Talk:Douglas Feith/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Splitting up background section

I propose to split up the background section as it has become large. How about:

• Pentagon period
• DoD period

Or maybe:

• Employments
• Foreign policies
• Works

Or something like that. Any suggestions or objections? -- A human 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The current setup works, except for the background section. I think the article could use a

• early life
• schools
• grad schools, including influential professors and mentors.
• career (includes DoD,Pentagon,Consulting,Law Career. Must make an effort to describe Feith's transitions from one to the next clearly, because he is a protean individual and has had a varied career in many fields).
• family life

Comment? Abe Froman 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to begin the background section reorg today. Things may get moved around and put under sub-headlines, but I will not delete content. Might rewrite to combine sentences. Abe Froman 18:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we go over the merits of this reorganization? I think the narrative bio that you haven't yet chopped up reads and presents nicely, and has also been noncontroversial as a wiki entry for many months. With all due respect, I'm not all that gung-ho about a further Abe Froman rewrite of this page, or even a 'reorg.' So why again? 160.39.138.186 18:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The background section is not organized as well as the rest of the article. How would 160.39.138.186 like it to be reorganized? At this time we have the following proposal for sections:

• early life
• schools
• grad schools, including influential professors and mentors.
• career (includes DoD,Pentagon,Consulting,Law Career. Must make an effort to describe Feith's transitions from one to the next clearly, because he is a protean individual and has had a varied career in many fields).
• family life

Abe Froman 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Early life should include everything from birth to undergraduate degree .

Second that.Abe Froman 22:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I'm entirely impotent to stop the move of this article away from the encylopedic direction, though nothing looks glaringly unacademic about the proposed changes. I'm just giddy to hear the speculation involved in citing 'influential' minds in shaping Feith's 'nefarious' mind. 160.39.138.186 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorg of the Background section is underway, starting with "Early Life." Abe Froman 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a good paragraph on his early life through high school, already. But it needs more detail. Anyone know an easy way to find Feith's High School yearbook picture? Abe Froman 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Added undergraduate section. It will look and flow better on subsequent revisions. Next up, fill in the gap between 1975 and 1981, where the Harvard passage ends and the National Security Council Passage begins. The information in the new section is exclusively from speeches given by Feith. Abe Froman 05:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Before it is pointed out, yes, I know the narrative in background seems to jump right from 1975 to 1981, skipping Georgetown and the law office Feith attended/worked at. Only so many hours in a night,filling it in tomorrow. The information is farther down in background, anyway. Abe Froman 06:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

General

Some notes from Wikipedia guidelines that pertain to this article as a whole: On biography writing style: The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.

There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility. [1]

Much of the material added in the past two weeks fits this description. The Washington Post and Washington Times appear too if I remember, and these would not fit such a description. However, we have entire sections based on media of advocacy journalism, and this has been called out before on the discussion page only to hear claims of 'but it's cited!' come back. Bueller 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems with sources or cites? Bring it up here, where the discussion belongs. I feel personal dislike of The Washington Post and Washington Times should not disqualify them from ever appearing as sources. This article has 51 citations, according to Bueller they are all part of some plot against Feith. That is laughable. I look forward to discussing specific problems with the sources, eschewing "all press are evil" arguments. Abe Froman 20:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha Mr. Froman, let me repeat myself. "The Washington Post and Washington Times appear too [in the Feith bio] if I remember, and these would not fit such a description." "Such a description" being that of an advocacy journal. I wasn't espousing an all press is evil argument, that is laughable. Nor did I saw that all citations are part of an anti-Feith plot. Most of the citations from the past two weeks, though, are. And I don't mean to overstate the issue by using Froman's "plot" terminology, but most of those sources are critical, at best. This is un-encylopedic. I'd appreciate if you'd read my msgs closer before launching into tirades that shoot over my points rather than engage them. If, however, your misunderstanding was the fault of my writing, I apologize. That's entirely possible as well. I just wanted to address the Wikipedia-sanctioned point about differences between sources and the appropriateness\unappropriateness of certain sources in encylopedic wiki entires. Bueller 23:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing Bueller's original contributions of new material to the article. Abe Froman 23:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Froman, there is no rule stating that I am to lose my right to edit and discuss this article if I do not lend to it the 'original contributions' you are discussing. [This is ignoring the fact that I have given contributions to the article as well as edits, as can be seen in the page's history.] There are, however, rules about sources and sourcing which I tried to discuss on this page in an adult, academic fashion. Unfortunately, your comments--the first based on a misunderstanding of my writing and the second meant to imply some sort of bad behavior on my part because you want me to give original contributions--ignored mine about sourcing in encyclopedic entries. Can you please not do so. Please refer to my first comment in this thread about advocacy journalism and how it relates to this Feith bio and the sources that have been added in the past two weeks. Bueller 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to tip this any positive way I can. Agree to disagree. If all Bueller (formerly anon 160.39.138.*) wants to do is delete [2] contributions, that is just the way it is. Back to the Background section research for me. Abe Froman 01:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think wikipedia has become too famous and used for it's own good, articles seem to attract people with a strong POV, before people with a neutral view, and then the article suffers. I guess in the end people who only care about one or two articles eventually lose interest.--M4bwav 02:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Froman, these responses are really getting out of hand. You've again avoided the crux of my initial point. You're harping on this point about my lending original information. I'm happy to do so, have done so in the past, and plan on doing so in the future. Forgive me if I can't sit all day with time to research original things. I have been moved though to correct the record when it gets abused by those who can sit, find and spin conspiratorially slanted pieces. It's enough of a time commitment to try to keep the piece balanced from your original contributions. And again, that I mainly edit for balance rather does not disqualify me from doing so. I'm going to reprint my first comment of this thread because I'd like you to address the point about sourcing in an encyclopedic entry: "Some notes from Wikipedia guidelines that pertain to this article as a whole:

On biography writing style: The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.

There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility. [3]

Much of the material added in the past two weeks fits this description. The Washington Post and Washington Times appear too if I remember, and these would not fit such a description. However, we have entire sections based on media of advocacy journalism, and this has been called out before on the discussion page only to hear claims of 'but it's cited!' come back. Bueller 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)" Bueller 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a response here. My comment and the issues of advocacy journalism merit discussion and action--it's quite unserious to ignore them. Bueller 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Which parts and which sections do you object to. I agree that the article could use some balancing, but let's not be too quick to remove information. After all, Feith has a lot critics, both inside and outside of the administration, perhaps most of the criticism is fair and accurate?--M4bwav 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I also find your comments too vague to offer any response. Let's hear what you what think should be changed and why. --Lee Hunter 19:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

second that. Abe Froman 19:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The new sections Feith's background, still in progress, also seem to be addressing Bueller's balance concerns. Give the editors some time to improve the article. Or, even better, help out by contributing to the background section. We are up to Postgraduate work. Abe Froman 20:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

The NY Times article previously cited can be found--I found it--on Lexis\Nexis. Perhaps this is a problem as not all wiki users can use such a link. Don't know what procedure is on this. Not sure it matters either, the article around that citation doesn't seem to have substantively changed. Bueller 07:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Feith leaving office

This entire section was based on Jim Lobe's assessments. Which, when one reads them, forces one to ask 'where does he get this stuff?' All the relevant quotes [almost all the Lobe quotes, anyway, but that's a side issue] are from supposedly anonymous sources. This is a problem in and of itself. And the question of whether anonymous sources can ever be put in encyclopedia entries--not relied upon, or linked too, but put at the basis of sections in encyclopedic entires--is an interesting one. Anonymous sources, though, are often quoted in publications of all kinds and repute. There is, though, a big difference between the New York Times, to return to our stock example of journalism which still deserves a critical eye but which has 150 years of history from which we can know its standards, and the publications in which Lobe publishes his speculation. This is not a personal problem I have with Lobe. I know nothing of the man and am commenting only on his work. And I'm really not even criticizing his work, just its placement in a supposedly encyclopedic entry. It doesn't belong, just as anonymous speculation favorable to Feith wouldn't belong. A link to Lobe's articles of this sort can go in our 'speculation section' at bottom [also odd, but not fighting that], it should not be in the article let alone as the basis for a whole section the crux of which is to criticize our subject further. Bueller 08:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's better if we edit out the problem areas, rather than remove the whole thing, clearly he left office, we should at least mention that,--M4bwav 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading again, it doesn't really sound bad at all, unless you have a source that disputes this, that you can post, it seems reasonable to let it stand.--M4bwav 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

second that. Abe Froman 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the comment from an anonymous government person. Even with a source, it's not encyclopedic. It could literally be anyone from an assistant clerk to a completely made up person. There's no indication that the person is really qualified to make this comment. We should only be quoting named persons. --Lee Hunter 18:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Iraq quote had been up for a week and I thought it was fine. Feith's patrons are still in office, and directly attributable information about motivations is hard to find, unless we are all willing to wait until 2009 when the books are written. Jim Lobe was clearly marked as a critic of Neoconservatives and the quote was also marked as being from an Anonymous source. It was safed and in context. I would not mind if it were put back. Abe Froman 18:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No doubt you wouldn't mind. Further, the fact that it stood for a week means nothing; you've removed much that stood for months, and anyone who tried to rmv something you posted in the last week was quickly reverted against. Lee Hunter has the right take.

