. As I said in my summary, it's just a cheat sheet for talking points which can be used to attack Schweizer in the press. It's literally an oppo-research memo, that's what MMfA does, among other things. It's for this reason that finding a place for it in an encyclopedic BLP isn't intuitive or easy. GraniteSand (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Career Section

message: Snooganssnoogans has seen fit to revert—without any edit summary, any response to my edit summary, or any comment on this page—my edit regarding the false and uncited claim in Wikipedia voice that: "The book was found to contain several factual errors, including that then-Secretary of State Clinton had veto power to stop the sale of Uranium One to a Russian state-owned company."
As I noted in my edit summary, no such claim is made in any cited source. The FactCheck.org article clearly refers to an April 26, 2015 television program: "what [Schweizer] said when he appeared on Fox News Sunday, where he discussed the uranium deal and his upcoming book"  [emphasis mine]. Every other cited source either refers to or purports to "fact check" statements by President Trump or different material from Schweizer.
Indeed, the reason no source claims what the article currently does is because Schweizer's book never claimed that Hillary Clinton had "veto power" at CFIUS—only that she could have had the decision "kicked up to the president". Every other cited source, to the best of my understanding are rebutting either Trump's comments or (in the case of FactCheck) Schweizer's comments on Fox News Sunday, April 26, 2015.
I'm happy to be corrected, but assuming my edit did actually improve the article by removing false (and redundant) information, this was tedious and tiresome. If Snooganssnoogans, an exceedingly experienced user, would have simply followed longstanding guidance and not reverted my edit without either responding to my edit summary or discussing it on the Talk page, it would have saved me a great deal of trouble and time.
Accordingly, as the reversion reinserted demonstratively false and uncited information in Wikivoice, I will undo it, pending a proper response or explanation from Snooganssnoogans.  Appreciatively, ElleTheBelle 18:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You were correct to say that the phrase "had veto power" wasn't in the book but why did you delete the rest of the sentence with the RS? The book did contain several factual errors that the publisher had to correct. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the question. I removed the beginning of the sentence—"The book was found to contain several factual errors"—because the very next paragraph said precisely the same thing, but more completely: "Several weeks after the book's initial publication, Harper Collins and the author made several corrections to the Kindle edition of the book. Schweizer corrected 'seven or eight' passages that were revealed to be inaccurate after the book was released."  I believe the RS is cited elsewhere in the article. Hope that makes sense—thanks! ElleTheBelle 20:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

text: It wasn't one interview, it was numerous ones (see the Washington Post cite I just added), at least two of them on national television (Fox News and ABC). Quoting WaPO:  That's some pretty specific "misspeaking". And here he is "misspeaking" on ABC: Transcript. With all that "meticulous" research, Schweizer didn't know that "Jose Fernandez, a former assistant secretary of state, represented the department on the committee. He told the Times: 'Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.'" The mention of the promotion is exactly where it needs to be—with the advance copies given to media outlets which were also part of the promotion package. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error regarding corrections to "Clinton Cash" 

message: I saw you on Sawn Hannity tonight talking about the VA having weapons and ammunition.  The Department of Veterans has had Armed VA Police Officers having weapons and ammunition since 2000.  They are considered Federal Police Officers and attend L.E.T.C. , an eight week training Academy in North Little Rock Arkansas.  There are small Police forces at each VA Hospital with up to 15 or more Officers.  Small VA clinics usually have two Officers.  I retired from the VA Police in Shreveport, La. In 2020, where I retired as the Chief.  Each VA Police Officer is required to shoot 200 rounds of ammunition each quarter and we were assigned AR-15’s in 2019.  The reason VA armed there Officers was because 8 VA Security Guards were killed and VA realized that they could not wait for Local Law Enforcement to respond and realized they needed to have Armed Officers to protect Veterans and Employees.  I am a Vietnam Veteran, Retired after 28 years with Shreveport Police and worked 16 years with Department of Veteran Affairs retiring at age 71.  I am also a proud Republican and just wanted to let you know why the VA uses so much 9mm and 5.56 ammo.
Gary Alderman 318-349-4453. 47.210.22.89 (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Veterans Affairs Police being Armed 

message: I can't find his writing here, yet it redirected me to this article. Ionic Ludicrous (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profiles in Corruption