Talk:Plame affair/Archive 8

message: Excuse me for raising a topic that I am sure has been raised before.  Probably several times...  But I am new to this article and I am baffled by the article title.  
Plame Affair sounds like an episode of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.!!!
This was a major scandal of utmost gravity.  
A)  How was it determined that the article should be named in this way rather than some other way? </br>
B)  Why is the article after a person who was a victim in the matter rather than after the type of incident that it was? </br> 
C)  Even if there was universal agreement that it should be named after her - why the ambiguous, comparatively benign word "affair" to describe a scandal that has resulted in 4 felony convictions and unchallenged testimony documenting White House actions that if not illegal - are certainly ethically questionable?
Articles describing major issues in Bill Clinton's administration have titles such as:
• Lewinsky scandal </br>
• Whitewater (controversy) </br>
• 1996 United States campaign finance controversy </br>
• Bill Clinton pardons controversy </br>
• Travelgate goes to White House travel office controversy</br>
• Filegate goes to White House personnel file controversy</br>
Ronald Reagan's administration has:
• Iran-Contra Affair</br>
George W. Bush's administration has:
• Plame Affair</br>
This is patently wrong and reflects POV.  To be consistent with other Wikipedia articles - this should be officially renamed CIA leak scandal (which currently redirects to Plame affair.  A converse re-direct can easily be implemented - with Plame affair re-directing to CIA leak scandal
Comments? Davidpatrick 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle that "CIA leak scandal" is a better, more descriptive, and more balanced title.  On the other hand, the "Plame affair" seems to be a far more common title for it in many sources on both the left and right.  Google hits for "Plame affair"=322,000; hits for "CIA leak scandal"=53,800.  Also, the liberal encyclopedia dKosopedia titles their article "Plame affair".  It doesn't take a right-wing conspiracy to understand why it was named that in the first place, since that's what the news frequently calls it, and there is at least a moderate argument for the former title being a better reflection of the neutral point of view.--ragesoss 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. It's always a balancing act between media catchphrases and popular shorthand for events on the one hand - and being encyclopedic and consistent within the portals of Wikipedia on the other hand.  And the Google argument cuts both ways - as of course sometimes Google refects mirrored content.  And we're trying to find a balance between encyclopedic and user-friendly.  My gut instinct is that the initial tag of using her name "Plame" (rather than a description of what the scandal was actually about) was partly because she was an attractive woman - it humanized complex political intrigue and it made for a glamorous tabloid story!  "Pretty blonde spy outed...!"  So her name became a central part of the story.  But suffixing her name with "Scandal" makes it seem like SHE  did something wrong - which no one has implied.  And "Affair" is a very bland word for something that has resuted in criminal convictions and gigantic political upheaval.  But I did some more thinking - and some more work on this.
Here's what I think swings it for the new title.  I did some more Googling - to get a more in-depth read.
"Plame affair"  322,000 
"Plame scandal" 96,900 
"CIA leak scandal" 54,100 
"CIA leak" 1,030,000 
So - while it is true that both  "Plame affair" and "Plame scandal" get more Google hits than the full wording "CIA scandal leak" - there are an overwhelming number more hits for the words "CIA leak" - of which a large percentage can be safely assumed to be about this matter rather than any others.
In that sense - the words "CIA leak" are the equivalent of the word "Lewinsky" or "Iran-Contra".  ie - it is the neutral, factual descriptive - to which the appropriate suffix then needs to be added.  It's clearly a scandal.  And that's where we are...  Davidpatrick 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: we've had this debate before, as to what this article should be called.  and each time the consensus has been plame affair.  i was curious as to why it's now a topic of debate and found this on the huffington post .  Davidpatrick is using the huffington post's argument verbatim to justify the change of the title to this article.  this is not the way to reach consensus, and just because the huffington post finds bias in the "plame affair" doesn't mean the title should be changed.  rather than engaging in an edit war, we should debate it once again, and vote for consensus.  Anthonymendoza 17:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i personally don't understand what is so "weasel" about the word affair.  doesn't the word affair imply this was a controversy and a scandal?  how does the word affair make this subject appear to be unimportant?Anthonymendoza 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A valid question.  Here's the answer.  From Wiktionary.
Noun
affair (plural affairs)
1)  That which is done or is to be done; matter; concern; business of any kind, commercial, professional, or public; — often in the plural.
a difficult affair to manage 
2)  Any proceeding or action which it is wished to refer to or characterize vaguely.
an affair of honor, i. e., a duel
an affair of love, i. e., an intrigue. 
3) (Military): An action or engagement not of sufficient magnitude to be called a battle. 
 
4)  A material object (vaguely designated).
He used a hook-shaped affair with a long handle to unlock the car. 
5) An adulterous relationship. (from affaire de coeur.) 
Do you think any of those definitions accurately and full reflect the nature of the contents of the article?  Davidpatrick 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: according to Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary, affair means matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal.  and according to the American Heritage Dictionary, affair means a matter causing public scandal and controversy.  to me, the word affair is appropriate here.Anthonymendoza 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Huffington Post and the Plame Affair

message: That is just two dictionaries.  In addition to the Wiktionary definition - here are THREE MORE dictionary definitions that DON'T reflect that meaning.
(1) According to Collins Online Dictionary
'''
affair
1 activity, business, circumstance, concern, episode, event, happening, incident, interest, matter, occurrence, proceeding, project, question, subject, transaction, undertaking
2 amour, intrigue, liaison, relationship, romance
(2) And according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
'''
1) affair. something done or to be done; business.
2. affairs Transactions and other matters of professional or public business: affairs of state. 
3a. An occurrence, event 
(3)  And according to the Oxford Dictionary 
affair
noun 
1 an event of a specified kind or that has previously been referred to.
2 a matter that is a particular person’s responsibility.
3 a love affair.
4 (affairs) matters of public interest and importance.
Even if you disagree with all of those respected FOUR dictionaries - and I really don't think this should be a battle of the dictionaries - at the very least I'm sure you will  graciously concede that if there are FOUR respected dictionaries that DON'T give the "scandal" definition - then at the very least there is a lot of ambiguity about how people perceive that word.  
And of course the word "affair" is just one of the three questions I raised as pertinent to this debate. Davidpatrick 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i will "graciously concede" that affair can in fact refer to a scandal, and that, according to the research above, this topic has been referred to as both the Plame Affair and Cia Leak in media outlets.  therefore it is up to a consensus of editors as to what this topic should be titled.  i will not revert your changes but reaching a consensus on wikipedia is essential to producing good quality articles and i am disappointed that you made the changes without discussion and that your edit is being called courageous on the Huffington Post.  there was no conspiracy by right wingers when the name Plame Affair was chosen.  it was agreed to by consensus.  i personally think that the title Plame Affair is good, but if the consensus is now for CIA leak scandal, i will accept it.  i'm not sure how to proceed, but i suggest a vote.  Anthonymendoza 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we have debated this before though, so i think the best course of action to get others involved is to start the vote now.  editors can vote and leave there rationale, and at the end of a week or two, a clear consensus should emerge.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate about article title