My original contributions to the article should not be belittled without cause. Since Bueller feels so strongly about Douglas Feith that he only edits the Feith article, perhaps Bueller could begin making original contributions. Give the delete button a rest, for more than 2 hours, and add a little. We need help in the background section, as noted in this discussion page. Abe Froman 19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've established that the anonymous stuff doesn't belong in an encylopedic entry, the whole section should be removed. Feith's departure is noted in the article's first sentence [served till August x 2005], and the information still left in the 'leaving office' section [Tony Blair etc] is from Lobe's same anonymous-if-existent source. Also, tying Franklin's sentencing is mere speculation if not gratuitously unfair. The Franklin thing had been going on for a year, had Feith left at any point you could have made a connection; too easy, not academic. In turn, Perle's statement, as a reaction to something not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, should too be removed. Thus, the whole section should be taken out. Bueller 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the sections should be removed. The AIPAC_espionage_scandal involved Feith's subordinates, and the investigation is not over. [4] [5] [6] [7] As noted before, personal dislike of Journalist Jim Lobe does not disqualify him as a source. Finally, the actions of the single article editors who inhabit the Feith article have shown a clear predilection for whitewashing in the past 2 weeks, as the history [8] attests. The material that appears in the article is properly cited, and should not be removed because one person with an axe to grind objects, IMHO. Abe Froman 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with material that is properly cited but speculative quotes from anonymous people are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. They are fine for a newspaper article where the reader can at least evaluate the credibility of the journalist and the newspaper but they just don't work in this setting. This anonymous person is divining the motivations of people in the White House but we don't have the slightest indication whether her or she has any more insight than an anonymous Wikipedia editor. I certainly have no interest in whitewashing Feith (take a look at my first edits on this article in November if you don't believe me) I just want it to be credible. --Lee Hunter 22:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific rule against anonymous sources, I'm just curious? Seems liks anonymous sources are fine if they are from a reputable source, for instance the wiretapping started from anonymous sources, and some other major events of the last year. Are the anonymous quotes take from a reputable source? Any comments on this?--M4bwav 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The wiretapping story is different. The tipoff came from several anonymous sources and then was corroborated and cross-checked with other sources. Comments were obtained from people inside and outside government etc. And the White House, itself, not only confirmed the story but tried to surpress it. Here we have one stray quote, not even from a mainstream paper, with no corroboration or follow-up from other media outlets. I think there's a world of difference. --Lee Hunter 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lee Hunter and M4bwav. Citing using anonymous sources should be used more carefully. To not use them at all would strip Wikipedia of much coverage. Heck, Watergate or what the Olsen Twins did last week would still be a secret, if not for anonymous sources. Abe Froman 22:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we've established this precedent of anonymous sources+reputable publication. It's a good one. I'd like to return then to the question of whether the remaining lines on Feith's departure are apt for this article. As stands now, the entry links Feith's departure with the AIPAC scandal, even though no information is provided--nor can it be provided from reputable, named sources--for the link. Only the calendar links the two. Instead, our publishing of Feith's departure alongside a reference to AIPAC gives a false air of a connection which implicates our subject unfairly. Thus, it should be removed entirely. Perle's line about family, we should remember, was based on Lobe's anonymous source, who we have already agreed does not belong in this article. Ergo, neither should Perle's defense, even if the printing of Perle's line is technically a 'balancing' of the linking with AIPAC. Additionally, I hardly think it's a balancing, for every unnecessary mention of Feith alongside such misbehavior links him overstatedly and unfairly to others' crimes. Again, such speculation is fine and may be accurate, but does not belong in an encyclopedic wiki entry. Bueller 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with every part of the last post. Everyone should be free to look at the history of this page, and I encourage them to do so. The page was stable for months until changes were made in the past week or two which had a consistent negative [this is an understatement, unsubtly hateful and scurrilous is more apt in some cases] slant. It was in response to these that I and others have been trying to work. As for the fact that the AIPAC investigation is still going on, any reader can see this. There is already a disproportionately large section on the matter in acc\ref considering Feith has never been named, and it states that the investigation is ongoing; thus, readers can know this for themselves. Putting it in with Feith's departure sentence implies a false link. Why not write Doug Feith left in August 05. The miserable Iraq War was still going on at this time, though Richard Perle claims Feith didn't leave because the War is no good, but because of family. Such a thing may be your personal opinion, but it doesn't belong here. Even if Jim Lobe, who I have made no personal attacks against but have only criticized his writings' appropriateness in an encylopedic entry, says so. Bueller 19:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The passage on Feith retiring shortly before his subordinate got sent up the river for espionage in the AIPAC_espionage_scandal was fairly balanced by Richard Perle's comment in the Retirement passage. Since I am busy working on original material for the background section, I will defer on re-adding the retirement passage, shorn of anonymous quotes, until tonight. This will give other editors a chance to look at the history themselves [9] and weigh in. Abe Froman 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We should remove the entire section on Feith's departure as it stands now. This is because the juxtaposition of the AIPAC story with Feith's departure is not only an attempt an unfair incrimination, but it is borne of the same article full of anonymous sources which we deemed not up to snuff for an encyclopedic entry. That the section as it stands now is balanced, which it is technically speaking is [although this is arguable considering we're levying a hell of an implication, tying Feith again to criminal actions he hasn't ever been tied to by authorities], does not justify its placement in the wiki entry. Yet again, should be removed. Comments [on subject please--no dismissals such as you're just expressing personal anti-Lobe bias] Bueller 17:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

vote keep. Feith did leave government in August 2005. Feith's subordinate, Larry Franklin, was sentenced for espionage shortly afterward. These are facts. Whether they are connected, Jim Lobe thinks so [10], Richard Perle does not. [11] The passage accurately balances these two opposing viewpoints. Abe Froman 17:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not going for redundancy here, but vote remove. Yes, on the surface the part is balanced. No one is denying this. Also, the alignment in time of Feith's departue with Franklin's sentencing is fact. They occurred in the same calendar period. But, the implications of the laying out of these facts in this manner are not appropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Firstly, Feith announced his resignation originally in January, effective in the summer, and ultimately left in August. So how does this affect our entry? What conspiracy theory can we imply by documenting the status of the Franklin case circa January 05? Also, Franklin's issue was one of a million things contemporaneous with Feith's August departure. Why don't we find more bad ones, link them by the calendar and in doing so imply a Feith-bad thing connection? Or would that be unfair? We already have a section on Franklin's scandal which is of debatable relevance to Feith. In there, we discuss Franklin's sentencing and story. Any reader can see from that that Feith left while the Franklin case was in the courts. Let them see this and make their own conclusion. Our connecting the two is implying treasonous activity on the part of a person not involved in treason! These are not minor issues. Bueller 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish

Placing 'Jewish American' label at beginning is gratuitous. Firstly, it is clear from the article now that the article delves deeply into Feith's family background. Secondly, being literally one of the first words of the article, the label seeks to define Feith, and this is unfair at best, anti-semitic at worst. Profiles of other politicians do not have this format. Feith, though, is a neoconservative as the article says and this Jewish label seeks to reaffirm the conspiracy theory of neoconservatism\Judaism\Protocols of Zion\Israel dual-allegiance etc... and is pretty disgusting. Don't think it necessary. Speaks more to POV of editor than to Feith's background.

I agree the use of Jewish American in the first paragraph is gratuitous. But Wikipedia has an entire thread devoted to Jewish Americans, just like it does for Arab Americans, and I believe the author was only trying to help categorize according to Wikipedia's existing system. Only a sleeping person would read the article and fail to realize Feith's heritage. I feel the label should be removed. Abe Froman 06:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, remove it. And please do not sideline Protocols of Zion with Feith maybe having dual allegiance, the former was a hoax, the second is a real possibility, and has been seen before. A human 08:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic entries

Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and very often is. This is to its credit and to our benefit. This Feith entry, however, is far from encyclopedic. The passage I just removed, for example, is an entire paragraph and story narrative based on one newspaper article. This is not encyclopedia material. Encyclopedias--and wikipedia--are not simply bulletin boards for stories tossed around about people and things. Those are blogs, or google searches, but not encyclopedias. Encyclopedias should contain information far more established, balanced and in this case relevant to what a narrative biography should be. Turning this page into a story about neoconservative conspiracy theories is not making it a legitimate encyclopedic biography. The passage I removed is just one example; the whole page needs a scrubbing for this problem. 160.39.138.186 22:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The cited passage referred to was published [12] in Newsday and has not been denied by Feith or the Pentagon. The passage specifically deals with actions Feith directly authorized at the Office of Special Plans. With cited material, it should not be removed without discussion, first. Abe Froman 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You've hit on, and missed, exactly the point. The simple fact that something is cited somewhere does not render it appropriate for an encyclopedic biography. I hope that as wikipedians we can all agree on that. Many things are cited once or even twice about all kinds of people and things that do not fit in a biography meant to give balanced, surely-accurate information. Brian\Abe Froman misses the point repeatedly, and is using wikipedia as a posting board for rumors [despite his clear predisposition to believe anything publisehd anywhere about those whose politics he disagrees with, they are still rumors even if cited somewhere], not for properly vetted information meant to inform readers rather than hit them with conspiratorial political shots. 160.39.138.186 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The point was received, for what it was, a tendentious diversion from the cited material in the article. By all means, present arguments with citations that refute the accusations in the "Accusations and Refutations" section of the article. That is what it is there for. But spare us the sanctimonious justification for whitewashing that has become the modus operandi of the single-article editors who object to variable viewpoints in the Feith article. Abe Froman 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hit Piece

This article has been turned into a complete hit piece. It needs a thorough scrubbing for POV. There is almost nothing encyclopedic about the entry; it reads like a polemic. Allow me to to try to give some perspective to you, who I'm thoroughly convinced see no problem at all with this hit piece on Feith, who you likely see as the center of a vast, multinational though cabal-like unit hell bent on taking over the world because of parochial and shady interests.

Let's imagine what Bill Clinton's entry would be if written with the perspective and judgment of proper encyclopedic writing that those who have changed this entry in the past week seem to have. Clinton's entry would be almost nothing but scandal. Partisan views on Clinton aside, he was objectively mired in controversy, about his private life and otherwise. If the Clinton entry were written as the Feith entry is, we would see pictures of Clinton with every woman he supposedly [hell, more than supposedly, he's in fact admitted things; Feith has never had guilt of wrondoing proven, ever] was involved with, not to mention pictures and reports of Clinton wiht every Arkansas\Whitewater convict he was in fact close friends with [Jim Guy Tucker, the McDougals]. In fact, though, only about 1\15th of the Clinton entry deals with 'impeachment and controversies.' There are more paragraphs in Feith's entry about supposed controversies--again, sourced by circular sources--than in Bill Clinton's about his impeachment trial!

Further, there is hardly the praise\criticism balance in Clinton's entry that there is in Feith's. It seems it pains most wiki writers to the core to see Feith praised, so each praise must be 'balanced' with some unsubstantiated or anonymously sourced quote about dual loyalties to Israel. Condi Rice has been on the record praising Feith--if I were to find a quote of that, you would all insist that we put it up only alongside the rumored quote [Nelson Report] currently in there, because then we're fair and balanced, right?

If we do an analysis of the sources cited, the vast majority are openly painting a negative picture of Feith and\or from minor venues. And, while the Clinton entry for example gives a sentence or so to negative charges and then lets the reader decide for himself to be bothered and seek out more information on the charge, the writers of this Feith entry find it necessary to lay out near-full rumor of scurrilous charges which have been substantiated nowhere and are in some cases--NSC clearances issue--openly denied by those in charge. But alas, the words of the men in government running the NSC at a given time are only as strong as the words of Feith's political opponents.

The POV in this entry is disturbing. And when anyone comes to give it the necessary skepticism--as in not writing multiple paragraphs on rumors that have not gone anywhere beyond the mouth of the rumor-passer, who is often an admitted political opponent of Feith--you all rail against resume-writing or whatever. There is a middle ground between resume-writing and indictment-writing. That is encyclopedic writing, which wiki should be but which this entry you've barraged with rumor is certainly not. 160.39.138.186 20:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: I appreciate your comments. I disagree this article represents a "hit" piece. I am unsure why you link Douglas Feith to Bill Clinton, when Feith was not in government during the 92-00 Clinton presidency. The accusations and refutations are cited exhaustively in this article. If you have particular problems with specific claims and sentences, please bring them up so we may discuss. Abe Froman 20:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned Clinton only as an example of the wiki entry of a political figure, especially one with constituencies who dislike him. I realize the analogy is inexact considering Feith was hardly President, but I think the example stands to lend us some perspective. Meanwhile, I think you've missed my point. The goal isn't to get into a pissing match of going piece by piece after each accusation. Firstly, I think I've done that on this page already and it's fallen on deaf ears. After seeing that, I wanted everyone to try to rethink the page as a whole, taking in the Clinton example. Not every accusation against him is exhaustively laid out on his page, as it is on Feith's, etc.. These Feith accusations exist, clearly, but their simple existence is not reason enough to put them on his bio page. If they ever amount to anything, they surely fit in his bio, considering their weight, but especially considering this weight we should not slander him until he is shown to actually be guilty of misbehavior. The criminal actions of 1 of 1500 people in his office, for example, which have been linked to him only by that association hardly merits multiple paragraphs on a short bio. And the structure of the AIPAC\Franklin area is extremely suspect, with wikipedians doing speculative, editorializing linking with sentences to the effect of Feith had Franklin do some foreign work, supposedly. Foreign work got Franklin in trouble. Ergo, Feith and Franklin are connected on misbehavior. Franklin's criminal case has gone through all stages, from investigation to sentencing, and Feith hasn't been shown to have done anything improper. I don't think the Franklin thing should be there at all, it's scurrilous-accusation-by-association. And if mentioned, teh Franklin piece should get a brief, fair sentence or so, just as we saw things dealt with in the Clinton entry. Let conspiracy theorists think what they want, but their arguments shoulndt be laid out in full on this entry.

Abe Froman says: It is not speculation that Feith used Franklin on sensitive projects, overseas.[13][14] However close they were, Feith chose Franklin out of 1,500 people at Office of Special Plans for these missions. Carrying the controversy is important, as we both agree, and a single sentence will not provide enough context for the average reader to understand what transpired. As noted earlier on this Talk page, investigations can take years and will not always have a ready stream of news. To ignore the investigation until a black & white verdict is reached, if ever, is not appropriate given the information that is available and the accusations involved.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Abe Froman 21:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We have already discussed this once. We do not need a abstract of the AIPAC scandal, the firing/clearance thing or the OSP here in this article. A couple of lines detailing how Feith might be connected and then a link should do it. Thats what links are for. If people want do know more they will follow the link. A couple of concise lines only. A human 22:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

That last comment sounded like we may actually be getting somewhere. So, can we write with the proper concision, rather than with wordy expounding on rumor that by its mere volume unfairly paints Feith as much more involved than anyone has shown he is? 160.39.138.186 22:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. And so far 3 people have discussed this and 2 agree, give it a shoot. A human 22:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with censoring the controversy on the main page. Especially regarding Office of Special Plans. Feith led [24] this organisation, and was not a bit player, as cited voluminously. As regards AIPAC, it is useful to list because Feith was caught up [25] [26] [27] in similar allegations 24 years ago. Rhetorically, this is a "lightning struck twice" argument and the reader can decide if the evidence is strong enough. But to censor the controversy altogether reduces the article back to resume. I would also like to note that user 160.39.138.186 is anonymous and edits no other articles on Wikipedia except this Feith article. I wonder if their is an academic or personal relationship involved that could affect POV. Abe Froman 22:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

When did ad hominen attacks come into this discussion of entirely issue-, fact-, source-, wikistyle-based matters? No one talks about censoring controversy altogether. Simply taking reasonable measures to ensure that wikipedia is the encyclopedia it strives to be and so often is successful at being. And to do so we have to realize many things, among them are relative weight of sources, caution not to overstate serious claims, etc.. While all kinds of things are 'sourced,' there is a difference we have to realize between first-hand on the record statements [Judge Clark] and statements of others with less knowledge and less credibility. Let's also note the kinds of publications we use as sources. All sources should be put to due skepticism, and while I'm no believer in everything I read, I give more credence to things I read in the New York Times, for example, than on internet publications such as Raw Story, etc. The New York Times has a decades-long record and standards with which we are familiar. This Feith narrative has in the past week become based on sources whose standards we do not know. If wikipedia is to truly be encylopedic, rather than a posting-board of political rumor, it needs to conform to reasonable academic standards such as these. It shouldn't be a posting-board for he said\she said, especially between sources of far different repute. 160.39.243.25 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Abe Froman says: Nine publications attest to the content currently contained in the Feith article.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] The provenance of the details are attributed to officials like Vincent Cannistraro, who as former NSC intelligence director, would be privy to details about Feith. We have a disagreement because 160.39.243.25 has a source that claims something different. Rather than censor the article, and remove cited content based on one source, the page should remain as-is, with accusation and refutation intact. A "hit" piece as 160.39.243.25 describes would not include a refutation inline with the accusation. This article does contain the refutation, and thus remains NPOV. Abe Froman 00:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Abe Froman says: I altered the headline in the AIPAC section to make it clearer that Feith's subordinate Larry Franklin at Feith's Office of Special Plans is being covered. Abe Froman 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearances

Removed section on removal of security clearance in 1982. Realize this appeared in Raw Story internet newsmagazine, but this doesn't strike me as worthy substantiation. Especially when Judge William Clark has his quote about Feith's honorable service and the fact that Feith help an important Pentagon post from 1982-1986. Had his clearance been revoked in 1982, this would have been impossible. Thus even less reason to believe the story about revocation.

You removed sections with documentation provided and links from several sources. --68.219.37.97 04:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My comment above is in line with my removal of the section. If you follow the link, the linked-to sites have unsubstantiated information. That this wiki entry links to those sites does not give them credence; a look at those sites shows that they too stand on no solid informatoin. The Asia Times article linked includes the security clearance-removal claim and cites an article in Counterpunch by a Stephen Green. A reading of that article demonstrates the lack of substance, especially considering Judge William Clark's published statements. Stephen Green even cites Clark by name, claiming he fired Feith for misconduct while we have a letter by Clark himself [!] saying otherwise. I stand by the removal.

Who is "we"? You are engaging in original research. See WP:NOR. The article is reporting data as it is reported from documented sources. Your deletion of sourced information is justifiably reverted. --68.219.37.97 15:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing 'original research' about it. The letter referred to following the 'we' has been published, in Judge William Clark's name, in a reputable publication. Much more so than the Raw Story, moreover. The wiki article is reporting from sources, I acknowledged that, but any reading of those sources--as any proper researcher would do--shows that they are not documented with substantiated information. This is simply the repeated reprinting of unsubstantiated information--and really damaging information, I'm sure, no less. It should absolutely be removed, but I'll wait a bit for a response.

To claim Raw Story is useless as source without any source to back it sounds pretty much like original research to me. Please document that it cannot be trusted. A human 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't criticizing Raw Story as an institution, but applying the same judgments of credibility that would be applied to the New York Times or any other publication. A reading of the Raw Story article linked shows that they assert this story about Feith losing his clearances in 1982 without citing a single source. This is not legitimate journalism, whether Raw Story or elsewhere. Later in the article, the author cites sources--anonymous, mind you--about the power of Rumsfeld to deal with clearances, but there is no connection to Feith. Instead, such a connection is the desired implication of the journalist, and this seems unfair. Also, as noted in an earlier post, how does it make sense for Feith to have lost clearances in 1982 when he went on to work 4 more years in the government in a job requiring clearances? This story plain and simple doesn't hold together. Also see William Clark's letter on the matter. The Raw Story article makes a claim it can't support; in turn, so does the wiki entry.

The allegations of Douglas Feith being fired from the National Security Council in 1983 and stripped of his security clearances are documented not only in RawStory , but also by the Washington Times[37] . Former Counterterrorism Chief Vince Cannistraro confirmed in this article that Feith was fired from the NSC for leaking classified data to Israel. Stephen Green, a highly respected author of two books on U.S.-Israeli relations, also supports this version of events. The allegations of Feith being fired from the NSC are substantiated in multiple publications and by multiple authors and intelligence officials. It should be included in the article on Douglas Feith.

What can be said then about the letter from the person in charge of the NSC in 82\83 (text of letter printed below, linked to in wiki entry):

Your paper’s article “Bush neocon cadre falls apart” (Sept. 22) is inaccurate regarding Douglas Feith. I know from firsthand knowledge. Your article cites a Mr. Cannistraro to the effect that Mr. Feith was fired for wrongdong from President Reagan’s National Security Council in 1982. I was President Reagan’s National Security Advisor at the time and I tell you that is untrue.

Mr. Feith served honorably on my staff and went on to serve well at the Pentagon under Secretary Cap Weinberger. Because of his fine record, President George W. Bush hired him as his Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, Mr. Feith’s service was “brilliant” and contributed greatly to our country’s security.

It’s fine to attack policies you don’t support. But it’s bad to impugn the character of patriotic public servants on the basis of false information.

William P. Clark

San Luis Obispo, Calif.

As there is clearly controversy and evidence either way concerning Douglas Feith's voluntary vs. involuntary exit from the NSC in 1983, this controversy, and its documentation, should be carried within the main article.

The allegations, controversy, and supporting citations of Douglas Feith's voluntary vs. involuntary departure from the NSC in 1983 have been restored to the main article. This passage is supported by citations from the Washington Times, RAWSTORY, former NSC Intelligence Director Vincent Cannistraro, US/Israeli relations author Stephen Green, and former NSC Director William Clark.

User:Brian@popflux.com I had already readded those allegations. Now the article is a mess. You should have checked how it had changed before you readded that. Another thing is there is a problem with 1983 date. Should it not be 1982 since otherwise he was fired from his previous job after starting his new, which does not make sense. 1983 seems to be a typo, and some of the sources does claim 1982. A human 03:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Author Stephen Green supports Feith's departure from the NSC in March, 1983. That is why I refer to 1983. Feith only worked at the NSC for 1 year. I did not see the clearance passage readded, possibly because the user at ip address 160.39.138.186 had already removed them in between your addition and my viewing of the page tonight.

Belay that last. I have removed the dual entries from the page.

I beg to differ. This seems to be his record:

• • • • • 1981 Started at NSC
        • 1982 Fired from NSC
        • 1982 Special Counsel for Richard Perle in Pentagon
        • 1984 Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy in Pentagon
        • 1986 Washington, DC law firm of Feith & Zell
        • 1989 Lobbyist for the Turkish government
        • 2001 Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
        • 2005 resigned

A human 03:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I used this citation to support the March, 1983 time frame

"According to Green, in March 1983, Feith, then a Middle East analyst on the National Security Council, was fired by Judge William Clark"[38] Brian 04:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I know, but that must be a typo. All the other sources also refer to 1982, and as You can see from the timeline above 1983 is not possible.

"In 1982, Perle hired Feith in ISP as his Special Counsel" Stephen Green

"A total of nine NSC staff members were fired, including Feith, who'd only been with the NSC for a year ... Feith did not remain unemployed for long, however. Richard Perle, who was in 1982 servi... hired him on the spot" Stephen Green

"Feith ... but was summarily removed from that position in March 1982" Jim Lobe

It is quite simple; Green was misquoted. -- A human 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with A human, Green must have been misquoted. Feith left shortly after Judge William Clark became NSC Director, and that happened in January, 1982.[39]

Kwiatkowski

I'm inclined to erase the entire Kwiatkowski section. She sounds like an angry ex-employee lobbing accusations she can't support. There's no support for her claim about Feith possibly going to jail other than her own unsubstantiated statement in a 2004 article. Further, the mention of the leaked memo to the Weekly Standard implies that Feith was involved in the leak when he was only the memo's author. This seems unfair. Kwiatkowski, meanwhile, has been discredited for making false accusations in the past. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence dismissed allegations believed to be leveled by her as baseless in its report on pre-war intelligence [40] (pp. 282-283). Until independent sourcing, rather that simply Kwiatkowski's questionable word, can be found on the matter, I think it fair to erase the final paragraph which included her claims.

Voting keep. "allegations believed to be leveled by her", so not surely leveled by her? Well she is just as good a source as any of the other sources in the article. You could reverse your argument and say that they who promote him have an agenda since they might share Feith's political views. Her statement about him going to jail is completely hers alone, and I therefore see no problem including it as long as it is attributed to her alone. A human 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What stops me from making a claim that in my humble opinion some government official may go to jail? Kwiatkowski knows nothing of investigations--that she worked in Feith's office doesn't seem to give her credibility enough, especially given her disgruntled-ex-employee tone. She's also now discussing events from 2004, almost two years ago--at what point would her baseless claim reach its statute of limitations? Or is it to stay on this profile forever? Seems unfair.

"Kwiatkowski knows nothing of investigations" - true, but she was in a position to know about eventual wrongdoings on his part. A human 03:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting keep. Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski worked for Feith, and can speak to the environment at Office of Special Plans while Feith led it. Abe Froman 22:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

2 criticisms of the most recent edit:

1. Isn't it more accurate to associate Feith with the Cold War neocons? I believe that's when the change in his thinking seemed to occur.
2. Doesn't the original version have more information than the current one?

Also (in an unrelated note) that last paragraph is horribly POV, and I'll have a crack at it now. Meelar 23:28, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

The quote about feith by Tommy Franks misses the F*** word that Vice President Dick Cheny used on the floor the United States Senate. You will recall that the Cheney said "Go F*** Yourself" to a United States Senator and later refused to apologise for his lack of civility. The other members of his party refused to admonish him even though they have been whining about bad language etc. for decades now. Lets include the correct, full Tommy Franks quote here and not engage in any Orwellian language and history editing behavior.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902246.html

NPOV

This entire article needs a good scrubbing for POV. As it is, it reads like a poorly written PR piece. --Lee Hunter 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably is a PR piece, you know staffers have been editing articles lately. BTW can we change that picture, everytime I look at it, I think he's just heard a joke (...about selling out the America longterm interests, don't quote on that(too late))--M4bwav 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

AIPAC investigation

160.39.138.186 stated "AIPAC investigations had been mentioned repeatedly" and then deleted all references to AIPAC. Sources clearly document that he is now involved in two seperate investigations. Being investigated in relation to the AIPAC espionage scandal should therefore be mentioned. A human 06:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

160.39.138.186 continues to remove passages from the main article without adequate discussion in the talk area.

Please do not investigate whom he are(deleted trace). He is not doing vandalism. He was right that the article was messy and info was repeated many times and info about AIPAC scandal that people can can by following link to AIPAC. I am sorry but I think you should revert back to his version, but then add a couple of lines about AIPAC. A human 07:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian I believe the AIPAC mentions in the "Accusations and Refutations" Section are redundant to what already exists in the main article. I will remove them.

I feel it should be opposite. And that only in "Accusations and Refutations" the AIPAC should be mentioned. That is what the section is for. And it is common in Wiki articles to make a section with info that opposes the mainstream beleif of a subject or person. A human 07:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

There are still problems with redundancy and ordering. The NSC clearance claim is repeated in the main section and in the 'accusations and refutations' sections--this is unnecessary, no? Also, I think the stuff on clearances should be removed altogether considering the head of the National Security Council is on record saying there was no wrongdoing for Feith, but even if it is not deleted, it should appear in the 'accusations and refutations' section, not in the main section. Not only is this more fair, but as the article currently stands, the first section on clearance revocations mentions jobs of Feith [such as NSC position, early 80's] that are not even introduced yet [they are introduced in the background section, which is proper]. I'll wait for a response before making these changes, but think they should be made for the above reasons.

I second that. A human 07:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian I feel you are correct in the NSC clearance claim should be moved to the Acc. section. However, I also feel it should remain on the page as the NSC Intel Director at the time, Vincent Cannistrano, objects to the voluntary nature of Feith's departure in March, 1982. 07:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian The NSC clearance claim was moved to the Acc. section. I see more redundancy in Acc. and Ref. and will work on it in the morning if you do not beat me to it.  :-) 07:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Redundancy in Acc. and Ref. cleared up. Switched order of passages, so that refutation now follows accusation. 08:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian there is another thing. Now You have lined up the sources in a row. That makes it hard to figure out which source claims what. E.g. in which source does the Judge refute the accusations? In which source is he accused of beeing fired? In which source Is it confirmed that he was fired..etc. etc. I feel sources should be placed immidiate after the sentence they are relavant for. A human 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian I agree. I will make this change so that cites align with relavent sentences/passages. 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Cites in OSP and Acc. and Ref passages now align with the relevant sentences/passages. 08:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been deleted, no? Where is the source to the Canadian newspaper with the letter from the Judge? Too tired to fix it, night. --A human 08:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian Cite to Billings News Letter to Editor restored in the correct passage. It was in the Acc. passages, before. I inadvertantly removed it during cleanup of cites in NSC and AIPAC passages 08:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian The AIPAC passage keeps getting deleted. This passage is germane to Feith because not only did Larry Franklin face similar accusations in 2005 as Feith did in 1982, but Franklin also worked for Feith, and the FBI probe into Feith's role, if any, is not complete. 08:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

To be even-handed, though, we should note the differences between Franklin and Feith. With Feith, we're talking about rumors of a 1982 case that cannot be substantiated--the FBI is not going to come out one fine day and say whether or not they did an investigation--but rather can be declared false, which they have been by Judge William Clark. Feith was never in trouble with the law, and let's note too that he continued to work in government for 4 years directly after any 1982 matter. Franklin, on the other hand, wasn't simply part of some investigation. He's already pled guilty and is to serve jail time! These are large differences. Tying these two together in any way that implies similiarity in behavior doesn't seem fair. Noting that Franklin was one of the 1500 in the Policy Office is reasonable, as the wiki entry does now.

Brian As cited in the new information posted recently to Acc. and Ref, Larry Franklin was not just 1 of 1500 employees. Feith used him regularly while both were at Office of Special Plans for overseas foreign contact projects. Since both came to grief over unauthorized contacts with foreign citizens from the same country while holding top secret clearances, I feel the matter should be listed in Acc. and Ref. and let the reader determine if "lightning struck twice".

Feith did continue in government after 1982, but not in a capacity that equaled his prior security clearance. It was not until after the 2000 election that Feith's former security status was restored, as cited in the main article. 09:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Feith and Franklin were never both at the Office of Special Plans. Not sure whether Franklin was ever there, but Feith wasn't either per se. Feith was always Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and it was within the Policy organization that the Office of Special Plans was created. These two were not working at a desk together, Franklin was still one of 1500 whom Feith oversaw as Under Secretary. I also think it's a little unfair to link Franklin's questionable Iran work [the subject of your Raw Story story] with the Israel stuff for which he got in trouble. As for Feith and clearances, how do you know that his capacity at Pentagon 82-86 didn't equal his NSC capacity 81-82? He was an Deputy ASsistant Secretary of Defense, the level just under Senate confirmation--that is a high ranking job which certainly requires all security clearances. This clearance story really doesn't hold together, between that fact [his continued clearance-needed employment] and the fact that its Cannistraro's unsubstantiable word against Judge Clark's.

Brian To your points.

Feith Post 1982: Feith did continue in government after his alleged dismissal in 1982, but in an aide capacity, not as a principal. For example, from 1982-1984 he served as Special Counsel to Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle. Afterward, Feith became a lobbyist for the country of Turkey, and then an advisor to the Israeli Lukud party. These post-1982 jobs are notable for not requiring security clearances.

Feith and Franklin at Office of Special Plans: As Number 3 at the Pentagon, Feith's office led the Office of Special Plans[41], and Franklin worked for Feith[42]. Franklin and Feith also engaged in sensitive projects involving overseas foreign contacts[43], indicating at least a close working relationship.

Using circular sources

This comment relates to the entire wiki entry, not just to the AIPAC issue. There is a heavy reliance on a select number of sources in this profile, and given the nature of those sources this should give us pause. A disproportionate amt of info in this article is quoted from journalist Jim Lobe, for example. Lobe, in turn, quotes Stephen Green of Counterpunch, who is also cited by Raw Story in its reporting. Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com jumps into the fray, being a source for and using as sources Lobe and Green. This circularity is bothersome, no? It seems that there is a lot of sharing information among few sources--who, apologies for redundancy, publish speculation [Feith's retirement and personal life] anonymous [admin. official says..] or blatantly unsourced info--who are able to create such a circular internet paper trail giving their ideas seeming credibility. I say 'seeming' because when the wiki links are followed, it is seen that the reporting is weak. None such reporting would stand academic tests, but no wiki reader applies such tests. I think it's a bit unfair to public officals to publish information about them with the hope that wikipedia readers will give sources the necessary critical eye. The overwhelming majority of readers do not. So, political figures about whom many internet writers have all kinds of theories are able to be tarred.

Nonetheless, he clearly cofounded onejerusalem, there are multiple references--M4bwav 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't dealing with the onejerusalem part in my previous post. I don't know what that is nor does it seem to be a big deal. I meant for all the rest of the reporting in this profile, much of which levies some pretty serious claims against Feith.

Yes some of those claims are pretty bad. But we are not doing original research here, we are reflecting others research. The newspapers accused him, and some of them are pretty respected as are some of their sources. There has also been no official refute of them, the Judge's letter only says he personally did not know of Feith being fired, that meaning if Feith was told to resign in order to avoid being prosecuted the judge would probably not know about it. But I concur we can remove some of those speculations, as long as they do not add something new that has not been mentioned before, speculation or sourced alike. --A human 05:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, as to whether or not there has been 'offical refute,' I don't know what's more official--and clear--than Judge Clark's letter. Clark was in charge of the NSC, in charge of administrative hirings/firings/transfers/whatever, and explains that Feith served well, left under normal circumstances, continued to serve well later, etc.. I think the letter so strong that it should merit our removal of the Cannistraro accusation in the first place, but I clearly don't have agreement on that so am not going to do so. We should though recognize the weakness--impossibility of proving, seeming disregard for doing so--of Cannistraro\Green's line versus Clark's. As for 'removing some of the speculations' without changing the substance of the narrative, I'd say the current succinct version does so. It keeps in information about Feith and his job track etc while getting rid of almost goofy information about family life etc--things that can be speculated upon till the cows come home, but never given any more substance. Also, the info on the SSCI investigation is now much stronger with Senator Roberts' letter. That should stay.

Brian says: The Cannistraro accusation is pertinent to the article. But nobody would ever know, as the user above continues to remove the cited passage on the strength of one source. As has been noted before, government employees who are about to be fired may be given the chance to resign, just as in private industry.

Article Vandalism

Brian says: The user at 160.39.138.186 continues to remove cited material without discussion, replacing it with boilerplate fit for a resume. The place to disagree with cited material is in the discussion page, not through the editing comments.

I have a real bad feeling that we got a white washer anon here, probably has a POV interest.--M4bwav 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I discussed my last change at the end of the 'circular sources' section in depth. I've been nothing but vocal here on the talk page. Meanwhile, my questions about such things as circular sources haven't been answered.

Let's not be hasty, why don't we break down the changes you want to make one by one. Some people put a lot of work into the article, you should probably try to edit it peicemail justifying each edit, rather than just rewriting the entire article. Also click the signature button after you make a comment.--M4bwav 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't known the signature button existed. Anyway, we've done a breakdown of complaints about assertions, sources, citation etc elsewhere on this discussion page; I recommend a read of the threads by all. As for the version currently posted, by 70.108... it is the most-sourced, especially with its addition of the Feb. 7, 2006 report of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. Dismissal of the report as partisan would be irresponsible. It stands to higher standards of objectivity than wikipedia, that much is clear. It presents within it letters, correspondence between government agencies which are new and absolutely spot-on relevant to our discussion. A reading of that report brings clarity to all the issues dealt with on this page in a less academic manner, with all the source, substantiation issues discussed above. 160.39.138.186 21:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: User at 160.39.138.186 is still removing passages and replacing them with sympathetic boilerplate. The removals are not aligned with simply removing redundancy. The removals are cut-outs of pertinent, cited information from multiple sources.

Seems more than highly suspicious that two different anons would appear on the same day, and begin concuring about dramatic white washing changes. Why don't you guys register accounts to remove some suspicion.--M4bwav 21:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also of course 160.39.138.186 would agree to the changes that 70.108 made because they are merely the revert of 160.39.138.186, I should also note that 160.39.138.186 appears to be coming from DC, and there has been a rash of white washing staffers, cleansing articles of criticism lately.--M4bwav 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with some of these anon edits. As is, this article is little more than a thinly veiled hit piece. Ten Dead Chickens 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: The user Ten Dead Chickens does not have a NPOV appropriate to referee this discussion. To wit, in Ten Dead Chickens user talk page, he compares the following people to Osama Bin Laden: William Blum, Howard Zinn. John Pilger, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Fisk, and Noam Chomsky. 22:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you brought my userpage into this, you forgot to mention that I made a very good case for that. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are, its a duck. But you ad hominen straw man aside, as is, this article reads like more of an AIPAC/Neo-con bashing attempt than a serious article. A breakdown of the sources in the article screams NPOV with at least 75% having a strong bias against Feith, and with many not appropriate for use as a source in any article. The anons also make a very good case with the circular reference. Ten Dead Chickens 22:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems highly suspicious that users would rely on circular internet sources to spin entire narratives, deleting Senate reports, quoted letters from Senators on investigations and diluting New York Times articles that lend perspective. Suspicious really isn't the appropriate word, when in fact the editing is transparently aimed at creating a hit piece. See above please about the weight of citing 4 sources that simply cite each other. The Lobe-Green-Cannistraro circuit isn't repeated, reliable sourcing. It is essentially one source, lobbing accusations that are serious, unprovable. This is why the edit I try to revert to has these people but in a brief way, and properly juxtaposed with offical Senate information, etc. Forgive me for not trusting their speculation as much as other things. 160.39.138.186 22:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: Removing the combined opinion of multiple citations and replacing it with tendentious boilerplate from single sources does not enhance the article. The citations that have been repeatedly removed by anonymous users are original reporting using many sources, not just Lobe, Green, and Cannistraro. It is alright to note disagreement with the reporting, but not to remove the reporting altogether because one person objects.

Regardless, we need to have consensus before we make any dramatic changes to the article, and at this point we do not. So why don't we slowly debate what the problems are and fix them, and avoid an edit war.--M4bwav 22:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusations

This line from the entry says it all: "However beside such speculations, no one has linked Feith to Franklin's crimes or the ongoing prosecution of the AIPAC espionage scandal, although the probe continues."

We have an admission there that a. no one has linked Feith to the crimes and b. [follows from a.] he has not been charged.

Yet, there is a multi-paragraph section in the guy's biography? Seems unfair, again. Why not we wait for official charges--or even offical word of some FBI investigation, anything..--to develop. If Raw Story and company are accurate, these things should come soon. Until then, I think it a bit odd to have all this on Feith's information. Just perpetuates circular rumors. At what point will Feith graduate from suspicion? A month? A year after Franklin's charges? When? Or is it that whenever internet publications pass on rumor it is proper for that rumor to stay attached to public officials forever? A poor precedent.

Forgot signature for above entry. 160.39.138.186 22:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: The fact that Feith is under investigation for his Office of Special Plans and other activity has been reported in more outlets than just RAWSTORY[44]. The Washington Post ran an article on Feith's office being the nexus of an investigation [45] into improper transmission of classified material. Asia Times also ran an article by Jim Lobe about investigations into Feith and Feith's office.[46] 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That washington Post story is from September 2004, a week after the initial Franklin news came out. Nothing has come of the investigation, so I'm forced to repeat my earlier questions about how long rumor, or investigations that lead to nowhere, are to stay attached to public officials. 160.39.138.186 23:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as it was event of note, indefinitely, although you could mention that it came to nothing if you have a source that says that.--M4bwav 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: As the January 30th, 2006 RAWSTORY article notes, the investigation into Feith and his former office continues, but is stalled by Feith's intransigence. "At the heart of the Senate Intelligence Committee's delay is the fact that Feith and the Defense Department refuse to provide documents and witnesses to the Committee."[47] 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're mixing up stories. That investigation you cite is the SSCI investigation, the main letter of which I had posted [from Sen. Roberts] but you removed from the wiki entry. This was the letter that properly presented the situation [from the head of the investigation, after all, not internet journalists], but I guess it didn't fit the hit piece narrative so was removed. Also, let's be real, what the hell kind of real investigation is stalled by intransigence of the supposedly accused? If Feith had acted improperly, we'd know, and we'd have better sources for it than the circular stuff printed in this entry. This, however, is just my speculation. I would never dream of putting it in the actual entry. Instead, I would leave what was left when I reverted to the 70.108... version of this article: That an investigation was going on, it is headed by Roberts who said x in his letter, etc.. As the entry reads now, there is no sourcing to government sources [the Roberts letter plus the Policy Committee 16 pg report that you've deleted], only to the internet circle we've discussed to death. This is a trashy entry. 160.39.138.186 23:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: Investigations such as the FBI probe into Feith and his office can take long periods of time. For example, the FBI has been investigating AIPAC since 1999. Patrick Fitzgerald has been investigating the Plame outing since 2003, often with long periods of news blackout. Simply because the investigation is not releasing or leaking tidbits to the news regularly is no reason automatically infer it is over. 00:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: I removed the passage on the Silberman-Robb commission following the Office of Special Plans passage because it is not germane to the allegations. Silberman-Robb looked into allegations of pressure on CIA analysts by the White House. The Office of Special Plans was a part of the Pentagon, not the CIA.

They looked at pressure on CIA analysts from all parties, and if you actually read the report, you'd see that the report specifically talks about 'policy' peoples' pressure or not pressure.

Brian says: After downloading and searching the Silberman-Robb report for "Office of Special Plans" and the "Pentagon", I received zero hits in the main report. I found three examples of the Pentagon in the footnotes. As a comparison, the CIA is mentioned over 1,500 times. As stated above, the Silberman-Robb report overwhelmingly concerned itself with the CIA. Additionally, none of the recommendations the Silberman-Robb report made concerned the Office of Special Plans. Conclusions from the Silberman-Robb report are not germane to the discussion about the Office of Special Plans, which was not a part of the CIA. I am removing the passage on the Silberman-Robb report because it is nontopical. 00:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of Israeli connections

User 160.39.138.186 keeps deleting entries about One Jerusalem. And One Jerusalem own website has also removed him from their list of founders and it is today only evident from Google's cache. But he did cofound it. And that is important simply from the very fact that they might be engaged in trying to cover it up. Such activities are always suspecious. Leave the One Jerusalem entry in place please. A human 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, clearly some of the anon's must be whitewashers, that's all the more reason, that we keep the One Jerusalem (since it's a referenced fact), and make sure that further POV motivated whitewashing does not occur. Let's take everything real slow.--M4bwav 00:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sweeping removal

Brian--I take serious issue with your removal of the bipartisan, cited, sourced, on-the-record statements of 3 offical groups: The WMD commission, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Silberman-Robb Comission. These were the conclusions of these intense investigations on Feith, and they came to support Feith's innocence in all cases. They are germane, especially considering that they relate to the Office of Special Plans, as do the accusations listed and linked to Raw Story, Lobe, Counterpunch, etc. That they are in direct response to the suggestions laid out in paragraph 1 of the section don't mean they shouldn't be published. It seems you are inclined to cut them because they can be seen as supportive of Feith. I actually think that this should tell us something about the nature of the accusations in paragraph 1--they haven't even been looked at, further weakening their credibility, no? I'm putting back in the section. People can decide for themselves whether they feel the various commissions have answered these exact accusations, but they should know what hte commissoins said about Feith. 160.39.138.186 00:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Brian says: See answer under "Accusations", above. 01:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Parts that appear to be balanced

In an effort to narrow down what the complaint is about I think I'll list what I feel confident are fair.

