Talk:Office of Special Plans

message: I read with interest this week that senior Democratic congressmen are finally looking into the OSP and the way intelligence actually came from the defense department, Cheney, and Scooter Libby as opposed to the CIA, which is falling on a huge sword to save face for the current administration.
===NPOV Tag===
I am putting an NPOV tag on this article.  It seems like there is no balance at all in the coverage (i.e. nothing said to counterbalance any of the charges made and no one refuting any of the charges). Even the article sections seem to violate WP:NPOV, as they slant negatively.  I had actually never heard of this program before reading the article here, so I am not sure how prominent it was, but I will try to find some sources.  Fundamentaldan 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some things are simply not disputed.  The OSP was designed to do an end-run around the normal intel process, and there really hasn't been much defense of the organization, especially recently.  I'm all for adding a defense of the org from Perle or Feith or whoever, but the fact is that the consensus of commentators has had significant problems with the organization, for obvious reasons.  I don't think we should introduce phony balance in order to satisfy npov concerns when the facts are that the organization has been extremely problematic.  If you have suggestions for specific changes to make this less POV, indicate what they are; otherwise, the npov tag should not be used. csloat 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said previously, I am not too familiar with this subject. However, a cursory search on Fox News turned up this story: Pentagon Official Denies Manipulating Evidence and a Google search turns up this one: .  It appears that there is another side of this story, and this other side should be included.  According to that article, Mr. Feith disputes the way this office was interpreted.  It is not about having a phony balance, it is about representing conflicting points of view fairly. As it stands right now, the article declares the one point of view as the truth and uses weasel words as well.  I will take a look at fixing it tomorrow, after I have had time to read these sources.  But, I think the NPOV tag should stay.  Also, even your reply to me shows you have a strong point of view about the subject.  That is fine, but articles are to be written from neutral point of view, and this article is not yet there, IMHO. Fundamentaldan 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if Feith has a notable response to critics, it should be included.  As for whether I have a strong POV on the topic, all I can say is that I actually do have a familiarity with the topic and I have read quite a bit of information about it, and I don't see that the article overstates or biases the case in any significant way.  Feith probably does defend the organization, but the consensus of experts and policymakers do not, and in fact the SSCI found evidence to support the criticism.  It is also notable that an Israeli spy was working out of this office, likely with Feith's knowledge, and that the most recent DCI explicitly chastised the OSP's approach in sworn testimony.  There is certainly a lot that could be added to this article, and Feith's own explanation should be included as well, but we should not pretend that this is a debate with two equal sides.  Almost everyone disagrees with Feith. csloat 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pentagon IG report pretty much confirms what I've been saying.  Since you don't appear to have a specific POV objection, I am going to remove the POV tag.  If you feel the need to restore it, please indicate exactly what needs to change in order to get the tag removed.  thanks. csloat 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it took me so long to respond, Commodore.  I think the article is good as edited.  It seems to be less POV than before.  I might look it over again if I get some time later.  Thanks.  Fundamental Dan 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am putting an NPOV tag on this article.  It seems like there is no balance at all in the coverage (i.e. nothing said to counterbalance any of the charges made and no one refuting any of the charges). Even the article sections seem to violate WP:NPOV, as they slant negatively.  I had actually never heard of this program before reading the article here, so I am not sure how prominent it was, but I will try to find some sources.  Fundamentaldan 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some things are simply not disputed.  The OSP was designed to do an end-run around the normal intel process, and there really hasn't been much defense of the organization, especially recently.  I'm all for adding a defense of the org from Perle or Feith or whoever, but the fact is that the consensus of commentators has had significant problems with the organization, for obvious reasons.  I don't think we should introduce phony balance in order to satisfy npov concerns when the facts are that the organization has been extremely problematic.  If you have suggestions for specific changes to make this less POV, indicate what they are; otherwise, the npov tag should not be used. csloat 18:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said previously, I am not too familiar with this subject. However, a cursory search on Fox News turned up this story: Pentagon Official Denies Manipulating Evidence and a Google search turns up this one: .  It appears that there is another side of this story, and this other side should be included.  According to that article, Mr. Feith disputes the way this office was interpreted.  It is not about having a phony balance, it is about representing conflicting points of view fairly. As it stands right now, the article declares the one point of view as the truth and uses weasel words as well.  I will take a look at fixing it tomorrow, after I have had time to read these sources.  But, I think the NPOV tag should stay.  Also, even your reply to me shows you have a strong point of view about the subject.  That is fine, but articles are to be written from neutral point of view, and this article is not yet there, IMHO. Fundamentaldan 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if Feith has a notable response to critics, it should be included.  As for whether I have a strong POV on the topic, all I can say is that I actually do have a familiarity with the topic and I have read quite a bit of information about it, and I don't see that the article overstates or biases the case in any significant way.  Feith probably does defend the organization, but the consensus of experts and policymakers do not, and in fact the SSCI found evidence to support the criticism.  It is also notable that an Israeli spy was working out of this office, likely with Feith's knowledge, and that the most recent DCI explicitly chastised the OSP's approach in sworn testimony.  There is certainly a lot that could be added to this article, and Feith's own explanation should be included as well, but we should not pretend that this is a debate with two equal sides.  Almost everyone disagrees with Feith. csloat 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pentagon IG report pretty much confirms what I've been saying.  Since you don't appear to have a specific POV objection, I am going to remove the POV tag.  If you feel the need to restore it, please indicate exactly what needs to change in order to get the tag removed.  thanks. csloat 21:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it took me so long to respond, Commodore.  I think the article is good as edited.  It seems to be less POV than before.  I might look it over again if I get some time later.  Thanks.  Fundamental Dan 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Tag

message: This article is seriously deficient because it fails to describe what the OSP actually did beyond supplying raw intelligence on Iraq to the White House. I'm sure there are editors more familiar with this subject (? ?), but my understanding is that the mission of the OSP was to drum up post-9/11 support for war against Iraq. The article needs a whole new first section (after the lead) describing the OSP's activities and whether and how it accomplished its mission. Then the rest of the article can go into criticisms and illegality. But without the basic factual information, the article sadly reads as a non-neutral criticism ghetto. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: And reviewing other comments on this talk page, there's a clear consensus on this very issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously deficient 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Office of Special Plans. 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/20090326114447/http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf to http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/SASC.DODIGFeithreport.040507.pdf
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) 21:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified