Talk:Dan Quayle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Repeated requests from anon IP to add innuendo to article

I'm just going to leave this here for anon IP when he or she shows up again. The problem with your "source" is that it makes claims about Mr. Quayle, and claims are not good enough for a Wikipedia biography of a living person. Anybody can make allegations, implications, suggest dark and nefarious motives. Even journalists (perhaps in particular!). Being adjacent to nefarious dealings isn't the same as being involved in nefarious dealings, just as a person who happens to be walking past a bank when it's robbed isn't implicated in the robbery, without evidence. That's why allegations about one of Quayle's staffers can't be used to implicate Mr. Quayle himself. That 1988 article, one single article, rises to the level of one reporter's attempt to link Quayle to something, and failing completely.

You go and find a smoking gun, anon IP, from a reliable source, and provide a link to it, and maybe you'll get somewhere. Until then, repeatedly pushing the same conspiracy theories here only implicates you as someone with an axe to grind. Seek out a grindstone, not wikipedia, for that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

These arent claims, first of all. And the citations which you've deleted without discussion are from reputable sources, per Wikipedia's guidelines. Regardless of your personal belief that they are merely "claims"

Sen Kerry's subcommittee of the House Foreign Relations Committee did an investigation into Iran Contra. The subcommittee found EVIDENCE that Robert Owen (while working for both Dan Quayle and Oliver North) was a criminal liasion for the CIA's relationship with John Hull (an Indiana native who operated a ranch in Costa Rica, no coincidence I imagine).

I provided plenty of reliable evidence. Which you believe you have the right to continuously delete from the Talk Page without discussion. Here's a THIRD citation: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/north06.pdf

That is the National Security Archive from George Washington University. Certainly a Congressional Subcommitte's Report is authoritative enough. Or is that just another person's claims? Specifically, it was the claim of (then) Assistant US Attorney Jeffrey Feldmen (from an April 1987 deposition), as well as two accompanying FBI agents. They met with both the US Ambassador and the CIA Station Chief of Costa Rica, who informed the investigators of Indiana-born John Hull's relationship to Quayle's (and Oliver North's) employee Rob Owen. (pp 53-54)

So to recap, I have provided the followibg "smoking gun" citations to two reliable media reports and now one congressional subcommittee report, detailing the criminal drug dealing relationship between an employee of Dan Quayle and a network of CIA criminals, with links to Quayle's future President: George HW Bush.

at this point, your continued deletion shows YOU HAVE AN AX, TO HIDE. If you continue to delete my good-faith talk page contributions, i will be submitting to DRN. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:883B:6D7:A3A7:2EA8 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

And none of that is a smoking gun that directly implicates Mr. Quayle, and that's the threshold you need. Robert Owen isn't Dan Quayle. John Hull isn't Dan Quayle. Oliver North isn't Dan Quayle. None of the people you bring up are Dan Quayle. You've provided no direct evidence - not a shred - that Mr. Quayle was in any way directly involved in anything you describe. That's the textbook definition of innuendo; it is not the textbook definition of evidence. I'll be deleting this, and your comments, shortly. Because WP:BLP doesn't allow for allegations without evidence in a biography. You've provided no evidence. So, that's it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

2601:5CF:8000:6B60:883B:6D7:A3A7:2EA8 (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, to address your contention that evidence against Quayle's staffer doesn't implicate Quayle:

That is not the standard by which offices are judged. The office of Sen Dan Quayle had on its staff an employee who was involved in an illegal CIA operation, as part of his official capacity.

If you actually expect me to dig up unreported "smoking gun" evidence that Dan Quayle was personally involved, that wouldn't be accepted either, as it would be Original Research.

The basic fact is, a US Senator is responsible for the official work of their staff. And when one of their staffers is involved in official, illegal business - then it belongs on the Senator's wikipedia page. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:883B:6D7:A3A7:2EA8 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Delete it, and Im going to DNR. This is obviously a dispute and you have no authority to continuously delete my sourced contributions because you believe your personal standard of evidence governs the project. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:883B:6D7:A3A7:2EA8 (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You will be blocked shortly. I suggest you read and understand the BLP rules which I directed you to. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

And I have no idea what "DNR" is, but do go ahead. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

DRN, dispute reolution noticeboard. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:883B:6D7:A3A7:2EA8 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bring your secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-11-04-me-984-story.html

was the original source I posted that was deleted, claiming I (and the LA Times journalist) have an "ax to grind" 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:883B:6D7:A3A7:2EA8 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

That LA Times bit is an opinion piece in the context of a long ago presidential campaign. It barely mentions Quayle and to the extent it does is nothing but innuendo and guilt-by-association. (I'm not reading that lengthy, unsearchable PDF, and will just assume you are similarly misusing the source to make claims about Quayle.) Allegations of serious criminal activity based on such flimsy "evidence" have no place in a BLP. After that LA Times article was written, Quayle spent many years in the public eye as VP and later a serious presidential candidate. If this is all you've got after years of public scrutiny, there's nothing but an extremely fringe (one person?) conspiracy theory here.

Adding: I'm all for removing this discussion from the talk page in due course. Just wanted to add my two cents in case IP does try to escalate, to show there's consensus on the question of not including these allegations. CAVincent (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I said only that you have an axe to grind. The journalist in question makes a lot of allegations about things adjacent to Mr. Quayle, but nothing that directly implicates him in anything. Have you read WP:BLP? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus developing for what the mobile editor is proposing. Recommend the discussion be shut down. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was off-the-cuff; IP editor is violating WP:BLPTALK, which doesn't require consensus. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)