• Background section, I think that's fair does anyone disagree
• Career, seems to add up
• Feith today looks fine to me

So can we at least agree that these are ok?--M4bwav 20:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Those sections are supposed to be tame. The material Buehler deletes is already clearly marked "Accusations and Refutations." In the future, after the background and career section are rewritten, I wouldn't object to hiving off the Accusations and Refutations into a separate "Criticisms of Douglas J. Feith" article, linked to the main article by an explanatory paragraph and wiki link. I believe this will be necessary because the article will be over 32kb when the rewritten background/career section is included. But this step should be taken only after the rewrites of Background and Career are complete. Abe Froman 20:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried looking for positive articles on Feith at google news, but most of them just dis him. It hard to say what to do, because obviously Feith isn't the most redeeming member of the human race, it's hard to say that criticism of him is biased by it's very nature of being critical. I'm not sure what is fair in this situation and what isn't.--M4bwav 21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think continuing the additions to the life and background section will fill out the article, balancing it, and allow us to create a separate criticisms article. This would be in line with what Wikipedia does on other sensitive topics, e.g. Wal Mart has a "Criticisms of Wal Mart" page, linked from the main page. But this bifarcation should take place after the work on life and background is complete, leaving a full article. Abe Froman 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should all be in same article, but as I know that will mean edit wars forever, I think you should create that article now. Then Bueller can make this into a CV for Feith :) A human 23:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Background I agree. I'd like to add more to his father's bio [though shouldn't this be on the page for his father? at what point is the line between relevant family info and too-much-on-another-person crossed? dont know], though, because there seems to be a disconnect [or quick jump, whatever] between the holocaust surviving and being a republican donor. The bulk of career seems fine too, except for the departure section which I've discussed. And Feith today seems ok.

As for the material I don't think is applicable in an encylopedic entry, the simple fact that it's in the accusations\refuations section does not exempt it from proper judgment of appropriateness. It also, surely, does not exempt it from the rules about using advocacy journalism, my complaints about which still haven't been addressed in the 'general' section. Also, this idea of a spinoff page would be funny if it weren't transparently intended as another Feith hatchet job. As one of you pointed out, the internet--the home of bile-spewing from all political sides in all kinds of random forums--is already filled with this; wikipedia's encylopedic nature should keep it from going the route of blogs, partisan political websites and such. Also, there isn't even a George W. Bush complaint page. But, as also pointed out, Feith is certainly controversial. No version of this page and no editor, I don't think, has ever denied that. It's simply that there is an academic, encylopedic way of addressing controversy, and there is an unfair way that is not categorically inappropriate but is inappropriate for this venue. This is the way of advocacy journalism, anonymous sources and links to interested [as in the opposite of disinterested] publications whose work is valuable but again, shouldn't be cited for facts in proper encyclopedic work. The changes of the past two weeks scream of these problems. I haven't the time to go and aggregate the numbers to present you percentages on reliable\unreliable sources or favorable\unfavorable ones, but I think this article could use an overhaul by someone who really knows the facts and how to prepare them for an encylopedia. That is what we all want wikipedia to be. Now, I'm not calling for hagiography here, that would be as inappropriate as a hatchet job. At no point did I, or it seems anyone else, put forward praise of Feith that would parallel the criticisms-veiled-as-facts of his political enemies. I'm trying just to keep this up-the-middle, not slant it in Feith's favor. Bueller 23:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should all read these pages and make this biography according to Wikis standards: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons --A human 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as mainstream media praising Feith, it is hard to find, as another editor pointed out. Prove me wrong. The sources used to cite the passages in the Feith article pass Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources standards. Point out specific sentences in passages, and we can work on them The editors have tried pretty hard to accomodate the wishes of one observer in the Feith article, but ignoring reliable sources is whitewashing. Abe Froman 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Retirement section

This section which I've deleted should remain deleted for many reasons. Firstly, Abe Froman criticizes my 'mass delete' but I think his thinking is backward. I agree that you can criticize deletions-without-discussion. But it's many times more unacceptable to print erroneous rumors; we should be most cautious before writing, not only with deleting. Now Jim Lobe seems to be a reliable source for unreliable material, but not even he actually put forward the rumors mentioned in this retirement section. Both links 16 and 17 link to an article 'Losing Feith' written by Lobe. Nowhere in the article, though, does Lobe connect Feith's retirement to the Larry Franklin sentencing. In fact, the Lobe article comes from January 05, when Feith initially annoucned his retirement effective summer 05. The Franklin [mis]information was about August 05. All Lobe says in his article about Franklin and Feith is: "Feith's position was also undermined last summer when it was disclosed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was investigating whether one of his analysts had given classified material – specifically, a sensitive document on U.S. Iran policy – to an Israeli diplomat via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful lobby group. A grand jury in the case has since been impaneled and AIPAC's offices subjected to two searches." This has nothing to do with the contemporaneous August sentencing of Franklin and Feith's actual departure from government. It's reckless for us to say such things, especially in the supposedly encyclopedic forum of wikipedia, when many things are overly speculative even when in fact written in publications like Lobe's. Bueller 04:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We have been over this 3 times. See the "Feith Leaving Office" section of the discussion page. Journalist Jim Lobe thinks the events are linked. Feith mentor/boss Richard Perle, does not. Both opinions are accurately portrayed. Disagreement with a source on nakedly political grounds does not disqualify them, or justify whitewashing an article. For that reason I am replacing the mass deleted passage. Abe Froman 10:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing as I argued in the earlier section above. I should have trusted your writing even less, for I don't think I checked Lobe's article last time and took your word that he linked Feith's departure with Franklin's sentencing. But, upon reading the link, 'Losing Feith,' I learned that he did not even do so. For explication of this point, see my previous post in this section. The Lobe article is from January 05, 8 months before August 05 and the link you make between Feith's departure and Franklin's legal status circa August 05. (For the record, it reflects quite poorly on the writers of this entry that Lobe doesn't even make the connection you ascribe to him. But moreover, even if Lobe shared his opinion that they are linked, such information would not be proper for this entry--but we can get into that in later postings. It's a moot point, for Lobe doesn't make this connection.) 70.108.212.86 16:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with 70.108.212.86. Lobe does mention Feith and AIPAC but only to say the scandal undermined his position, and he does clarify that Feith was not implicated in the scandal. Also, as a side note, it was a bit strange that Lobe was described as a "neoconservative critic" which made me think that he was himself a neoconservative and a critic.--Lee Hunter 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Rice's comments

Can we get better sourcing on the Condoleeza Rice comments? What is the Nelson Report? Has anyone but one journalist--Lobe--cited this story? The reliability of Rice's comment is not on par with that of the other detractors' comments, which are not hearsay etc.. Bueller 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nelson Report is a 20 year running "daily briefing on international economic policy issues, foreign and security policy matters and their relationship to politics in Washington. This daily briefing constitutes the core element of relationships with clients who also have direct access to Mr. Nelson for confidential communications in response to their specific needs and policy interests." [48] . It is used in Washington as a semi public pulse on what is happening in government. Since it names the actors involved in the alleged Rice quote, it is hardly hearsay. Abe Froman 23:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay is 1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor. 2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony. [49] Now I realize this isn't a courtroom, so you can even disregard the second definition if you'd like. But this is certainly rumor. And it is objectively true that the reliability of this supposed Rice exchange is on a different--lower--scale than the reliability of the other comments about Feith. We shouldn't deal with too much at once, so I'll leave the questionable appropriateness of the other detractor statements aside now. But one way or another, those statements are at least properly sourced. For this damning exchange to be included, a much higher threshold of evidence should be met. Bueller 23:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Nelson Report is 20 years old and well respected in its field. Do you have evidence editor Christopher Nelson was mistaken? Journalist Jim Lobe cited this article, as well as the Inter Press News Service, a news aggregator. I find it suspicious a whitewasher attacked this article and mere minutes after the vandalism was undone, a logged-in user magically appears to take the whitewasher's POV. Abe Froman 23:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Abe Froman, your comments on this talk page and on the history page have an ad hominen twist to them that is impolite, unnecessary and distracts from the issues at hand. Reasonable people should be able to discuss the merits of these entries without that. As long as you've mentioned 'magical' tactics, though, I'll address them. To start, using terms such as 'whitewasher' and 'vandalism' without support is improper. But moreover, it seems you and I appeared on this site at the same time, not the anonymous writer and I. Now does that suggest collusion between you and I? I don't think anyone has to worry about that. Or is it that you alone are allowed to see updates on pages and act accordingly? Anyway, as I said, this is all beside the point. The point about the Nelson Report is not whether I have evidence saying the exchange did not happen. That is precisely the problem with hearsay--it's almost impossible to argue against, yet has no proof except the word of the speaker. This is why we have systems of verifying facts. And in this case, the burden of proof is on Nelson, and\or on you, if you want to include this in what should be an encyclopedic entry. If there were a pro-Feith story relayed only in a hearsay manner, it wouldn't be acceptable either. But no praise of Feith is anonymous, all of it is sourced, etc... We can't say this of this rumored discussion. Bueller 23:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. The Nelson Report made the cited claim in dispute. Journalist Jim Lobe and the Inter Press News Service picked up the story and disseminated it. Bueller, feel free to find evidence from Condoleezza Rice or a meeting participant indicating Condoleezza Rice did not say this. Abe Froman 23:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First, there's a difference between original research and showing proper respect for encyclopedic standards regarding sourcing. The Nelson Report doesn't even have a website that we can check. So we're taking the word of an advocacy journalist on an unverifiable article discussing an exchange that is unverifiable! As for your request that I find other information, I will look to see if I can find comments by Rice--that she put her name to, not that are just rumored. On a related matter, I appreciate the precedent you lay out in your previous post. My finding Condoleeza Rice saying she did not say this would render this a moot point--we would have to remove this section on Rice's criticism of Feith. Why, though, when Judge William Clark explicitly, in print and in addressing the exact issue at hand, said that the Security Clearance accusation against Feith was false, did you refuse to remove the erroneous accusation? I agree with you; Clark blasted the rumor to bits. The rumor, therefore should be removed from this entry. If you still hold on to your belief that the rumor is somehow true, it's one thing to link to an article saying so. But to include it in the written entry is hardly up to encyclopedic standards. I'm glad we agree on this point. I'll look to therefore clean up the Security Clearance part presently. Bueller 23:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Any non laudatory material on Feith is regularly deleted by Bueller. As far as I am concerned, the material is cited correctly, and has not been refuted by any evidence from Condoleezza Rice, Feith, or a meeting participant. Abe Froman 23:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"encyclopedic standards regarding sourcing" So not up to our standard but good enough for a Harvard academic study? http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011, and that is not only any university, but the same Harvard school Feith himself is employed at right now. A human 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nelson Report

The Nelson Report, used in the Rice passage, is a respected, long running subscription only insider newsletter, as attested below:

"Chris Nelson of the Nelson Report runs one of the single best daily US-Asia policy and national security issues analysis letters in Washington. Normal beings can't subscribe, and it's not available on the web." [50]

Abe Froman 15:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Moniker

There is a dispute whether "Douglas J. Feith was born on July 16, 1953 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Dalck and Rose Feith."? The Neutrality moniker should go where there is a dispute. Abe Froman 05:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Any further comment on the neutrality moniker? Abe Froman 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been improved since the moniker went up to merit its removal. Bueller 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which section needs improvement, and why? Abe Froman 19:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there going to be a specific complaint? If not, the neutrality moniker should be removed. Abe Froman 19:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Primary Sources Moniker

This article has extensive use of primary sources. Is Douglas Feith himself not considered a primary source, for example? I feel it should be removed. Abe Froman 17:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed primary sources citation. This article is cited 58 times to its primary sources, and has an extensive reference list. Abe Froman 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There are extensive problems with the use of sources in this article, and it seems we're unable to remedy them through the discussion page because of people interested more in scoring dirty political points against Feith than in having wikipedia remain an encyclopedic forum. The article is full of advocacy journalism and the citing of such material, of rumor and speculation that barely makes it into the fringes of the media, let alone into a supposedly encyclopedic entry. For this reason, I thought marking the article as NPOV and weak on sourcing was absolutely valid. Anyone who comes here should know, pending further cleanup--yes, cleanup, not 'whitewashing' as you've termed it, but cleanup to keep wikipedia from being a grounds for thh airing of political grievances--that this entry is a hatchet job on Feith. The fact that there is both praise and criticism means nothing if the criticism is unfounded and\or rumored etc..., which it is. It's laughable that we still, for example, have a section about a Security Clearance revocation when the man in charge of such a thing--Clark--said it never happened! In the morphed, politicized view of some wikipedians, this has only equal merit than the word of a the initial scurrilous rumor-passer. It's pathetic. This page is not a valuable resource and deserves its tags. Bueller 19:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a specific refutation of a passage reported in the primary sources? If that refutation can be cited, we can improve the article by adding it. Abe Froman 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Why in the world is Cannistraro's claim still in if Judge Clark came out and said it has no truth to it? That's a refutation if I've ever heard one. It is not proper to just balance rumor with refuation, even if any responsible reader will see that the refutation blasts the rumor to bits. It still links Feith with a serious offense with which he actually has no connection. Absolutely unfair, slanderous in effect if not intent. Bueller 19:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The passage is there, covered from both perspectives, making a full explanation of the issue. Vincent Cannistraro, head of National Security Council intelligence at the time disagrees with Judge Clark. Both would be in a position to know any unofficial reasons for Feith's departure. Therefore, the controversy is covered from both of their perspectives. Seems fair to me. Abe Froman 19:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. How is there an 'issue' if Clark says--directly, naming Cannistraro by name etc..--no such thing happened. The issue then is Cannistraro, who wasn't even in a CIA administrative post until 1984 [according to his wiki, and ill trust it, leaving irony aside..]. He was doing work in Europe and the Middle East during this period, which was when Feith left the NSC. There is no way to claim that Cannistraro's word is only equal to Clark's as if they're two balanced sides of an issue. Cannistraro has also been an outspoken critic of this Bush administration; we know his comments to be politically motivated. Now, even if you thought that Cannistraro and Clark could argue this point back and forth in the abstract, they certainly cannot do so in a forum that purports to be encyclopedic. This political sand-kicking (an understatement for 'political slandering') doesn't belong on wikipedia. And this Cannistraro thing is not the only such issue. The point that the Larry Franklin part is guilt by association is a strong one too. There is a line in the Franklin paragraph--1 sentence out of about 6--that says something to the effect of Feith has had no involvement and Franklin was one of 1500 people. Yet we go on to have a full paragraph on this, in a forum that supposed to be a fair entry on a person's public office career. It's laughable. Kwiatkowski too. Yes, her stuff is published. But why is the word of one disgruntled ex-employee so important as to be in a wiki encyclopedia entry? What if we started posting the opinions of Feith of all of his former (1500+) employees? Also, her claims have been published but by distinctly advocacy journalism media--Prospect openly aligns itself with the political left, and Kwiatkowski posts also for Lew Rockwell and Mother Jones, which finds itself on wikipedia's specific list of advocacy journalism no-go's. Having so much stuff by her really hurts the credibility of this entry and makes it look like a hit piece with a political axe to grind. Don't mean to put so much in one post, so I apolgoize for that--but please, don't do as you often do, Abe Froman, and respond to 1 of many points. I'd really like to hear justification for these things. Bueller 20:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputes like whether to believe Clark vs. Cannistraro is why both viewpoints are covered equally. Covering only one viewpoint tendentiously leaves out important data from the other from the document. Clark has his say, and Cannistraro has his as well. Also, your timeline for Cannistrarois incorrect. Cannistraro was a CIA officer until 1984, and afterward Director of NSC Intelligence Programs from November 1984 to January 1987. As for Feith's former Deputy, Karen Kwiatkowski, she was certainly in a position to observe Feith during his time at the Pentagon. Since Karen Kwiatkowski is by definition a primary source, it is approriate to consider her a primary source for this article. Similarly, Cannistraro and Judge Clark are also former Feith colleagues, and should be considered primary sources for the article. I feel the Primary Sources moniker is inappropriate for the Feith article because the disputed information is cited from primary sources. Is there a reason why Cannistraro, Judge Clark, Karen Kwiatkowski should not be considered primary sources? and Abe Froman 20:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannistraro was never a colleague of Feith's. He's a political enemy who made a false claim. By no fair understanding of balance could his word be balanced with Judge Clark's, as Clark was the precise man in charge of the National Security Council at the time in question. Those who cannot see that much are blinded to reason by political ideology. With regard to Kwiatkowski, where was she in Feith's office anyway? I believe she was an officer of some sort; referring to her as a Deputy is somewhat misleading and implies a No. 2-in-policy status that I don't believe to be the case. Either way, I wasn't questioning whether or not she was there or could comment on the office. She is a primary source, sure. But I am questionining the appropriateness of her comments being in the wiki entry. Can any former Feith employee expect to be quoted in Feith's supposedly-encyclopedic entry, or just those who dislike him and whose positions are supported by wikipedians equally transparently critical of Feith? Bueller 20:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cannistraro was Director of NSC Intelligence Programs from November 1984 to January 1987. Feith was with the NSC until 1982. Cannistraro, as a CIA officer, worked in the middle eastern division. This overlapped with Feith's specialty at the NSC. Both Feith and Cannistraro worked in the same small unit of the White House at a high level, Cannistraro should be considered a primary source. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski is also a primary source, given her role as Feith's subordinate at Office of Special Plans. What we have here is a disagreement over the thoughts and writings of primary sources, not a dispute over whether they are primary sources in the first place. It is clear that they are primary sources. Abe Froman 20:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)