message: Let's try to assemble some data.
*The New York Times returns 3  hits for "C.I.A. leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair", over 100 for "C.I.A. leak case" (which we have a separate, awkwardly-titled article for, CIA leak grand jury investigation), and over 200 for "C.I.A. leak".
*The Washington Post returns 3 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 9 hits for "Plame affair", and lots for "CIA leak", most of which are "CIA leak case" and "CIA leak investigation".
*The Washington Times has 6 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 13 hits for "Plame affair" (though most are from Op-Ed).
*Google News archive has 460 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 1690 for "Plame affair".
*BBC News returns 4 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair".
Presumably none of these results (unlike general Google hits) are shaped the fact that Wikipedia and her downstream re-users have been using the "Plame affair" title until recently.  However, "CIA leak case" is ambiguous and could refer to either the investigation and legal goings on or the broader topic in general.  It is often used in the latter sense, and I think it might be the best title for the article, despite the ambiguity.--ragesoss 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i will "graciously concede" that affair can in fact refer to a scandal, and that, according to the research above, this topic has been referred to as both the Plame Affair and Cia Leak in media outlets.  therefore it is up to a consensus of editors as to what this topic should be titled.  i will not revert your changes but reaching a consensus on wikipedia is essential to producing good quality articles and i am disappointed that you made the changes without discussion and that your edit is being called courageous on the Huffington Post.  there was no conspiracy by right wingers when the name Plame Affair was chosen.  it was agreed to by consensus.  i personally think that the title Plame Affair is good, but if the consensus is now for CIA leak scandal, i will accept it.  i'm not sure how to proceed, but i suggest a vote.  Anthonymendoza 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we have debated this before though, so i think the best course of action to get others involved is to start the vote now.  editors can vote and leave there rationale, and at the end of a week or two, a clear consensus should emerge.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: data

message: I put in the following 3 phrases/words - each in quote marks (as seen below) - To Google Web.  To Google Blogs.  To Google News.   
"cia leak"  "plame" "controversy" 
"cia leak"  "plame" "affair" 
"cia leak"  "plame" "scandal" 
RESULTS
Google Web 
"cia leak"  "plame" "controversy"  = 147,000  
"cia leak"  "plame" "affair" = 166,000 
"cia leak"  "plame" "scandal" = 276,000  
Google Blogs 
"cia leak"  "plame" "controversy"  = 379  
"cia leak"  "plame" "affair" = 1,260  
"cia leak"  "plame" "scandal" = 1,770  
Google News 
"cia leak"  "plame" "controversy" = 20  
"cia leak"  "plame" "affair" = 393 
"cia leak"  "plame" "scandal" = 1,054 
Would I be wrong in divining from that research that a large majority of the cyber-public, bloggers and news media do see this matter as having finally reached that tipping point where it went from "controversy" or "affair" to "scandal"?
(the above data research was updated on Monday April 2nd 2007 to add in the data about the word "Affair" to the existing research about the words "Controversy" and "Scandal")  Davidpatrick 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Filegate, chinagate, travelgate were also the more commonly used names. Those strike me as partisan talking points, so popular use alone is not sufficient grounds for a name. I would feel comfortable labeling this with 'scandal' if there had been a determination by Fitzgerald that the revelation of Plame's name was illegal — even if he could not determine who revealed it. As I understand it, that is not the case. However, I could be mistaken as I have not followed the case that closely since the election. I do realize that Libby is a felon, but that was not due to the leak itself. Here's the rub: any hint of spin tends to undermine an article.  The facts actually speak for themselves much louder if they're not amplified, because a scrupulously neutral presentation has the most credibility. Derex 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More data:  "Scandal" vs "Controversy" vs ""Affair"

