Wikipedia

Talk:Plame affair and User talk:Kuban kazak: Difference between pages

(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Bryndza (talk | contribs)
953 edits
 
Line 1:
{{todo}}
== Plame affair ==
*Started article with a cut in of material from [[Karl Rove]] article (to be further edited), but seemed like a good starting point. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 17:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Plame affair time lineKharkiv ==
''full article at [[Plame scandal timeline]]''
 
Hey Kuban kazak. The use of ''[[Kharkiv]]'' vs. ''Kharkov'' has been discussed at length and the current form is the result of the consensus several editors. Please consult [[talk:Kharkiv]] and its archive, and discuss there if you want to propose such a change. Cheers, ''[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-10-15&nbsp;23:17&nbsp;Z</small>''
''Events, but dates needed.''
*Valerie Plame joins CIA
*Plame and Wilson marry - year?
*Wilson dispatched to Niger
*Bush State of the Union address
*Wilson Op Ed in New York Times
*Novak article exposes name
*Special prosecutor appointed
*Grand Jury
 
==Moscow Redundant? Metro==
Hi there, kazak! I noticed that you put the apostrophes back in the names of some of the Moscow Metro stations. Just wanted to let you know that English Wikipedia traditionally utilizes Russian transliteration guidelines outlined [[Transliteration of Russian into English|here]]. While it is generally understood that there is no single transliteration system used by everyone, it had been decided that the usage of one system greatly helps maintain the consistency of the articles. At this time, most articles dealing with Russia-related topics use that transliteration system (which omits apostrophes used for soft and hard signs). You may also want to check out [[Portal:Russia/New article announcements|this announcement board]] (just do an in-page search for "metro" to find relevant announcements) for more information specifically regarding the naming of Moscow Metro stations. By all means do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Best,&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==Welcome==
Sorry, if I'm stating (or missing) the obvious, but isn't this artilce redundant with [[Valerie Plame]]. I actually agree with the idea of having a "Plame affair" article, but I think the matter of where stuff goes should be resolved before lots of time is invested. It seems weird that this article is mentioned on [[Karl Rove]], but not on [[Valerie Plame]]. --[[User:Thivierr|rob]] 23:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to say Welcome! I'm glad we now have a Cossack on Wikipedia :) [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:It might be, I have to take a closer look there. Some editors working on [[Karl Rove]] had mentioned that there was too much on [[Plame affair]] in the Rove article and, in addition, others have mentioned there's too much Plame affair material in the Novak article and so on. Therefore, I think an article specifically about this might best serve the Wikipedia project. [[Watergate]] needs its own article apart from [[Richard Nixon]] and [[Iran-Contra affair]] needs its own and so on. I started this just today to be specifically about what I think is best called, the Plame affair. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 02:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
::You've convinced me. --[[User:Thivierr|rob]] 02:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Transliteration==
== Consolidation organization ==
The point of transliteration is to enable English speakers to be able to pronounce these Russian names in the correct fashion. The reason Y is used to represent Ы, Й, -ий, -ый is that it is the closest English letter to those sounds. I understand your objection to using the "ai" sound to represent all these letters, which would be incorrect, but you have to understand that most of the time Y is not pronounced "ai" in English. It can also be pronounced "i" as in "system" and "ee" as in "fiery," not to mention the Y consonant sound.
{{plame}}
-[[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 14:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
A native English speaker will pronounce "Leninsky Prospekt" and "Leninskiy Prospekt" the same, and he or she would never say "LeninskAI Prospekt." Using "iy" as opposed to "y" does not change the way the word is pronounced, and "iy" is an unfamiliar letter combination in English that readers may not know how to pronounce.
Nice start, I'd suggest we use "Plame affair" however rather than CIA leak scandal. You do nice templates, Steve. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 23:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Using a J to represent the consonant Y sound is even more ridiculous. J ''never'' makes a Y sound in English. An English reader confronted with a word like "Oktjabrskaja" will have no idea how to pronounce it, and if they attempt to say it they will almost certainly be wrong. The spelling "Oktyabrskaya," which correctly uses the letter Y to represent the Y consonant sound, will be pronounced correctly by an English speaker.
:Thanks - it could go either way -- "CIA leak" seems to be growing in media use, because its not so much about Plame as it is about the leak -- likewise "affair," has connotations of Lewinsky rather than Watergate, which can be somewhat misleading given the known facts. I'd like to see the template -more developed though, as some people are voicing concern over the redundancy between this and VP. Sinreg- [[User:Stevertigo|SV]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|t]] 16:23, 22 July
2005 (UTC)
 
As to your other objections, in English "north-south" does not imply that the street (or avenue) runs from the north TO the south, it just means the street's alignment is along the north-south axis as opposed to the east-west axis. Removing Profsoyuznaya from the list was an accident. Regarding your request for British spelling, by Wikipedia convention either spelling is appropriate.
::I had a similar conversation over "CIA leak" vs "Plame affair" at the "time line" article. Rather than recopy that to here, you might take a look at there. To my way of thinking "CIA leak" is too generic, whereas "Plame affair" puts it in context and is better than yet another "gate" tile like the POV "Rovegate." Anyway, lets see how it develops. The reason for this article is that it's not about a single person, per se, the Plame affair involves many individuals and issues, like [[Iran-Contra affair]]. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 
I appreciate your work on the rolling stock, extensions, and correction to the plans of Park Pobedy and Izmaylovsky Park. I did not realize that they were done by you because you were listed as an IP address.
== Coverage of 'Air Force One Memo' ==
Check [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html here] for a story with many new aspects to this affair. I don't have the time to adjust the article, but I thought I would at least bring it your attention. &mdash; [[User:Stevietheman|<span style="color:green">'''Stevie is the man!'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Stevietheman|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Stevietheman|Work</span>]]</sup> 14:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 
:This absolutely needs to be included, I'll get to it. [[User:GzuckierCamerafiend|GzuckierCamerafiend]] 1613:1524, 1120 AugustOctober 2005 (UTC)
 
Fair enough. I still don't understand the advantage of using -iy instead of -y, but if that's what you want to use I'm fine with it. I'm glad you figured out how to move the pages without creating duplicate articles. [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
== Former CIA agents critical of Bush ==
:Pardon me for intervening, but I would like to note that Wikipedia transliteration system is not a matter of someone's personal preference. Using "ja" is definitily not incorrect, but "ya" is also by no means not incorrect&mdash;these are merely conventions of two different transliteration systems (which, I repeat, are both "correct", but used for different purposes). The WP transliteration system was devised to maintain consistency&mdash;any other system could have certainly been used with the same effect (be it ISO-9, straight BCGN/PGN, or Russian GOST). [[Transliteration of Russian into English|Current system]] has been selected as the best for transliterating Russian into '''English'''; it is not merely a generic system, but one that targets the needs of English-speaking readers and is, as such, more common in English media/texts. I would recommend that you adjust your transliteration habits when dealing with the English WP articles. Using just one system benefits English WP greatly, and, since the tradition is pretty much set, I suggest you accept it. Just imagine that suddenly your system is adopted just as widely as the current one is&mdash;how would you deal with someone who comes in in half a year and insists that ISO-9 is the only way to go? Hope for your understanding, and keep up your otherwise great work. Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions or comments. Cheers,&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 01:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==Ukraine==
AP, Fri Jul 22, 2005 "WASHINGTON - Former U.S. intelligence officers criticized President Bush on Friday for not disciplining Karl Rove in connection with the leak of the name of a CIA officer, saying Bush's lack of action has jeopardized national security." [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_democrats] Reference posted by [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] to aid further expansion of article.
Hi, Kuban Kazak, and welcome again. I just thought I stop by and request that you use some extra caution in UA-RU controvercial issues. It is easy to make others lose their temper and extra care is warranted. Since you seem interested in religeous affairs of Ukraine, you may take a look at [[Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko)]] article and click on the links. Hopefully, you will help to improve Ukrainian topics and avoid the edit wars. Thanks, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 16:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry about that, got carried away... anyway thanks for watering down the version, I suppose that that is any wikipedia's responsibility...I also wish for your help on the Kiev Metro section (photographs, we need photographs there). Actually I want to make a portal about all the metro systems of the former Ussr and hope for your help. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 14:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your work on expansion of [[Kiev Metro]] coverage. Cheers, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==Russian portal==
== Photos and illustrations ==
Dear colleague, it would have been nice of you to announce newly created articles [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Russia/New_article_announcements|here]]. Thanks. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 13:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:And also [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Ukraine/New_article_announcements|here]]. I will try to help with what I can with metro. BTW, IMO we should probably use modern Ukrainian names for most, if not all, stations/lines in [[Kiev Metro]]. Thanks for your interest. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 20:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
==St. Volodymyr's==
See [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral]]. Feel free to comment. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
: Oh I commeted alright, one thing is to argue a POV, another thing is to descredit a POV and delete whole sections, Варварство причем варварство в самом прямом смысле.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 13:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 
What a mess!!! I hope this would be soon put to an end. I haven't realized that you were writing to AndriyK at the same time as I was writing to him. I corrected the title of your section at his talk. I hope it is OK with you. Please send me your email address if you don't mind --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this entry deserves a few pics -- perhaps the image of [[yellowcake]], and a few of the main characters who have testified. Any other suggestions? [[User:68.1.168.96|68.1.168.96]] 00:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:And sorry, I could not yet get to your Metro articles. You obviously see the reasons. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 22:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:I was thinking the same thing, but perhaps it's a bit early for it. However, if we were to have images, they would have to include -- Rove, Libby, Novak, Fitzgerlad, Wilson, Plame and maybe yellowcake. I remember some articles in newspapers about the [[Iran-Contra affair]] that had pictures with a caption about each person's role in the story. Maybe we can collect them in a section on the talk page and then place them into the article in some fashion. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 04:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::Опыт говорит что правокаторы приходят и уходят, а метро уже 70, 50, 45 лет в Мск, СПб и Киеве соответственно. Сейчас выметем мусор а потом делом займемся.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 
Hi, please do not get mad that I removed your entry from St Volodymyr's talk. Let's not get people crazy when we are approaching a difficult compromise there. I wholeheartedly share your desire for Ukraine to finally get a single canonical local Church which I would prefer to see [[autocephalous]]. I just thought the article you linked will start another barrage of flames. Cheers, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
:Started creating list here [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 06:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names]]==
Images located --
Another thing, I think there is quiet a good discussion with an excellent proposal being hammered out by several users at [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names]]. The latest version is very close to what I would like to see as a Wikipedia policy and, if implemented, it would also help to quickly put an end to certain behaviours of certain users if you know what I mean. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
*[[Patrick Fitzgerald]] -- newsphoto located, uploaded, Image:Patrick Fitzgerald 18380357.jpg
*[[Lewis Libby]] -- Image:Lewis_Libby
*[[Stephen Hadley]] -- Image:Hadleybio.jpg image uploaded (19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)) by [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]]
*[[George Tenet]] -- Image:George_Tenet.gif
*[[Yellowcake]] -- Image:Yellowcake.jpg
*[[Joseph C. Wilson]] and [[Valerie Plame]] - Image:Plame and Wilson.JPG (at [[Valerie Plame]] article)
 
== Wikipedia is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia" ==
Images needed --
*[[Robert Novak]] -- no image at main article
Uh...I found one, it is- I think- in the public ___domain (there are no copyright markings anywhere on it.) It's at his CNN bio page. <http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/images/novak.robert.jpg> but I don't know how to
a) verify it's in the public ___domain
b) get the file on a local wiki area.
I'm new here so.....yeah, link to the photo, do whatever, I'll be quiet now.
 
Please stop pushing Russian Orthodox POV to the articles. Please pay attention that ''canonicity''
== Bush/Cheney not under oath? ==
*is viewed somewhat differently by Orthodox and Catholic Churches;
*is not recognized by Protestant Churches;
*is not recognized by most of people in the wold that are not Cristian at all.
 
Please read [[WP:NPOV]] carefully.
Article says, "''Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, although not under oath.'' I think this is being confused with the Bush/Cheney "interviews" with the 9/11 commission? Can anyone provide background on this? I'm checking up on it as well [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 04:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
::''NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.''
 
Please pay attention that pushing Orthodox POV is against the WP policies.--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I remember reading that Cheney and Bush were questioned (early on) by Fitzgerald in the White House, not in front of the grand jury. I believe the "not under oath" factoid appeared again in the latest issue of ''Time''. That's a good issue, by the way &mdash; there's more detail about the actual damage done by the leak, which should be included here. [[User:68.1.168.96|68.1.168.96]] 13:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:Unless an actual source can be provided, the line should be removed. If we later can find a sold reference to this, it can always be added back. Agreed? [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 17:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:The original article said something along the lines of "a church viewed uncannonical by the Orthodox Communion" i.e. Protestant, Catholics and other religions have nothing to do with this article. The church is NOT recognignised by other Orthodox Churches which happen to have cannonical standing. It is you who needs to pay attention and not omitt these facts, same NPOV argument my ''Drug'' [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
== Exposure and not "outing" ==
 
Kuban kazak, I also got this message. I will respond shortly at AndriyK's talk. Please see [[Talk:Lviv Oblast]] re names. The issue isn't trivial. Also, please email me with your email address if you don't mind. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 00:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This is to request that we use the word, "exposure" or similar rather than the [[slang]] term "outing." If there's quote where the word "outing" is used, obviously that would have to stand, but in other contexts I suggest we keep to standard [[English]]. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 06:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry for interfering again, but let's not inflame our opponents in the edit summaries. I responded on the essence on their positions on the article's and AndriyK's talk pages. Cheers, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 01:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== ...вряд ли ==
== Motive, means, opportunity ==
 
Родом я из Москвы. У меня прадед, будучи казаком, воевал в первую войну. Другие предки у меня с Полтавщины - наверняка с Хмельницким были. А сам я не то что бы казак, а скорее потомок казацкий - хотя шашка и нагайка дома имеются.
It seems that the issues of motive, means and opportunity should be addressed somehow herein. I'll have to get back to this, but any thoughts about this would be welcome. Questions of means and opportunity are becoming clear, but I think more information about motive should be included. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 19:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
<br>[[User:Kazak|Kazak]] 02:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==Challenge==
== Server technical issues noted ==
Man, saw your challenge for AndriyK. Ahhh, I want it :)) Anyway, I see why you want him to do it, and I am not going to interfere, but if you have anything else that's equally interesting and not so recent (administrative divisions are a hobby of mine), let me know, OK?.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:Try Belarus, from the same 1940s atlas. Or Russia, all of the historic regions, gubernia, different borders etc.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 11:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::Guberniyas, them I've been doing anyway (see [[History of the administrative division of Russia]]), albeit it's progressing much slower than I wanted. What I had in mind was a specific, well-defined challenge. I'll take a look at Belarus, though. Thanks!&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==Request for help==
Server issues are causing one save to look like many, very odd. Noted for reference. Time is 2:14 AM EDT [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 06:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 
[[User:Molobo]] has been in habit of vandalizing articles on [[Smolensk War]], [[Russophobia]], [[Belovezhskaya Pushcha]], etc. Now she attacks [[Berlin Congress]]. Please help to neutrilize her. Thanks, [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 12:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
== The lead and [[User:Larryfooter]]'s POV push ==
 
==Metro :(==
It is inappropriate for Karl Rove to appear in the lead of this article. There's an entire section within the article that deals with Rove's role in the Plame affair. Also, the information in these paragraphs seems to be a rather blatant POV push that selectively quotes from sources referenced whilst ignoring other information in the same references that does not support apparent damage control efforts as regards Rove. For example, take this line from the paragraphs in question --
Hi, Kazak. To be completely honest, I'm a bit disappointed with your recent moves of metro articles, especially considering the fact that you were the one scolding someone else for making silly edits. I already explained the Russian transliteration system used in Wikipedia, and I also explained that neither that system, nor the one you are more fond of, is by itself incorrect. However, only one system should be used for consistency sake. I would suggest that you adopt one that's already widely used instead of moving articles back and forth. [[Transliteration of Russian into English]] happens to be the system that Wikipedia's policies [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Russian names|prescribe]], and, as you undoubtedly know, non-complying with the policies is not usually the best idea. I do not mean to be petty or waste our time, but I am a consistency hobgoblin, that's for sure, and I ''do'' see consistency as one of the virtues Wikipedia should pursue. Thank you for your attention and understanding, and I would appreciate if you undid the rest of your changes yourself.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:''In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose the identity of a "covert agent." (see: Intelligence Identities Protection Act) To be considered a covert agent, one must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." § 426(4)(a)(ii) (again, see: Intelligence Identities Protection Act); yet it has been widely reported that Valerie Plame did not travel outside the US over the past 5 years''
It is not "widely reported" that Plame did not travel outside the US, there is only speculation about that, that kind of phrase is a [[Weasel word]]. Yet to "substantiate" the dubious claim, [[User:Larryfooter]] cites a single reference from [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm USA today], however, he selective omits details contained in the very same article which do not support his apparent desire to [[exonerate]] Rove. Later, in the same USA Today article there appears this, and I quote,
:''Joseph Wilson would not say whether his wife was stationed overseas again after 1997, and he said she would not speak to a reporter. But, he said, "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department.
 
Additionally, I would also recommend you a refresher on [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] and to remind you that American spelling should not be changed into British (and vice versa) except when both variants co-exist on one page or when British spelling is used in an article on an American-related topic (and vice versa). In all other cases, the variant of English used by the original contributor should be used.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 23:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:''Spokesmen for both the CIA and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating whether a crime was committed, also would not comment.''
 
:If consistency is to be followed then you will find that british spelling is used on the main page, and the main page of the KRL was changed to my system and used since, what kind of consistency is this if one line will use one version and another one a different one. Me and Camerafield agreed to take off -ja and -ij in preference to -YA and -IY. So no point reverting my changes.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 23:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The fact is no one can authoritatively say she was in the U.S. or not at this juncture and those who might know, will not say.
::The point is not something you discussed with another user. The point is to follow policies. If you see British spelling in one line and American in another, by all means correct that (but make sure you correct it to one the original author used, not the one you like the most). As for translit, please always correct it to conform with what the policies tell you to. I realize it may be hard for you&mdash;I, for example, cannot stand British spelling, but if that's what the original author used, then I will change all American spelling back to British if I happen to edit the page (mind you, some people actually choose to hunt down pages with inconsistent spelling). Again, this is not just the matter of personal courtesy, it's the matter of following the policies. You would not break the three-revert rule just because you do not like it or think that it was invented by a bunch of morons who had nothing better to do with their time, would you? Same goes for transliteration and spelling. Trust me, people broke too many spears and wasted too much time over these seemingly petty issues in the past. Each policy is there for a reason. I once again ask you to ''please'' comply.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 03:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
May I add to that what's my own take on this. Being not a native speaker I never interfere with American/British spelling issue. I just leave those words as they are (unless I edit a piece) and leave it up to native speakers Wikipedians to bother about this. This is really such a minor issue for us, that there is no need to persist if it is such a major issue for others. As for the choice of the transliteration, especially in the article's names, I only move them when I know what version of the name is prevails in English. Like I moved the article about the Soviet rocket designer called until recently ''Korolev'' to ''Korolyov'' simply because the latter is used in English clearly wider. For subway stations, there is no way to get any meaningful statistics of the English usage. So, I suggest to propose the moves at talk first and wait for a while. It is really not a big deal, is it? --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
These paragraphs on Rove appeared inappropriately in the lead out of nowhere, without discussion and first without any references at all. I twice deleted them, only to be find them restored with this final comment in the edit history. "[[User:Larryfooter]] (Talk) (emphasis added) '''(reinsered FACTS in the lead stating that Rove has not yet been charged with a crime and that plame was not a covert agent - with sources this time - please dont remove it again)'''" Firstly, of course Rove has not been charged with a crime, no indictments have been handed down as yet, only time will tell if any are forthcoming. Secondly and more troubling to me is that I find this to an example of bad faith editing which does not seek to build [[consensus]] and stand on factual accuracy, but rather seems more about [[GOP]] based talking points and [[spin]].
 
== NPOV ==
The [[Plame affair]] is likely to grow much more complex as time goes on. I would remind [[user:Larryfooter]], who I think is a relatively new Wikipedian, that Wikipedia is not a place for political debate, or propaganda. If he (or any editor) wishes to engage in such, please take it to blogs or other more appropriate web sites.
 
... Whilst I might have patriotic POVs, I am against an article not repressinting the other side of the story. NPOV is a wikipedia policy which everyone must adhere to. ... [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 13:30, 11 November 2005
In addition within this article and others related to it, I have also observed similar editing. For example, at [[Joseph C. Wilson]] there's language about "discrediting Wilson" from [[User:Larryfooter]] with dubious and incomplete references to a senate report.
''(This is copied from my talk page)''--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Please find below some citations of your edits. Just to think once more about NPOV that "is a wikipedia policy which everyone must adhere to."--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I've again removed these paragraphs from the lead and would suggest that [[User:Larryfooter]] review Wikipedia policy on [[neutral point of view| neutrality]], factual sourcing and read [[What Wikipedia is not]], [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot]], and review the style manual on writing the [[Lead section]] for articles. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 05:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::::''It seen the revival of Orthodox religion in 1988 when the millenium celebration of the baptism of Rus marked a turn in the Soviet policy of religion. However afterwards dark times came on it again. In 1992, after Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Filaret refused to resign, the cathedral became the first building to be captured by the UOC-KP. After the Karkov sinod and with the return of the new Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Vladimir, members of the neo-fascist UNA-UNSO barrikaded themselves inside the cathedral and refused entry to the new cannonical church leader and several thousand believers who gathered to meet them. Despite numerous protests from all the world Orthodox communities the cathedral is yet to return to the church and is still in the hands of the schismatics.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral&diff=26189124&oldid=25962321]
I just made an edit to the lead, changing "The complete contradiction of fact in the president's speech caused Ambassador Wilson much consternation and consequently he wrote an Op-ed in the New York Times challenging the veracity of the president's statement." to "
Ambassador Wilson responded with an [[Op-ed]] in the [[New York Times]] challenging the veracity of the president's statement." I believe this moves the article toward the NPOV; compare "Sensing an opportunity to smear the Bush administration, Ambassador Wilson authored an [[Op-ed]] in the [[New York Times]] challenging the veracity of the president's statement."
 
::::''After the pillage of Kiev by the Mongolian Tatarsin 1180 the cathedral fell into decline and was even taken up by the uniats ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Sophia_Cathedral_in_Kiev&diff=prev&oldid=26809258]
In general, we should avoid ascribing motives to people in our articles.
 
::Do you think your slighting attitude to other confessions is the way how the WP articles should be written?--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I also removed the first (but not subsequent) references to "leak" in the article, so that it first appears as part of Ambassador Wilson's contention. Characterizing the information as a leak seems to imply that Rove was lying when he contended that he was simply passing on information from another reporter.
 
:::I did not say that I was the perfect example, yet I did not mind people editing my posts so that it be presented in an NPOV way. On the contrary before you people showed up, me and Irpen discussed how to water down the first example. In the end the seizure was agreed upon.
[[User:Mjscud|mjscud]] 00:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 
:::What I do not understand is how my extensive contribution about Sophia is a breach of NPOV. Поясни.
== Alberto Gonzales Notification ==
[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 16:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Mediation concerning [[St Volodymyr's Cathedral]] ==
I just updated the page with information from the Washington Post story regarding the AG being informed of the Justice Department investigation in September of 2003, how he called the White House Chief of Staff immediately, and how he waited 12 hours before he notified the general staff. There is an implication in the article that the 12 hour gap in somehow untoward, but no proof is raised that anything actually illegal occurred. I think as the week goes on, and more information comes out, Gonzales role and the time-table of notifications and testimonies of senior White House Staff might need its own section.--[[User:Jodyw1|Jodyw1]] 07:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Jody
:I'm thinking along the same lines. My hope is that Gonzales' role will become clear as the case moves forward. As far as Gonzales is concerned, I think it best not to engage in speculation about illegality but rather to state clearly and factually what his actions have been, and what statments of his are on the record. There are valid question to be asked -- Why did he wait 12 hours? What took place during that time? Who, if anyone, benefited from the delay? What was his motivation in delaying giving notification? Maybe it was untoward, maybe not. Some of his own statements on this are contradictory. He was counsel to the president and now is AG, so we might see him recuse himself from the case. We just don't know right now. More generally, I think each of the major players and key events should have seperate subsections. In time, a graphic or graphics showing links and flows of events might be useful. This is a most complex case. I find it simpler and more NPOV to parse things out now and to keep known fact seperate from spin, damage control and speculation. In the interst of neutrality and factual accuracy, I'm being very carefull about drawing permature conclusions about any of the central figures or key elements of the case. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 21:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 
I propose to ask for official mediation to resolve the dispute concerning [[St Volodymyr's Cathedral]] article. Whould you agree?--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 18:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
== We are we spending so much space on Radical POV's? ==
:Not that I am against but then we pretty much have setteled everything there is to settle, I mean if it is something as petty as Kyiv vs Kiev then it is laughable at mediating that (considering the length this article travelled), but if that's how you want to end it, fine by me. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I just looked over this and i thought I knew a lot about the Plame affair, but I certainly didn't know about some of these begging-the-question-like-your-life-depended on it POV's and the like. It looks like either some people have been doing some heavy data-mining or are all too sold on some obscure radical political publications, and they are trying to push the fringe counter-narratives from those sources into this article. In any case, i think we should look over the [[WP:NPOV]] policy with regard to fringe POV's and proportional representation, and try to make this article a little more mainstream. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit&section=new new]</sup> 02:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
I've got an e-mail from the mediator. Please check your mailsbox so that we can start the dispute resolution.--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:Can you give some specific examples of "obscure radical political publications" herein? [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 02:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Balachka ==
::I don't know of any, and i didn't mean to imply that any were cited. I'm just saying i don't know where else some people could have gotten some of the ideas that are in this article. -and by NPOV policy fringe pov's don't belong, at least not in this kind of proportion. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit&section=new new]</sup> 12:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 
I've never heard of [[Balachka]], until you mentioned it in some discussion recently. It sounds like an interesting article topic. Would you create a stub? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-12&nbsp;22:20&nbsp;Z</small>''
:::Offhand I can't see anything that I haven't been reading about in one press source or another. Examples man. WHAT don't you know the source of? If something seems that 'far out' to those who aren't following this closely it ought to be sourced... but just looking at it I can't pick out anything I haven't been reading in the papers. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 18:38:47, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
: Basically it is not a language, it is a dialect which we cossacks speak, it is similar to Ukranian/Russian mix (although nothing like the surzhik dialect) but volcabulary is solely Russian (ie флаг is used instead of прапор, аnd Дворец instead of Палац etc) although some ecxeptions exist e.g. Червоны(е) Рассийски(е) Ю(г)а. differences exist mostly in the sounds of Г, В, and О. Moreover the dialect varies so much from stanitsa to stanitsa (and the older generations in particular) that there really is no common version of it. For instance in some places the e at the end is muffled others clearly pronounce it. Well anyway here are some examples:
 
Take pronounciation of cities: Харькаф, Ки'иф, Петербург (the g at the end is pronounced solid, not like h)
::::I'm still confused as well by what's meant by "fring pov's." The article contains a lot of references to major media sources and known facts of the case. I've had one issue with an editor selectively omitting facts that did not comport with his apparent POV, but other than that, most of the editors making contributions have been observant of the NPOV policy and other aspects of good collaborative, consensus based editing. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Да шо ты мне (х)оворишь (if there is an h sound then it is very short although in my stanitsa it simply muffled)? Сам знаю шо наши Рус'ськи(э) казачки красние фсех, хотя балтиливые. The э sound at the end of that word is said very briefly but destinguishable.
:::::I agree with Calicocat. I believe the article is well-documented, and is balanced in those places where no hard facts can exist due to the nature of the case. I would like to see some specific examples of places where you believe "fringe POV" exists, so that we can correct them. Because of the sharp rhetoric and wild speculation surrounding this topic in the media (from both sides!), we must necessarily address both extremes in the article. But I hope that we have done a good job of addressing all arguments in a neutral way, with actual documented facts (something rarely seen in the media these days) whenever possible. [[User:Aerion|Aerion]][[User_talk:Aerion|//talk]] 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
-Вот был Сталин, да по'аладали потом по'ое'али, но при этам было щастьи а потом умник Хрущоф
::::::Well I don't have a lot of time, so just ignore me until i look over more thoroughly and find specifics. I think I recall things like "maybe plame wasn't really a covert agent?" well if plame wasn't a covert agent, i think someone should tell that to mr. fitzgerald and the jury, because that means this investigation is completely absurd! things like that, that are just outright ridiculous, i recall seeing. and although that isn't really "fringe" because it's one of the talking points of the administration's rove-defense misinformation campaign, and it seems like this gets through a non-negligible number of ppl's common sense filters - this is along the lines of what i'm talking about - there are some things that i haven't seen in news papers and i find even more ridiculous than that - and i've read a lot of newspapers articles on this.
 
-Хрющиф чорт е'о падрал
::::::anycase, if ppl are going to put begging-the-question in here, as it sometimes constitutes republicans "pov", although it isn't technically a "view", then it should be countered not by acknoledging a question that is begged - that is just reinforcing the beggging, not a counter-weight - it should be countered by facts - "offering the answer". [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit&section=new new]</sup> 01:05, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 
-Ща ты у миня будеш Хрюкать оГда пад маей шашкай акажишся...Вот взял и ород-ерой (alternatively g's if pronounced are used - no h substitute) СталинГрад периминавал В-Ол'ГоГрад (here is a good example where an В sound is pronounced and also the O sound is fully sounded and streched for longer than in normal Russian) Other examples of BO sound different: сем, осим, девять.
::::::And this article is great! I'm impressed - I wish I had the time to take some credit for it. [[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit&section=new new]</sup> 02:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 
: Thanks. That's interesting; I can see the Ukrainian connection, although some of it is puzzling since I don't know Russian. Is the akanye usually spelt out, as in "Харькаф"? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-13&nbsp;05:04&nbsp;Z</small>''
:::::::Thanks for checking in. I re-read your first comment here three times and I think I see what you were getting at, seeing this now, I get it. We can always use more good editors. The "begging the question" good advice there. Cheers, [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 15:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::It is spelled out using Moscovite Russian translit here, balachka has no grammar or language, we write in Russian (although some stanitsas use the pre-1918 grammar), also it is spoken very quickly. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
== Randel Source ==
 
==[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt]]==
The claim that Randel exposed Lord Ashcroft as a DEA agent is sourceless. I'd hate to delete it, but unless somebody can find a source it should be removed. The page on Lord Ashcroft suggests that he was in fact mentioned as a name of somebody being '''investigated''' by the DEA, not an agent of the DEA. This is important since it makes the legal case significantly different from the Plame affair. Revealing a person under a secret investigation is not the same as being an secret agent.7/25/2005
*{{unsigned|66.175.202.86|03:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}}
 
I think you would be interested in voting here, especially as there are voices that Halibutt is an anti-Russian (Ukrainian, etc.) POV-pusher. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:Please before taking the time to type this much, and threaten a delete, it's solid. Typing the Surname into Google turns up CNN and Findlaw with Articles. Further, legally it matters only in which sections of title 18 are violated. Unauthorized disclosure of any classified is a crime. Nothing to parse there. Motive isn't a requirement at all in many instances. A military base telephone book is a restricted item on many installations.
:Don't know really, I was not here long enough to become in contact with Halibutt, so I shall withhold for the time being. Anyway you seem to have a strong case against him. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::Ok. I don't have a case against Halibutt. As I explained on his talk page, I will even support him the next time around. But he should learn to dissociate himself from nationalist trolls like Molobo or Space Cadet. If you have had troubles with Molobo, please add the summary of his abuses to my note [[User_talk:Dbachmann#Molobo's RfAr|here]]. I believe we should stand united against his nationalist spree. Thanks, [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 14:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==A bit more on the metro==
:The Randel entry is good you can google it to a John Dean article in Findlaw and another on CNN. Delete huh? Not a decent choice. Try a google. (Non-registered user who digs the Wiki) (Move this as ya see fit!)
Hi there. I have a couple minor questions on your metro project, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulitsa_Podbelskogo&curid=2197317&diff=28587939&oldid=28587890 this edit] in particular. The first one I meant to ask for a while now&mdash;it's regarding the names of the architects. You've been using their initials so far, which is understandable, considering that's probably what most of your sources are using. You do, however, also wikilink them. Now, I don't really know much about those people, but do you think they are notable enough to ever have their own articles? My point is, if the only thing they are famous for is the station(s) they designed, maybe there is no need to link their names, especially when only the last name and initials are known. Anyway, that's just my thought.
:*{{unsigned|70.178.18.135|22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}}
 
The second question is regarding the external links section. I'm not sure why you didn't like my wording ("the description of the station on..."), and I'm not going to concern myself with this, but having a note in parentheses indicating that the link leads to the site which is not in English is a common courtesy to the reader. I've read too many interesting articles that made me hungry for more, only to discover that most of the links in the external links section are to the sites written in Chinese, Dutch, or Hebrew. I admit that not many editors concern themselves with these minor details, but since you are developing quite a few articles from scratch, perhaps you'd consider it? Besides, it's often a combination of both content and those minor details that creates a synergy of a great article.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 14:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:In the Randel instance, he used classified information for his own purposes. Instead of a trial and 500 years he plead out. 1 year in and 3 with a bracelet. Edit me away, I am done ;)
:*{{unsigned|70.178.18.135|22:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)}}
 
:I did not wikilink them as I did not write the original article. Sorry about the removal of the description of the links, that was a typo. But why did you revert my translits, I mean since as you said none is right I just wanted to clarify them. Besides Krasniye vs Krasnye is much more logical considering that Y is not a vowel and is not suitable to substitute Ы since the index Ye is used to substute any E that's after a vowel and hence ЫЕ ЫЙ should be translited as IYE and IY consisdering there is no Ы in english anyway, and in my opinion the Y is overused in Russian to english translits anyway. -ий, -ый, й, ы, е. Give I a chance!!![[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 17:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::<s>Whatever the case, the point is valid. It needs to be sourced. I'll do it if I can find an appropriate source. [[User:Aerion|Aerion]][[User_talk:Aerion|//talk]] 23:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)</s>
::Sorry, my bad&mdash;it was me myself who added the wikilinks (duh!). That was in hopes someone would come and put the full names in. But since you obviously know the topic&mdash;do you think it'd be better to replace initials with full names and leave the names linked, or would it be better to simply remove the wikilinks because most of the metro stations architects were not all that notable?
 
:::Not notable? Nina Aleshina, Robert Pogreboi, Alexandr Dushkin... [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::If I had actually looked at the article first, I could have told you that the source for the claim immediately precedes it in the text. I've moved the FindLaw citation after the paragraph in question so it's more clear where the information comes from. [[User:Aerion|Aerion]][[User_talk:Aerion|//talk]] 23:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
::::Being less than a fan of Moscow and its history, I wouldn't know. Surely, some of the architects mentioned in the metro articles are far less notable than the others. Anyway, I'm leaving this up to your judgement to delink those people who do not deserve articles of their own. All I wanted to do their was to bring someone's attention to incomplete names.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Thanks for the clarification on the external links format, too.
:::As the person who inserted the initial references to Randel here, I believe the story here evolved to have many errors. In particular, the cited source (and no other source I have ever seen) does not suggest that Ashcroft was an agent. Randel claimed he was a suspect. I have cleaned up this section.
::As for the transliteration (sigh), I did indeed mention that no existing system is "correct" (as well as "incorrect"). The question is again consistency. Yes, we can theoretically use "i" for "ы", but notice, however, that neither ISO-9, nor ALA-LC, nor Allworth, nor BGN/PCGN, nor even GOST systems do so. They all use "y". This is, simply put, a tradition. Why invent new rules? Do you really want to introduce ''yet another transliteration'' system to the slew of already existing ones? In the hindsight, the act of modifying BGN/PCGN (slightly!) for Wikipedia was probably not the best idea, but it was only done because using "y" to indicate "-ый" and "-ий" endings is so common when transliterating Russian into English, and because "yy" for "-ый" looks awful to an English-speaking reader. It makes sense, but it introduced elements of transcription into otherwise clean transliteration system. Substituting "i" for "ы" will add another one&mdash;but in this case the question is&mdash;why? It is certainly not traditional, and is not even more common (just google for "krasniye" vs "krasnye", or "chistiye" vs "chistye").
:::--[[User:RichardMathews|RichardMathews]] 09:29, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::I hope my explanations make sense to you. You won't believe how many times I had similar conversations in the past. So far I've been able to persuade those people that the system currently in place, while definitely not perfect, is the best for Wikipedia considering 1)&nbsp;the number of articles that already use it; 2)&nbsp;the traditions of transliterating Russian into ''English'' (this is English Wikipedia, so the other languages do not really matter much); 3)&nbsp;the fact that the output is so much readable to an English-speaking person; and 4)&nbsp;it can easily be decoded back to Cyrillics even despite some transcription elements.
::Please let me know if you wish to discuss this further. I am more than willing to. Take care,&nbsp;&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::It is not the question of what is commonly used, it is a question of what is correct, I mean the fact that Y is used instead of I whilst there is no ы sound in english at all is not my convention but then hey Galen was used up until 15th century before Versailles corrected him, so conventions make little difference to me, they will make even less difference to an English user, but the overwhelming preference to Y will, especially in since most of the sounds can be split easilly replaced by I. I mean compare Izmaylovsky Park to Izmailovskiy Park. You are saying that an english person will be fully alright and forgiven for saying ИзмаЫловскЫ Парк or Красн'йe Ворота. No wonder that so many foreigners can't pronounce and read Russian correctly. In addition what is Й in Russian? И-Краткое, ie ''I''-Short, so why use Y for it? [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
== Name Lists ==
::::As far as "correct" goes, let me remind you that Wikipedia is not here to push correct spellings, but to represent common trends (I'll dig you a link to a specific policy, if you don't believe me). In that regards, "Kyiv" is also correct, and "Kiev"&mdash;incorrect, yet the article is at [[Kiev]] because that's what the majority of people uses. By your logic, the best way to handle Russian names is to provide phonetic transcription instead of transliteration. Surely IPA is more "correct" by your standards than any of the translit system I described above. But, transliteration, unlike transcription, renders the original name in letters the reader knows and in ways the reader can understand. Tell me, what makes ''Izmailovskiy Park'' superior to ''Izmaylovsky Park''? Following your example, it can just as easily be converted by an uninformed reader back to ''ИзмаИловскиЫ'', which is equally incorrect. Would you rather see ''Izmailovskii''? Same thing, it can be converted to ''ИзмаиловскиИ''&mdash;again, incorrect (and that is not to mention that we merely traded one ambiguity for another). What about ''Krasniye''? Why do you accept the possibility of it being read as ''КраснИе''? Face it, there is '''NO''' correct way to transliterate Russian, not if we accept your definition of "correct". In which case, why not stick with something that worked before, is working now, is not an artificial invention, and is accepted by the majority of people? I '''really''' want to hear what you have to say now.
What do people think of combining the 'Central Figures' list and 'Known Witnesses' list? Just specify which are known to have testified in the combined list. That way we could list Novak and include both that he published the initial leak and that many analysts suspect he spoke to the grand jury. Also we wouldn't have different descriptions of Karl Rove's job in each list and other similar duplication. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 18:34:06, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
:I started the list of those known to have testified at the grand jury just to help parse out this most complex situation. As it stands, all those who are central figures may not be amonst those who are known to have given testimony before the grand jury, hence the two seperate lists. Perhaps as the case moves forward the two lists will be combined into some third format that includes information about each person. My thinking is that each of the major players should eventually have a subsection. Perhaps at some point there will be need for a graphic or graphics showing lines of connection or some sort of visual device to aid understanding. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 21:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
::The decision whether to give Undersecretary John H. Bolton a place on that list could be contentious, as sources differ on the veracity of the claim that he testified... :) -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 23:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::::As for the "y" being used to transliterate "й"&mdash;in modern English "y" is a consonant that sometimes acts as a vowel, which pretty much makes it a semi-vowel. "Й" is also a semi-vowel. To me, that's a perfect match. I'm sure that the authors of all major transliteration systems followed the same logic.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
== What did the president know? ==
 
:::::Kiev and Kyiv is more a question of familiarity and the comparison is more like Moscow and Moskva. I agree that it will be impossible to fully transliterate Russian into English (although it is possible to do it into Spanish and German where you have the J). In terms of pronounciaciaon of Izmailovskiy lets remeber that I in english is not limited to the и sound, in fact the sound can also be achieved in ee and ei and other examples, so why limit i to и, so why should it become in Russo-English translit. Moreover Измаиловский is actually not entirely incorrect (depending on which Russian accent you take). Anyway since "history" has made it that y represents Ы, then so be it, but representing other sounds, I can't see the disadvantage of not clarifying something like -ий with -iy. Finally I don't expect foreigners get the Ы sound at all, and most substitute with И anyway. I personally have herd them say Красние Ворота and I am alright with that but when they see something like Izmaylovsky Park most say Измаиловски Парк, I consider that to be a much more serious mistake than Красние Ворота, because this is not due to their mother tongue not having these sounds, but due to the transliteration that is given to them. Don't get me wrong I am against -ii and -yy to duplicate -ий and -ый. I thing that the former in particular should be differentiated from the latter by -iy and -yi or -yj respectivelly. Finally in relation to the Krasniye vorota. Note that the letter E has always been made very clear by (guess what) by using the Y, after a vowel it like in Alekseyevskaya and Belyayevo (I don't even want to imagine how many incorrect ways that can be pronounced), so how does Krasnye Vorota fits into this is the y used for the Ы or the E (and I'll finish with saying I have herd Красне Ворота before)[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 23:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
An article in the [[Washington Post]] gives summary of where things are in [[Plame affair]]. Several points herein should be useful to [[Plame scandal timeline]] and [[Plame affair]] article development. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/25/BL2005072500724_pf.html What Did the President Know? Washington Post, Mon. 23 July 2005] [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 00:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::Using "-iy" to represent "-ий" (but not "-ый") is actually all right, even within current policy. In the end, this is the matter of personal taste. I personally like to use "y" anyway (for, you guessed right, consistency sake), but "-iy" has equal rights.
::::::As for "Krasnye Vorota", "ye" for "-ые" here is used for the same reason why "yy" is not used for "-ый", which is to avoid ugliness of double y. What's more, in these borderline cases "ye" is used more often than "yye" (see google, as well as the article on [[Naberezhnye Chelny]]). So basically to conform with policies we should either use "Krasnye" (because it's more common use) or "Krasnyye" (to stick with the translit guidelines; also note that Encarta uses this convention). "Krasniye" may seem as a good idea, but, as I mentioned above, such variant is not used by any major transliteration system, and Wikipedia should mirror common knowledge/use (to the point where it does not contradict the facts, of course) instead of inventing new conventions. Again, the final variant boils to the personal preference. As for foreigners pronouncing stuff incorrectly&mdash;well, they are foreigners, they would pronounce things incorrectly and/or with accent even if transliteration were perfect.
::::::Anyway, I will try to compile a list of most common objections to and questions about [[Transliteration of Russian into English|current Wikipedia transliteraton system]]. I should have probably done it long ago, because having the same conversation over and over, only with different people every time, is really a chore. If you want to suggest any objections/questions for such a list, feel free to drop me a note or just continue commenting here. Thanks.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 02:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==New WalterUlitsa Pincus1905 Goda article==
 
I think Ulitsa Tysyacha Devyatsot Pyatogo (1905) Goda should be shortened to Ulitsa 1905 Goda since "Ulitsa Tysyacha Devyatsot Pyatogo (1905) Goda" is rather long for an article title and makes the TKL template uncomfortably wide. I don't see any advantage to spelling out 1905, especially since "Ulitsa 1905 Goda" is the spelling commonly used elsewhere, including Metro signs. [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 01:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
(also posted at 'Karl Rove', but it belongs wherever this evolving scandal winds up.)
 
:But not how its pronounced in the loudspeakers, anyway I don't really mind, but certainly spell it fully out on the article.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 08:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
In this article in the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html Washington Post], former CIA spokesman (who testified before the grand jury) confirms Plame was undercover operative, and Pincus describes a very unusual person who gave testimony to the grand jury - a friend of Wilson who approached Novak on the street six days prior to his now-infamous column and to whom Novak, not aware of the man's friendship with Wilson, apparently leaked Plame's identity. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 04:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::Thanks, the template looks a lot better. [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
:''{Bill} Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
 
==Volyn Crop and [[Holodomor]]==
:''Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified information.
 
Hi Kazak, that's an interesting point that you're rising. I think the good places to check for this would be [http://www.archiwa.gov.pl/?CIDA=43 National Archives] or [http://www.aan.gov.pl/index2.htm The New Archives] (but the latter don't seem to have an English version online) or maybe [http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/index.htm Central Statistical Office]. Your question seems intriguing and I'll try to investigate it but it's going to take some time, as I'm rather busy these days. Also, we have to remeber that wikipedia is not a place for original research, so we should be rather basing on other authors' works. As far as I know there's been no famine in the 1930-s in Western Ukraine, so that would seem to confirm that the famine in Eastern Ukraine at that time had to be politically driven rather than a natural disaster. As for neutral historians (that is not Polish/Russian/Ukrainian), I've checked that Norman Davies in his "God's Playground" writes that Ukrainians in Poland at that time were horrified at their neighbours across the border starving to death. This would also confirm that it was not a natural famine, but one that was artificially made. Cheers for now. --[[User:Wojsyl|Wojsyl]] <sup>([[User talk:Wojsyl|talk]])</sup> 10:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:''In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."
 
== Congratulations! ==
:''Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said.
 
Just want to congratulate you and your wife [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 08:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
==Bolton interviewed, did not testify==
 
::Thank you. Summer 2006. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 22:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Big controversy whether Bolton did or did not testify before the grand jury in the Plame affair. MSNBC's [http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8666472/ July 21 'Hardball'] [http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/187866.htm says yes]:
 
== Architects ==
:''According to lawyers, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and undersecretaries, including John Bolton, gave testimony about this memo. And a lawyer for one State Department official says his client testified that, as President Bush was flying to Africa on Air Force One two years ago, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer could be seen reading the document on board.
 
== Architects' initials ==
:''The timing is significant, because the president's trip on July 7 was one day after Ambassador Joe Wilson's column was published criticizing the administration. In other words, on July 6, Wilson's column comes out. On July 7, the State Department memo about Wilson's wife is seen on Air Force One. And, on July 8, Karl Rove had a conversation with columnist Robert Novak, but says it was Novak who told him about Valerie Plame, not the other way around.
 
What exactly is the problem with giving the initials of the Moscow Metro architects? [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
:''Rove also says he never saw the State Department memo until prosecutors showed it to him. Six days later, on July 14, 2003, Novak published the now infamous column that publicly identified Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as a CIA operative.
:I hope Kazak does not mind me answering this question for him (since it was me bugging him about it in the first place). Actually, there is really no problem. It is just preferable to give full names, if they are known. If they are not known, then, of course, initials are better than nothing, but in that case the names should probably not be wikilinked.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 01:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
::I suggest we leave it as surnames alone, and besides official names of Russians are never given (in Wikipedia) with their (son of ) "middle" name. So if giving initials, then just the first name.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 08:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==RfAr==
:''Grand jury witnesses say a call record kept by Ari Fleischer shows Novak placed a call to him during this period. And lawyers for several witnesses say their clients were questioned by investigators about Fleischer's conversations. Fleischer, however, did not have the power to be a decision-maker in the administration. And White House observers point out, he wouldn't have likely taken it upon himself to disseminate the State Department memo. In any case, Fleischer and his lawyer have declined to comment.
An [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Community vs. User:AndriyK|arbitration request]] against [[User:AndriyK]] has been filed. If you intend to participate/co-sign, please add your name to the "Involved parties" section and write a statement.&mdash;[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 18:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Question ==
and apparently [http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000802.html stands by the story], and Reuters [http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050725/pl_nm/bush_bolton_dc_3 says it didn't happen]:
:''Some critics have also seized on reports he may have been involved in leaking the identity of aCIA operative, Valerie Plame, but a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bolton had neither testified nor been asked to do so before the grand jury investigating the leak.'' -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 04:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
Are Kuban kazaks Russians, Ukrainians or Kazaks?
Yep. He did. State Dept [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_bolton confirmed] it today.
IMO it is Russian sub-ethnical group.
RGRDS
[[User:Ben-Velvel|Ben-Velvel]] 14:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 
We are Cossacks. Кубанские Казаки. Checl 2002 census.
:''State Dept. Now Says Bolton Interviewed
 
My opinion: the followng people Velikorossians, Malorossians, Belorossians, Pomorians, Carpathian Ruthenians and Cossacks are just the different variations of the Russian slavic group. The fact that in 1917 the term Russian was privatised to the Velikorossians is the source of confusion. Cossacks in the 1926 census could not decide where they belong and as they are neither Veliko or Malorossians, culturally and ethnically. Most of the Cossacks by default were turned into Russians (Don, Terek, Ural etc). With us Kubanese when faced with question Russian and Ukranians they would have digested it as Veliko or Malorossians? Well we are neither and there are countless ethnographical accounts which say that Cossacks are a subgroup and do not belong to either side of the eastern slavic branches. In 1926 they would have said we are Cossacks, the census people after their failed attempt to lingustically destinguish the population simply split them, 50:50 and called for further research. Thereby the census itself concludes that the data is provisionary. The fact that US government can't understand that is not surprising, I mean there is a destinct percentage of the US population that thinks in our country winter is all year round and bears walk on our streets.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
:''WASHINGTON - John Bolton, President Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, mistakenly told Congress he had not been interviewed or testified in any investigation over the past five years, the State Department said Thursday. Bolton was interviewed by the State Department inspector general in 2003'' -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 02:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 
What an original point of view! I must write it down. It can be used as smart joke. Especialy this part: "...Carpathian Ruthenians... variation of Rissian slavic group..." LOL!!! Did you tell them already? I think you should, Kazak - they struggle to find identity for a long time already.--[[User:Oleh Petriv|Oleh Petriv]] 02:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
::Ryan, sorry about pulling this out of the grand jury witnesses list. I think it is very important news, he still lied to the Senate, but from what we know so far there is no proof he testified to the grand jury in addition to the State IG. Have you heard anything about whether MSNBC is sticking by their original report or did they just have the story slightly confused? --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 10:55:44, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
 
== Dnipro ==
:::This is a strange one. MSNBC hasn't updated the story, afaik - but I've got my feelers out. Looks like he didn't, and they'll retract, on the face of it. If I hear anything back, I'll point to it. And no problem at all - thanks for making the correction! :) -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 14:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Kazak, I would gladly take into account your suggestions, but unfortunately I have low credibility in them. Even if I'm only few days here, on English Wikipedia, I have formed my opinion already on your style of writing and changes as well as couple of other "brothers" like Ghirlandajo. Sorry for being so direct. I will talk over the issue about names with Irpen. He seems to be reasonable person. And don't worry too much about poor Anglophones. In this case this excuse in nothing more than a way to promote or pro-Russian point of view.--[[User:Oleh Petriv|Oleh Petriv]] 01:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==Operation: Blame Plame begins==
 
:''Report: Plame Gave Money to Anti-Bush Group
 
:''WASHINGTON — Outed CIA spy Valerie Plame last fall gave a campaign contribution to go toward an anti-Bush fund-raising concert starring Bruce Springsteen, it was revealed Tuesday night.
 
:''It's the first revelation that Plame participated in anti-Bush political activity while working for the CIA.''
 
:''The $372 donation to the anti-Bush group America Coming Together (search), first reported by Time magazine's Web site, was made in Plame's married name of Valerie E. Wilson and covered two tickets. The Federal Election Commission (search) record lists her occupation as "retired" even though she's still a CIA staffer. Under employer it says: "N.A."
 
:''A special prosecutor is probing whether Plame's CIA identity was leaked to retaliate against her husband, Joseph Wilson (search), for attacking President Bush's Iraq policy after he went on an Iraq-linked CIA mission arranged by his wife.
 
:''Wilson {... said ...} that his wife "doesn't recall listing herself as retired."
 
:''CIA rules allow campaign contributions, but the fact that Plame gave money to the anti-Bush effort is likely to raise eyebrows. Federal rules require a political-action committee to ask all donors to list their employers.
 
:''"You don't have to provide it, but if you do, you shouldn't provide false information on those forms — like saying you're retired if you're not," said Larry Noble of the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics'' [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163777,00.html]
 
-- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 14:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:Oh, that's so much worse than releasing an undercover agent's name to get back and her husband for being honest to the best of his ability. Hearing that, is it long before Fitgerald pack's up and goes home? That totally trumps anything that I've heard about this case so far. (joke). [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 15:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
 
==Operation: Slime Fitzgerald on the way==
 
From the [http://www.observer.com/opinions_conason.asp NY Observer].
 
:''Circled in a bristling perimeter around the White House, the friends and allies of Mr. Rove can soon be expected to fire their rhetorical mortars at Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the White House exposure of C.I.A. operative Valerie Wilson. Indeed, the preparations for that assault began months ago in the editorial columns of The Wall Street Journal, which has tarred Mr. Fitzgerald as a “loose cannon” and an “unguided missile.”
 
:''Evidently Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, will lead the next foray against the special prosecutor. This week the Senator’s press office announced his plan to hold hearings on the Fitzgerald probe. That means interfering with an “ongoing investigation,” as the White House press secretary might say, but such considerations won’t deter the highly partisan Kansan.
 
==Plame affiar visual index==
*'''[[Plame affair]] visual index'''
*Add new images here, discuss in some other section. Someone suggested getting images together, I thought it was good idea. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 15:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 
{|
||[[Image:Patrick Fitzgerald 18380357.jpg|thumb|75x|[[Patrick Fitzgerald]]]]
||[[Image:Lewis_Libby.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Lewis Libby|I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby]]]]
||-
||[[Image:Hadleybio.jpg|thumb|100px|[[Stephen Hadley]]]]
||[[Image:Karl_Rove.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Karl Rove]]]]
|[[Image:Matthew Cooper.jpg|right|thumb|[[Matthew Cooper]]]]
|}
<br>
{|
||[[Image:George_Tenet.gif|thumb|150px|[[George Tenet]]]]
||[[Image:Plame and Wilson.JPG|thumb|150x|[[Joseph C. Wilson]] and [[Valerie Plame]].]]
|-
||[[Image:Nagasakibomb.jpg|thumb|150px|The [[mushroom cloud]], spoken of frequently by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and senior whitehouse staff prior to the confrontation with Iraq. [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki| Photo info here]] <!--of the [[Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki|atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan,]] [[1945]], rose some 18 km (11 mi) above the [[epicenter]].-->]]
||[[Image:Yellowcake.jpg|thumb|225x|[[Yellowcake]]]]
|}
 
== Kudos ==
 
I would like show my appreciation to Calicocat, aerion and others for creating and working on this page and trying as best as possible to keep NPOV. Now if we could just make this the one stop shop for information on this, instead of folks trying to recreate the whole thing in umpteen other places.--[[User:Gangster Octopus|Gangster Octopus]] 23:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:Wow,thank you so much. A lot of credit has to go to those working on [[Karl Rove]] as well. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 23:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
::I second the kudos for Calicocat, as well as the others who've worked on this. I've added the Wilsons' photo to this article. Thanks for digging those up, Calicocat. I'll do more with the others as time permits. (Late for bed now... :( ) [[User:-asx-|-asx-]] 05:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::Oh, and I also second the idea that we should encourage movement of the details of this scandal away from the other pages to this one. With the exception someone noted the other day that, for example, the Rove page would expand on Rove's role in the scandal -- without rehashing the whole story. [[User:-asx-|-asx-]] 05:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::: Thirded. The boxes are nice too. :) -[[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 05:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Table formatting==
 
I moved the 3 lists into floating tables, for a couple of reasons:
 
#Multi-column layouts tend to be more appealing and give the browsing reader more options and encourages scrolling so they see more of the article.
#It has the effect of shortening the actual prose portion of the article. People don't usually read lists (in their entirity, like prose), so when they appear inside the flow of the article, they have the effect of breaking up the narrative.
 
I know these kinds of massive formatting changes can be controversial. If you don't like it, feel free to revert. [[User:-asx-|-asx-]] 05:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:I like what you are going for, but I think it would be best if the list stayed within one section somehow. I find it makes the page load more slowyly and the text column is too narrow for comfortable reading. I find it distracting. Someone is also developing a template with a kind of similar similar function. The lists are just a basic, baseline reference and can just sit there for when they might be needed. If you need a name one, you can go and get it. I appreciate the effort and it has a kind of cool look, but I'm minded to restore it to a plain list for now. The help files say it's better to stick with just lists. The article needs much more work in terms of sections and subsections. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 11:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::On my excessively wide resolution, the list of people overlaps the TOC, and so gets pushed to the left. That's mildly irritating. Disregarding that, I like the idea of getting the lists out of the way. But I'm not entirely convinced that the lists actually need to be present at all. The list of central figures may just need to be a "see also" section at the end of the article. [[User:Aerion|Aerion]][[User_talk:Aerion|//talk]] 13:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Both good points, especially the latter about wide resolution. That's the problem with fluid layouts. Feel free to revert. I don't think the lists add much; they aren't bad (IMO) if they are relegated to 2ndary position in the sidebar, but right smack dab in the middle of the article, I think they are a distraction. Maybe it would be better to spin off a sub-article like the Plame affair timeline. But, whatever you guys decide to do is OK with me. (I can undo it if you want to do that, but I have to get to work now so it won't be for several hours that I'm able to do that...) [[User:-asx-|-asx-]] 13:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::::Ah, CBDunkerson moved them down. Thanks, that's much better. Good idea, asx! [[User:Aerion|Aerion]][[User_talk:Aerion|//talk]] 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== merging from [[Valerie Plame]] ==
 
There is a note on the Plame page that some of this stuff should be merged. I think the stuff there dealing with legality and national security certainly is relevant here, as well as the various reactions from the Admin, from former CIA, etc.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 07:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
:I think we should open a subsection on Valerie Plame (and other key figures) I hope we can expand the article that way. This article is still too Rove oriented (from whence it came), so we need to now begin the expansion of subsections. Certainly an Article named [[Plame affair]] should have a subsection on her. Lets see where it goes. I short section that brings out key points, maybe just a bulleted list to start something like that. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 08:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
::On the subsections, I agree but think we should limit it to their involvement in the leak and investigation rather than background on the individuals. I have started moving pieces of the various articles to pages that seem more appropriate... trying to cut the merging task down to a managable size. What do people think about taking the Joseph Wilson specific stuff OFF of this page. Alot of it is duplicated from the Wilson page. To my mind there are two separate, but related obviously, issues here... the 'Plame affair' encompassing everything from the reasons and sources of the leak through the reactions and investifation of it AND a separate controversy over whether Joseph Wilson told the truth about various things. This latter is comparatively minor (as for instance... no grand jury looking into it) and I think can be contained entirely on the Joseph Wilson page with just mention of the dispute and cross-linking here. Likewise with the now starting assaults on Valerie Wilson and Patrick Fitzgerald... these can each be contained on the individual pages rather than duplicating each of them here. Opinions? --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 11:43:31, 2005-07-28 (UTC)
:I like your edits, --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] and good edit comment and think your organizational ideas are strong and sound. There needs to be balance between the individual articles of the central figures and the key events of the Plame affair itself, yes. This article was started since too much Plame affair was creaping into individual articles creating POV disputs and the like. However, now we have this article and have to watch about bringing too information about individuals here. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:Is the merging considered complete now? There seems to be plenty of redundancy, which I would figure can best be solved by trimming the [[Valerie Plame]] article. I notice no merge notice there, but one here. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 16:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Plame affair template ==
 
Someone started an organizational template it's a good suggestion but should not be rushed or placed into articls until it's had some time to develop and expand. It was posted into one of the talk page sections. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Lists and footnotes and source, oh my! ==
Lists of names, footnotes, references, key events and the like can be moved to subpages and eventually sorted and formatted as may be necessary for reinclusion in articles to which they might be useful. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 03:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Sections and subsections ==
 
What kind of sections do we need? I think the article needs to have some cuts in places and expansion in others. Here are some suggestions for sections we can work on. We'll need structural and functional sections. What do you think?
 
Some subsections or other headings...I'd like to hear more about organizing the articles progress.
*Background section -- Needs attention.
(other sections I think we need)
*President Bush - public positions and quotes
*Dick Cheney -
*Fleischer/McClellan
*Republicans
*Democreats
*Vallerie Plame -- needed
*Wilson -- needed, includes his essay, book and public campaign
*Rove -- developed, needs to be reviewed, updated
*Libby -- needed
*FBI investigation
*Gonzalas -- Notifications, statments on the record.
*Investigations, Ashcoft, FBI, Fitzgerald, then grand gury, others that may develop, such as congressional.
*The Leak -- when the name is revealed
*A trip to Niger --
*Media coverage --
*Legal
There's still some old information and innocuous statements that Rove has not been charged with a crime and things of that nature. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]]
 
:What I think we should do is create a high-level list of the topics covered at all Plame affair-related articles, and decide which article should cover which topics. Most of the stuff should go here, but some people have suggested that information specific to a single person, such as speculation about Karl Rove or questions about Joe Wilson's credibility, should go at that person's article. That way, we can more easily identify what information exists somewhere on Wikipedia, as well as what information needs to be merged, and what information we would like to add or expand on.
 
:While the sections you mention do need coverage, it is an extraordinarily large amount of material to cover. I think that adding all of it to this article may make the article far longer than desired. Excessive length discourages readers and hinders proper maintainance. Is there a more appropriate place for some of this? Could we simply have one section for "Administration reaction" that would cover statements by Bush, Cheney, and McClellan?
 
:Splitting up these tasks may be advisable to avoid burning out any single editor. [[User:Aerion|Aerion]][[User_talk:Aerion|//talk]] 13:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::I agree with your statement, "Excessive length discourages readers and hinders proper maintainance." This can't be emphasized enough. In my short time hanging around here, I've heard it said that spinning off sub-articles is not to be done; everything must be packed into a single, gigantic article. I think this information would reach many more people, and as you say, be easier to maintain, if we had sub-articles. Two examples could be "Wilson's Niger Trip," and "Plame's Covert Status," each examing those topics in depth. [[User:-asx-|-asx-]] 02:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::'''Question''' Can we create a template, something like <nowiki>{{PlameAffair}}</nowiki>, that could be dropped into every page with information on this topic? That way the formatting and text would be consistent across all pages, and if we needed to reword it later, we'd only have to do it once, not 98 times. If you Search the site for "Plame," you get four pages of results. Just looking at the 3 lists in the article, it's clear that there are a LOT of pages that contain information on this topic. By placing the template on the relevent pages, I think we could encourage editors of those articles to assist with the effort. Just some thoughts. [[User:-asx-|-asx-]] 03:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 
==Big news in the Plame affair==
 
News of a third contact between the Bush administration and the media (Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus) regarding Plame's identity has come to light. [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28leak.html NYTimes]
 
:''Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn
 
:'' WASHINGTON, July 26 - In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.
 
:''The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.
 
:''In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, "an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention" to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV "because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction."
 
:''Mr. Pincus did not write about the exchange with the administration official until October 2003, and The Washington Post itself has since reported little about it. The newspaper's most recent story was a 737-word account last Sept. 16, in which the newspaper reported that Mr. Pincus had testified the previous day about the matter, but only after his confidential source had first "revealed his or her identity" to Mr. Fitzgerald, the special counsel conducting the C.I.A. leak inquiry.
 
:''Mr. Pincus has not identified his source to the public. But a review of Mr. Pincus's own accounts and those of other people with detailed knowledge of the case strongly suggest that his source was neither Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, nor I. Lewis Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was in fact a third administration official whose identity has not yet been publicly disclosed.
 
:''Mr. Pincus's most recent account, in the current issue of Nieman Reports, a journal of the Nieman Foundation, makes clear that his source had volunteered the information to him, something that people close to both Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have said they did not do in their conversations with reporters.
 
:''Mr. Pincus has said he will not identify his source until the source does so. But his account and those provided by other reporters sought out by Mr. Fitzgerald in connection with the case provide a fresh window into the cast of individuals other than Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby who discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters.
 
The news here is not that Pincus was contacted - he let that be known in Oct 2003 I believe - but that there was a third Admin official (as yet unnamed) who was a source of the information. So we have Rove, Libby, and a third person to try for treason. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:Correct. But also relevant and underemphasized - Pincus asserts that the admin official, who identified him/herself to Fitzgerald and the grand jury (who was neither Rove nor Novak) was the source of the info, and not vice-versa as in the case of Rove/Novak. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 
== Removed "current" template ==
 
Removal of the "current" tag.
#I don't think the tag fits here, we're not dealing with a sitaution of immediate breaking news, like the Madrid bombings. This article might even at lag a bit behind the news cycle, it probablly should. There's no harm there, in fact, in the long run, it will make for a stronger article. It won't be as much subject to the various ups and downs we might see as this case develops. Wikipedia is not a news media outlet or a news index.
#I think the inclusion of the "current" template tends to setup bad conditions for conflicts as conflicting reports come in. In time some of the questions will be answered, however, there maybe end up being some long term unanswered questions as well, matters of debate for historians. A list of press accounts related to the plame affair is useful as is the scandel time line article and those should continue.
#The template "current" was vandalized and may be again. I think using it unless it's really required should be avioded to help server loading issues as well as it just being nasty. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 03:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
:Makes sense to me. We are in a 'lull' right now. I think it may get crazy again if/when Fitzgerald makes a move, but until then it isn't 'current' in the sense of rapidly changing and confused information. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 10:50:11, 2005-07-30 (UTC)
 
::I think I (respectfully) disagree. Perhaps the 'speed' is on a weeks-n-months timeframe, but the situation is definitely characterized by confused and rapidly changing information, as the tight-lipped investigation details emerge and the administration/GOP 'no comment/talking point' responses follow. I'd consider this 'current'. Just my perspective, I'm not at all 'up in arms' about the tag. -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 14:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 
::: It is worth noting that this is listed under the Current Events link on the left there as an ongoing event (I changed the link to this from Valerie Plame), so a case could be made for consistency to include it. But it isn't a big deal, etiher way.--[[User:Gangster Octopus|Gangster Octopus]] 18:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 
:''In order for one to be protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it must be proven that the U.S. government "is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." If Plame worked at CIA's headquarters it may show that the CIA was not taking "affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States," however, her exact assignments and ___location are not known as of August 1, 2005.''
 
I am not comfortable with this claim. The fact that US taxpayers were spending money on an entire front company that protected Plame's identity pretty well seals the question of whether the US was taking "affirmative measures" in this case. It's pointed out elsewhere on this page I think -- though it may have been on the [[Valerie Plame]] page -- but this statement gives credibility to a claim that seems to be based on total ignorance of US intelligence operations, or at least that's what former CIA operatives like Larry Johnson and Pat Lang claim. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 03:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Time line review ==
 
I'd like to include an abbreviated time line in the article and started this draft. I'd like to flesh it out but keep it short. When it's in good shape it can be included in the "time line" section of the article and those wishing more detail can check the full time line article. To develop this, my suggestion is that we add details to the draft below but keep comments above or below the (sparingly used) horizontal lines.
 
The idea as I see it is not to include every detail of the vicissitudes of press reports and such, but rather to include the most significant events -- things which have material bearing on the situation, for example, indictments, convictions, dismissals, etc. Again, I used horizontal lines (sparingly) to mark off the proposed draft time line apart from any comments editors might have regarding it. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 05:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 
 
----
''(developing short version of time line, here)''<br>
Abbreviated time line, key events
* U.S and U.K. agree on pretext to war -- [[Downing Street memo]], [[Yellowcake forgery]]
**Reasons for military action in Iraq cited by Bush administration prior to initiation of Operation Iraqi Liberation, Operation Iraqi Freedom
**#Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
**#need for "regime change"
*Ambassador Wilson travels to [[Niger]] at behest of CIA to investigate evidence of sales of [[yellowcake]] uranium ore to Iraq ''(dates needed)''
*#Wilson reports to Washington that no such activity has taken place ''(dates)''
*President Bush delivers 2003 State of the Union address (the 16 words)
*Wilson responds with [[Op-ed]] in New York Times ''(link needed)''
*Senior White House officials (per Novak) leak Plame identity to Novak and other reporters
*Novack discloses identity of Plame in his column ''(link, date, needed)''
*Bush calls for internal investigation conducted by [[Attorney General]] [[John Ashcroft]] ''(dates needed)''
*[[FBI]] conducts investigation ''(dates, details needed)''
*[[CIA]] calls upon [[Justice Department]] to investigate ''(date needed)''
*John Ashcroft recuses himself from the case, appoints Deputy AG to be "acting AG" for the case ''(date needed)''
*#Deputy AG appoints [[Patrick Fitzgerald]]
*Fitzgerald begins investigation ''(key filings?)''
*[[Grand jury]] impaneled (expires in October, 2005, unless extended)
 
-End- (as of Aug. 1, 2005)
----
:Yes, please. The separate timeline article has mushroomed to the point where it's not a timeline any more. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 16:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Photo Suggestion ==
 
On http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/20/rovenovakPicture.html there's a picture of Rove together with Novak. Rove has a button attached to his suit that says "I am a source, not a target!". Not a photoshopped image! [http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/20/rovenovakPicture.html link to picture]
[[User:80.217.225.208|80.217.225.208]] 01:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:If you can get permission from the photo [[copyright]] holder to grant a usage license as needed, the photo might be included, otherwise, it would be a copyright issue. [[User:Calicocat|Calicocat]] 02:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Air Force One Memo ==
 
I replaced this paragraph:
 
:The keen interest in the memo stems from it being the only known source even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger, aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which wasnot written until 2004. This is the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications, and therefore implicates the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame, via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, as well as confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved.[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/11/8744/96732], [http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/11/pincus/index.html]
 
with the following:
 
:The keen interest in the memo stems from speculation that it was the source of the leaked information concerning Plame, via someone who was on the flight of Air Force One, and would indicate that the information was known to be secret.
 
The mention of the Senate report is quite unecessary here, and appears to be included only to justify the claim that the memo reviewed on Air force One was "the only known source even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger." Given the limited publicly available information concerning the matter, the "only known" qualifier has no significance. And in fact, the earlier June 10 State Department memo, the notes of the CIA meeting by the unnamed senior State Department analyst, the analyst and other attendees at that meeting, and the persons at CIA involved with arranging Wilson's Niger trip, are all possible sources of the "precise information" that Plame suggested Wilson. The assertion that the memo circulated on Air Force One was involved in the leak is purely speculative at this point. The claims that the memo has been implicated as the source of the leak, that it confirms the information was known to be secret, and that Novak's statement is "unlikely given the time frames involved" are unjustified. [[User:216.160.109.205|216.160.109.205]] 16:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 
The latest attempt to give prominence to this left-wing blogger speculation is hardly an improvement:
 
:Those who believe that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible for the leak note that, to date, it is the only known document even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger (aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which was not written until 2004). This is the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications, which the administration's critics point out is consistent with the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, as well as confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved. The memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie plame" is also consistent with Rove's statement that he did not use Plame's name, or even know what it was.[http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/11/8744/96732], [http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2005/08/11/pincus/index.html]
 
As noted above, the memo circulated on Air force One is not the only known document linking Plame to Wilson's trip. While the speculation that the Air force One memo was the source of the leak may be consistent with known facts, so are other possibilities. This speculation does not confirm that the information was known to be secret or make Novak's statement unlikely. And why isn't the memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie Plame" cited as consistent with the belief that the memo was NOT the source of the leak to Novak, since Novak called her Plame? [[User:216.160.109.205|216.160.109.205]] 18:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:because he looked it up in "Who's Who in America"?[[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 00:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 
I wasn't raising the name difference as a serious issue. Note that I didn't say that the memo's use of "Valerie Wilson" rather than "Valerie Plame" proved that the memo was not the source of the leak to Novak. I said it was "consistent with" the memo not being the source. My point was precisely that this proves nothing, any more than does saying that the memo mentioning that Plame suggested Wilson for the Niger trip is "consistent with" the memo being the source. That statement is obvious, and meaningless. Your successive revisons have only added verbosity and convolution without addressing the issue of inaccuracy and irrelevance. My point is that it is unnecessary and inappropriate for Wikipedia to include obviously false claims and inane reasoning by anonymous partisan bloggers. [[User:216.160.109.205|216.160.109.205]] 04:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:not too partisan there on your part, hmm? I would say, the claims and reasoning of salon.com and daily kos are probably more notable, properly attributed, than your point of view. anyhoo, i am interested in npoving it, so I've chopped out a couple of the lesser points in deference to your remarks; i figure "the blogs say this; supporters say that" format should be a fairly npov description of what goes on[[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 05:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Actually, I am opposed to including obviously false claims and inane reasoning by anonymous partisan bloggers ''on either side.'' [[User:216.160.109.205|216.160.109.205]] 06:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC).
 
Hi, I just have a question about one sentence: "confirming that the information was known to be secret; in addition making Novak's statement that he learned of Plame from another journalist seem to be unlikely given the time frames involved." Is there any source that confirms that Novak has stated that a journalist was his initial source? I couldn't find any on a cursory search on Google. [[User:Marie26|Marie26]] 21:59, 2 October 2005
 
== 21 people possibly connected ==
The cast of administration characters with known connections to the outing of an undercover CIA agent:
 
#Karl Rove
#I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
#Condoleezza Rice
#Stephen Hadley
#Andrew Card
#Alberto Gonzales
#Mary Matalin
#Ari Fleischer
#Susan Ralston
#Israel Hernandez
#John Hannah
#Scott McClellan
#Dan Bartlett
#Claire Buchan
#Catherine Martin
#Colin Powell
#Karen Hughes
#Adam Levine
#Bob Joseph
#Vice President Dick Cheney
#President George W. Bush
 
http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal
 
[[User:Kevin_baas|Kevin Baas]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kevin_baas|talk]]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevin_baas&action=edit&section=new new]</sup> 01:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 
You left off [[Jeff Gannon]]. [[User:Zoe|Zoe]] 05:25, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 
== My latest reversion ==
 
Someone asked on my talk page to explain my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plame_affair&diff=21088990&oldid=21046127 latest rv] on this page. I thought the reason was obvious -- an anonymous editor had made massively POV changes without any explanation. It is obviously a POV characterization to move from "those who believe that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible" to "anti-Bush bloggers who claim that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible" for example. Again, I assumed this was obvious; sorry if I created confusion.==[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 01:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:The people being referred to as "those who believe" are actually Kos and Grieve, who are ''in fact'' anti-Bush bloggers. This is not a POV characterization. Rather, it informs the reader as to the nature of the source. The last part of this section is nothing more than a specious argument derived from the partisan rant of these anti-Bush bloggers. It adds nothing to the factual or analytical content of the article. See the discussion [[#Air_Force_One_Memo|above]]. My preference is to simply remove it (although I retained a brief summary of the legitimate issue), but another editor insists on reinserting it. If it's going to stay in, the source needs to be accurately characterized. [[User:Anonip|Anonip]] 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 
::If those are the only two people who believe this then say "Kos and Grieve, two anti-Bush bloggers" or something of the sort. I am not trying to get in an edit war but seeing those changes by an anon source (you?) with no explanation, it was a red flag.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 02:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
:::The fact that Mr. Nooniemouse believes that adding the words "falsely" and "partisan" and changing "believe" to "claim" is a step towards NPOV speaks volumes in itself. I deleted all the ancillary and corollary claims listed to try and reach some sort of compromise for NPOV and make him happy, but noooooo.[[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 04:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
:::It's not that kos and grieve are the only two people with the same idea, they're just the two who best spell it out.
:::Bloomberg.com: USSpecial Prosecutor's Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls ... has subpoenaed telephone and fax records from Air Force One and the White House. ...www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103& sid=awksAN7mYRZY&refer=us - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Bloomberg.com: USThe memo, prepared by the State Department on July 7, 2003, informed top ... subpoenaed telephone and fax records from Air Force One and the White House. ...www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103& sid=aagJweX0XNCQ&refer=us - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Plame's Identity Marked As SecretMemo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst ... 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. ...www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html - Similar pages
:::Memo Is a Focus of CIA Leak Probe... interest in the State Department memo, which circulated on Air Force One ... believe that a printout of memo was in the front of Air Force One during a ...www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071600087.html - Similar pages
:::TalkLeft: Who Was On Air Force One?A week ago, I tried to connect some dots about who was on Air Force One from ... Now the same memo was leaked again to NYT then to WAPO, WSJ, Bloomberg, ...talkleft.com/new_archives/011612.html - 24k - Cached - Similar pages
:::TalkLeft: Classified Memo Naming Wilson's Wife Was on Air Force OneClassified Memo Naming Wilson's Wife Was on Air Force One. Leaks from Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation are coming faster and faster. ...talkleft.com/new_archives/011507.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
:::The Illustrated Daily ScribbleFrom Saturday's NewYorkTimes.com on the State Department memo Colin Powell had on the July 7, 2003, Air Force One flight to Africa with George W. Bush and ...www.theillustrateddailyscribble.com/ daily.scribble.pages.05/i07.18.05.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Eastern US Weather Forums > Looks like Air Force ONE had memoFull Version: Looks like Air Force ONE had memo · Eastern US Weather Forums > Off Topic > Randy's 'Hood > All Politics. zwyts. Jul 18 2005, 04:00 PM ...www.easternuswx.com/bb/ lofiversion/index.php/t41595.html - 22k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Eastern US Weather Forums -> Looks like Air Force ONE had memoOutline · [ Standard ] · Linear+. > Looks like Air Force ONE had memo. Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic ...www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showtopic=41595 - 113k - Cached - Similar pages
:::The leakers of Air Force One, and the passenger who heard them ...One possible explanation: some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One. ...www.needlenose.com/node/view/1659 - 66k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Refusing to lie in State | NeedlenoseAs such, stating that Powell was seen with the memo aboard Air Force One (which may have been where the ... •Talking Points Memo •Taxpayers for Common Sense ...www.needlenose.com/node/view/1656 - 49k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Did You Get the Memo? Dean Calls for Disclosure of Top Secret Memo ...That memo found its way onto Air Force One in July of 2003 on a transatlantic flight to Africa, and was seen in the hands of at least two members of the ...www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/07/ale05099.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Barbara's Daily Buzz July 22, 2005On the tube I heard someone say "Rove never saw the memo, so he didn’t see the "S" stamped on the Air Force One Memo"---To say Karl Rove didn’t see the "S" ...www.buzzflash.com/dailybuzz/05/07/bdb05122.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: February 29, 2004 ...QUESTION: Can you also confirm that Air Force One documents -- been handed over to a federal grand jury? McClellan: Well, I would just say that we are, ...www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_29.php - 101k - Aug 14, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
:::CNN.com - Memo with Plame's name marked secret - Jul 21, 2005Memo with Plame's name marked secret. Administration officials questioned about State Dept. ... Investigators subpoenaed records from Air Force One. ...www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/21/cia.leak/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Plame's Identity Clearly Marked as Secret in Memo; White House ...... as Secret in Memo; White House Pulls Transcript; Air Force One Conspiracy? ... If the memo referred to her as Valerie Wilson, why did Novak identify her ...mathewgross.com/community/node/189 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages
:::archives | Mathew GrossMemo Made it Clear that Plame's Name Shouldn't Be Shared ... Clearly Marked as Secret in Memo; White House Pulls Transcript; Air Force One Conspiracy? ...mathewgross.com/community/archive/2005/7/20 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
:::On Lisa Rein's Radar: Air Force One Phone Records Subpoenaed ...26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the ... It requested records of telephone calls to and from Air Force One from July 7 ...www.onlisareinsradar.com/archives/002085.php - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Air Force Enter Topic Your Name (optional) Your URL (optional ...... on a memo that Colin Powell reportedly carried aboard Air Force One on a trip ... Think Progress reports that on Air Force One today, no one asked Scott ...www.truthlaidbear.com/customtopic. php?topic_string=Air%20Force - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Plamegate: Air Force One Phone Records SubpoenaedAir Force One phone records are being subpoenaed as a grand jury probes the ... 26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the ...www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-02.htm - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Eight Days in July... literally the loftiest reaches of the Bush administration - on Air Force One. The memo, The Post reported, marked the paragraph containing information ...www.commondreams.org/views05/0724-20.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Memo Becomes Focus in CIA Leak ProbeThe classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson went public with his assertions that the Bush administration ...gnn.tv/headlines/3869/Memo_ Becomes_Focus_in_CIA_Leak_Probe - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Plaming Turd Blossom, What's It All About?... saw Ari Fleischer reading the classified June 10 memo that day on Air Force One. Link. Karl Rove apparently was not on Air Force One that day; however, ...www.jjraymond.com/political/2005/plame072005.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Wilson talks off record about Niger, Plame identity leaked ...But because Powell was traveling with Bush aboard Air Force One, the memo is ... at some point during the flight sees the INR memo aboard Air Force One. ...www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Wilson_ talks_off_record_about_Niger,_Plame_identity_leaked - 41k - Aug 14, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
:::Plame Leak timeline - dKosopediaThe State Department's June 10 INR memo is located and copied. ... with Bush aboard Air Force One (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_One), the memo is ...www.dkosopedia.com/index.php?title=Plame_ Leak_timeline&printable=yes - 57k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others ...... "A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson's Niger trip was classified ... was apparently first delivered to Air Force One when George W. Bush and ...www.topplebush.com/oped2074.shtml - 34k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others ...Only after that did investigators hustle to seek Air Force One phone logs and ... was seen on Air Force One brandishing the classified State Department memo ...www.topplebush.com/oped2065.shtml - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Memo May Hold Key to CIA Leak - Los Angeles TimesPowell had the memo with him on Air Force One when President Bush traveled to Africa on July 7, 2003, the day after Wilson's piece was published, ...www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/ la-na-memo17jul17,1,5664005.story?coll=la-news-a_section - Similar pages
:::Rove and Plame: The dog, unwagged George W. Bush's decision to ...The memo was reworked a bit and faxed to Powell on Air Force One on July 7, 2003. The AP, relying on the account of the retired official, said that the memo ...archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/07/20/plame/ - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
:::The Raw Story | White House press secretary pummeled again on Air ...Aboard Air Force One / En Route Indianapolis, Indiana / 11:55 AM EDT / Press Gaggle ... They put out another memo today, with a top-10 Joseph Wilson lies. ...rawstory.com/news/2005/White_House_ press_secretary_pummeled_again_on_Air_Forc_0714.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Stygius: Bolton and the State memo... jury on the State INR memo that circulated oh so widely on Air Force One. ... the State Department memo about Wilson's wife is seen on Air Force One. ...stygius.typepad.com/stygius/ 2005/07/bolton_and_the_.html - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Focus on State MemoGrossman sent the memo to Powell on Air Force One, including a "summary prepared by an analyst who was at a 2002 CIA meeting where Wilson's trip was ...uspolitics.about.com/b/a/187422.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
:::July 27, 2005 Headlines | Plame investigators follow the memoHe told prosecutors that he never saw a classified State Department memo that ... State Department official reportedly saw him perusing it on Air Force One. ...www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/0904/0727.shtml - 19k - Cached - Similar pages
:::WSJ.com - Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity... cabinet officials left for Africa, and the memo was aboard Air Force One. The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's ...online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112170178721288385-uh1ILw_ RG4bAJGgqjdsNHxrYSNE_20050818,00.html?mod=blogs - 33k - Cached - Similar pages
:::TreasonGate: What Did Bush Know and When Did He Know It?... "A key department memo discussing Joseph Wilson's Niger trip was classified ... document was apparently first delivered to Air Force One when George W. ...www.yuricareport.com/Corruption/ TreasonGateWhatDidBushKnow.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages
:::The ForumThe President himself might have read the memo and called the two aides. ... The only official on board Air Force One with the knowledge and ...www.markfiore.com/forum/comments.php?sid=3608& tid=42749&mode=flat&order=0&thold=-1 - 24k - Aug 13, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
:::Plame's Identity Marked As Secret on State Dept Memo | Air America ...A memo circulating on Air Force One the week before Novak outed CIA analyst Valerie Wilson clearly marked her name as secret. The memo is the suspected ...www.airamericaradio.com/node/425 - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
:::FOXNews.com - Politics - State Dept. Memo Outlines Wilson Niger TripThe classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson (search) went public with his assertions that the Bush ...www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163000,00.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Lemonblog: Leaning Away From Rove; Toward Fleicher?So, who saw the memo on Air Force One besides Colin Powell? Remember Karl Rove's statement to investigators that he first learned Valerie Plame Wilson's ...www.38ludlow.com/lemonblog/archives/000290.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
:::It's not just the Downing Street memoes [Archive] - OSNN ForumThe classified memo was sent to Air Force One just after former US Ambassador ... Powell had the memo with him on Air Force One when President Bush traveled ...forum.osnn.net/archive/index.php/t-78842.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
:::DCCC: Timeline of the LeakBecause Powell was traveling with Bush aboard Air Force One, the memo is ... Card was aboard Air Force One when the State Department memo identifying Plame ...www.democraticaction.org/firerove/timeline.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages
:::The Agonist | thoughtful, global, timelyLAT - Prosecutors are asking whether anyone on Air Force One learned ... Memo May Hold Key to CIA Leak | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden) ...www.agonist.org/story/2005/7/17/234816/127 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Prosecutors zero in on memo for clues in CIA agent leak / They ...Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memo in hand, ... The prosecutors have shown the memo to witnesses at the grand jury ...www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ c/a/2005/07/16/MNGJ8DOUOU1.DTL&type=printable - 13k - Cached - Similar pages
:::Plame’s identity marked as secret - washingtonpost.com Highlights ...Memo central to probe of leak spelled out information’s status ... 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. ...www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8635385/ - 56k - Cached - Similar pages
:::and many more. [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 05:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 
Gzuckier, I'm not objecting to the entire section. Obviously the INR memo is an important topic. What I'm objecting to is the last paragraph which presents the specious argument that the memo circulated on Air Force One had to be the source of the leak because it was one of only two documentrs that mentioned Plame suggesting Wilson for the trip and the other (the Senate committee report) couldn't be the source because it was written after the leak. In fact, the original INR memo from which the memo circulated on Air Force One was derived also mentioned Plame suggesting Wilson for the trip, as did the original meeting notes on which the INR memo was based. So the assertion that the Air Force One memo and the Senate committee report are the only documents that could possibly be the source of the leak is demonstrably false. Your original statement that this (non-) fact implicates the Air Force One memo as the source of the leak and confirms that that the leaked information was known to be secret is thus clearly nonsense. Your subsequent weaseling of the wording simply rendered the argument incoherent, without correcting the inaccuracy or inanity. The "consistent with" wording merely indicates that the memo circulated on Air Force One ''could'' have been the source of the leak, which no one disputes. It doesn't prove that it ''was'' the source. And the fact that numerous anti-Bush partisans will choose to believe the worst about the administration is hardly noteworthy in itself. The last paragraph adds nothing to the factual or analytical content of the article, and should be removed. [[User:Anonip|Anonip]] 07:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
:It just seems to me that your points are more valid as replies to the body of "speculation" let's call it, than as reasons to delete the fact of the existence of such speculation. Would you support removing any reference to Bush's stated reasons for toppling Saddam if reasonable objections to them could be found? Or would you support the objections as addenda to the fact that Bush said ...? [[User:Gzuckier|Gzuckier]] 17:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 
== Separate section on Wilson's two missions ==
 
Am I the only one who feels the '''Background''' section of the article is top-heavy with needless debate and detail about Joseph Wilson and his two missions to Niger in 1999 and 2002? The text is needlessly confusing, and the narrative flow is broken by the flash-forward, flash-backward effect.
 
The basic confusion here -- which obviously needs to be noted somewhere -- is that there were ''two'' Niger missions by Wilson, which were related to each other. Mrs. Wilson '''did''' recommend her husband for the first mission. She was part of the team putting the investigation together, and she mentioned back in 1999 to her CIA supervisors that her husband had old contacts with officials in Niamey, and that he was going to Niger anyway. This first trip, which Wilson completed to the CIA's satisfaction, was an investigation of what an Iraqi government official may have said to a Nigerien official about possible business contracts, which the Nigerien official interpreted as uranium purchase contracts.
 
Because Wilson and his work was already familiar to the CIA from the 1999 mission, his name was at the ready when the 2002 mission was requested. Because the mission was prompted by developments coming from the White House, it was instigated by CIA higher-ups. Mrs. Wilson's role in her husband's second mission was to '''introduce''' him at a meeting to those CIA higher-ups before the mission began. Her presence at that meeting was noted by someone at a de-briefing session, after Wilson returned.
 
All of this squares with what Wilson has said all along, and with a reading of the Congressional report. It seemed to me early on that a kind of fog machine effect was going on, involving a deliberate confusion between Wilson's 1999 and the 2002 missions, and that fog machine was already turned on with [[Ari Fleischer]]'s press comments on [[July 12]] [[2003]]. We don't need any fog in this Wikipedia entry.
 
I will revise and simplify accordingly. In the end, I think a discussion of Wilson's two missions should be moved to a separate section further down in the article. [[User:Shariputra|Shariputra]] 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 
:I'd suggest moving it off this page entirely. At this point, there is more stuff about Wilson here than on his own page. We could put Wilson and the whole controversy about Niger in his article and/or the Yellowcake Forgery article and just general background and links here... leaving this page to concentrate on the leaks and aftermath. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 
I don't think it is fair to say that Plame's only role in her husband's second mission was merely to "introduce him" to the CIA higher-ups. According to a [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html link Washington Post article] which refers to the July 2004 Senate intelligence committee report:
 
''The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.''
 
Despite Wilson's claims that this is not a reccomendation, how can it be anything but? When I tell my boss I know someone who would be good for a specific job, that is a recommendation. This is '''EXACTLY''' what Plame did.
 
And the comments referring to a "fog machine" are obviously the type of partisan commentary that needs to be removed from a POV neutral discussion on the topic. --[[User:Goosedoggy|Goosedoggy]] 20:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Merging not valid ==
The person, Valerie Plame, and the scandal are distinct enough to merit keeping them separate, even if the former should be cut down to include only biographical information. -[[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
== Judy Miller's book deal ==
Someone had a sentence about this and someone else asked that it be sourced and erased the sentence -- [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/making-faux-martyrdom-pay_b_8268.html here is one source] for the claim; should it be put back in?-[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 08:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Moved Rove stuff in ==
There was a ton of Plame Affair stuff on the Karl Rove page. More than 80% of it was identical to the text here. I removed it all from that page and merged in the few differences here. The one section I didn't fully rework is 'Legal Opinions'. This seesm redundant with some of the existing text here, but not largely identical like most passages. I encourage others to merge the 'legal' sections or I will do so myself later. Thanks. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 01:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:Though this may be painful, I think this needs to be brought up again in the Rove article. I haven't bothered to return there as the partisan fighters all seem to be still smarting, but perhaps a braver soul could again try to remove the redundant material there? --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 07:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::Some of the editors over there aren't particularly interested in 'encyclopedic'... they want "one stop shopping" from a Google search on 'Rove' directly to all the info on the Plame Affair. Still, I have managed to whittle it down by chopping out all of the stuff not related to Rove (about half of it) and am planning to replace the long section of legal speculations with a brief summary of any actual legal repercussions for Rove once the indictments come down. That'll just leave the massively bloated 'denials and revelation of involvement' section to be trimmed to a summary once that kind of minutiae is no longer the subject of so much partisan zeal. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 10:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==Novak quote==
:I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one...During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife.
I appreciate that the above is quote but I think we need to find some way to clarify that Wilson I assume had not yet contributed to John Kerry's election campaign during the time of the leak [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 10:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Also I've just came across an old article suggesting Wilson in fact contributed to the 2000 Bush campaign as well. Can anyone confirm this? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3 [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] 10:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 
: Political contributions are public data, and several sites such as [http://www.fecinfo.com FECinfo] provide this data in a searchable form, so we should be able to verify this. Oh, what the heck, I'll look. Here's what I found:
 
::1) In the 2000 election cycle, Joseph C Wilson IV, of Charlestown Terrace, Washington DC, [http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?99034574225 gave $1000 to the Bush for President campaign on 5-30-1999]
 
::2) In the 2002 election cycle, the same person [http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?25971201486 gave $1000 to the John Kerry for President campaign on 9-4-2003]
 
::3) In the 2004 election cycle, the same person [http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?25971205419 gave $1000 to the John Kerry for President campaign on 5-23-2003]
 
: I only found contributions for Bush and then Kerry. I didn't see any contributions to the Gore campaign. It's possible that I missed it though.
 
:I don't know if this is the same Joseph Wilson as Plame's husband, but this should be easy to check. --[[User:Zippy|Zippy]] 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
 
Forgive me if this question is improperly placed. I have never edited in Wikipedia before and don't know where else to put it.
I am a little confused about the identification of Karl Rove as Novak's source under the "Novak Defends Himself" heading when contrasted with the "Novak's Sources" heading. The first section adds a comment to Novak’s “The CIA Leak” quote by putting forth the following about Novak’s first source:
 
“Fitzgerald's later report indicates that this official — "Operative A" — "helping" Novak was Karl Rove.”
 
I have been unable to find documentation of this assertion, but have, admittedly, not tried that hard. However, under the “Novak’s Sources” heading, the author states Novak’s second source is Karl Rove and that the first source (the one whom Novak claims is not a partisian gunslinger) is unknown. Also, the citations listed merely refer to the same Wikipedia article.
 
I understand this article is in a state of flux, but which source is Karl Rove – the first or second? Additionally, it would be quite helpful if a relevant citation was made and not just a reference back to the same article. - Chris B. [[User:68.35.97.76|68.35.97.76]] 10:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:I don't have a cite - I am going off of what I heard on NPR and am too tired to look it up - but my understanding is Rove is considered to be the first of Novak's sources, the one who is not a "partisan gunslinger". I guess as Bill Clinton would have said, it depends on what the definition of "gunslinger" is. Rove was identified as Operative A all over the news the day Libby was indicted, as I recall. Of course, we'll know lots more about this if Fitzgerald brings on more indictments. The smart money for Republicans, of course, is on Libby taking the fall, but experts (including John Dean) are predicting that Rove and possibly even Cheney will be up on the chopping block soon. Things could get very interesting very quickly. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 11:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Csloat,
 
::After having researched a bit, I would suggest you remove the “Operative A” entry within the Novak quote under the “Novak Defends Himself” heading. The comment is inaccurate and misleading. While “Operative A” does, indeed, appear to identify Karl Rove, it comes from Fitzgerald’s indictment of Lewis Libby (P.8, point 21 of the PDF (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf)) and is unrelated to Novak’s “[non]partisan gunslinger” assertion. As JWSchmidt has noted, Novak’s second source appears to be Karl Rove; the first source is still unknown and is almost certainly not Rove.
 
