Talk:Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)

message: Subject of article meets criteria for noteworthiness; however, this needs sourcing and some changes of tone and POV.  Will give it a scrub. Timoleon212 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving this a Clean up 

message: This has a pretty blatant POV, between "combat hardened", that he "has served his entire career at the forefront of this country’s secret intelligence battles in cutting edge, often dangerous, assignments and leadership positions", "daring and innovative" & most glaringly that it serves only one side of a very contentious issue.  I'm tempted to just delete it.
Scalefree 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2006 

message: The following sentences are not sourced and look like a hit job: "At the time, Weldon was seeking contributions and was selling his own book, 'Countdown to Terror'.  For the publicity alone his patronage of Shaffer was temporarily profitable until the reality of Shaffer professional and personal issues began to surface."   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.79.195 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranger scroll 

message: Article states "General Shaffer is now currently serving as Assistant Chief of Staff in Afghanistan"
Is this officer really a serving general? Other Wiki pages e.g., Operation_Dark_Heart suggest
he is a retired Lieutenant Colonel writing books critical of admin. policy. Apparent contradiction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martello1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained Issues 

message: This article needs a re-edit to reflect charges and criticisms leveled against Anthony Shaffer.  Prior to a series of edits, the controversial and unfounded nature of Mr. Shaffer's 9/11 allegations, in particular, had better coverage.  It appears that someone sympathetic with Mr. Shaffer has edited his page to remove this information. Gumshoes (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now the article is nothing but a series of attacks on him. CsikosLo (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has been edited to become more flattering 

message: Hi everyone and , I am copying an edit request from Tspooky from my talk page here for review and possible inclusion in the article:
Tspooky, the IMDB source is not reliable (it's listed at WP:RSP. The MacMillan source is too non-independent. I'm not sure about the Government Accountability Project, but the link goes to a 2012 article which doesn't support the claims regarding 2017 and 2018. Nothing wrong with the reliability of the Wright State University source but the fact that those details aren't covered outside of the university lens is a sign that they don't need to be in this article. I will take a closer look at the fas.org, Peter Lance, Google Books, and Just the News sources over the next couple of days. Thank you for finding all this info. You may want to review WP:RS for more info on what counts as a reliable source as you collect further sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ignoring the combative behavior, but can only continue doing so for a little while longer. In order to effect change to this article, you are going to need the support of other volunteer editors; gaining it is more likely if you interact with me and others in a civil way. I disagree with you on IMDB, WSU, and MacMillan, and feel I have stated my case as much as I care to. Other editors may show up and agree more with you, in which case I'll bow to consensus. Having looked at peterlance.com, it's a self-published source, and we shouldn't include it here per WP:BLPSPS. Lance is an accomplished journalist and if his reporting were published by a reliable source it would be highly likely to merit inclusion in the article. You have now provided more sources, but not language that you are proposing. It is sometimes helpful to drop sources off at the talk page, and other editors may view them and make their own edits. If you are looking for more specific additions, you might instead draft your own language and then list it here for inclusion using Template:Request edit or use the Edit Request Wizard. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Tspooky 

message: Removed false, partisan, defamatory claims, "sourced" by Media Matters, an openly leftist organization known for their "War on Fox News," and USA Today, an openly leftist publication which broke their non-endorsement policy to oppose Trump and endorse Clinton in 2016. 
These are not unbiased sources, and publishing such false and defamatory claims on Shaffer's Wikipedia article violates both NPOV and BLP. If such defamatory material is repeatedly re-inserted, a report will be made on the BLP Noticeboard 67.42.97.177 (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. -Roxy  the sceptical dog. wooF 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming from the BLPN, there is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters per WP:RSP. Further, there should be multiple RS documenting the allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  False and defamatory material violating NPOV and BLP removed.