Talk:Wen Ho Lee

message: This article is typical of how Wikipedia is taken over by special interest groups. You know, I don't know what Wen Ho Lee was up to actually, and neither does anyone else but him. I also understand the passion among activists, mostly Asian Americans, that this is all about "fighting racism". I think they are overzealous in this regard -- look at that Hatfield or whatever his name is who was implicated in the Anthrax scare. His life was similarly ruined, and he had no ethnic group to back him up with charges of "racism". Face it, the government screws up and the media are like vultures. And for all we know, both may be guilty. Nevertheless, what Wikipedia is for is laying out the facts and variety of viewpoints about an issue. Unfortunately, disiniterested people who want to promote NPOV just don't have the tenacity to fight mobs of special interests who are fanatically dedicated to highjacking specific pages. That's why highly controversial areas are always bad, and always tend towards fringy views and are highly censored of critical viewpoints. Witness the fanatics who protect Mumia from accusations that he might have just murdered a cop, or Chomsky from his own foot in his own mouth, or George Bush from the truth. This is another classic page owned literally by Wen Ho Lee's "activist" special interest group supporters.  Soda80 01:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typical Wiki bias

message: I don't feel like this article is written from a neutral point of view.  Just because Wen Ho Lee pleaded to reduced charges doesn't mean that he's innocent of wrongdoing, nor does it mean that there isn't disagreement over  his actions.  Louis Freeh made it very clear that he felt there was wrongdoing (see sources in the article itself) and indicated that he allowed Lee to plea in order to determine the disposition of the information in question.  I recommend indicating that the neutrality of this article is in question.
For instance, from this article:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/law.and.politics/09/26/freeh.lee/
: Among the activities Freeh is expected to cite, according to a source familiar with his testimony, is information that in 1982 Lee made contact with a suspected spy. Freeh is expected to say that authorities suspected Lee was less than truthful when questioned about that contact.
: Freeh also will describe how the FBI began a preliminary investigation of Lee in 1994, after it became known that he had an alleged relationship with the head of China's nuclear weapons design program and did not report the relationship.
: Freeh will tell congressional investigators that in 1998, Lee acknowledged in an interview that he had been approached by Chinese nuclear scientists. 
None of this content is reflected in the article.  The entire article is written as if Lee was wrongly accused, and that his eventual plea bargain was a total exoneration.
71.139.3.195 07:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree that stuff could be mentiond. but you must also point out that Louis Freeh was operating out of political motivations based on mass hysteria and media hype and congressional political games, not out of a legitimate concern for national security. there were literally dozens of people at the lab doing 'suspicious things', and they picked lee out of a hat, said "he doesnt deserve civil liberties" and that they would eventually get him "for spitting on the sidewalk" (actual quotes from government officials), and railroaded him. when they use things like 'He lied about it under questioning', you need to go watch a video on youtube called 'never talk to the police'. Wen Ho Lee didn't even know about the fifth amendment or why we have it. they asked him millions of questions in hourslong interviews, whose purpose they lied about. and then when his wording was slightly off they called him a liar. if he took information about equations used in college mathematics, they decided taht was 'classified', and called him a liar and spy for it. this is what those 50-whatever charges were built on, junk like that. if you peel away the FBI hype and PR character assassination, there are very simple explanations for this stuff, including his meeting with 'alleged spies'. think about it. they had to drop over 95% of their charges, because they had no evidence. the judge himself excoriated the FBI for lying to him both about the seriousness of the crimes and the evidence against Dr Lee. A top security guy at LANL later wrote a letter describing how this was all a bunch of racist nonsense. all the accusations made by Freeh etc are part of the story, but they not the whole story. it would be better to even split them out of this article and have a whole separate article, United States v Wen Ho Lee.  Decora (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View? 

message: This is a pretty lousy article.  The standard story from those in the loop is that Wen Ho Lee knowingly illegally copied classified secrets onto tapes that he took off-site.  A common theory is that he kept the tapes so that he'd be able to sell them to his Chinese contacts if he ever got laid off (he was threatened with being fired in 1996).  BTW, all of this is public knowledge.
Here's an interesting blog about related affairs (it's not my source, but it's interesting) --
  http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/2005/09/richardson-wen-ho-lee-was-mistreated.html
As for why he didn't get charged, the answer is simple: the government was never interested in jailing him -- they just wanted to know to whom he planned to sell the secrets.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.2.134.31 (talk • contribs) .
:If it's "public knowledge" then it should be possible to embed copious amounts of citations into this article for these various points. I tossed a citation request into a recent addition along these lines but this article could use citations throughout. Bryan 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  your url is broken. here is an actual working url. http://www.parrot-farm.net/lanl-the-real-story/2005/03/regarding-no-one-is-as-necessary-as.html . actually if you go to google and type in
 site:parrot-farm.net wen ho lee
you will get a lot of interesting discussions by what appear to be LANL workers. they are not journalistic, they are just opinions. but they are kind of interesting.  Decora (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely not neutral point of view 

