Talk:Lawrence Wilkerson

message: Is there any proof that Colin feed him with information or how did one arrive he is a mouth piece of the later? Common guys, I wouldn't say that is objective.
And since he is a former employee of USA government, there is bound to be a picture somewhere in the web whose copyright is owned by USA government. That can sit well on this page, in my opinion
:: From the first linked WP article:
:::he was often described by colleagues as the man who would say what Powell was thinking but was too discreet to say
::The term "mouth piece" was taken from another news report I read.
:: I have already looked at his official bio which, strangely, doesn't have a photo and done an unsuccessful google image search of the .gov and .mil domains.  
::Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).  - BanyanTree 20:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help.  There must be a photo taken by a federal employee in the course of his/her duties that (which is automatically in the public domain); even a link to such a webpage would be much appreciated.  We could certainly just take any photo and claim fair use, but I tend to avoid fair use if at all possible. - BanyanTree 12:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mouth piece" and image 

message: it seems to me that United States Department of State as a category and as it stands now deals with units or organizations within the department, not people nessacarily, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Briaboru (talk • contribs) .
:Feel free to move it down into a relevant subcategory.  In cases where there are no such subcategories, there are two options: keeping an article in the general, high-level category OR creating a new sub-category and populating it with relevant articles. - BanyanTree 01:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence Wilkerson edit  

message: Dear BanyanTree, that "diktat" edit was not an experiment or vandalism. I had changed "dictate" to "diktat" because, even though the PBS transcript says otherwise, "diktat" is the word Wilkerson actually said in the interview. You can listen to the mp3 of the show at the following PBS website (relevant part is at around 16 minutes 15 seconds in): 
NOW mp3
I have not reedited the page. 
138.88.239.35 21:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi .35,  I've taken your word for it and reverted myself.  It's not necessary, of course, but I would recommend that you make an account.  I see a lot of IP numbers on the wiki and didn't realize that you were the one who had added the original content until I looked at the page history. Sorry about that, BanyanTree 00:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diktat v. Dictate 

message: Having given the "intelligence was a hoax" section a major overhaul, I just read the "excessive quotation" discussion and realized that maybe I'd better try justifying my actions. As BanyanTree points out the article is not "criticism by" and my additions are not meant to turn it into that. I do think that the main reason people will look him up is his media profile, and I figured that if the one instance was worth noting then the profile of criticisms had better be representative. I think it's important to show that he has a history of criticizing the administration (whether you think this is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" is really irrelevant; showing his record is not in breach of NPOV), and that the workings of the Bush administration is a red thread running through his various policy criticisms. 
In short, I think the reason there is an entry on him is because he criticizes; otherwise few if any would have heard of him (or alas, care). Saying that there should not be a section about these pronounciations would be like saying the Picasso article has too much stuff about painting in it. I do however agree that responses to his criticism is much needed (but hard to come by - I have searched the BBC) in order to balance out the article. 
I will also try to turn some of the inline quoations into summaries... :)
chochem 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" 

message: I don't understand why this article lists Wilkerson's comments on AIPAC in a controversy section. It is well known here in Washington that AIPAC is one of the strongest lobbies in town. Walt and Mearsheimer's book "The Israel Lobby" spelled out the role of this lobby in the lead up to the Iraq War. 
Of course, strident pro-Israel groups will attack anyone who criticizes AIPAC, so making such comments does inherently court controversy. But this Wikipedia article does not make this point clear. This should either be spelled out bluntly, or Wilkerson's comments on AIPAC should be removed along with the controversy section or placed somewhere else in the page, perhaps into an "opinions" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.181.105 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" - AIPAC and the Iraq War 

message: This section of the article needs to be retitled as Post-retirement accusations and criticisms of the Bush-Cheney Administration, since it has nothing to do with with his retirement except in reference to his accusations and criticisms of the Bush-Cheney administration. 
And to be perfectly honest, unless there is some balance OR a reference factually confirming his accusations, this section should be retitled as Wilkerson's post-retirement conspiracy theories.
Personally, I'd be VERY interested in finding out how the Bush-Cheney administration (or their allies) would respond to his statements but, since that is not likely to happen any time soon, the title of this section needs to be changed.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that Wilkerson's criticisms should be labeled "conspiracy theories", because that's discrediting, and not warranted unless they are clearly debunked. How about "accusations"? That doesn't support or deny the veracity of Wilkerson's criticisms. Grr82 (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-retirement and criticism section 

message: The following factoid may be added to a future "civil liberties" section: Col. Wilkerson is one of several high-ranking military officers who wrote an amicus brief supporting a former National Park Service employee in his lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior, claiming that the erection of a Christian cross on federal land to commemorate veterans violates the constitution's establishment clause. Grr82 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a section "Support for civil liberties"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Lawrence Wilkerson. 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  tag to https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ie2Gewi7L3__bSzBds095stmE88QD971APO00
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thewashingtonnote.com%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2Fsome_truths_abo%2F%3Fref%3Dfp2&date=2009-03-19 with http://www.webcitation.org/5fP6wI7w8?url=http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/?ref=fp2 on http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/?ref=fp2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An anonymous editor made numerous changes in the last day, reverting edits made by me and others, inclduing removal wholesale of sections. Most of the edits give a reason in the edit summary that appear plausible if you don't look deeply.
* Typo 
* Doesn't make any sense and incorrect spelling. No need to provide definitions
* Removed unsubstantiated claims of antisemitism
* There were typos and pro Zionist rhetoric with spelling mistakes added
However, as you look down the list, you see that the editor is focused on all the accusations of antimsemitism against the subject, Wilkerson. Further, many of those edits summaries are patently false. For example, the one labelled "Typo" doesn't remove any typographical errors. It removed an adjective phrase describing Russia Today and Press TV as antisemitic state actors. I happen to disagree with the editor who put that phrase in to begin with, and I'm not against removal, but the point is that the anonymous editor is trying to hide exactly what they're doing.
ALmost all the material deleted is well-sourced. The edits are a blatant attempt to hide or downplay the well-documented antisemitism of the subject. If the anonymous editor was more subtle, they could have made more surgical cuts and rewordings, and used a registered account, even a new one. But this stood out and is pretty cut-and-dried. These are pretty much all bad edits, and needed to be reverted.
If you disagree, feel free to explain where I've misunderstood. Dovid (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda-driven edits by anonymous editor