Talk:Plame affair grand jury investigation

message: I'm starting a very bare bones entry about the Plame CIA leak investigation by a federal grand jury. The Plame Affair entry is cluttered, not current, and needs to be updated. Also, some of the information may be POV. Plan to sort out the timeline, update the witness list, sources, and link to main players in the grand jury aspect of the affair. When it is finished, we can decide to merge it with Plame Affair or leave separate.--FloNight 21:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice start. I took some time to order the names and get some consistency in the styles. I think it's easier to deal with names in alphabetical order. The Plame affair sitaution is very complex and going to continue into perhaps additional grand juries being impaneled, public trials, so having a good clear focused article on the Fitzgerald investigation is a good idea. It has a clear start and finish and I'm sure much will be appearing on the Fitzgerald website, newspapers, and scholarly writings which will be worthy references and naturally there's a ton of things for Wikisource as well.  I've not had much time to Wikipedia, but I'll keep this on Watchlist and check it as it develops. Calicocat 00:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Why would you start yet another article? We already have plame affair, cheneygate, and now this one. I recommend this article be deleted as per deletion policy.(Narkstraws 21:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it should be deleted, it's a good article in the growing family of articles regarding the CIA Leak Case. In addition, if you are going to VfD an article, you should at least do it the right way. Calicocat 05:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It was done the right way, there's no need to attack me personally because you don't like the way I feel about this article. (Narkstraws 06:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame CIA Leak Grand Jury Investigation

message: I think the article should be renamed as in accordance with naming conventions
Specificially the reasons are:
#wikipedia:naming conventions (precision)
I don't believe this name will work very well in a search. I think something like 'Fitzgerald investigation', or something along those lines would prove to be better. A quick check on Google (Search) brings more relevant articles for 'Fitzgerald investigation' than the current name (Google Search) (look at the page count difference).
#wikipedia:naming conventions (common names)
I think the title is incredibly wordy, it's also not accurate as the grand jury is only one part of the entire investigation (the trial of Scooter Libby, the ongoing investigation of Rove). I think the words in the name can be confusing.
I will not just rename/move the article on my own since I vfd and lost. I'd rather get some comments first so I don't appear as some tyrannical editor who gets everyone upset.
(Narkstraws 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The current title looks like it's a bunch of words just randomly picked to describe the event. Bjelleklang  -  talk 19:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A title should identify the subject matter with precision. There have been more than 1 leak from the CIA in the past; it is likely there will be more in the future. Therefore the title "CIA leak etc." lacks necessary precision. rewinn 19:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename the Article 

message: User:Mr j galt has taken his 'not covert' edit war to over a dozen articles, including this one. While neither Fitzgerald nor the indictment declares Plame's status as covert as per the IIPA, the indictment of Libby does describe the investigation - into the disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel.
:27. Beginning in or about January 2004, and continuing until the date of this indictment, Grand Jury 03-3 sitting in the District of Columbia conducted an investigation (“the Grand Jury Investigation”) into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 1001 (false statements), 1503 (obstruction of justice), and 1623 (perjury).  
::Actually, that's simply a citation of what codes were being investigated.  Libby has not been convicted of anything. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be missing the point of my cite. The point of my cite is that the investigation was to determine whether a covert intelligence agent's identity was blown. Not to claim anyone was convicted, nor even to claim Plame's status was definitely covert... just to point out that the DoJ is conducting an investigation into such a potential crime. And in fact, Libby was only indicted for perjury... -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what were the problems with Galt's edits, exactly, in the context of this article?  Most of them were rewordings of existing material that could have stayed and gone, the lowest edit I might have reverted myself if I caught it, but other than that...? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Galt's changing of all references from 'covert' to 'classified' is what I object to. Still do. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello RyanFreisling and badlydrawnjeff :- ) This was the first article that I started. And today I will hit 1000 edits. I'll do it moving the references from the text to the reference section it the text stays in. It messes up the numbers otherwise. By the way, either classified or covert is fine with me.  --FloNight 16:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats User:FloNight! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :- ) --FloNight 05:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: j galt's edit war

message: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/18/AR2006031800908.html  Kevin Baastalk 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armitage? 

message: i've added some of the released court filings pertaining to the upcoming trial.  summarizing them may take up too much space, so i simply listed what they were and linked them.  it's a start.  Anthonymendoza 03:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court filings 

message: shall we merge this page with the Plame affair criminal investigation? Anthonymendoza 22:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PLease do not make such a major change without discussion. The pages should be merged, not redirected. The title cia leak etc lacks precision because there are more than 1 instances of CIA leaks. I will remove the redirect so this can be discussed and merged in a careful fashion. Whichever page survives should contain all the data from both pages. rewinn 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Plame affair criminal investigation]]