message: The possibility that Lee was spying for Taiwan should at least be mentioned. It was raised many times when the case was in the news. Dynzmoar 11:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: considering he successfully sued those news companies for printing blatantly wrong stuff about him, i would be very cautious of believing anything in them. Decora (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spying for Taiwan? 

message: I have removed material from  that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.
Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. This is a Secret account 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP removal 

message: I removed the inaccurate statement that "Wen Ho Lee"  is a Chinese name. He is an American. Yes, I have tried to read through all of the above posts about this editing decision, but I must frankly state that all the time spent in arguing over the matter could have been better spent in beefing up the article. It has been marked as a Stub for quite a while now. Very sincerely yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be able to contribute information to this article, since I'm reading My Country vs. Me right now. I am surprised that hardly anything regarding the Wen Ho Lee case is found on this article, along with the Cox Controversy. --Dubtiger (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the reality is simply too depressing. a racist witch hunt spurred by a cowardly administration and a stupid congress. all this was going on while the @#$@# 9/11 hijackers were living in @#$@#$ san diego, and NSA, and CIA both knew about them, but the message never made it to FBI head quarters until too late. maybe if they had dozens of agents assigned to al-midhar and al-hazmi instead of Dr Lee there would be no 9/11. i have tried to add a little bit of info from Dr lee's book, but it is hard, it gives one the unbearable feeling of watching a trainwreck, when reading the facts of the case. Decora (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mister Lee is an American 

message: What is this? It has been removed, but what is it? Querulously, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It transcludes this into the page: Template:Chinese American. The 'collapsed' tag condenses the template down to a single line, which provides a toggle button to expand. The template should not be used on biographies of individuals, but makes sense for articles about Chinese American culture as a whole. 59.167.62.166 (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  { { Chinese American|state=collapsed } } 

message: Removed these from the article as they do not meet WP:EL - they would make good references for supporting this article however I'm sure!
*BREACH AT LOS ALAMOS: A special report.; China Stole Nuclear Secrets For Bombs, U.S. Aides Say The New York Times, March 6, 1999.
*Annotated Bibliography for Wen Ho Lee from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
*Judge James A. Parker's Apology to Wen Ho Lee
*Wen Ho Lee to Plead Guilty to One Felony Count of Mishandling Classified Data, Set Free, CNN September 13, 2000.
*No Defense: How the New York Times Convicted Wen Ho Lee, The Nation, October 23, 2000.
*Fox News article about lawsuit settlement
*Activist site about Wen Ho Lee
*Washington Post collection of articles relating to the Wen Ho Lee case
*Indictment document of Wen Ho Lee
*Richardson Named As Likely Source of Wen Ho Lee Leak, By Adam Rankin, Albuquerque Journal (Sunday, July 10, 2005).
*"Scapegoat of the Century" argues against several popular conceptions of Lee.
*Does the Administration Owe Wen Ho Lee an Apology?: offers points and counter-points.
*FBI director Louis Freeh testifies on Wen Ho Lee Case, CNN, September 26, 2000.
*U.S., Media Settle With Wen Ho Lee, Washington Post, June 2, 2006.
Nikthestoned 06:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links that should be used as references 

message: It is generally accepted that though due process was not followed in this case that Wen Ho Lee did steal government information and bring it off site.
This article is hugely politically charged and makes no neutral point that perhaps he did something illegal. This is the kind of rubbish that makes Wikipedia unreliable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.145.189 (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fifty Cent Party At it Again 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wen Ho Lee. 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/20070320152228/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/21/los.alamos/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/21/los.alamos/index.html
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) 04:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article links to simulation software for nuclear explosions, as two separate links.  I wonder, though, is there anywhere in WP that discusses simulation software for nuclear explosions? (That is, what can be publically stated.)  The specific question I am interested in now, is (about) how many lines of Fortran (or other languages) are used?  I suppose that there is a lot that can't be said, but that should be fine. Gah4 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[simulation software]] for [[nuclear explosion]]s