message: the consensus of editors who have chosen to comment is that the name Plame affair is best suited for this article. i've restored it.  if there is still a dispute over this, i suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead of an edit war.Anthonymendoza 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well leave a note here as well. A copy/paste move is never an acceptable method in which to move a page from one article title to another so I've reverted the move for now. The reason for this is that one of the important things for wikipedia is the ability to track who made changes and when those changes were made.  By copying and pasting a page from one title to another title that edit history is lost.  Please see WP:MOVE for how to properly move an article. Thanks! --Bobblehead 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if no one objects, i'll request the page be moved back to Plame affair on WP:RM.Anthonymendoza 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok, i've requested the page be moved back since no one objected.  any further disputes should useWikipedia:Requests for comment, though it appears the issue may be settled for now.Anthonymendoza 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You shouldn't need an RFC to make the move. Just recreate the move request in the "Other proposals" section of WP:RM.  I believe the admin's concern is that the discussion about moving the article didn't include a posting on WP:RM so wasn't visible to non-editors of this article. --Bobblehead 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: It's high time to take "alleged" off of the claim that Plame was covert.  The CIA has said in no uncertain terms that she was, and in fact even Robert Novak, who convolutes the comments in predictable ways, quotes Hayden and his public affairs officer; Hayden says there is no difference between "covert" and "undercover," and  Mark Mansfield, Hayden's public affairs officer, emailed to clear this up for Novak -- "At CIA, you are either a covert or an overt employee. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee." csloat 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've included Novak's column in the article already.  the central issue is not whether she was covert under the CIA use of the term (which was established long ago that she was) but whether she fit the legal definition (which, as we debated above, we'll never know for sure).  i find it interesting, though, that hayden told novak and Victoria Toensing that he didn't authorize the use of the word "covert" by waxman, but justified the use by saying covert and undercover are the same in CIA terminology.  and the cia told hoekstra that defining plames status has a "considerable legal complexity."  all of this just adds to the debate, but doesn't conclude it.Anthonymendoza 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does seem to conclude it, and surprisingly enough, or not, we wind up agreeing on this -- she was "covert" as far as the CIA was concerned, but the legal status of that status per the IIPA was "complex," "considerably" so.... :)  De jure, at least, though not in fact; if anyone had actually sought prosecution under IIPA, her "covertness" would simply not be an issue, since the legal def is clear enough that it would easily be established (e.g. she was considered covert by the cia and served overseas in the past 5 yrs).  But, since nobody has been charged with that particular crime, there is no court decision on the issue, and we have to stipulate that it is a mystery. csloat 09:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  covert 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
CIA leak scandal (2003) → Plame affair — The article was originall moved without discussion to CIA leak scandal.  The page was then reverted back to Plame affair and then moved without consensus from Plame affair to CIA leak scandal and then to CIA leak scandal (2003) during an ongoing discussion. The move from CIA leak scandal to CIA leak scandal (2003) required the fixing of a double redirect which prevented a move back to Plame affair until discussion could be completed.. All in all, a consensus name is needed. Basically the choices are:
*Plame affair (201,000 hits)
*CIA leak case (363,000 hits)
*CIA leak scandal (43,800 hits)
--Bobblehead 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect - while I think it is useful to look at the number of hits that come up on Google as a general indication - and I have referred to such numbers myself from time-to-time - I don't think that such search results should be definitive.  As we all know - Google results have multiple factors - including mirroring.  I say this potentially AGAINST my own preference - which is for either of the two "CIA leak" versions.  Since the "CIA leak case" gets a greater number of hits than "Plame Affair" (which I think has become overtaken by developments) - you might expect me to be enthused about the Google hits cited - as it outpolls "Plame Affair".  But I think that is a false premise on which to base such a decision.  Moreover - in offering the three suggestions - I don't the number of Google hits should have beeen listed next to the choices in the way they are above.  Davidpatrick 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google hits are just one piece in the overall evidence and the intention was not necessarily to be the end all/be all on what should or should not be used to determine the "common name". If you have other ways in which to determine "common name" then you're welcome to provide them. That's why there is a discussion section in the move request. --Bobblehead 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My current first choice is "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment"--agr 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: i think the votes cast in the previous vote on the article name should be copied and pasted to this new vote. any objections??Anthonymendoza 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions change, so copying the votes from the above vote to this one would not be appropriate. If you want to contact everyone that voted before but hasn't voted so far you can do that, though. --Bobblehead 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've contacted everyone who voted before. hopefully this will be resolved soon.Anthonymendoza 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's ridiculous. Why should I have to trot over here and repeat once again what I've said many times before? Hell, my opinion could change the instant after I "vote" in this 4th or 5th round of discussions, so why give it any thing anyone says credence? Here's my opinion: this is a lot of nonsense; there was never any consensus to move it from a perfectly reasonable name; what a fucking waste of time.  But, you never know -- I might not believe that by the time you read it, so you should probably just count me as pro-"Bush personally committing treason" for the title. Derex 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  I agree with you here Derex.  There was no reason and no consensus to move an important article to its new name where it now rests.  This debate should be taking place over at the "Plame Affair" talk page, not this one.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They all do apply, but all of the options can't be the name of the article. The question is, which one is the most commonthat the average Wikipedia reader would be looking up. So the question is.. Which one should be the name of the article and which ones should end up as redirects. --Bobblehead 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, I think the pattern is clear, especially as regards the U.S. sources. The NY Times even appears to have made an editorial decision to call it the "Plame Affair", given the disparity. My search was on the exact two names suggested by the BBC webpage, which specifically addressed the issue of the name of the affair/scandal. So I think it is justifiable to conduct a search on exactly those phrases. Also, by separating "scandal" from "CIA leak", we would accept uses of "scandal" which may not be used as part of the name of the affair/scandal, whereas "affair" has a greater tendency to combine with surnames and to serve as the name of an affair/scandal. Undoubtedly, we would find that it was very common for the Plame affair to be regarded as a scandal, but that does not mean that "scandal" appears in its name most of the time. Joeldl 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move #1

message: ====Survey====
Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Support - This would be my second choice.  Plame affair is vastly more common than CIA leak scandal. Additionally, the current name is not a consensus name choice, was made out of process, and was obviously a controversial name prior to the move and salting of the original name. --Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My current first choice is "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment"--agr 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plame affair

message: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Support - This would be my second choice.  Plame affair is vastly more common than CIA leak scandal. Additionally, the current name is not a consensus name choice, was made out of process, and was obviously a controversial name prior to the move and salting of the original name. --Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My current first choice is "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment"--agr 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: ====Survey====
Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Support - This would be my first choice. CIA leak case seems to have become the common name for the scandal once the Scooter Libby trial began.--Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA leak case

message: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Support - This would be my first choice. CIA leak case seems to have become the common name for the scandal once the Scooter Libby trial began.--Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: ====Survey====
Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Oppose - This seems to fall under neologism and gets vastly less hits on google in comparison than the other two more common choices. --Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CIA leak scandal

message: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Oppose - This seems to fall under neologism and gets vastly less hits on google in comparison than the other two more common choices. --Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: ====Survey====
Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Oppose since it hasn't been established.  --Tbeatty 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush administration leak of a CIA agent's identity

message: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Oppose since it hasn't been established.  --Tbeatty 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Not sure how I forgot this one, but ever since Watergate there has been a habit to call a scandal "-gate". While I haven't had much luck finding evidence that "Plamegate" is used by the mainstream media except on rare occasions, it does seem to be quite popular among the internet media and blogs. --Bobblehead 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plamegate

message: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
#Oppose Neoligism.  And tired one at that.  --Tbeatty 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I threw this out there, not because it has a chance, but because it should put some of the other titles in perspective.  This is a valid point of view and is held by a substantial number of people.  But it is just that: a point of view.  The title should not espouse a point of view.  
====Survey====
#Oppose as POV as the previous. --Tbeatty 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persecution of Scooter Libby

message: #Oppose as POV as the previous. --Tbeatty 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This is as neutral as I could make it. --Tbeatty 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment

message: #Support --Tbeatty 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Add any additional comments:
:i think the votes cast in the previous vote on the article name should be copied and pasted to this new vote. any objections??Anthonymendoza 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions change, so copying the votes from the above vote to this one would not be appropriate. If you want to contact everyone that voted before but hasn't voted so far you can do that, though. --Bobblehead 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i've contacted everyone who voted before. hopefully this will be resolved soon.Anthonymendoza 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ridiculous. Why should I have to trot over here and repeat once again what I've said many times before? Hell, my opinion could change the instant after I "vote" in this 4th or 5th round of discussions, so why give it any thing anyone says credence? Here's my opinion: this is a lot of nonsense; there was never any consensus to move it from a perfectly reasonable name; what a fucking waste of time.  But, you never know -- I might not believe that by the time you read it, so you should probably just count me as pro-"Bush personally committing treason" for the title. Derex 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL.  I agree with you here Derex.  There was no reason and no consensus to move an important article to its new name where it now rests.  This debate should be taking place over at the "Plame Affair" talk page, not this one.  Vivaldi (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They all do apply, but all of the options can't be the name of the article. The question is, which one is the most commonthat the average Wikipedia reader would be looking up. So the question is.. Which one should be the name of the article and which ones should end up as redirects. --Bobblehead 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, I think the pattern is clear, especially as regards the U.S. sources. The NY Times even appears to have made an editorial decision to call it the "Plame Affair", given the disparity. My search was on the exact two names suggested by the BBC webpage, which specifically addressed the issue of the name of the affair/scandal. So I think it is justifiable to conduct a search on exactly those phrases. Also, by separating "scandal" from "CIA leak", we would accept uses of "scandal" which may not be used as part of the name of the affair/scandal, whereas "affair" has a greater tendency to combine with surnames and to serve as the name of an affair/scandal. Undoubtedly, we would find that it was very common for the Plame affair to be regarded as a scandal, but that does not mean that "scandal" appears in its name most of the time. Joeldl 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I added a fourth option: Bush administration leak of a CIA agent's identity. I think all the others have serious flaws. As many have pointed out, Mrs. Wilson was the victim here and played no role in the unfolding of the story. Nor was the CIA the perpetrator.  We can afford a longer title that attempts to unambiguously capture what happened.  Short titles can redirect here. I am, of course, open to improvements on my wording. Yes, there were two Bush administration's but only one leaked an agents name. The option I am presenting for a vote is intended to include other possibilities and is more to represent the notion of a longer, more descriptive title, on the assumption we can later agree on one. --agr 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth option

message: It seems the BBC also wondered what to call it.  They write this: "The revelation of her identity as a serving agent in 2003 is the basis for the Plame affair, or CIA leak scandal." Since they are explicitly addressing the issue of the name of the scandal/affair, this is a good starting point and I think 2003 CIA leak scandal and Plame Affair are our main choices. I've Googled some, and I decided to target specific mainstream press sites so as to exclude bloggers and other potential partisans. In each case I tested +"Plame affair" +Wilson and +"CIA leak scandal" +Wilson. ("CIA" searches include results with "C.I.A.")  I hope my choice of news sources was representative. Generally speaking, "Plame affair" seems more common, although "Plame affair" appears to be more heavily favoured by U.S. sources than non-U.S. ones. Joeldl 11:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, I think the pattern is clear, especially as regards the U.S. sources. The NY Times even appears to have made an editorial decision to call it the "Plame Affair", given the disparity. My search was on the exact two names suggested by the BBC webpage, which specifically addressed the issue of the name of the affair/scandal. So I think it is justifiable to conduct a search on exactly those phrases. Also, by separating "scandal" from "CIA leak", we would accept uses of "scandal" which may not be used as part of the name of the affair/scandal, whereas "affair" has a greater tendency to combine with surnames and to serve as the name of an affair/scandal. Undoubtedly, we would find that it was very common for the Plame affair to be regarded as a scandal, but that does not mean that "scandal" appears in its name most of the time. Joeldl 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google results

message: Excellent work. Obviously such research is helpful but not definitive. Nor should the results be a sole determinative factor. Also, it is does not provide a full reflection to look just for the entire phrase that is the proposed article title.  The words "CIA leak" need to be searched for together. In grammatical terms "CIA leak" and "Plame" are the equivalent phrases. And "affair" and "scandal" are the two suffixes.  The numbers may not be quite as disparate.
May I suggest the following search tests:
Search for "Plame" + "affair" + "Wilson" </br>
Search for "CIA leak" + "scandal" + "Wilson"  </br>
[Comments added by User:Davidpatrick]
:At this point, I think the pattern is clear, especially as regards the U.S. sources. The NY Times even appears to have made an editorial decision to call it the "Plame Affair", given the disparity. My search was on the exact two names suggested by the BBC webpage, which specifically addressed the issue of the name of the affair/scandal. So I think it is justifiable to conduct a search on exactly those phrases. Also, by separating "scandal" from "CIA leak", we would accept uses of "scandal" which may not be used as part of the name of the affair/scandal, whereas "affair" has a greater tendency to combine with surnames and to serve as the name of an affair/scandal. Undoubtedly, we would find that it was very common for the Plame affair to be regarded as a scandal, but that does not mean that "scandal" appears in its name most of the time. Joeldl 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further research that would be helpful

message: one thing is clear from the latest vote tally; there is a clear consensus against CIA leak scandal.  only two people support this title, counting the person who initially moved the page.  it appears to me that Plame affair and Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment are the top two choices.  but seriously, how long is this page going to stay titled CIA leak scandal when there clearly is no consensus for such a title?Anthonymendoza 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine it will stay at the current title until consensus is reached on which article title to move it to. Perhaps the discussion should move into round 2 and start discussing which title to use between "Plame Affair" and "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA Employment"? None of the others are even close to having consensus.--Bobblehead 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that sounds ok to me, but then we may have to contact everyone again and let them know there is another vote.  this is getting frustrating.Anthonymendoza 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We already have a consensus.  At least 11 people have supported "Plame affair" over the various discussions. I count 3 that have opposed it, 1 weakly. Most supporting the longer title also support Plame affair, but more strongly. This has gone on far, far, far too long. There was never any consensus to move it, and there is a clear consensus to move it back. There is at the very least a resounding consensus that the current title is not acceptable. Enough is indeed enough. Derex 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text:   There is absolutely not a "clear consensus".   There are 8 "support" for Plame Affair.  And one of those has a "but" after it - suggesting that we find another title.  So a total of 7 clear votes for "Plame Affair".  But there are 12 - TWELVE votes that support three other choices instead of Plame Affair.  4 (of varying strength) for "CIA leak case".  2 for "CIA leak scandal" And 6 for the recently proposed "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA Employment".  One thing is clear.  There is no "clear consensus."  I would like to see some actual rebuttal of legitimate debate points raised rather than reflexive dismissals. So that objections can be debated and real consensus can emerge. Davidpatrick 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: then i guess the only way we will really be able to settle this is to have yet another run-off vote between the top two titles.  but clearly CIA leak scandal is not one of the top two.  as far as debating the topic, others have responded to your points, but i'm guessing that they have not responded in a way you would like.  more debate is just beating a dead horse here. Anthonymendoza 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough already?!

message: "Enough already" ???!!!   What is this haste about?  Wikipedia isn't a daily tabloid that has to have a headline ready by a certain deadline.  We are an encyclopedia.  We have the onus of taking time to get things right.  And moreover the obligation to be ready to look at changing circumstances.  I have seen no rebuttal of one very salient point. I have not even seen the point addressed.  Namely that changes in circumstances and understanding of a specific story - causes the perceptions to change over time and to refer to events in different terms.  In the first year of what we now call the Watergate Scandal the story was primarily called the "DNC break-in".  Then as the story evolved and people gained a broader perception of what it represented - the term "Watergate" was used to refer to the matter.  It would be regarded as naive and simplistic to keep referring to the "DNC break-in".  And too limiting.  When this matter came into view in 2003 - it DID seem to be just about Valerie Plame. And it WAS at that point an "affair".  When the matter is still a news story 4 years later...  When the matter has resulted in a senior White House official being convicted of four felonies...  When there are political, legal and media ramfications... the matter is no longer at the same level as it was when it was dubbed the "Plame Affair".  And - some other people have noted that it is not really appropriate for an article about something to be named after the victim in such a way that the victim appears to be the subject and primary protagonist rather than the passive victim in the matter.  These points are valid to debate.  This isn't an issue to just get out of the way... I am not frightened of honest healthy debate about this.  I think that debate - addressing each other's points - will help us arrive at an enlightened consensus rather than just whipping up people to vote for a comfortable status quo. Davidpatrick 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
; Closing admin's remarks: This is a difficult issue, and a lot of discussion has been had, although it seems to have died down over the last day or two, suggesting that now is the time to make a decision one way or the other. Several of the options received only oppose votes, and can be discarded immediately. Four possibilities remain. Of these, "CIA leak case" and "CIA leak scandal" are the least popular, in terms of raw votes, and the other two, "Plame affair" and "disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment" enjoy roughly equal support. However, move requests are not votes, and many supporters of the fourth option still prefer the first ("Plame affair") over it. DavidPatrick's observation that the names given to events can change over time is true, but this seems not to have happened yet. The name used most widely in the media is still "Plame affair". Over time, this may change, and we may have to rename the article in the future if that happens. At the moment, "Plame affair" is the predominant name for the topic, and the one which the greatest number of people prefer.  This article has been renamed from CIA leak scandal (2003) to Plame affair as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 12:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an encyclopedia - not a daily tabloid - and not "American Idol"

message: do we still need to include in this article the claim by raw story and david shuster that plame was tracking Iranian wmd activity prior to the leak?  this seems to have been debunked, even by plame's own testimony in which she specifically mentions Iraq, but not Iran. Anthonymendoza 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nevermind. CBS has also reported this.Anthonymendoza 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw Story/Shuster

message: I think that the Plame Affair is best described as a 'scandal' rather than a political controversy.  I believe the word 'scandal' has a proper connotation and is more accurate.  This is because the Plame affair is not about getting people elected.  In addition, since Scotter Libby's sentence was commuted, this will be remembered in history more as a scandal.  Political controversies are about redrawing districts, voting on laws, stances on social issues, etc.  The Plame affair is not about any of these.  The scandal involves the CIA a non-party affiliated organization and the situation transcends politics since it involves national security.  There may have been a political motivation in the actions people took, however, the way things unfolded this fast became a scandal rather than a controversy.
Here is a news story that uses the word scandal:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial
"Though the leak investigation is complete and nobody will have to serve prison time, the scandal that has loomed over the Bush administration for years did not subside. Democrats were enraged."
Theroad2kona 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plame Affair Best Described as a 'scandal' 

message: i realize this article is long, but i think it will be easier to break up once this is no longer a current event.  it is going to be a monumental project to gather all the pages dealing with this topic and to reorganize them into NPOV articles.  some of the subsections of the Plame Affair can become subarticles, such as the section dealing with the consequences of the leak. but since there are several subarticles already that need to be rewritten, i don't think now is the time to start breaking up this article.  i would commend any editor who takes it upon him/herself to begin this process.  i can only find limited time to edit myself.Anthonymendoza 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article length

message: is this article still considered a current event?  the only ongoing matter is the appeal by Libby's defense team, which could take years.  any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: still a current event?

message: Fitzmas relinks here. Why?? There is no mention of "Fitzmas" in the article. --BjKa 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that article was removed a long time ago. it was deemed unencyclopedic and redirected here.Anthonymendoza 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should have been deleted outright, though, since as a redirect it just seems puzzling (unless you already know the context for the term).  Alai (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fitzmas 

message: :[NOTE: Potential violation of WP:BLP: this section should be deleted on sight in my view.  If an administrator or the posting editor does not delete it, I may do so; I am concerned about its veering toward defamation of a living person (Fitzgerald). --NYScholar (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this section relate to improving the article? --NYScholar (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could be improved by providing more accurate information presented in a NPOV.  How is this information not germane to the topic?  Ursasapien (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Information in the article needs to be properly sourced (documented), providing "full citations" to sources, according to WP:BLP#Sources and WP:V#Sources.  Providing unsourced statements that are speculations with no source citations to support them is not in keeping with either WP:V or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.  This is not a forum for discussing the subject; it's the place to discuss specific ways to improve the article. See the template at top of page. --NYScholar (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice use of condescension.  As I understood the previous query, the question was "Does anyone have a reliable source that speaks to Fitzgerald's apparent perjury?"  Ursasapien (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Damage Assessment

message: (edit conflict) I have done a clean up of inconsistent ways of presenting and formatting quotations (short, fewer than 4 lines are to be incorporated in text; longer than 4 lines are formatted as "block quotations"); see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for how to format such quotations in articles in Wikipedia. Often the "cquote" format was being used for one and two-line quotations and seemed to lack neutrality in highlighting some quotations from some sources over quotations from other sources, interfering with a key principle of editing in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (Earlier, I removed the template, which did not have consensus discussion in talk page: see editing history.) --NYScholar (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I readded the tag, as the article clearly relies too heavily on quotations.  Let's discuss how we can edit this article to be less of a collection of quotes.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean up of formatting of quotations throughout

message: That precedes these templates--mentions similar problems.  The Plame timeline [(renamed after "To Do" list was constructed apparently)] was poorly sourced in many places last time I looked at it (some time ago); it has problems (used to be quite a mess; may still have them; I don't have time to deal with them anymore, however).  Leaving that to others to sort out. --NYScholar (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See the "To Do" list at top of this talk page

message: :[Please see #Article name above and archived discussions for earlier related points. --NYScholar (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the "closing admin's" ref. to "over time this may change" relating to previous request move change; it is now several months later and the situation in Wikipedia itself has changed, given the change of name of "Plame affair timeline" to "CIA leak scandal timeline"; now changing the name back to "CIA leak scandal" (now a redirect to "Plame affair", which needs reversal) makes greater sense (consistency, greater neutrality, given the arguments about lack of neutrality that are ongoing).  --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename article?/split and/or merge?

message: ;Support
# Support: I support the name change from "Plame affair" to "CIA leak scandal" due to the name changes of related articles, particularly CIA leak scandal timeline; it leads to both greater neutrality for this highly-controversial article and greater consistency with respect to related articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (archived)

message: Responses to B59 in "Oppose":
:The reason for the naming of articles in Wikipedia is not based solely on numbers of "hits" in Google (frequency of searches by everyone under the sun); a title has to be "encyclopedic" and consistent with the titles of other directly-related articles in Wikipedia; e.g., "CIA leak scandal timeline", which used to link to this article when it was called "CIA leak scandal"; it was renamed "CIA leak scandal timeline" from "Plame affair timeline" for justifiable reasons.  There should be no need for redirection; redirection occurs because "CIA leak scandal" is a very common name for this subject; no one will not find it if this article is called that; everyone knows that the so-called "Plame affair" has to do with this "CIA leak scandal"; most people would search for "Plame" (Valerie Plame Wilson) and in the article on her find the links to "CIA leak scandal" and other articles with "CIA leak" in the "See also" list of this article.  --NYScholar (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:Naming conflict and WP:STYLE#Naming conventions. --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To AR: But the name is not "unique" ("uniquely identif[ying] this incident"): see Talk:CIA leak grand jury investigation#Periodic renaming of this and related articles, which also provides links to the list of American political scandals, where Plamegate is linked (also now redirected to "Plame affair"); Wikipedia currently lacks consistency in the naming of these related articles and cross-references being made to them in one another. --NYScholar (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean unique in the sense that it points directly to this incident. "CIA leak scandal" could refer to other leaks in the past and, more importanly, in the future. Also I note that you asked for "brief comments", yet you argue at length with anyone who disagrees with your suggestion.--agr (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To AR: I am not "arguing at length with" etc.; I am responding and providing links to related discussions on the other articles that have "CIA leak" or "CIA leak scandal" in their titles.  This article does not exist in a vacuum; it is cross-linked to other articles in Wikipedia about the subject: see its "See also" list.  WP:AGF re: consistency of names of these articles. --NYScholar (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Reply to AR: I don't see how "CIA leak scandal" "implies that the leak came from the CIA"; the phrase is well known enough not to suggest that.  People searching it know that the leak involves the leak of a covert CIA officer's name: "CIA Plame leak scandal" is clear enough.  The lead defines what the subject is.  Given WP:BLP, as editors, we should be more concerned about a misleading name for an article pertaining to a living person in "Plame affair" (which is very misleading about that person) than about the CIA per se, which is linked clearly enough in CIA. --NYScholar (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: To CS: Of course, I thought of that, but that article has been changed back and forth too after much contentious debate too.  What would be good would be if Wikipedia used the name currently most common perhaps ("CIA leak scandal" consistently throughout and changed all the "Plame affair" cross-links in the other article(s) to CIA leak scandal and fixed the redirects as needed.  See most recent search of various names cited in response to DP above (in support sec.).  Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: On points made in "Oppose"

message: Please see archiving of poll above and discussion ; the discussion was not finished, yet the following appears added in course of archiving prematurely: "Failed request. The proposed name did not uniquely identify the subject. Proposed name was also POV by using the word scandle.--Salix alba (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment did not show up completely in the green archived box due to two spaces added before it; I have deleted only the two spaces so that the whole comment could appear.  Salix alba: Please add a direct link to administrative action on this request move proposal; it began just before Christmas, when a number of editors may have been away, and closing it and acting on the request move proposal appears to be premature; more time is needed for more editors to make comments.  Acting upon it after only seven people have commented in a poll is not sufficient time for the proposal to be considered.  What administrator has "failed" the request move proposal? Where are the reasons given? As I just wrote in editing comment, "scandal" is a word used for political scandals throughout Wikipedia; there is absolutely no disagreement that Plamegate, the CIA leak scandal, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and Plame affair are all terms pertaining directly to an American political scandal; "American political scandals" is a category for this article; it is hardly "POV" to use the word Scandal in the name of this article; "affair" is both misleading and ambiguous, as per comments on this talk page and earlier archived talk pages for this article.  The move proposal needs additional consideration; the most-recently archived (in green box) discussion was a "poll" not a "vote"; discussion was still ongoing.  --NYScholar (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See "See also" in the article: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix ref. to Plamegate (renamed later "CIA leak scandal" and "Plame affair"); there is no doubt that the subject of this article is an American political scandal.  To deny that it is such (in the naming of the article) presents a point of view on the subject.  It does not appear that "affair" is more neutral and less "point of view" (biased) than "scandal"; the word "scandal" is definitive; it defines the kind of phenomenon (its class, genre) that is being discussed in the article.  --NYScholar (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the administrative action on the request move proposal?

message: (added subheading for navigational purposes) Proposal is to change the name of this article from "Plame affair" to "CIA leak scandal".  Indicate your position below.
;Support
# Support: I [strongly] support the name change from "Plame affair" to "CIA leak scandal" due to the name changes of related articles, particularly CIA leak scandal timeline; it leads to both greater neutrality for this highly-controversial article and greater consistency with respect to related articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: *Reply to Salix alba's comment of January 2 (and action earlier):
:This article is categorized by American political scandals; "Scandal" is its definitive name; "Plame affair" is less neutral and more ambiguous.  CIA leak scandal timeline is the complementary article name.  It is not "POV" either.  The subject of this article is a "Scandal" as in American political scandals, wherein Plamegate is listed, with "also known as" names such as "CIA leak scandal" and "Plame affair" given; "Plamegate" (aka "CIA leak scandal" and "Plame affair") is listed as one of those Scandals.  To state that "scandal" is not neutral and "tabloid" is not in keeping with WP:AGF; "CIA leak scandal" is in wide usage; if any name appears to be more "tabloid" (thus resulting in its large number of Google hits, including blogs) it is "Plame affair"; "CIA leak scandal" (leaving out Wikis, which reproduce this article) has a considerable enough number of non-tabloid hits in Google and other search engines to be recognizable for those looking for this article.  An alternative name: "CIA Plame leak scandal" is sometimes used as well, but not as often. --NYScholar (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another alternative is "CIA Plame leak scandal" or "Plame leak scandal".  (Please see previous archived discussions in green; other comments about the name changes not in green, and previous discussions in archived talk pages for this and related articles.  I've given links to the previous request moves from editing histories earlier on this talk page in last now-green archived discussion of people's comments.  Reposted the earlier "support" and "oppose" numbered items for greater convenience of new readers.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Using the word "Controversy" (following its usage in lead) might be another possible alternative: e.g., "Plame controversy"; "Plame leak controversy", "Valerie Plame controversy", etc.  Searching some such names with "controversy" in them might turn up such more neutral and unambiguous alternatives; an ambiguity might arise in using "controversy", however: "which" controversy pertaining to Valerie Plame; so that might be too general and hence too potentially ambiguous in the future. "Scandal" is recognizable; but "Plame affair" seems misleading (espec. in the future, when it might no longer be recognizable).  "Plame affair" is not necessarily the most common term among serious newpaper print and magazine journalists, though it might be most common among bloggers and online non-professional writers (whose posts get counted in Google searches, using quotation marks, and who copy Wikipedia and other wiki articles which copy Wikipedia).  (One cannot use and/or cite Wikipedia as a source.)  --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The term "CIA leak scandal" has been used as a name for this subject in reputable international newspapers since approx. 2003 to 2005; one might want to examine the usage frequency of the various proposal name changes in terms of when they have been used.  "Plame affair" was perhaps more widely used in 2005 than it is now (or "CIA leak scandal" is used more recently still than "Plame affair"; or vice versa.  What is "too recent"? Over two years to three years of historical usage for "CIA leak scandal" (replacing "Plamegate", defined as an "American political scandal" in American political scandals, circa 2005 (October--after Libby's indictment--which occurred in Oct. 2005), shows that it has been used since then.  Similarly, the "Plame affair" was in popular usage in 2005; if one checks the dates that show up in the "hits" one found via a Google search, one can see if there are variations in the usage of various names over time.  "Recent" is highly variable and not defined.  What date is "recent"? Those arguing for "Plame affair" have been citing Google search numbers of hits without making any such distinctions.  If "CIA leak scandal" is too "recent," so is "Plame affair" too recent a term, in that both are used interchangeably (sometimes in the same articles yielding the "hits") as synonymous; one needs a descriptive, identifiable, and neutral name for the articles on this subject.  At least "Plamegate" has a context in American political scandals to which one is able to cross-link in the "See also" section.  But "Plamegate" appears to be dated (rather obsolete).  In time, "Plame affair" will probably become (if it is not already) obsolete. [NPR's relatively current timeline (July 2, 2007) is named "Timeline: CIA Leak Case"; the references to "Plame affair" are older than that in CIA leak scandal timeline#External links. (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Originally, I preferred "CIA leak scandal (2003)" when it was named that.  My main complaint is, however, now inconsistency of the names for the closely-related subjects of these articles relating to the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA covert identity (this article and the "timeline" relating directly to it: see the names for the CIA leak scandal timeline#External links, as well as "See also" in CIA leak scandal timeline. and the dates that those timelines were compiled for more contextual information re: names. (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See historical source "The CIA Leak", by Robert Novak, for "CIA leak scandal" in CIA leak scandal timeline#Robert Novak's column "The CIA Leak"--the stimulus for the entire "scandal" or "affair"; the nomenclature "CIA leak" in "CIA leak scandal" derives from that historical source.  For other such usages following that precedent, see the timeline in Wikipedia article and in the external links given.  All derives from Novak's initial article in July 2003 and his subsequent retrospective account in "The CIA leak".  It is clearly a recognizable name; the U.S. government scandal and federal investigation and federal criminal case United States v. Libby and the civil case against several persons in or formerly in government filed by the Wilsons and still unresolved due to their ongoing appeal are described in or cross-linked via American political scandals and the Plame affair (CIA leak) investigation template.  There is no doubt that the subject of this article directly concerns an American political scandal.  There is no lack of historical perspective in naming it what it is; the opposite pertains: the use of the word derives from historical usage by international print journalists in sources that meet Wikipedia's policies in WP:V#Sources.  --NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *In further reply, the other side of the comments above: If one consults The Guardian "Timeline", one sees that it is called Timeline: the Valerie Plame affair"; like The New York Times (as mentioned in earlier-archived comments by Wiki editors), The Guardian is a respectable non-tabloid print newspaper, and it seems to use the word "affair" but it does so with "Valerie Plame" as the identifier, not just "Plame"; that full name usage has the advantage of enabling Wikipedia readers to link to the Wikipedia article "Valerie Plame".  People have renamed "CIA leak scandal timeline" to "Plame affair timeline" in the past; perhaps both could have in their names "Valerie Plame" (the cover identity): e.g., "Valerie Plame affair" and "Valerie Plame affair timeline".  In my view, the companion articles do need to have commensurately-identifiable titles (names) in Wikipedia for ease of cross-linking and recognition, especially for new readers (in the future). --NYScholar (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first extensive page of links in a "search" in Wikipedia for "CIA leak scandal" turns up mostly articles relating to this subject: . --NYScholar (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Contrary to statements made about the NY Times's use of the phrase "Plame affair", the NY Times in Times Topics for "Joseph C. Wilson IV" indicates that "CIA leak case" and other references to "CIA leak" and the related "scandal" are prevalent in that national and international newspaper (not a "tabloid"): Please consult: Times Topics: Joseph C. Wilson and its "Times Topics" features for other principal figures. --NYScholar (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Moreover, the hyperlinked NY Times's "timeline" (and related graphics) for the CIA leak scandal is called "Timeline of a leak" (not "timeline of an affair"). --NYScholar (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, a search in that Times Topics site for the "exact phrase" "Plame affair" turns up only 2 articles in that Times Topics file (of 226 articles), and those 2 articles are dated (obsolete) from 2003 and 2004: Times Topics:Joseph C. Wilson index search]. --NYScholar (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And the same kind of search for the "exact phrase" "Plame affair" in the Times Topics file for "Valerie Plame" (of 331 articles) turned up only 6 articles, only two (2) of which are dated after 2005 and only one (1) of which is dated after 2006: Times Topics:Valerie Plame index search. --NYScholar (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: See also the use of the word scandal in the abstract for the 2006 op-ed on Plame by David Brooks (one of those 6 given): "Op-Ed: A Guide for the Perplexed". --NYScholar (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Heading reads My reply in my talk archive 17, which was not restored via revert by admin, and was posted by NYScholar. Just to clarify several points it makes:
1. The reply was removed from this page by NYScholar, not by me. 
2. I did not request for it to be restored. I pointed out that NYScholar had apparently reserved the last word by immediately archiving their reply without waiting for comments, and left it at that.
3. I was not acting as an admin in reverting. I did use an admin-only shortcut to do it, but no admin priviledges. Anyone could have done exactly what I did, even the edit summary if they wished to, it would just have taken them a little longer.
I hope that clears any misconceptions. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on the heading to this section

message: I have reverted edits by NYScholar in order to restore sections he had archived to his personal user space. These sections should be added to the archives of this page, not those of his user page. And it's a bit strange to archive current discussions. Agree that some of the early sections of the page need archiving!
I regret very much that work has been lost by this action, and time wasted. Perhaps had there been more meaningful edit summaries, I could have located the precise edits that I wished to undo. But my time is limited too.
NYScholar has requested on his talk page Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. I wish to respect his wishes regarding his user pages, while noting that even those belong to the project as a whole, not to him personally.
He has also replied to some of my comments, and immediately moved his replies to User talk:NYScholar/Archive 17. I'm sure he doesn't want replies added to his archive page, so I guess he gets the last word there.
But please, if you wish to archive this page, use the normal techniques. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [Please use gender neutral language; not all scholars are male.   Thank you.  --NYScholar (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, will do. Apologies. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ...
>>
[The above bracketed comment clearly explained what I was doing and why I was doing it.  The comment posted by Andrewa had originally been posted on my talk page.  It focused not on the proposal but on me; it was clearly continuing to go in that same direction.  That is why I restored it to my talk page and archived it from the current talk page to archive 17.  Since Andrewa reverted that, I have simply placed the material from my talk page archive 17 that he/she omitted back here above. --NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's he. I respected your decision not to have discussion on your talk page, although I think it was unwise, and a line call as to whether it's contrary to Wikipedia:dispute resolution. But subsequent posts were to this talk page. Agree your actions were explained to your satisfaction. That doesn't necessarily make them acceptable to others. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted

message: [I am moving this section back to my talk page: it will be archived there.  It is taking too much attention away from this proposal.  Please consult my talk page archive for this discussion, which is being archived there intact, with my comment that I added prior to moving it.  That comment can be found there too.  Thanks very much.  ---NYScholar (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...
>>
[The above bracketed comment clearly explained what I was doing and why I was doing it.  The comment posted by Andrewa had originally been posted on my talk page.  It focused not on the proposal but on me; it was clearly continuing to go in that same direction.  That is why I restored it to my talk page and archived it from the current talk page to archive 17.  Since Andrewa reverted that, I have simply placed the material from my talk page archive 17 that he/she omitted back here above. --NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's he. I respected your decision not to have discussion on your talk page, although I think it was unwise, and a line call as to whether it's contrary to Wikipedia:dispute resolution. But subsequent posts were to this talk page. Agree your actions were explained to your satisfaction. That doesn't necessarily make them acceptable to others. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move (moved from user talk [and back afterward])

message: After January 15, 2008, if no one else wants to add material to the "support"/"oppose" comments not yet archived in green, I have no objection to the green archive-box being placed around that informal "poll" and acting upon the proposal, as Andrewa says would occur as a result of administrative action (if no administrator does so before that).  --NYScholar (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no consensus for a move, I have archived the discussion --Lox (t,c) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, what a God-awful mess.  This talk page has become some personal battleground and I am not sure that much of the discussion actually moves us closer to improving the article.  Ursasapien (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sigh) agree. I'm happy to accept constructive criticism for my part in it; It takes two! What a waste of time. Perhaps my talk page, or email (andrewa @ alder dot ws) if you want it to be private. And thanks Lox for closing the RM, I didn't want to do it again, but after the treatment one admin got for closing the original request I wasn't sure anyone else would be game. Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs Andrew --Lox (t,c) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry I couldn't do the reversion more selectively. The undo function might have enabled me to leave this section, had there been good clear edit summaries. But without them, it would have taken ages to sort it out. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Since this article is so lengthy, someone that is well-versed in the topic should lengthen the lead a bit.  It should be three to four paragraphs, given the length of this article. lesthaeghet (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Reliable source:
http://seattlepi.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html
216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proof of yellowcake