message: Being that the name of the article is a separate question all together, the question is: "which article is most easily merged from the other article?"  To figure this out, one needs to compare their content:
CIA leak grand Jury Investigation
    * 1 Basic Facts
    * 2 Grand jury
    * 3 Known Grand Jury Witnesses
          o 3.1 Cabinet
          o 3.2 CIA
          o 3.3 Vice-President's Office
          o 3.4 President
          o 3.5 White House Press Office
          o 3.6 Other Government Officials
          o 3.7 Media
          o 3.8 Other
    * 4 Federal Laws
    * 5 Attorneys of Record
    * 6 Judges, Special Counsel Attorneys, Courthouses
          o 6.1 Judges
          o 6.2 Special Counsel Office Attorneys
          o 6.3 Courthouses
    * 7 Indictment of Libby
    * 8 Court Proceedings
    * 9 New grand jury
    * 10 Media Request CIA to Unseal Records
    * 11 Government Letters or Memoranda
    * 12 Notes
    * 13 References
          o 13.1 Additional resources
    * 14 External links
          o 14.1 U.S. Court Sites
Plaim affair criminal investigation
    * 1 CIA calls for leak investigation
    * 2 Grand Jury
    * 3 Journalists and Contempt of court
          o 3.1 Novak
          o 3.2 Cooper
          o 3.3 Miller
    * 4 Libby Indictment
    * 5 Further Action
    * 6 Court Proceedings
    * 7 Criticism
    * 8 Notes
    * 9 Other references
          o 9.1 Additional resources
    * 10 Attorneys of Record
    * 11 Judges, Special Counsel Attorneys, Courthouses
          o 11.1 Judges
          o 11.2 Special Counsel Office Attorneys
          o 11.3 Courthouses
    * 13 References (a.k.a. "other references")
          o 13.1 Additional resources
    * 12 External links
          o 12.1 U.S. Court Sites
    * 13 See also
In common are:
    * 1 Basic Facts (a.k.a. "CIA calls for leak investigation")
    * 2 Grand jury
    * 5 Attorneys of Record
    * 6 Judges, Special Counsel Attorneys, Courthouses
          o 6.1 Judges
          o 6.2 Special Counsel Office Attorneys
          o 6.3 Courthouses
    * 7 Indictment of Libby (a.k.a. "Libby Indictment")
    * 8 Court Proceedings
    * 12 Notes
    * 14 External links
          o 14.1 U.S. Court Sites
Unique to each article are:
CIA leak grand Jury Investigation
    * 3 Known Grand Jury Witnesses
          o 3.1 Cabinet
          o 3.2 CIA
          o 3.3 Vice-President's Office
          o 3.4 President
          o 3.5 White House Press Office
          o 3.6 Other Government Officials
          o 3.7 Media
          o 3.8 Other
    * 4 Federal Laws
    * 9 New grand jury
    * 10 Media Request CIA to Unseal Records
    * 11 Government Letters or Memoranda
Plaim affair criminal investigation
    * 5 Further Action
    * 7 Criticism
    * 13 See also
It looks to me like "CIA grand jury investigation" has more info, and it therefore would be easier to merge from "Plame affair criminal investigation" to "CIA grand jury investigation" than vice-versa.
I think it would be best to start with the sections they have in common, making each section "CIA grand..." has in common with "Plame affair..." includes all or most (after consensus trimming) information contained in the corresponding sections on "Plame affair...".
The next step would be to move the unique sections in "Plame affair..." into "CIA grand...", inserting them in reasonable places.
At this point, "Plame affair..." can be redirected, and we can work on a better organization of the sections in this article and trimming.
Does this sound good to people? I want to get this process going.  There are too many Plame Affair articles, it's difficult to navigate.  Kevin Baastalk 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Q.3: Which article should be the primary article?

message: Formatting was incorrect.  Italics are not the proper format for block quotations.  Italics are for emphasis and titles.  See W:Help with editing if need to learn how to format quotations properly.--NYScholar 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Block quotations

message: Added cleanup tag; the notes formatting in this article is confusing; I've separated out the numbered external links (or most of them) so that other editors can work on fixing the formatting of notes; editorial interpolations w/in angle brackets throughout the article indicate the problems and what still needs to be done.  The instructions given by an earlier editor are incorrect and have resulted in improperly formatted notes throughout.  References need to be done in proper bibliographical format too.  There is no need for numbered external links; they need to be converted to notes and bibliography formats for "Notes" or "References" sections.--NYScholar 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article's formatting of notes and references still needs a substantial amount of work; it needs "full citations" throughout.  See the links to policies in tagged templates above at top of talk page. --NYScholar 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: no one has commented, so i've updated my proposed merged version and i'm putting it in place. Kevin Baastalk 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, I and others must appreciate your hard work. But, unfortunately, this article's documentation particularly is still a mess.  It needs a lot of work.  See earlier comments and editorial interpolations throughout and the templates on the article page. --NYScholar 18:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  replaced w/update proposed version 

message: Unless you think 2003 was the first and last time there's gonna be a grand jury investigation of a leak of classified info from the biggest repository of classified info going around, then you need a more specific title here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.184.173 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get a different name for your article 

message: :Image:Cheneysnotes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cheneysnotes.jpg

message: I'm removing the cleanup tag rom the article.  If you see things that still need cleanup please re-add the cleanup tag, but ALSO make a note here about what needs cleanup.  RJFJR (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup?

message: First reference to Karl Rove in section two uses only the surname and is not a link to the individual, not making it clear that Rove is a person.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.66.36 (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First reference to Rove. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on Plame affair grand jury investigation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060811134005/http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html to http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023732/http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000968809 to http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000968809
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528062030/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922140112/http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm to http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060915203601/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/final_response_dow_jones_motion_unseal.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/final_response_dow_jones_motion_unseal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824002931/http://www.scooterlibby.org/news/briefs/022306_motion_dismiss.pdf to http://www.scooterlibby.org/news/briefs/022306_motion_dismiss.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060911124509/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2006_03_17_governments_response_to_motion_to_dismiss.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2006_03_17_governments_response_to_motion_to_dismiss.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618115715/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fitzgerald-correction/ to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fitzgerald-correction/
*Added  tag to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060816041800/http://truthout.org/trans051606.pdf to http://www.truthout.org/trans051606.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901210425/http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%2FNation%2Farchive%2F200606%2FNAT20060615a.html to http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%2FNation%2Farchive%2F200606%2FNAT20060615a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060816215352/http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf to http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121205082905/http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0112nj1.htm to http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0112nj1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826042152/http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0502-06.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0502-06.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025190234/http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/hogan-bio.html to http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/hogan-bio.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017203529/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified