Talk:Scott Ritter

message: READ HERE: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jango Davis (talk • contribs) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is posed as a personal attack against me, and hopelessly off-track, so I will not respond. I have warned the editor to stop, lest he be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. If they wish to review the editing policies here and discuss this in a WP:CIVIL manner, that is what the talk page here is for.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New comment

message: I would not have thought my recent edit of the arrest section was controversial but it was quickly reverted by another editor who has been active in this article. The person reverting left an edit summary with which I agree, but doesn't seem to bear on my edits: "Examine the source. Ritter was responding to a single arrest - not "arrests" which remain unconfirmed."
I'll therefore go over each change I made.
* Changed heading from "legal problems" to "reports of arrest record." I made the change because "legal problems" is vague and incorrectly implies that there is some kind of problem. There is no source cited that Ritter ever had, or has, any legal problems. Even if they did they were short in nature and connected to his arrest. That is not the issue here. The issue discussed in this section is that Ritter was arrested, and that the report of arrests came to light and became a news story. "Reports of arrest record" is much more specific on that point.
:::You don't consider being arrested AND charged with soliciting a minor to watch him masturbate a "legal problem"?68.164.6.243 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's exactly the situation. There is one source that claims a second arrest, and we have a second source reporting only that there was a first source. There is no clear verification that there was a second arrest. This being a WP:BLP, and the matter being an alleged (attempted) sex crime, that is not enough to say there was a second arrest. In the case of the other arrest, the sources do not support that he plead guilty. Even if he did as part of the arrangement, the fact that it is a sealed record means it is a legal non-event, so simply saying he plead guilty is misleading. Wikidemo (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: We do not know what he did because the crime was not prosecuted, the court records are sealed, and there are no reliable sources that say he did anything. We have reliable sources only that he was arrested and that there were claims and reports of some underlying conduct. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Most recent edits

message: I'm not sure how the material came to be removed entirely but it was, and the recent attempts to add it back in fall short in several ways. I'm not against mentioning the arrest record - in fact, a year and a half ago I drafted what I thought was a good treatment of this issue. I just want us to be true to the sourcing and honor the letter and spirit of BLP here. So I'm editing the latest version to preserve as much relevant info as possible but also scale back on some questionable parts.
* We don't need to detail exactly when Ritter gave an interview, or who reported what. We have reliable sources that he was arrested, so we can just say that he was arrested.
* We do not have reliable sources as to what he said, what the sting was all about, etc. What we have here are reliable sources repeating the claims made in connection with the arrest. Statements by investigators, arresting officers, in criminal charges, etc., are definitely not reliable. They are adversarial efforts by the criminal justice system. Thus, the claims themselves are not reliable, and repeating them with the proviso that they were only allegations does not satisfy BLP. In general, we rarely report details made in arrest statements or criminal cases unless there is a conviction or some other resolution. Here it is entirely the opposite. The court did not proceed with the case and it sealed the records. That generally indicates that it was a very weak case, or there was something else wrong in the case. It could mean other things too, we just don't know.
* In any event, the detail about how old the undercover officers claimed they were, which fast food chain and in which city they were planning to meat, what sex acts they think he intended to perform, and so on, are all lurid details. Scandalous unproven claims that would tend to hurt Ritter's reputation, and thus violate BLP. Removing them makes the article more encyclopedic and takes out this that cannot be reliably sourced. I don't think this necessarily makes Ritter look better or worse. If you simply hear that he was arrested in a police sting for trying to meet a police informant who claimed she was an underaged girl, your imagination could fill in the rest, and what your imagination fills in is probably someone younger than 14/16, and an act more serious than masturbating in public.
* Saying that Ritter never presented evidence that the release of sealed court documents was politically motivated is argumentative. This is an encyclopedia of things that happened, not a list of things that did not happen by way of trying to argue that someone's claims are unsubstantiated. If we had better substantiation than Ritter's claims on the subject we would put it in. The absence means that's it.
* Contrary to the proposed text, we have no reliable source that the case was improperly dismissed. We know that the DA fired the assistant DA over this when it came out, but we have no reliable source as to why, only claims by the DA. The competence of the DA's office is not directly relevant to Ritter's bio.
I hope that explains my edits. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've done a good job WD, with one caveat: the DA is a reliable source regarding events in the DA's office. Therefore the reason for the firing of the assistant DA belongs in the article. I'll be sensitive to WP:BLP in making the edit. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redux

message: ;removed:
WP:UNDUE for lead. A good indicator that something is undue for the lead is if the prose is the same as the 30 words the article body dedicates to it in a 3000 word article
Added by: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&direction=next&oldid=1113112211
Onlyforwikiapps (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article body doesn't dedicate 30 words to it, its a lot more than that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:UNDUE for lead 

message: The external links section looks like it's become a holding tank for additional sources. Per WP:EL we should really work those into the article if they source anything there, and otherwise leave them out (external links are for material that is NOT suitable for inclusion). Or as a light approach, we could just create a new heading called "Additional sources" or something like that. The idea is to organize the news and reference links from the normal type of external links (e.g. an official page, his writings, etc). Any thoughts? Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to clear out and clean up this section. Sometimes less is more. Dynablaster (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up external links 

message: Article gives nothing on his employment since 1998. Is there any information on this matter? Dogru144 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Employment?

message: I have no idea how to edit wiki, but I thought this might be a good resource for his 2010 arrest. The Pocono Record is the local newspaper of the area where the sting happenend.
Forgot to sign... 162.115.236.101 (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this to our attention. That's a game changer here, although there are some serious WP:BLP issues that I'll raise on the notice board WP:BLP/N. Assuming the story checks out it is likely to get much more widespread coverage, which will bring renewed attention to the original sealed arrest record (perhaps two?) that we've been downplaying to date. Let's see where this goes. Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see it's been picked up by the Daily Mail, NPR, Fox News, and Associated Press. We should avoid undue detail but I think it's pretty clear we should cover it and mention these sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to triple-post here but I've tried to clean up and improve the section, add some info, etc. (including one intermediate edit) I'm not sure how much detail we want to add about the alleged sex act or the minutia of how this case winds through the court system. Sometimes it helps to imagine that it's five years from now. What would people really want to know about the incident? Probably not the dates of court hearings, but basically just what happened. We'll see. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. However, something like this is a life-changing event - it should merit a short mention in the lead, no? Ronnotel (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably will be, but we have to wait for the sources to say so. Also, I think that to be mentioned in the lede it has to be more than a life changing event, it has to be related to his notability. For example, Pee-wee Herman's sex-related incident was a big part of his public image so that gets a whole paragraph in the lede. A similar story with Roman Polanski (but maybe a bad example because that article has a lot of editing troubles right now) and Larry Craig. But not in the lede for Patrick Naughton or Pete Townshend. Some of this might just be random editing differences from article to article, but I think the dividing line seems to be whether the (alleged) crime is what they're known for. Time will tell, I think. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Since this isn't a single incident, but appears to be a pattern of behavior, I too think it should be in the lead. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Until reliable sources indicate that this is the main thing he is notable for, we should not do that here. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether this is a "pattern of behavior" or otherwise diagnose his illness or whatever. Until the sources make a much bigger deal out of this, I don't see how it should be the lede. Now, if newspapers start referring to him as "child molester" more often than "former UN inspector" we can reevaluate. csloat (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's likely that will happen - most sources in the future will summarize him as the former UN inspector who xxx, where xxx is some summary of his run-ins with the law. It may be too early to know for sure, or what the xxx is going to be. My main objection with the sentence, "...arrested at least three times in connection with his attempts to solicit sex from underage girls..." was that it's ambiguous and doesn't really represent what the sources say happened. He wasn't soliciting sex from underage girls, he was accused of but not fully prosecuted for agreeing to sex meetings (it's not always clear who solicited whom) with police decoys who were conducting a sting operation. "At least" suggests that there is an indication that it happened more often, but I haven't seen any source to say that. Mentioning an arrest without mentioning the disposition leaves the door open to far I think. "Attempts" is also a little unclear - that could mean anything from hiding in the bushes to placing ads. I think we should be as specific as possible while still being brief so that people's imaginations don't run wild. What is sourced to have happened is already bad enough. What we know may be the tip of the iceberg, but if only the tip is sourced we can't really hint about what's below the waterline. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. Can you suggest language that would be appropriate? Perhaps something like "Ritter is currently facing felony charges for blah blah blah" ? Ronnotel (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: "I think it's likely that will happen - most sources in the future will...": Look, if that happens, we can address the issue then. But we cannot write the article based on what we think future sources will say. We need to stick to what actual sources have said rather than citing sources which don't exist yet. csloat (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We have reliable sources now that indicate Ritter has been indicted on felony charges for soliciting sex from juveniles. What more do we need? Ronnotel (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not putting it in the article; the issue is putting it in the lede. It is already in the article in a prominent manner. But so far the mainstream media have not made major hay out of this issue; until they do I suggest it's best if we don't. I really don't understand the rush to put in something based on articles that have yet to be written but that we think will be written in the future. csloat (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would arrests that don;t result in conviction be in any article, never mind in a lede? Just looking at smoking gun I see scores of arrests where charges were dropped of wikipedia biographied individuals that are not mentioned at all and none are in our lade on them.22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia allows for it. It is not important what other articles say (or don't say) as it relates to what should or is allowed to be in a BLP. If it is sourced, which in this case it clearly is, it is includable. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Arrest 

message: Substituted at 05:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About WMD Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that Assad Did NOT Use Chemical Weapons
''
George Washington's picture
by George Washington
Apr 11, 2017 4:45 PM
972
SHARES
TwitterFacebookReddit
Former U.N weapons inspector Scott Ritter warned before the start of the Iraq war that claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction were false.
Sunday, Ritter wrote that current claims that the leader of Syria launched a chemical weapons attack were false: Some sort of chemical event took place in Khan Sheikhoun; what is very much in question is who is responsible for the release of the chemicals that caused the deaths of so many civilians.
SEE ALSO:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html 
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/06/seymour-hersh-links-turkey-to-benghazi-syria-and-sarin/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
 70.27.154.248 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I found this on the internet, I have no link. 

message: Why isn't the fact he's served prison time for sex crimes against children featured in the introduction?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:890:73F0:A5A1:7A87:99:B829 (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophilia 

message: Is there a source for the claims in the first sentence that Ritter " served in the Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties" and "in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm"? These claims don't appear to be mentioned in the body. Burrobert (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Served in the Soviet Union and in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm 

message: From Perennial Sources: "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department". Burrobert (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: ¯\_(⊙︿⊙)_/¯                     Burrobert (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The New York Post is not an unreliable source"??? 

message: To add to this article: Ritter's publicly stated support for Vladimir Putin in his pursuit of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: The number of direct quotes from Scott Ritter should be reduced.  First off, using Scott Ritter's interviews, where he quotes himself, are "questionable sources." Not reliable. Secondly, this article uses too many direct quotes from Scott Ritter's books.  Again, Scott Ritter being a 'source' on Scott Ritter is not reliable. The quotes from his book need to be shortened and/or removed completely. Third, the headings in the article should be improved upon. For example, the "Military Background" is mostly a discussion of where he was born, went to elementary school, etc.  That section should be renamed. Oh well, bottom line, this article needs a lot of work. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree . Why don't you start doing that? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bob, Sorry for my the delay in responding.  I will be happy to do that when I have more time, hopefully soon. Thanks! BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've trimmed most of the blockquotes, but this article still relies excessively on primary sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thank you for your trimming! I feel there are too many quotes from his books, what are your thoughts?  In my view, much of this article reads as a book report. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too wordy and uses questionable sources 

message: I agree with the Administrator that marked the lead as too short. 
Ritter's career started in 1980 and continues to this day. Though he is best known as the UN weapons inspector, that was only for 7 years in the 90s.
I had tried to expand earlier but  reverted almost all of my revisions. Perhaps we can discuss here?
Ritter's occupation isn't reflected in the infobox hence I've added that. His occupation since '98 is comparable to that of Ann Coulter since '98. 
The 24 years he's filled with writing 9 books, 577 articles, lecturing in at universities and releasing a documentary seem appropriate to a Wikipedia biographical lead section. Reducing that to just opeds for RT comes across as misleading, hence I'm adding that. 
I'm confused by the note that "Muckrack is not a reliable source"? Is that stated anywhere? Wikipedia EN has over 250 citations of Muckrack. It's an invaluable resource for biographies of journalists and columnists just as IMBD is for the movie industry, hence I'm adding those citations.
His career appears to be ongoing today, and he still writes and is written about. Hence, I'll include some of what he's published more recently and try to follow MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL.
The circumstances and prison time associated with his conviction also seem relevant hence I'll include a concise sentence.Veej (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused as to why you changed the sentence regarding Ritter's 2011 conviction using the partisan and at-best situationally reliable Democracy Now!, especially given that the Democracy Now! source contains vastly less information than the previously cited sources (including The New York Times) and does not even support the language you added regarding Ritter's having  (nor could it, considering that it is dated 2011). I'm also concerned that you reinstated your WP:BOLD changes to the lede verbatim without seeking consensus or acknowledging the problems identified by BetsyRMadison and myself. Furthermore, your statement above is materially inaccurate insofar as  tagged the lede months ago when it was only three sentences long, is not an  and, to be brutally frank, is highly unlikely to support your POV on Ritter, based on his edits here and elsewhere. Regardless, I intend to restore the sourced content which you deleted without explanation and to remove the unsourced content that you reintroduced despite my prior edit summary pointing out that it failed verification, as your rationale is hardly responsive to these concerns.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I already referred you to the WP:RSP listing for Democracy Now!, which, yet again, states:   I doubt that the precise details of the sting operation are particularly lede-worthy; if you are implying that a local Barrett Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania police office somehow knew that an anonymous individual he interacted with via a Yahoo! chat room in 2009 was  that would seem to be a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory unsupported by evidence or reliable sources. (In fact, the more unusual aspect of Ritter's case, as The New York Times makes clear, is the sealing of the records related to his previous 2001 arrest: ) Obviously, we can refine the language used in the lede summary through civil discussion resulting in consensus, but trying to steamroll BetsyRMadison and myself by continually restoring your preferred version verbatim, while dropping gold-standard sources for subjective or poorly-defined reasons like  and refusing to acknowledge the stated concerns of other editors—over and over again—is unlikely to achieve consensus.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead too short|date=January 2022 

message: On April 10 (2 days after the lifting of his original ban), Ritter was banned again for apparently the same reason. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any decent sources that reported on his second ban. Just Twitter posts and fringe websites that wouldn't meet the reliable sources standard. — Red XIV (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banned from Twitter again 

message: Worth reviewing: 
* 
BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential sources  

message: How come he is of Russian nationality? Any sources? Wtf? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian nationality 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLeBb6hPUC8
36 minute video. My notes: Elected President days after playing the part in the tv series "Servant of the People", written by western intelligence agencies. Victoria Nuland was the lead author. Richard Moore MI6 became Zelensky's handler in 2020. Could Scott Ritter be part of the plan for the end of Zelensky? Doug youvan (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link? Just released: A Scott Ritter Investigation: Agent Zelensky - Part 1 

message: There is a prominent warning at the top of this page not to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material to Scott's bio. Currently, there is no source for the label "conspiracy theorist". Burrobert (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a mad rush to label Scott as a conspiracy theorist. Four attempts have been made in the last six weeks. Anyone care to explain the source of this unbridled enthusiasm? Burrobert (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, he... is a conspiracy theorist? Cloud200 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to include that in the article you need to attribute it. Something like: In August 2023, Cloud200 described Ritter as a conspiracy theorist. Some editors may consider the opinion undue though. Burrobert (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of such sources, give me a few minutes. Cloud200 (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Take your time. Use attribution for opinion and consider the guidance about Contentious labels. Burrobert (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who is Stanley Heller and what source are you trying to use for his opinion? Burrobert (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theorist??? 

message: There are reports that Mr. Ritter has been banned from YouTube. If true that
should be mentioned in his biography. 2600:1014:A013:8172:955F:960A:D504:AA92 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He's on YouTube today, 2023 Sept 5 Henrilebec (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: Is it just me, or is the layout of this article weird? For instance, the section "Weapons inspector" contains a summary of his career as a weapons inspector, but also a "reception" subsection. The sections "US policy toward Iraq" & "Iran" contain his political analysis, as does the section "Russian invasion of Ukraine", but they are separated by two sections that feel out of place, "In Shifting Sands", about his documentary, and "Arrests and conviction for sex offenses". The Russia section is unlike the Iraq and Iran sections, because it attempts to "balance" a presentation of his analysis with the reception of his analysis.
How might we go about rearranging this article in a way that makes sense? I think we could take the "reception" subsection from the "Weapons inspector" section, combine it with the reception he's received to his political analysis, and create an independent "reception" section. We could probably combine the "In Shifting Sands" section into the "US policy toward Iraq & Iran" section. And we should move the "Russia" section above the "sex pest" section, so that all of the political analysis is together. Other ideas? Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel strongly but I kind of think the basic outline of the current shape is fine, as it runs chronologically. Moving the In Shifting Sands section makes sense, and that keeps it chronologically, but the others I don't think I would. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

text: What "sex pest" section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: “Arrests and conviction for sex offenses”. Philomath2357 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I used the wrong username when I signed in to my new iPhone. Forgot I even had that other account. Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

text: I don't favor separating commentary into "Reception" sections for BLPs, because separating views from context can lead to a non-neutral WP:STRUCTURE. Llll5032 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

text: It isn't just you. I read the article for the first time, and concur that the flow IS confusing. It seems to repeat parts of Ritter's career in a way that is disjointed. Before addressing that, I want to be more clear about the chronology of all Ritter's different roles. He had many between graduating college and say, 2002! Clearly, he must have done some things simultaneously, but that is not discernable in the article. I'll write a separate section below describing what doesn't add up.--FeralOink (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: These American propaganda sources exist solely to make Scott look bad. They are WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia policy demands we remove them from this article. I would be OK with neutral sources, but none make these outrageous claims. Stalinist57 (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to every discussion here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOA/Polygraph undue 

message: nvm
delete this
M28k (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023 

message: This is the chronology that I traced through the article. I have bold fonted parts that are contradictory or missing and are gaps to be filled in if possible.
 - Born in 1961, high school grad in 1979
 - Private in US Army in 1980
 - When did he graduate from Franklin & Marshall college?
 - Commissioned as a military intel officer in Marine Corps in May 1984 and served until May 1996. Why 1996 not 1998?
 - Marine Captain intel analyst during Desert Storm/Gulf War 1991; junior intel officer in Desert Storm/Gulf War in lead, no date. Same? 
 - Worked as a weapons inspector for UNSCOM disarming WMDs in Iraq from 1991-1998 
 - Worked with MI6 and UNSCOM from December 1997 to June 1998
 - Was doing weapons inspections in Iraq in January 1998
 - Resigned from UNSCOM on 26 August 1998
 - Did an interview about it on PBS on 31 August 1998
 - Testified to Senate Committees about why he resigned on 3 September 1998 
 - Published Endgame book in 1999 
 - Wrote and directed documentary film Sands in 2000 or 2001? Says both.
 - Voted for Bush in 2000
 - Arrested as sex pest twice in 2001 (once in June 2001) 
 - Critic of Bush in 2002
 - Went to Iraq to address Iraqi Parliament in 2002 
 - Said US couldn't capture and hold Bagdad and would go home defeated in early 2003
 - Was pro-Iraqi resistance in February 2005
 - Predicted invasion of Iran by US and war as sure thing in February 2006
 - Published Target Iran book saying that Israel would force the US to have a war with Iran in December 2006
 - Said that Iran was hiding nukes in February 2007 
 - Arrested as sex pest again in Nov 2009
 - Went to prison from March 2012 - September 2014
 - What did he do between September 2014 and February 2022?
Article isn't as full of missing time periods or contradictions as I first thought. This section can probably be hatted, and just the salient missing info listed. FeralOink (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing chronology of career