::At this point, the information under the “Novak’s Sources” heading seems correct. - Chris B. [[User:68.35.97.76|68.35.97.76]] 12:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
 
The wikipedia [[Plame scandal timeline#July 2003|Plame scandal timeline]] cites a 15 July 2005 ''New York Times'' aticle called "[http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_071505I.shtml Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on CIA Officer]" by David Johnston and Richard W. Stevenson. The Johnston and Stevenson article says that the second source was Rove. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== rm: Tim Russert ==
 
Removed reference to Tim Russert to make it more clear that "Judith Miller of The New York Times," was the only person "who spent 85 days in jail for failing to divulge the identity of her confidential administration source to a grand jury."--[[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 11:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Known grand jury witnesses ==
 
I added Judith Miller to Known grand jury witnesses List. Will spend a few minutes this morning checking sources to update the list. Will find sources for everyone on the list.--[[User:FloNight|FloNight]] 12:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Added images to article ==
 
Just added Yellowcake, Scooter Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove and Matthew Cooper to the article. Also added George Tenet, and moved plamefull down to next sub-section to accomodate. --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 02:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Incoherent sentences ==
 
: Wilson described the situation so, that one source told him, he avoided any talk about subjects, when he once met with an Iraqi official. And never understood what kind of commercial contact the official wanted.
 
This wants rephrasing to be coherent and grammatical, but I don't know the source material well enough to rewrite it myself. "avoided any talk about subjects" - what subjects? --[[User:Jim Henry|Jim Henry]] | [[User talk:Jim Henry|Talk]] 20:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Crazy news ==
 
It is becoming more widely reported that Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] may be directly implicated in this investigation. This would, upon reading this article, appear to require a major revamp of the core ideas represented here.
 
[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aIh7Ul2ZhzQE&refer=top_world_news Boomberg], [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney20oct20,0,5587019.story?coll=la-home-nation LA Times], [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902431.html Washington Post], [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article320544.ece The Independent (UK)]
 
This would seem to indicate a need for less focus on Rove, and more focus on Libby/Cheney. --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
:And so... [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/politics/25leak.html?ei=5094&en=56e9496be92c9d2a&hp=&ex=1130299200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1130224686-KwSZMJzzEYuuZ6aSqdLiZw| Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report], New York Times, October 25, 2005. I added Cheney to the list of those implicated, and added a reference link to this article. But, this article needs to be combed through to remove old recenetism from it, I believe. --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 07:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Novak as a "pundit" ==
The word pundit is connected, I believe, with negative connotations. I wanted to point it out though, rather than just change it.
 
==Wilson's Disinformation==
''They promote the related view that those White House officials who talked on background about Wilson were, rather than trying to punish him by exposing his wife, trying to prevent reporters from believing Wilson's '''disinformation'''.''
Why is it '''disinformation'''? [[User:Daemon8666|Daemon8666]] 18:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:Of course it isn't. It is proof of, at best, flawed information being used by the Bush admistration. Since apparantly (see [[Downing Street memo]]) Bush and co had already decided to invade, it is clear any information discrediting their stance was NOT welcome. Hence Wilsons story had to be defused. This is done by '''1''' implying nepotism (his wife) and '''2''' saying his story is disinformation. --[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::Thanks to [[User: Goethean|Goethean]] for editing it [[User:Daemon8666|Daemon8666]] 20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 
==NY Times Article==
"Aide to Cheney Appears Likely to Be Indicted in C.I.A. Leak Case "
 
http://nytimes.com/2005/10/28/politics/28leak.html?ei=5094&en=f4b9e5edc0a35fdf&hp=&ex=1130472000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
 
Is this enough to justify adding new content to the article?
::Yeah, why don't Bush and Cheney resign from their respective positions within the U.S. government. All their ideas to get the U.S. back on track seem to revolve aroun imaginary chicken viruses that have only killed 60 people that may or may not have died of a chicken virus anyway. And now, this thing about f'cking a CIA agent, that's pretty bad, yeah, even worse than Clinton getting BJ's in the oval office. A BJ doesn't put an intelligence agent's life and job in danger.[[User:66.201.171.15|66.201.171.15]]
 
:::Really, this is just inflamatory and not helpful here. Can we remove this comment, please? --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== 18 USC 793 Violation? ==
 
In his press conference, Fitzgerald seemed to indicate that the thrust of his investigation was to determine if "section 793" was violated. § 793(f) states:
 
::Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
:::(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
:::(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
 
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
 
It seems to me that if the leaker committed any crime, it would be this one. Of course, no one was charged with it. Still, many laws are mentioned, and this one isn't. [[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 16:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Plame was not covert. ==
 
A CIA leak implies there is something that is a secret. Plame was not covert at the time. So any mention of her would have not been illegal. The indictments at hand are for lying etc. before a grand jury, which was completely co-operated with by Libby. The question remains, if he was inconsistent in his testimony, okay, however if he was questioned with no crime being commited--then, is this nothing more than punishing someone for speaking inconsistently with the notes he (Libby) had turned in as requested? Point being....he has been charged with no crime based on his testimony for which he was originally called into question. He is being criminalized for what he did in committing no crime. {{unsigned|72.128.81.182 |13:04, 29 October 2005}}
 
:Welcome to Washington, DC, where the coverup is always worse than the crime. Also, See my above comment on 18 USC 793 [[User:Descendall|Descendall]] 17:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 
:So you concede that at some point she was covert. By revealing her status, which was top secret, it endangered the lives of everyone who she dealt with and most likely blew the covers of numerous other NOCs. Try not to spout administration talking points when you're not logged in/registered and this is your only edit. --[[User:William Graham|waffle iron]] 17:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::There is some debate over whether Plame had worked overseas recently enough to still be "covert" as defined by the IIPA. However, there is no question whatsoever that her employment by the CIA was still "classified". Leaking classified information is a different crime than leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, but still a crime. Libby has been found to have made such a leak... the only thing preventing him from being indicted on that charge is the need for proof that he knew it was classified information when he leaked it. There is sufficient evidence of this (his comments about the leak being likely to cause problems with the CIA and his inability to discuss it over an open line) that I expect Libby WILL eventually be indicted on that crime as well. However, as Fitzgerald explained, two years of lying and obstruction delayed the gathering of evidence and preparation for a case on that crime... hence the new grand jury. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 14:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== operative/agent ==
 
I am trying to write about this affair for the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I have a little linguistic problem: While in most of the text of this article Palmer is referred to as a "CIA '''agent'''" (a term which has a direct and common translation), Novak, in his original column, is referring to her as "an agency '''operative''' on weapons of mass destruction", a term that I am not sure how to translate.
 
So is there a difference between "agent" and "operator" in this context? If so, what is it?
Thanks, [[User:Eman|eman]] 00:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::The CIA generally uses the term 'operative' to describe someone who goes out into the field to investigate things and 'analyst' for those who review and compile intelligence information. Both can be 'covert' in that their employment by the CIA might not be public knowledge, but this is far more likely to be the case for an 'operative'. As for, 'agent'... the term simply means 'someone working on behalf of' and could thus be applied to either group, but is probably more often used in describing 'operatives'. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 14:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 
== Clarifications requested ==
 
"''Many critics of the United States' invasion of Iraq say that the series of sanctions and diplomatic maneuvers were not made in good faith; that the Bush administration had evidently decided to invade Iraq shortly after the September 11 attacks, and that the WMD "evidence" was only found (or produced) in order to provide a pretext for an invasion that was already a certainty. (It should be noted that there was evidence, in some cases, of large-scale moves at some facilities that were scheduled for inspections.)''"
 
:I realise that many critics have said this, but do we have an article that goes into this in more depth? If not, could we source the main critics? As it currently stands it appears to be opinion leaking into the article.
:Also, phrases like "it should be noted" are very much frowned upon as [[peacock term]]s. Could we rephrase this? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 01:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
Also:
 
"''Defenders of White House officials believe that Wilson, in a partisan way, initiated a smear campaign against the Bush administration. They promote the related view that those White House officials who talked on background about Wilson were, rather than trying to punish him by exposing his wife, trying to prevent reporters from believing Wilson's "disinformation." Opponents counter this argument by asserting that such officials would still have a duty to diligently avoid exposing undercover officers or other confidential information''"
:Blame where blame is due... ''who'' says this on both sides? - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 01:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== central issue?? ==
 
The article states "The central issue of the whole Plame affair is whether the officials who disclosed this information about Wilson's wife a) even mentioned her name and b) knew about her "covert" status before doing so."
 
(a) seems absurd -- "Ambassador Wilson's wife" pretty much identifies Valerie Wilson; it's not as if Wilson is married to several women. I realize some right wing talk show hosts have made this point, and it may even appear in republican talking points, but it's just ridiculous to cal it "the central issue". (b) is also not "the central issue"; certainly not now that we know Libby was running around inquiring specifically about her status. Can we just erase this misleading summary?-[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 03:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:I'm fine with removing a). However, regarding b), while the scope has widend with Libby's indictment, knowledge of her covert status is still in play, I believe. I think if Fitzgerald actually finds enough evidence in the course of his ongoing investigations to support actually indicting under the outing statute, he will do so. So, perhaps b) should be ammmended to reflect this. --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 04:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== covert status ==
 
Someone just edited out some things based on the argument that VPW's covert status is "a matter of opinion." While I agree with some of the edits (see above), someone's covert status is a matter of definition, not of opinion, and it is quite clear that by definition, VPW was "covert." There may be a question about whether she qualified for protection under the particular law (which may require overseas travel - an issue independent of covert status). Nobody seriously questions whether or not she was actually covert except right-wing talk show hosts. It's generally agreed she had non-official cover status, which is "covert."--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 07:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:This is a definitional dispute. In common (and CIA) parlance VPW was "covert" because her employment was a secret. However, for the purposes of the IIPA the term "covert" is defined to include the 'undercover overseas assignment within previous five years' condition... which may or may not have been the case for VPW. In any case, her employment was "classified" and knowingly leaking classified info is ALSO a crime. I'd suggest we avoid the term 'covert' where 'classified' would serve as well, and explain the meaning of 'covert' being used when that term is required. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 12:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::"Covert" is the appropriate term for an agent with NOC status; the IIPA definition is not accurate. It is meant to limit the application of that specific law, not to actually define the term. I suggest we use "covert" but add the necessary caveat only when directly discussing the IIPA. That is how the mainstream newspapers talk about the issue, for example. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 16:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Photo caption ==
 
Since Plame is married to Williams, shouldn't her name be hyphenated as "Valarie Plame-Williams" or something like that? [[User:Pacific Coast Highway|Pacific Coast Highway]] 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Transcript ==
Russ071404, do you really think that this transcript is such a vital and central aspect of the Plame affair that it must be included in the lead? Also, given that you are making assumptions about what Fitzgerald meant, doesn't it make more sense to briefly state the suspected meaning than to quote a large block of text? Finally, isn't it usual practice to put a comment on the talk page when reverting to explain the reasons and discuss possible compromise? --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 10:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:I make no assumptions in the article. Rather, I merely quote the very relevant single Q&A about investigation status. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </sup></b> 10:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::What would be more apprpriate for the lead section would be something along the lines of the summary now in the "Indictments" section. The full transcript quotation, if used at all, should be in the body of the article. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 10:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
I disagree. By placing it up front we enable the readers to quickly get Fitzegerald's answer to a question regarding the likelyhood of any more indictments. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </sup></b> 10:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:You assume. The assumption I referred to before is that this IS relevant. I don't think the passage quoted implies that future indictments are unlikely. Indeed, from what I've seen I think it likely that more indictments will be filed. However, since that IS an assumption I don't think it belongs in the article at all at this point. Ditto this bit, but if it were properly placed and/or explained it wouldn't be much of an issue and could be replaced with the actuality when it eventually comes to pass.
 
:I think guesswork should be kept to a minimum in articles... certainly not given several paragraphs in the lead. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 10:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
I disagree. By placing it up front we enable the readers to quickly get Fitzegerald's answer to a question regarding the likelyhood of any more indictments. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404]] <sup><b> [[User:216.153.214.94|216.153.214.94]] </sup></b> 10:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Wow, there's an echo in here. Of course... you haven't really supplied his answer. You've supplied a small portion of his answer. Which you apparently take to mean there won't be more indictments or that they are unlikely... despite the fact that he said he couldn't comment on that one way or another. --[[User:CBDunkerson|CBDunkerson]] 11:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Stop using the "-Gate" suffix. ==
 
Aside from acknowledging it as an alternate name for the scandal, there really is no need to use such a loaded and idiotic term. It's the same kind of bias that follows FOX News labelling suicide bombers as "homicide" bombers.
 
The only institution with a penchant for it is network news, which habitually label every scandal with a -gate suffix for reasons that strike me solely as a lack of creativity.... and really, we're a lot more objective than those sensationalistic idiots aren't we? [[User:Kade|Kade]] 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
* YES, YES, YES! I don't think it needs to be included at all. Not in the opening, and not in the "notes" section, which can be deleted since it only repeats the opening, but with the additions of ''"CIAgate, Rovegate, Treasongate, Traitorgate, and Plamegate"''. The article would do better without this mumbo jumbo. --[[User:Sigorni|Sigorni]] 23:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:*It doesn't go here, that's for sure, but people who really can't stop thinking about it that way may want to make sure it's in the [[list of scandals with "-gate" suffix]]. That would be the proper way to vent your obsession over the terms. [[User:Jacqui M Schedler|<font color="#663366">Jacqui]]</font><sup> [[User_talk:Jacqui M Schedler|★</sup>]] 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 
In the Notes section, there's a duplicate mention of the term Plamegate -- is this intentional/useful?
Also, I recently noted a use of the term Plameout in a newspaper -- although the term Plameout seems unique, should it be added to the Notes section?
[[User:AnonUser|AnonUser]] 16:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 
No one uses "plame affair" - plamegate is more common. Removing it is POV. [[User:Stirling_Newberry |Stirling Newberry]] - [http://www.bopnews.com Bopnews] 17:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==Confusing introduction==
The introduction to the article is confusing (the first paragraph is a single convoluted sentence!), and doesn't make sense to somebody who isn't already familiar with the subject. I know everything is probably explained in the remainder of the article, but the introduction is supposed to give a basic overview.
 
I'm pointing this out because I haven't been following current events for a while, and I'm totally in the dark on this topic... like future readers and the target audience for this article. :) --[[User:Foofy|Foofy]] 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== verified the intelligence from multiple sources ==
 
1. "Later investigations (the [[Butler Report]] in the [[United Kingdom]] and the [[U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence]] report of July 7, 2004) verified the intelligence from multiple sources that indicated [[Iraq]]i ''attempts'' to purchase the material."
 
If this is true, then wikipedia should list the dates of these "attempts". Is there any evidence that the "multiple sources" were based on anything other than the the false claims about an Iraq/Niger uranium connection? --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 14:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:It's really misleading - it is likely that Iraq asked to buy uranium and that Niger responded 'no.' The way it os written it looks like there is confirmation of furthur discussions between the two parties, which is bogus.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 17:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::What I have read is that there was one or more visits by people from Iraq to Niger in 1999. Apparently, once the cherry picking was done, this turned into "intelligence from multiple sources" indicating that, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." I think that the words "verified the" in sentence #1 (above) should be changed to, "repeated the unverified claim that there was" --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 22:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Zel's Conspiracy theory ==
 
The conspiracy theory of Zel Miller is already discussed under "Reactions of Congress" - we don't need additional links to it, nor for it to be represented as a more widespread belief among others.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
The theory does not belong to Miller alone. Victoria Toensing is writing about it as well as people at LA Times. A short synopsis of the criticism of Plame belongs in the Intro. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 04:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:I have not seen this conspiracy theory associated with her; I have only seen her claiming that the law she helped write does not apply to VPW. Can you provide other sources? I also agree with the stuff below; Wikipedia really isn't a place for this kind of speculation, but I will refrain from deleting it since I know if I remove it the vigilant defenders of Libby/Rove/etc. will jump up and down screaming POV about it. But in any case there is no reason to put it in the intro - this is hardly a theory accepted by anyone credible that I am aware of.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 06:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==Wilson telling the truth==
Some seem to feel the need to claim that Wilson distorted information. This is really POV unless you can provide evidence of that statement. So, explain what it is Wilson said and how that is incorrect, or else leave the statement out as it is not true! This means no reference to an op-ed but actual statements made by Wilson in regard to the Niger documents and the facts as we know them today!
 
Secondly, refrain from inserting conspiracy theories. They are entertaining but not meant to be used on Wikipedia. If you do feel the need for speculating, please use your blog!--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:How can there be a rule against discussing conspiracy theories? The "Plame affair" arises from two great mysteries: how the WMD capacity of Iraq was systematically misrepresented for a decade and why members of the Bush administration have tried to prevent people like Joe Wilson from asking questions about how that systematic misrepresentation led to the invasion of Iraq. The obvious "conspiracy" is that many governments feared Saddam and secretly worked to topple his government after the Gulf War while pretending to play out the UN disarmament game. Ths led to systematic biases in intelligence handling and misrepresentations of Saddam's WMD programs. There is also the "reverse conspiracy" theory that Wilson was part of an effort to falsely claim that members of the Bush Administration had consciously manipulated intelligence so as to gain support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. These two conspiracy theories are part of the current political dialog and wikipedia must include them. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 05:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Perhaps they should be addressed - certainly the first one is an object of much discussion on all sides of the political fence and deserves discussion. The claim that Wilson and his wife are trying to singlehandedly destroy an entire Administration is sheer fantasy, but the fact that a Senator articulated it should be included - though not prominently, and it should not be given the veneer of credibility that it is given in this article. I hesitate to get involved in any edit wars about it since this is an ongoing controversy - I have a strong feeling that after the investigation is concluded we will know a lot more about it and these silly conspiracy theories will be laid to rest -- possibly much earlier since the Senate will be reevaluating some of its conclusions about Wilson (many of which have already been decisively refuted by many sources; see for example Larry Johnson's comments). But in any case I'm not going to go in and balance every bogus edit people like RonCram have been adding to this since we will have plenty more information about it all quite soon. Of course, the Roveistas will no doubt have their own spin on things at that time, especially if new indictments are handed down, but there will be far less need to pretend to take them seriously when the dust around this has settled.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::There are many questions surrounding the Niger documents. These result in people trying to make sense of it all. That is not my problem. But a theory must be presented as speculation and NOT fact, and it should at least contain factual references which are correct. Any theory should explain what is happening today to be possible.
 
:::As to both theories: '''1''' Bush & co covering up for "lying" about Iraq, there is ample evidence the Bush administration at least made statements contrary to the truth at a time they were well aware they were wrong.[http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802/] (i.e. Fitzgerald clearly finds Cheney discussed Wilson with Libby before Cheney said he never heard of Wilson in an interview, the allegation about SH working with OBL was already proven wrong yet kept being used, many Governments did not share the believes of the Bush administration -although this argument is still being advanced- hence Bush withdrew the motion for an explicit UN reolution for invading Iraq: think of France-Germany-resignation of members of the Blair Government, this is proof that "the world" did not altogether share the narrow vision of the Bush team, et cetera) Furthermore, this view would explain the reluctance of Congress to investigate the handling of intelligence by the US government, not allowing the UN inspectors to do their work, the obsession with legalities (new definition of torture, resisting "the Hague") by the Bush administration. '''2''' Regarding Wilson being a part of the CIA trying to insert the previous theory. Strangely enough several statements are used which are clearly false. Think of Wilson misrepresenting the truth. What part of his statements is not true, where did he ly and could you supply us with proof of that?
 
:::What I am saying is that although many theories are possible, Wikipedia is no soapbox. If one has to mention a theory it must be clear it is a theory. Second, not every possible theory should be mentioned, but only those based on what is known, the presented theory must be credible. So, any theory contradicting fact or leaving out any fact should not be mentioned. Those speculations are clearly POV and not part of Wikipedia.--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 14:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
"any theory contradicting fact or leaving out any fact should not be mentioned" <-- It is not clear that we have the facts in hand. It is clear that not everyone agrees what is a fact and what is a fabrication. The people who have access to the raw Niger-related intelligence have had the luxury of selectively leaking the information that they wish to portray as facts. The government officials who have access to the records of how intelligence was handled during construction of the Bush administration's case for war have not been open about how decisions were made about what intelligence to reveal to the public. It is inevitable that people will speculate and that speculation is part of the story that wikipedia must tell. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 21:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Of course, we are not privy to all the details. However, speculation needs to be credible. Otherwise I will insert my personal believe that space aliens are behind it. Meaning that any theory must be based upon facts that are known. If one says Bush lied, at least one has to show some misrepresentation of the facts, or inconsistencies. If there is to be a CIA plot, please show where Wilson lied. At least use some solid foundation for your claims. You don't have to prove your theory, but it cannot be a total fabrication.--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 04:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==csloat's unnecessary reverts==
First, when I leave a reference, it is not Original Research. Second, by changing the section title, we can include criticism by committees and not just pundits. Please have a good reason before you make changes to my edits. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 06:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
:There are already sections for the reactions of the Senate and of other people; the reactions of pundits seem to belong there. The Committee should be a separate section as it is not reaction to the plame affair per se. It trivializes the senate committee conclusions to include them in the same section as the reactions of various pundits. The "original research" I was referring to was the claim that Vallely's memory is poor, which may be true but appears to me to be your own speculation rather than something backed up by evidence. I'm also not sure why any of this is necessary.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 07:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
==Senate conclusions==
I have a question about the following, added by RonCram:
:In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries. The Senate Select Committee criticized Wilson for saying his trip to Niger had proved the documents to be fake. Actually, Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S. (Pages 44-45)
Perhaps this is my own confusion, but I was under the impression that Wilson's article claimed that his trip to Niger did not confirm that Saddam purchased yellowcake, not that he was the one who found the documents to be forged. Can someone other than Ron enlighten me here? (of course Ron should feel free to add his comments too but I would like to hear from someone less one-dimensionally partisan who has been following this... not to question Ron's good faith, despite his belief in "MindWar"; I just think his ideology often seems to cloud his interp of facts). Thanks.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 07:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:csloat, I gave the page numbers for the Senate Report where the criticism is found. All you have to do is read it yourself. BTW, I believe it was in Wilson's testimony before the committee when he claimed to have disproved the documents and not in the op-ed. I could be wrong. Memories are fallible but at least you have the citations so you can look it up yourself. As always, I am committed to truth. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 14:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::This is inconsistent with everything I've read about it being recently reported, and I just listened to a piece on NPR yesterday or the day before where this claim was specifically responded to. I realize that is what the Senate report says but it seems to be incorrect. On the NPR show they had Wilson specifically agreeing that he did not have the documents prior to going to Niger. They had some other people on saying that the Senate report mischaracterized Wilson's earlier claims. In the [http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm editorial that started it all] clearly admits that he didn't see the documents but heard on the news that they were forged -- the substance of the editorial is not about the documents being forged but about the fact that Wilson spoke to everybody who would have had knowledge of such a transaction and concluded that there was no evidence for it. The news was already reporting them as forgeries according to that editorial of July 6 2003. It seems to me to be a complete red herring to focus on proving that Wilson was not the one who figured out the docs were forgeries when he never seems to have claimed that. I'm open to being convinced that Wilson distorted this, but I don't see the evidence for it here. As for your final sentence -- I believe you, even more now that I better understand [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_E._Vallely your notion of "truth"].--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 21:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
"Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S." <-- This statement is not even a correct sentence, it is illogical and it is contradicted by Wilson's own account of what he was told by the CIA. Wilson claimed in his original trip to Niger article that the CIA told him about "a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake....by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's". It is not logical to assume that Wilson was not told about the documents before they were in the hands of US intelligence. According to Tenet, the CIA had been getting intelligence reports about these documents since 2001. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 21:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Wilson's distortion of the facts ==
Earlier someone edited my comments about Wilson's distortion of the facts and requested proof. Of course, if they had only read the links I had provided, they would have had the proof. Because it was requested, I have expanded the description of Wilson's distortion and misreporting. I do hope people read the links before deleting the information this time. See also the section "Criticism of Plame/Wilson." [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:''A series of unusual events (including reports Wilson openly talked of his wife's job at the CIA) have led critics of Plame/Wilson to view the Plamegate affair as a covert CIA operation by a rogue agent (or perhaps Agency) designed to pull down a sitting president. [http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508] Plame's husband is thought to have played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger. Wilson learned the former prime minister of Niger had been approached by an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding commercial relationships" which the PM interpreted as seeking uranium. Wilson then published his op-ed piece claiming his trip disproved the story Iraq sought uranium. [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot2nov02,0,6326316.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions] In addition, if any CIA employee had published information on a classified trip, it would have been illegal. Critics are calling for a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent CIA employees from circumventing the law through their spouses. [http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1105/02edmiller.html]''
:What part of this clarifies the misrepresentation? No example is shown. Second, references are meant to verify what is being said, not to explain. Strangely enough your version of the references is a narrow interpretation. As I read it the CIA might also be incompetent, this is left out in your story. By selectively quoting you are at risk of misrepresenting the original article. Furthermore, what has any legal challenge of Wilson to do with his story being true or not? Such an argument is [[ad hominem]] and must be removed. To me, this entire statement is POV, no facts are introduced, merely opinion.
 
:To prevent an edit war please correct your contribition, so that it contains not merely a statement but an explanation of what you mean by it. Should no explanation of this "misrepresentation" be advanced I will remove this clearly POV contribution.--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 15:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::I would add to this that if this information is included, the people making the various claims -- Miller, Boot, and Toensig -- be named rather than ascribing these (3 very different) views to "critics". At the very least, identify them as openly partisan ideologues who have been accused of distortion on this issue.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 21:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 
I moved this piece to a separate section on conspiracy theories at the end of the article. Neither the White House, not the Special Counsel have made any such allegation. It is also worth noting that Wilson's original report was made through official channels and was clearly intended to warn the government that the Niger story was suspect. Had the administration heeded the warning, it would have been spared significant embarrassment, so it strains credulity to portray that report as a hostile act. How were Wilson and Plame supposed to know that the President would ignore their report and cite African yellowcake in his State of the Union address? Also the Special Counsel specifically stated in the indictment that Plame's CIA status was not common knowledge at the time of the leak, contradicting the reports cited. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Good idea; thanks!--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 19:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Clarifying Wilson's Distortions ==
Nomen, I clearly stated the information on Wilson's distortions was now located in the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section. Since you were not able to find it, I have reproduced it for you here.
 
:Wilson was criticized by the Senate Select Committee on PreWar Intelligence because he claimed his trip to Niger proved that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger. Actually, the former Prime Minister of Niger told Wilson that a delegation from Iraq did meet with him in June 1999 to discuss "expanding commercial relations," which the prime minister took to mean a desire to purchase yellowcake uranium. The prime minister let the matter drop due to UN sanctions against Iraq. (Pages 39-44)
 
:In March 2003, the IAEA declared certain documents alleging a sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq to be forgeries. The Senate Select Committee criticized Wilson for saying his trip to Niger had proved the documents to be fake. Actually, Wilson was not given any information about any documents about prior to the trip to Niger because the documents were not yet in the U.S. (Pages 44-45)
 
I hope this helps. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 22:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Ron please read the comments above about these passages. I am sure Nomen is well aware of them too. This is a red herring. It's obvious you have not yourself even read the Wilson editorial you are so mad about. He never claimed to have proven the documents fake. What he did was talk to everyone in Niger that would have known about such a transaction in order to investigate whether it existed. The news was already reporting that those documents were forged. Perhaps you did read the editorial but you are ignoring the facts that are inconvenient for your worldview, to continue your practice of "MindWar." It's quite telling that you prefer innuendo from a discredited source (general vallely's smear of fitzgerald, which you just added -- should we add every crank who says something silly about this case?) to facts such as these.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Criticism of Plame/Wilson in Intro ==
The following passage belongs in the Intro:
 
:A series of unusual events (including reports Wilson openly talked of his wife's job at the CIA) have led critics of Plame/Wilson to view the Plamegate affair as a covert CIA operation by a rogue agent (or perhaps Agency) designed to pull down a sitting president. [http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007508] Plame's husband is thought to have played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger. Wilson learned the former prime minister of Niger had been approached by an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding commercial relationships" which the PM interpreted as seeking uranium. Wilson then published his op-ed piece claiming his trip disproved the story Iraq sought uranium. [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-boot2nov02,0,6326316.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions] In addition, if any CIA employee had published information on a classified trip, it would have been illegal. Critics are calling for a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent CIA employees from circumventing the law through their spouses. [http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1105/02edmiller.html]
 
This is not redundant but provides an introduction to the fuller accounts in the appropriate sections. More of the information in this section is not repeated in any form in the article.
Readers of Wikipedia articles should not be forced to read the article before learning of criticism of the main players. Please do not delete this passage again. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 21:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Please see above Ron, this stuff belongs in the conspiracy theory section only, not the intro. It is crap spewed by a few right wing loons; it is not supported at all by the Prosecutor or even the White House. There is no reason to duplicate silly and obviously false conspiracy theories all over this article. The intro should only provide info that is accurate and confirmed and clearly summarizes the info below; your changes make this fringe material seem as if it were actually credible.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::I'm sorry but a section with the denigrating title "Conspiracy Theories" is not NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The page is not supposed to be a shrine to Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. As for this being fringe material, I cited the Wall Street Journal, LA Times and an article by former Senator Zell Miller. These are mainstream publications and a well respected Democrat, a former governor and Senator. This belongs in the Intro and you know it. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 22:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::It definitely '''does not''' belong in the intro. It's 'fringe' (not based on mainstream reports), based on opinion pieces only, and is unsubstantiated. Let's keep on point here - Wikipedia is not a talking points platform, nor a means of character assassination. Corroborate it with independent fact (the pieces/sources you provide are '''opinions''' - not '''fact'''). -- [[User:RyanFreisling|RyanFreisling]] [[User talk:RyanFreisling|@]] 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::::Ryan, here are the '''facts.''' Wilson and Plame are controversial figures. They have been criticized in mainstream publications across the country. Opinion pieces are quoted in articles throughout Wikipedia. When people or events are controversial, an introduction to the issue is found in the Intro. There is nothing fringe about LA Times, Wall Street Journal or Zell Miller. If you want to prevent readers from learning this information, you are going to have to come up with better reasons that you have given so far. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 22:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::::Ron please read what vandalism is before throwing around accusations. The criticisms you wish to hilight are already mentioned in the article and do not belong there twice. They are from fringe sources -- the LATimes and WSJ do not endorse these opinions; that is why they are op-eds. And quit whining about censorship; the info is already in the article and nobody is preventing readers from learning anything. --[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 
All I wanted to do was suggest factual information being used. In stead of mere speculation, that is shaky at best. Clearly [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] cites all kind of articles but fails to provide information of how Wilson's statement that '''SH did not seek uranium''' is false. Since that is the central theme of this article I would think that, as has been mentioned, all RonCram is doing is muddy the waters. Of course, we could discuss Wilson's cheating in high school (joke, I don't know if he did) but that still would not disprove his report that the uranium claim was invalid. Again he might want to read something about [[logical fallacies]].
 
As to the current version, it seems to reflect a more unbiassed view. Facts and speculations are presented, so everybody should be able to live with it.--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 01:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:csloat, deleting interesting and informative information for reasons of censorship is the moral equivalent of vandalism, regardless of whether the vandal bothers to leave a vacuous entry on the Talk page or not. You well know there is nothing "fringe" about LA Times, Wall Street Journal or Zell Miller. Op-eds are used in Wikipedia all the time. Your attempt to change the standards when you want to censor the information is patently bogus. Your claim the entry is redundant is similarly bogus. My entry was general in nature as befits an Introduction. If you applied the same standard to the rest of the Intro, it would be blank. I suggest you show some good faith and stop deleting this entry. Wikipedia readers have a right to this information. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Ron: Please read the WP entry on [[WP:vandalism|vandalism]], especially the section entitled [[WP:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not|What vandalism is not]]. Zel Miller is definitely fringe, as are Boot and Toensig -- you are just trying to mask that by using the names of the papers they wrote their editorials in. And for the last time, I have not deleted this information; I have just put it where it belongs on this page. There is no need to put every fringe theory in the intro; we should stick to stuff that is actually part of the mainstream discourse on this topic -- if even the White House has not suggested this bizarre theory in its defense, it does not belong in the intro. I realize it makes you feel morally superior to accuse me of "censorship", but that claim is simply at odds with my actions.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::csloat, okay, I reread it. What I took as "page blanking" vandalism is really an "NPOV Violation." I understand this is a lesser offense. Zell Miller has been elected as both governor and senator. He has spoken to both the Democratic and Republican conventions. He is the most middle of the road politician I can think of. He is definitely NOT fringe. He is fiery maybe... but not fringe. I know less about Boot and Toensing except Toensing helped to write the law protecting covert agents. The main point is that op-eds are subject to editorial review. Op-eds based on known lies do not often get published. The facts underlying the op-eds I cited are not in dispute. If the facts were in dispute, you would have disputed them by now. Instead of taking the honorable road of disputing the facts, you call the writers "fringe" and banish the Introduction to a section labeled with the derogatory term "conspiracy theories." This is one of your favorite tactics which does you no honor. If you want to debate the facts, fine. Start debating. Otherwise, stop your silliness and allow the passage into the Intro where it belongs. BTW, does you above comment mean you will stop censoring valid entries? [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 14:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::::Ron I have never censored valid entries. Please stop you phony posturing about my "honor." I have been debating the facts, and I have censored nothing -- I simply moved this fringe material out of the intro, because it doesn't belong there. If you think Miller is "middle of the road" that just shows how far to the right you are. You probably think Lloyd Bentsen is a leftist? Op-ed pieces are not fact-checked as reporting because they are not reporting -- the pieces in question are sheer speculation on the part of individuals with an axe to grind. And they are properly referred to as "conspiracy theories" -- loony ones, in fact, since they are beyond unlikely. Why do you wish to censor their authors' names? Perhaps in order to blame them on the newspapers that published them?--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 23:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Nomen, I am not sure what to say to you except please read the entries below from the Senate Report. I think you will find them both interesting. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Clarifying the Senate's Criticisms of Wilson's Distortions ==
Please note that Wilson is criticized by the Senate Committee specifically for what he told the Committee staff, not what he wrote in his op-ed piece. That does not mean the op-ed piece is not worthy of criticism but only that the op-ed was not in the purview of the Senate Committee. After reading the way editors have mangled the text I originally wrote, I think it is helpful to reproduce here the appropriate passage from the Senate Report. Evidently, other editors were not able to find it on pages 44 and 45.
:When the former ambassador (Wilson) spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rouge states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the (redacted) intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of (Page 45) the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC (intelligence community) at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from (redacted) intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report (redacted).
 
Now several points are clear from this passage:
* The Senate Committee was highly critical of Wilson's distortions
* The CIA could not explain the source of some of Wilson's comments
* Wilson described his trip "as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium." The claim does directly against his actual report of a 1999 conversation between the former Prime Minister of Niger and an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding trade" with Niger - a meeting the PM understood as seeking uranium.
* Wilson told Senate staffers that he told the CIA what names and signatures should be on any purchase agreement for uranium and yet the DO report does not contain that information.
* Wilson claimed his CIA contacts told him about "Yellowcake documents" and told him the source of the documents was a third country's intelligence service. The DO reports officer denied given that information to Wilson because that would have required sharing classified information and there were no "documents" circulating in the intelligence community at that time.
 
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about why the Senate Committee was so critical of Wilson. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 22:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Ron the documents are mentioned in Wilson's editorial because they were already in the news at the time. It is nonsensical for the Senate to refute him as the source of discovery of the forgeries when that information was already known and when he did not claim to discover the forgeries -- I see nothing above contradicting that. I am not opposed to putting what the Senate said in here, but it should be put in context, especially when the way you put it makes no sense in context of what is actually known. Anyway, I don't think anyone is trying to erase mention of this report.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 00:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::csloat, you don't get it. And I have to admit, the Senate Report is difficult reading and I get confused too at times. (I am going to correct my comments above so they are more accurate and clear). The Senate did not criticize Wilson for his op-ed piece. Please reread the passage above and see that I am right on that. Wilson reported one thing to the CIA (which was the basis of the DO report) and then when the Senate investigated, Wilson exaggerated his report. A wikipedia editor loused up the article to make it look like the Senate was criticizing Wilson for his op-ed piece and even wrote that the Senate was wrong to criticize Wilson. That is factually inaccurate. Wilson did not discuss with the CIA what names and signatures should be on any purchase documents and he was wrong to exaggerate to Committee staffers to say he did. Wilson should not have known what country's intelligence service was associated with the documents. The CIA denied telling him and we still do not know how Wilson came into possession of that knowledge.
 
::The Senate Report does not criticize Wilson's op-ed piece per se but it does point out that the then current ambassador to Niger would not let Wilson talk to any current Niger officials because the current ambassador had already had those discussions. So Wilson really learned nothing about more "recent" events. The Nigerian officials would be expected to deny it anyway, even if they were involved. Anyone who reads Wilson's op-ed piece will see that Wilson claimed to have spoken to current Niger officials. That appears to be contradicted by the Senate Report and common sense. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 13:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Clarifying the CIA's Grade of 'Good' for Wilson's Report on Niger ==
If the Senate Committee was critical of Wilson, why did the CIA give his report a grade of "good?" What does "good" mean? Does that mean many senior political people read his report? I have selected a few passages from the Senate Report to answer these questions.
 
Page 46
:The CIA's DO (Directorate of Operations) gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue... The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective... The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
 
Also-
:DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerian denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerian Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.
 
:Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.
 
I hope that clears up some common questions. It cleared up several for me. However, I am still not certain why the CIA did not brief the Vice President when he was interested in the issue and the report clearly confirms that an Iraqi delegation was seeking uranium in 1999. I believe the CIA made a poor choice there. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::The Bush administration cherry picked intelligence, the Senate report cherry picked its findings and you are cherry picking the Senate report. Who was in the "Iraqi delegation" that traveled to Niger? List the names. On what dates were they in Niger? List the dates. Who did they talk to and what did they talk about while in Niger?
 
::What we know is that a political leader in a uranium-producing country once reminisced about Iraqis and his assumption that they would be interested in uranium. Obviously (to cherry pickers) this means that, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".
 
::"they did not believe that it supplied much new information" - so what? We know that the US ambassador to Niger had already reported the same conclusion that Wilson came to. Wilson's report confirmed the idea that there was no reason to think that Iraq could get uranium from Niger. Wilson's report confirmed that no evidence could be found in Niger to support the idea that Iraq had tried to get uranium.
 
::What happened was that the Vice President repeatedly demanded evidence from the intelligence community to support the conclusion that Iraq has WMD, he made clear that the only accepted answer was "yes, Saddam has WMD". Is it any surprise that some analysts ignored all the evidence that said Iraq could not have gotten uranium from Niger? The only surprise is that the Senate report ignored how political interference in the intelligence analysis process distorted perceptions about Iraq and led to a Congressional authorization of the invasion of Iraq. For [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] to say that Wilson's "report clearly confirms that an Iraqi delegation was seeking uranium in 1999" indicates that he has little objectivity on this issue and is pushing an absurd point of view that is only supported by the partisan wish that it could be shown that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 13:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::JW, Wilson's trip to Africa was criticized by some in the CIA before he went. They did not see the purpose of his trip because we already have an ambassador in country and any Niger officials involved in a sale to a sanctioned country would be expected to lie about it anyway. Despite that, the CIA sent him. When Wilson arrived, the ambassador told Wilson he could not talk to any current Nigerian officials, but he was allowed to talk to former officials. The only bit of news in Wilson's entire report was that an Iraqi delegation had come to Niger in 1999. Uranium is Niger's only export and the Iraqis were not there to sell anything. The Prime Minister took it to mean the Iraqis wanted uranium and no one disagrees with his assessment. Why else would they want expanded trade?
 
:::By the way, President Bush's 2003 speech did not claim the Iraqis bought uranium in Africa, only that they sought it recently. While Wilson's trip did not speak specifically to "recent" events, it does show that Iraq had been wanted uranium in 1999. That was (rightly in my opinion) seen as evidence that tended to confirm the report that Iraq had recently sought uranium in Africa. The [[Butler Report]] makes clear that Iraq was still seeking uranium in 2002 (at about the time Wilson was in Africa) from both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I invite you to read the conclusions of the Butler Review.[http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/][[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 14:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::::I have two things to say to [[User:RonCram|RonCram]]. '''1''' READ [[logical fallacy]], and more specifically [[ad hominem]].''' 2''' As to the Butler report, we had a [[Talk:Yellowcake_forgery#Bush_did_not_rely_on_forged_documents|discussion]] about that, and for some reason you forgot to respond to my question reqarding your position. Which again you repeat without addressing the obvious inconsistencies in your reasoning. Feel free to clarify the issue on that by answering my [[Talk:Yellowcake_forgery#Bush_did_not_rely_on_forged_documents|questions there]].--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 16:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 
Nomen, I am well trained in logic and logical fallacies. I did not make a personal attack against you. Regarding your previous questions, I occasionally get blocks of time where I can spend a few hours editing Wikipedia. Sometimes those blocks are separated by a week or more. When I come back to Wikipedia, I may not remember to look for a previous conversation. You should not expect my lack of response to be either my bowing to your superior logic or state of embarassment on my part that prevents me from responding. Regarding the Butler Report, the classified information available to the people responsible for the Butler Review is far greater than you may imagine. They are not required to declassify information to satisfy your or my curiosity about how the conclusions were reached. It is possible that declassifying that information would expose credible informants who are still in place. People are jumping to politically motivated conclusions when the facts run exactly counter to those conclusions. Wilson went to Niger and learned the Iraqi delegation was seeking expanded trade, which can only mean uranium. In spite of that finding, Wilson wrote an op-ed piece that said Saddam was not seeking uranium in Africa. The Butler Report finds that Saddam was seeking uranium as late as 2002. I do not understand why these facts are hard to understand. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Of course, you did not attack me. What I meant is that you keep addressing things that are not relevant, which constitutes a [[logical fallacy]]. Wilson claimed '''SH did not seek uranium,''' that is the only statement you should comment on. Is he sent by his wife, does the entire world know she works for the CIA, is he a liberal, et cetera? These are interesting suggestions, but in no way contradict the statement: '''SH did not seek uranium.''' Hence all these arguments constitute a logical fallacy.
 
:Your conclusion ''which can only mean uranium,'' is speculation, not fact. Making a case based upon such assumptions is yet another logical fallacy. Having a theory is one thing, but please remember not many would repeat that claim. To my knowledge the most recent meeting would be in 1999, which hardly constitutes an "imminent" threat in 2003.
 
:As to the [[Butler report]], you are right, there is the risk for these "sources." However, it is also possible these "sources" do not exist. There is no way of knowing! History (Falluja only this week remember) has shown both the British and US have been wrong in their presentation of certain "facts." Be it an honest mistake or a flat out lie, it warrants a more critical approach. So, show me the evidence for every statement. Furthermore, you also fail to explain why the Butler report is more reliable than the [[IAEA]], [[CIA]] or even the [[US administration]] which have discredited the uranium claim as incorrect. This selective use of references is once again a logical fallacy. Or more to the point, '''did SH seek uranium?''' If you keep saying SH sought uranium you must provide evidence, and a singular statement (Butler report) which cannot be verified is no evidence in my opinion. For this I refer to the [[scientific method]]. --[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Nomen, everything I have stated is relevant. The only bit of information the CIA found useful from Wilson's trip to Niger was that Iraq sought uranium in 1999. Yet Wilson failed to mention that when he wrote his op-ed. Iraq had not had any weapons inspectors since 1998, so by 2002-2003 it was impossible to know how far along Iraq had progressed in their effort for nuclear weapons. The CIA, which vetted the comments of Colin Powell before the UN, thought Iraq's nuclear ambitions a real problem. However, the CIA was skeptical of the yellowcake story based on discussions the US ambassador had with Niger officials. You seem to confuse these two facts. Just because the CIA was skeptical of the Niger story does not mean they did not consider Iraq a possibly imminent nuclear threat. The IAEA was able to falsify the [[Yellowcake documents]]. However, the [[Butler Report]] did not depend on the [[Yellowcake documents]]. The Butler Report clearly has its own intelligence sources that show Iraq sought uranium both in Niger '''and''' Democratic Republic of Congo. You continue to confuse the British intelligence that was confirmed by the Butler Review with the forged Yellowcake documents. I fully understand your desire to know the source of the British intelligence. However, answers to all of our [[epistemology|epistemological]] questions are simply not possible when dealing with classified information. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 16:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::How is the role his wife might have played, and other ad hominem attacks, relevant to the statement SH did not seek uranium?
 
:::''Iraq had not had any weapons inspectors since 1998, so by 2002-2003 it was impossible to know how far along Iraq had progressed in their effort for nuclear weapons.'' Does this not constitute an admission that no '''recent''' information was available? And ipso facto, "imminent" could not be concluded?
 
:::''The CIA, which had vetted the comments of Colin Powell before the UN, thought the danger in Iraq was imminent.'' As I remember it, the CIA repeatedly removed the uranium claim out of speeches because they were not convinced of its veracity. However, you are correct they failed to do so in the State of the Union. How that happened is open for debate. Tenet fell in his sword, yet since he was the one removing the same claim previously and repeatedly, it does not convince me. As you know, only recently has the investigation into the '''use''' of intelligence by the Bush administration been forced by Democrats to be concluded within an acceptable timelimit.
 
:::You clearly seem to miss the point regarding the Butler report. How do we know the Brits are telling the truth? For some strange reason you accept their statement as fact.Whatever the reason for not advancing their sources, you are trusting people on good faith, although it has been proven that many other statements (by the US and UK) were not correct. This is why I insist upon '''PROOF''', not conjecture. '''Evidence''' is exactly what your point of view is missing. So, I am not stating the [[ Yellowcake forgery|Niger documents]] are the source, but merely observing that there is '''NO''' verifiable evidence to the contrary. Which leaves both your suggestion and mine open as possibility. I stress '''possibility''', since that is not the same as '''fact'''.
 
:::Furthermore, if the Butler report is correct and SH did seek uranium, why is everybody else convinced SH did not? Again, if SH did seek uranium, why did the US retract that statement?
 
:::Maybe it would help my understanding if you answered these questions directly, and not try to explain your POV. --[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 
Even if one accepts the Butler report at face value, it doesn't help the White House with the central question in this matter: why was Mrs. Wilson's CIA affiliation leaked and why did the White House lie about the leak? If, as the Butler report claims, there was classified intelligence supporting the president's African uranium statement, the WH could have simply answered Ambassador Wilson's criticisms by saying that while he didn't find anything to support Sadam's interest in African yellowcake, British sources did. Instead, the WH retracted the African yellowcake claims and started its leak campaign against Wilson. And Karl Rove is still a key member of the WH staff, despite keeping silent while the WH ridiculed any possibility of his and Libby's involvement in the leak. --[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] 19:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:Once again [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] forgot to answer my questions. Therefore I will answer them for him, because there are not many possibilities.
 
:'''Wilson could not find evidence of SH seeking uranium in Niger. How does the role his wife played alter that statement? How does any CIA plot alter that statement? How does Plamegate alter that statement?''' It does not. Because all these allegations are a form of "shooting the messenger." By discrediting Wilson, one tries to discredit his report. However, since his person is not relevant to the information he provided, such distractions are called a [[logical fallacy]].
 
:As to the question '''did SH seek uranium?''' He can answer: '''''1''''' yes he did, because the [[Butler report]] says so. However, this has to mean the [[Bush administration]] was in error when it retracted that claim. Better yet, it would mean the [[IAEA]], [[UN]], [[CIA]] and many other intelligence agencies around the world are wrong. Odd to say the least. '''''2''''' The other answer could only be: the Bush administration, the [[IAEA]], [[UN]], [[CIA]] and many other intelligence agencies around the world are right. But then, the Butler report would have to be flawed. Either way, [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] has to explain this contradiction. Which of course he would rather not. So, he plays it save and refrains from answereing at all.
 
:'''Is there any solid evidence for the uranium claim by the British?''' No, there is not. This could be because they do not want to reveal their "sources." But nobody can guarantee they exist at all. They are impossible to verify. As recent history has shown, there has been such an abundance of "flawed" statements, it would be irresponsible to take this claim at face value.
 
:'''Was the State of the Union based upon the Niger documents?''' No, because it was based upon British information. '''Why did the Bush administration retract that clearly correct statement?''' Here the previous contradiction is evident. Either the claim was incorrectly removed, therefore Bush made a mistake in dismissing its veracity. Or, it was correctly removed, which can only mean that the Butler report is wrong.--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 02:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== [[Bob Woodward]] ==
 
Looks like Bob was leaked Plame's identity a month before it was public (June 2003).[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/16/cia.woodward.ap/index.html CNN.com has an article] on it. --[[User:William Graham|waffle iron]] 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:This is huge. What Woodward's deposition says, in summary, is:
 
:1. Woodward knew of Plame one month before Novak did.
:2. Libby was *not* his source, but he refuses to reveal who it actually was.
 
:This puts "high crimes and misdemeanors" back in play. Who was the person who put Plame's name into discussion? I wonder if Woodward will go to jail for refusing to divulge his source? --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 07:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:And now, from the New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/national/17leak.html?hp&ex=1132290000&en=8cd8fdf1d731c104&ei=5094&partner=homepage New Disclosure Could Prolong Inquiry on Leak], and [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501829.html Woodward's statement] on the Washington Post's site. --[[User:NightMonkey|NightMonkey]] 10:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== "distortions" ==
 
it is some weeks since i have looked over this section. (I was, of course, prompted by the recent Woodward remarks). It was a shock to see how much it has been moved toward a bushists talking points piece. Sad really. For at certain stages it was a really useful document. Are there simply more running dogs of the current regime out there, or are careful historians just thin on the ground. I would point, for example, to the use of the word "distortions" in the piece, which now, as far as i can see, almost exclusively refer to statements of fact that contradict the Libby/Rove line. sad indeed.[[User:86.42.132.16|86.42.132.16]] 22:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:There seems to be a concerted campaign by pro-Rove wikipedians to riddle the VPW-related articles with Bush talking points. I have tried to address these but they just keep at it. I wonder what they will be saying when Fitz comes down with the next series of indictments in his investigation. It is tragic to see the Rovistas going out of their way to smear Valerie Plame Wilson, whose only crime was trying to do her job defending this country. And they do all this just to defend a lame duck president. They are playing politics with national security, exactly what they accuse democrats of doing. Bizarre.--[[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 20:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== Legal Questions ==
 
At the end of the first section in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Legal_questions]Legal Questions
<blockquote>This may be seen by Bush's political opponents as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks, and Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if indicted for violating Section 641.</blockquote> It would appear to me that it is more important that Fitzgerald might see it as legal precendent.
 
In fact it probably ''is'' seen by ''Bush's political opponents'' as such.
 
Also while Rove would most certainly face consequences (at least until pardoned ..) if indicted under that statute, he would only face ''greater consequences than Randell'' if convicted, not just indicted for such a violation.
 
Anyway just something that stuck out to me.
 
Is it okay if I say well done to those who have managed to compile a very balanced dry account of what we know so far in this affair despite the ghost of ronnie trying to scupper the NPOV -- [[User:Theaulddubliner|theaulddubliner]] 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 
== FOX more authoritative than crooksandliars.com ==
Twice I have corrected the erroneous claim Vallely and Wilson were not in the Green Room together and twice my edit has been reverted quickly. FOX News has put this false claim to rest after reviewing their own records. There is no reason to quote a website when it is wrong. I have retained the URL as a reference for interested researchers but the quote does not belong. Wikipedia is not a source for every false report that shows up on the internet. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:FOX is not unbiassed in this matter. Therefore I don't see why their statement necesseraly must be true, or "authoritative." On top of that, having both explanations is more informative, meaning less one-sided. Since there is debate as to what version is correct I think it would be only ''fair and balanced'' to let either side have their say.--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::Based on the title of this section I assume that the posting is meant to be satire. Correct? [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] 20:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:::Having read [[User:RonCram|RonCram]]'s contributions, and his reluctance to take a definite stance on my questions earlier, I fear the title is in earnest as is his believe, contrary to what even the [[Bush administration]] says, SH did seek uranium.--[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 
::::Nomen, the other side did get their say. Their error was duly noted and the reference to the article was retained. There is no reasonable question as to who is more authoritative on the question of who appeared on FOX News than FOX. It is ridiculous for you to argue otherwise. I am certain that even liarsandcrooks.com is willing to admit that FOX is more authoritative. FOX would not have made the statement if it was not demonstrable. WIkipedia is not bound to quote in full every error a website makes. No doubt the person at liarsandcrooks.com thought he or she was being thorough, but either did not have access to all the relevant facts or quite a few appearances. Wilson himself has not said he was not with Vallely. The Bush Administration has not said that Saddam did not seek uranium. The Intelligence Community firmly believes SH sought it in 1999. In addition, they privately have confidence in the findings of British Intelligence but the British do not share those sources and so the US has not been able to confirm the British Intelligence. For that reason, they stopped making the claim prior to the war. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 02:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 
I just noticed that someone else has decided to revert my edit. In doing so, they not only have reinstated an obvious error, but have removed the statement by FOX that proves it is an error. When people do this, it proves they are NPOV. This is a simple violation of Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is not bound to quote every website, especially when it is in error. If the error had become historically significant, then it should be quoted. This error is not. And the proof of the error should not be removed under any circumstances. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 03:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 
:You are correct that FOX has better knowledge as to who was on their shows. However, that is not the issue. I meet hundreds of people, in the train, at work, supermarket, et cetera. You can easily prove I have met so and so.To state I have talked to them is an entirely different matter. In stead of ascertaining who met who, the real question is (and once again you avoid it through your use of [[logical fallacy|logic]]) has Wilson discussed his wife with these people? That can not be established by FOX's records. To explain whether such an exchange of information is credible both versions are essential. So they NEED to be mentioned to elaborate why it is or is not possible/credible for Wilson to have shared the information about his wife. Contrary to your POV it has '''not''' been proven Wilson talked about his wife! Since you insist on an evidently POV version of history I can't help correcting your misrepresentation of the facts and speculations. If you continue to insert biassed contributions without discussing it first, I must conclude you are unwilling to present an equally balanced case. Or in other words, refuse to remain NPOV.
 
:SH did seek uranium in 1999. This is not our discussion. Your point and that of the Bush administration, based on the Butler report(?), is that he did so in 2002! If you now accept this date is not correct, and in stead the real date was 1999, this surely means the "imminent threat" sounds rather strange as it was based upon FOUR YEAR old information. Heck, you might even insert the statement he "recently" used chemical weapons upon his people. This too is correct, if you - as with the uranium claim- fail to mention it is '''not''' based upon '''recent''' revelations. The Bush administration repeatedly claimed SH was actively seeking uranium in 2002, and mushroom clouds were about to appear in the US. Since the relevant information was at least four years old one has to conclude these allegations could not be supported with '''recent''' evidence. This is exactly what Wilson said.
 
:You either fail to use your ratio on account of gullability or you are absolutely stubborn. Why should we believe the Butler report!!!!???! Please, remember statement after statement after statement being '''factually incorrect'''. On what grounds do you '''know''' the Butler report is correct? --[[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]] 04:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 
Nomen, you are changing the subject. The liarsandcrooks.com entry says it was not possible for Vallely and Wilson to meet. I proved it was possible with the FOX story. Yet you deleted my entry and replaced it with something you KNEW was an error. Now you are admitting FOX is more authoritative than liarsandcrooks.com but that FOX could not know what Vallely and Wilson discussed. That is not the point. That was never the point. There are many people that claim Wilson has discussed his wife with them. Evidently, Wilson was a very open person who talked about himself and his wife quite a lot. By the way, I emailed liarsandcrooks.com to let them know that FOX had corrected their error. Perhaps now we will see if they are willing to correct it themselves.
 
I am glad to see you have finally come to the realization that SH sought uranium in 1999. Most people who realize that see it as support for the view SH sought uranium in 2002 as well. The report by the former Niger PM coupled with the classified information discussed in the Butler Report is enough for me. You ask why we should believe the Butler Report, it is because we know SH sought uranium in 1999. You do not want to believe it, so no amount of credible evidence will convince you. For me, it is far better to err on the side of national security than to have another intelligence failure like 9/11. As Condi Rice said "We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] 14:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plame_affair"