Talk:Lawrence Franklin

message: Content moved to Talk:AIPAC espionage scandal see below. --Uncle Bungle 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This is getting too unwieldy and about a lot more than Franklin. Shouldn't much of the scandal story be spun off into its own article? Any suggestions for what to call it?Daniel Case 03:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article about investigation

message: The article currently has 2 sentences in the body, but 26 external links.  Are they all really necessary? --Delirium 08:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that while there are too much, that doesn't mean they should all be deleted (TDC).  People should decide which ones are unnecessary and which ones are good.  Rory096 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have at it then, but most of them are most certainly not. Ten Dead Chickens 22:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive external links 

message: I removed the link to the related article entitled "Harold Rhode" for two reasons:
1) After some research, Harold Rhode does not have an article, nor does he possess the political relevance to merit one.
2) The website cited employs shaky sources and seems to be more opinion than fact. Mr.lightbulb 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relate d Articles 

message: There seems to be a definite slant here.  If you're going to include the info from the ISG, include ALL the info from the ISG that relates.  Don't reference the WMD precursor stockpiles and then hedge on what they were meant for.  History here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Franklin&diff=92219163&oldid=86876048 indicates the editing body so far wants the info included but history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Franklin&diff=92241813&oldid=92219163 shows that there is no desire to be completely honest about it.  The ISG found they had the ability to create WMD they simply hadn't.  To say they had no "current capacity" is incorrect.  It's not "hypothetical" at all.  Read the ISG report and article. Neospooky 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point out where in the ISG report this information is supported.  Abe Froman 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is documented in the ISG article here on Wikipedia under the Duelfer Report subheading.  It is also available via https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf with the pertinent information on page 14 (page 2 in the chemical section).  In addition, I'm sensing a double standard when I'm required to find the actual citations beyond the links provided and "nor any present capability to produce them" passes without any citation at all.  If the edit is changed again I will be disputing the NPOV of this article. Neospooky 00:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ISG report says, "based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefings, that Iraq at OIF probably had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months." Probably.  Not did.  This passage on Iraqi WMD does not belong in this article because it involves hypotheticals.  Other wikipedia articles, such as the one on Pearl Harbor, do not include historical hypotheticals such as "What if the Japanese didn't attack."  This article should not start such a trend.  Abe Froman 01:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even though the report is quoted almost verbatim your edit includes oddly placed quotation marks, stressing the 'probably'.  This is a clear example of NPOV and covered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark#Irony  If you look at the history, the passage on WMDs was perfectly acceptable to the editing body when it falsely claimed no capacity for production existed, but when the facts come into play (capacity and precursors existed) it turns into this.  Hence the NPOV dispute going up.  Also added additional information due to the inclusion of "if they had chosen to do so" which begs the question of likelihood. Neospooky 05:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quote the ISG all you need, that belongs in the ISG article.  This article concerns Larry Franklin, and thanks to your edits 10% of the article no longer has anything to do with him.  These recent ISG edits are not in the interests of the article.  Abe Froman 05:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV/Please review the page history 

message: Franklin is a relgious catholic.  Here's the reference...http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001074.html
:  He is catholic.  Here is one reference. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JoelMowbray/2004/09/20/the_spies_who_arent This is useful because many people think he is jewish.  HE IS NOT. Fermat1999 22:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: Under WP:OneEvent, I argue that this article should be merged into Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal. Thoughts? ShamWow (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. I think you have a good argument. Go ahead. RayTalk 05:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response. One thing - not exactly sure how to do it. Also, I want to make sure all the appropriate info gets transferred. Can ye advise me? ShamWow (talk) 05:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Help:Merge seems to be a guide. It's pretty straightforward -- you cut and paste, trimming out redundant information, and leave a redirect behind here, not forgetting to clean up double redirects. RayTalk 05:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help. I'll try and get on it within the next few days. ShamWow (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger