Talk:Plame affair/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Plame affair. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Plame affair conspiracy theories (split)

In pursuit of Wikipedia:Summary_style I created Plame affair conspiracy theories based on the structure of September 11 conspiracy theories using the content in section "Other theories". I propose that "Other theories" be replaced with a link to Plame affair conspiracy theories . Any thoughts? rewinn 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me.csloat 16:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

soapboxing in the summary

I have modified the wording of the NY observer editorial since the anon editor wants to start another edit war over this garbage. But I don't think it belongs in the summary at all. There is plenty of room for this sort of soapboxing in the rest of the article, where editorials on both sides are presented. I think the summary section should stick to WP:RS and WP:V, and that there is already more than enough information on both sides of the question from editorials later in the article. So even though I modified it, my preference is to remove that sentence completely, or at least move it to where it belongs.--csloat 21:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an editorial drawing conclusions from asserted facts, and therefore does not belong in the summary. Conclusions are not summary. I have moved it to the Press Reaction section. rewinn 23:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are going into deletion mode, then all the unsourced assertion/characterization/summary, etc., must also go. That said, NY Observer quote is sourced and valid - I have re-inserted via revert. 87.118.100.99 06:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop the edit war now anon. The quote is already there and nobody is objecting to that. All that is problematic is the placement of the quote. That has been adjusted appropriately, so don't mess with it. If you would like to make an argument for its placement where you are inserting it, please do so here in rational terms rather than steamrolling edits that have been objected to. Thanks.--csloat 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

CS, sounds like you might have "ownership" issues here? 87.118.100.99 07:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

87, it sounds like you might have "trolling" issues here.--csloat 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that your edit also steamrolled over a bunch of other improvements to the article, including organization of the footnotes, proper url placement, and grammatical changes. Don't start revert wars without even looking at your changes like that or I will ask to have you blocked for vandalism, since that is basically what it is.--csloat 06:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate bully threats. Your comment sounds like one to me. Please refrain. 87.118.100.99 07:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

87.118.100.99: your summary edits contain numerous POV violations. Please stop. csloat is simply stating wikiProcedure, which is not a threat. If you violate procedure, the procedure will be executed. You really should get a logon. rewinn 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sections 7, 9, 10, and 12

how about giving these sections of the "plame affair" there own page? they really add nothing to this article and could be expanded given separate pages? this could cut the article in half. Anthonymendoza 20:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, mostly. I suggest

Section 12: This is the intent of the Plame affair conspiracy theories page. Feel free to replace existing Theories section with a link to that page. I want to go slow with unilateral changes so all may participate.
Section 10: Legal Questions. It should be merged with the existing page Plame affair legal questions
Section 9: Criticism of Fitzgerald. This should be combined with the Criminal investigation section or page, since that is it relevance to Plame affair; any of criticism of Fitzgerald that is irrelevant to Plame affair is irrelevant.
Section 7: Criticism of Plame/Wilson. I suggest these criticisms should be organized according to their relevance to Plame affair, e.g. sub-section Criticism of Plame/Wilson:Regarding Wilson's trip to Niger should go with section or page Wilson's trip to Niger, because the point of the article is to educate about the Plame affair, not criticism for its own sake. rewinn 21:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, i removed section twelve. Anthonymendoza 00:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

merged legal questions sections as well. Anthonymendoza 00:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good start

Hey guys, just wanted to give an e-pat on the back for the edits today. Good start on trimming this down. My own contribution are meager compared to you guys who keep this encyclopedia running. Keep it up! Arkon 02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! A little goes a long way ... rewinn 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair criminal investigation

OK, I started Plame affair criminal investigation which is intended to cover the investigation, ignoring the politics, breathless newspaper reporting, and who-shot-who. This is intended to incorporate the following sections:

4.5 Justice Department investigation
5.1 CIA calls for leak investigation
5.2 Contempt of court: Miller, Cooper
6 Indictment
9 Criticism of Patrick Fitzgerald

I have tried to just copy-and-paste the sections, but significant re-arranging was necessary to impose some order and concatenate redundancy. Feel free to edit away! rewinn 08:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

what should be done with the "public statements" section. i thought of adding it to the timeline page. thoughts. Anthonymendoza 13:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i went ahead and moved section to timeline since it seems more relevant there. Anthonymendoza 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Plame affair criminal investigation vs. CIA leak grand jury investigation

Plame affair criminal investigation needs to be merged with CIA leak grand jury investigation, or vice versa. any thoughts?Anthonymendoza 18:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion, but I'd say merge into the CIA leak one. Either one would probably be ok though. Arkon 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i'm in the process of merging the two. i split the template:Plamefull into two parts. template:Witnesses contains all known grand jury witnesses and is featured on Plame affair criminal investigation.Anthonymendoza 19:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

i've merged all relevant info into Plame affair criminal investigation. i'd appreciate someone looking at the two and adding info i've missed. then CIA leak grand jury investigation should be redirected.Anthonymendoza 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap! Nice work, guys. I'm amazed at how long this article was; looking things over quickly, it is still pretty damn long, and I think it was at least double this size before your hard work - thanks! (I thought the poster comparing this to "History of the World" was exaggerating, but no way). My thoughts on the "criminal investigation" vs. "grand jury invstigation" is that they should remain separate and that stuff moved out of "criminal invest." with a link to the other page for the grand jury stuff. Then we have two reasonably sized articles on that topic rather than one long one that may get longer. The grand jury investigation article is neatly bookended as it is. In terms of continuing to shorten the article, I think the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section can have its own page, but it might possibly fit under the plame conspiracy theories section? I'm not sure - these items are not really a conspiracy theory but they do tie into them, and the people who believe these critiques seem to be the same ones pushing the Plame/Wilson conspiracy angle. Another idea is a "Disputed facts in the plame affair" or something to that effect, rewording the subheadings as questions -- "Was Plame covert?", "Did Iraq buy uranium from Niger?" etc. This section seems to have been the lightning rod for much of the most heated disputes here, so it may need its own page. Anyway, these are just some thoughts on the matter; again, thanks for doing this.--csloat 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

what if we merge the "Criticism of Plame/Wilson" section into the Plame affair conspiracy theories page. we could also change the name of that page to something like "Criticism of the Plame Affair", or something to that affect.Anthonymendoza 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't think so, since the CIA and Saudi conspiracy theories are not "criticism of the Plame affair" per se... though perhaps "Alternate theories of the plame affair" might work?--csloat 00:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

that would work. anyone object to this merger? Anthonymendoza 01:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

i moved "criticism of plame/wilson" to Alternate theories of the Plame affair. Anthonymendoza 02:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

why is this tag on the article? what are the specific complaints?Anthonymendoza 02:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

At one time this article was rife with POV and conclusory matters, due in part to its tendency to accept the conclusions of non-experts such as newspaper reporters. Before removing the POV tag, it should be curried thoroughly. For example, consider the conclusion "effectively ending the infestigation" that pops up now & then in the SummarySection. This conclusion is supported by a quote from a newspaper who heard it from someone else. That's POV because (a) newspaper reporters have no control over the investigation, so their opinion on whether the investigation is over or not is mere POV; (b) the person who has control over the investigation is not quoted as saying it is effectively ended. Some people will disagree with that assessment, which may justify the POV tag. rewinn 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

the article states "A source briefed on the case told the Washington Post that the activities of Cheney and his aides were a key focus of the investigation and that the vice president was not considered a target or primary subject of the investigation and is not likely to become one. There are no other outstanding issues to be investigated, the source said, though new ones could emerge." i inserted that the "investigative phase" is over, not the grand jury. i inserted this because i raised it in a discussion topic above and no one challenged the notion that the "active investigative phase" is over. i don't think it's pov, but if you object to it being included, then i won't argue. what is left besides the trial of libby? there have been no reports of grand jury witnesses since rove was told he wouldn't be indicted. Anthonymendoza 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia shouldn't speculate just because *we* don't know what else the grand jury might do. Armitage may be under investigation. Vallely thinks Fitzgerald should interview Plame. Dean thinks the investigation is too narrow. No-one will be harmed if this article holds off on stating whether an unnamed source thinks the investigation is closed. Cheers! rewinn 15:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary tag

any other suggestions for trimming down the article? Anthonymendoza 02:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest paring down "Section 5 Justice Department investigation" since its info is now in Main article: Plame affair criminal investigation.

I combined the stuff in the Plame affair legal questions section into the page Plame affair legal questions and summarized the former (hopefully not eliminating anyone's favorite theory). rewinn 21:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree that paring down Section 5 should be the next task. i like how you edited the "legal questions" section. "justice department investigation" could be edited in the same manner. Anthonymendoza 02:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Air Force One memo?

Where should the "Air Force One memo" stuff go? Also "Karl Rove" is a really long chunk ... does it go into the Plame CIA leak affair grand criminal jury investigation investigation page?

there is a section on the Karl Rove page devoted to his role in the plame affair. perhaps that page should be expanded and the plame affair should just link to it. as for the air force one memo, since the memo has been declassified, i think the section could be removed altogether. for a long time, what was in the memo was the source of much speculation and intrigue. i'm not sure how it's relevant anymore.Anthonymendoza 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

name change

Great. Someone moved Plame affair to Plame Affair with the only justification being the unexplained assertion "it should be capitalized." No; it should not be. Wikipedia policy only uses capitalization of multiple words if that is the way it is for proper nouns that are usually spelled in most places you would find it; that is simply not the case for "Plame affair" (a title that is dubious even here but was chosen for lack of a better name). The problem is now we can't move it back without an administrator getting involved; can an admin come change it for us, or do we need to take a vote on this silliness? The Wikipedia "move" link is a little dangerous in the hands of new editors as it allows them to do a lot of damage easily that cannot easily be undone (there is no way to move a page back to its original name).--csloat 22:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created articles named Plame Affair legal questions and the like, redirecting to the proper articles, in case the user who made the name change is a troll; this will prevent him from wreaking more havoc with name changes. (It's not clear at all that he is, but I thought it telling that when I asked him to comment here, he simply deleted my note ratehr than commenting). Anyway, I'm gonna try to figure out how to get the name changed back to conform to Wikipedia policy.-csloat 02:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh, ok, never mind. We don't need an admin to move pages back, I just figured out. LOL. I guess that has changed since the past? I don't know, but I put the page back where it belongs. I'm gonna go do something else now :)--csloat 02:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Editting Section 'Other journalists with early knowledge'

That section is muddled.

Cooper is already extensively discussed elsewhere in this article or set of articles
Sidney's comment is hearsay about what someone else said; it should be replaced by a quote from that person
Mitchell/Matthes "may have taken place after Novak's article", therefore not notable
Pincus is writing firsthand about something that took place before Novak's article, therefore is notable
Russert & Kessler's testimony is mentioned elsewhere
Russerts' refusal to deny telling Libby is not sourced. When there's a source it might be notable
Woodwards statements are about himself and pre-Novak article, therefore notable

I suggest all but Pincus and Woodward be deleted. There is enough information about Woodward to give him a sub-section. I'm not sure what to do about Pincus. rewinn 04:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Armitage's role

This Newsweek article was released over the weekend. Essentially, Isikoff has a book coming out which demonstrates that it was Armitage who accidentally (and not illegally) "leaked" Plame's name. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I fail to find the part of that article where it indicates "accidental" leaking of such information is not "illegal." More importantly, I fail to see where it exonerates the other "officials at the White House" who "also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence."--csloat 17:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, nothing's indicated any illegality anyway. My point was more to bring this article to people's attention so it can be reflected, since Armitige's name is mentioned once in the infobox. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

it shows what the headline indicates, that the central figure in this whole affair wasn't rove, or libby, or cheney, or the white house. this all started with armitage at the state department. this is a very significant development. rove and libby never told the reporters they talked to plame's name, but armitage did. therefore he's the leaker! and since armitage wasn't charged with anything, the leak wasn't a crime.

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone. Anthonymendoza 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the quote above Anthony -- officials "also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence." Where is your law degree from?--csloat 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

where is yours from? or do you still believe Rove is turning state's evidence?Anthonymendoza 02:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have one. That's why I'm not making grand claims about whether a crime has been committed here. As for what I believe, I believe that there are people spreading disinformation about this case in order to make it very difficult to figure out what is going on. I also believe Fitzgerald is being pretty tight-lipped about it. The result of those two things is that people on both sides of the fence are pulling what little information is out there together and making completely uninformed and inexpert judgements about what that information means (and yes, I include myself in this). For what it's worth, Leopold and Ash are sticking by their story that an indictment exists and that it appears the indicted party (they seem to have shrunk back a bit from certainty about who that is) is cooperating with investigators and that the investigators are still taking a hard look at the VP's office. I still don't understand what makes that story so hard to believe, but for now I am withholding judgement about it. Again, I think there is a lot of disinformation being spread here, so it wouldn;t be surprising if Leopold is disseminating some of it; however, it seems likely that his sources are in Fitzgerald's office, not Rove's. What we do know is that the only person who claims the investigation is over or that Rove is off the hook is Rove's lawyer; Fitzgerald has not said a word about that to the public. Perhaps he just enjoys being the center of intrigue, or perhaps he is still investigating. The Armitage stuff really doesn't seem to play a role one way or another here - Isikoff certainly doesn't say that the investigation is over or that no crime was committed, which people here are inferring from the article. That is what prompted my snide comment about the law degree.--csloat 02:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Since Armitage was againt the WH's policy in Iraq, his being the nascent leaker essentially destroys the argument that Plame's name was leaked as part of a White House criminal conspiracy to punish Wilson for his anti-Administration and anti-Iraq war statements. He's not part of the White House. He's not part of Cheney's inner circle. He was agianst going to war with Iraq. He's just a gossip monger with a juicy tale. Furthermore, Armitage being the first (known) leaker shows that Plame's name or identity appeared to already be part of the high powered, inside DC gossip circuit before Libby started talking to reporters. This is an important revelation, since Fitz's indictment alleges that it was Libby, and not Armitage, who was the first government official to talk to reporters. But I agree with you, Csloat. This revelation about Armitage does not mean a crime was not committed. But it does mean that the crime charged against Libby did not quite happen the way Fitz said it did, even though he apparently knew about Armitage all along. And it does mean that Plame's name was already out there with a least some reporters before this alleged criminal conspiracy got under way, which makes it a joke of a conspiracy if some out of the conspiritorial loop gossip monger beat them to it. So yes, a crime may have occurred, but it really doesn't seem all that likely now. Evensong 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote/Not-a-quote

Hey Anthonymendoza: I see your edit about the article not being a quote; however it is still in quote marks. If it's not a quote we should dump the marks. What d'ya think (I don't wanna step on your edits ... too often ;-)? rewinn 17:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

the sentence about woodward was not a direct quote. the rest of the paragraph was/is. i simply moved the woodward sentence out of the paragraph. simple edit. Anthonymendoza 18:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Hadley

i remember bloggers being adamant about Hadley being woodward's source. i went back and found the source for this claim. turns out Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna reported this for the Raw Story.[1] i guess it's another story leopold got flat wrong, unless Isikoff and David Corn are wrong about Armitage. Anthonymendoza 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The amazing thing is you guys are fixated on who leaked the "name" first... it's silly. Plame's name was first "leaked" on her birth certificate. We know for a fact that the CIA and the DoJ believe crimes were committed, so it's strange that people jump on every inconsistency and conclude that "no crimes were committed." No crimes may be punished, but that is a very different fact. My car was stolen once -- the thief was never convicted. Does this mean no crime was committed? As for the case at hand, at issue is not whether Armitage said her name by "accident" first, but whether members of the Bush Administration leaked the fact that she was a CIA agent (whether or not they used her name) in order to discredit Wilson. It's pretty clear Isikoff thinks so from the above linked article. It's also pretty clear that these various obfuscations -- there was no crime committed; rove didn't actually say her name; her name is in who's who, etc -- are directly from the Republican talking points on this issue.--csloat 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What does discreditiing Wilson have to do with whether a crime occurred? Evensong 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you ask yourself the opposite question, you just might begin to see why some people take this seriously. Whether or not a crime was committed in a prosecutable sense, burning an agent who risks her life for this country in order to discredit her husband for cheap political payback is bad. There are more specific words for just how bad it is, even if the court eventually tells us "crime" isn't one of them.--csloat 10:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

By "burning" I assume you mean "exposing her affiliation with the CIA". And by "cheap political payback" you must mean "punish" rather than "discredit". Those are two distict words, with two distict meanings, and as editors, we should use them with precision. Furthermore, I must respectfully warn you not to take such a one sided view of this Plame affair. There is very little evidence that the VP's office was engaged in any payback at all. There is substantial evidence, however, that the VP's office was trying to discredit Wilson's claim -- understood as it was at the time -- that it was in some way responsible for sending him to Niger and well aware of the essential aspects of his trip. There are two perspectives involved in this matter. If you are incapable of editing this page from both perspectives, I would advise you to broaden your research materials to better round out you understanding the issues. Evensong 11:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll thank you not to advise me about how to edit this page when I haven't actually been editing it at all. I'm not going to get sucked into another pointless debate with you -- suffice to say that I believe you are incorrect about what evidence there is, and that I will be happy to discuss it if it becomes the point of contention in another edit dispute. Otherwise, as rewinn points out below, let's try to leave the political soapboxing to the blogs.--csloat 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have reverted my edits in the past and you have added/changed/modified my edits as well. So your claim that you havn't edited this page is completely false. As for political sopboxing is concerned, my previous post delicately called you out on that issue. The phrases regarding "burning" and "cheap political payback" is nothing but soap boxing. Since your political soapbox statements appeared on the talk-page, I issued a polite warning that the one-sided, blustering perspective you exhibited should not infuence your editing. Evensong 21:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not recently edited this page, no. Yes of course I have edited in the past but your comment was about current activities. As for my comments on the talk page, you can choose to respond to them or not, but I'm really not interested in reading metacommentary about them (especially from a rather extreme POV-pusher such as yourself). I mean, say whatever you like, but don't be surprised or insulted if I don't consider such comments serious enough to merit a response. But since you brought it up twice now, here we go: yes, by "burning" plame I mean destroying her CIA career and destroying the effectiveness of her cover company and the program she was working on (which, by all accounts, involved WMD and Iran, an important issue that we could use better intel on right now). As for "cheap political payback," you're right about one thing - it was not cheap. Losing intel on Iran is a significant price. But there is plenty of evidence that points to payback, though of course you are entitled to make whatever excuses you like for Cheney's office.--csloat 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think that this article must be editied with the point of view that the White House destroyed her career, that her company Brewster Jennings offered effective cover, that we lost intel on Iran because of her affiliation with the CIA being revealed, and that the WH was engaged in payback, and that any evidence to the contrary is disinformation, you are, per se, editing from a POV. Furthermore, I am not an extreme POV pusher. There is absolutely zero evidence for that. What you deride as "disinformation", "republican talking points", "Cheney excuses" or "POV pushing" is really just the other side of the argument in the Plame affair. It exists. You are absolutely free, and I will defend you freedom to do so, disagree with the other side. But you cannot go about accusing and belittleing your fellow editors, such as my self, who acknowledge the other side of the issue, as being "rather extreme POV-pushers" and mere "Cheney excusers". I am going to be blunt here. The fact that Armitage has now been pinned as the original leaker does, in fact, poke a lot of holes in the idea that there was a WH campaign to out Plame to punish Wilson. The fact that Fitz gave him a pass but hounded Libby and Rove for years raises even more questions about nearly everything you beleive to be true in this affair. For example, the only real difference between Armitage and Libby/Rove is that Armitage does dot fit the "punish Wilson" meme that has dominated the characterization of this entire affair ever since Corn started it in July of 2003. As I have always stated, that meme may not reflect reality -- there are other sides to the issue. With Armitage's exposure, that other side needs a long due and serious look. Your labeling me as an extreme POV pusher really is not helpful for getting that other side out. The problem with this page from the get-go was that it was written from a perspective that bought into the White House consiracy meme. Hence, the inclusion of the yellow cake forgeries, the downing street memos, the WHIGs, and a whole host of other quite conspiritorily driven connections, mainly inhabiting left wing web sites. There is a lot more I have to say. But you really need, as an editor, to stop your condescending, vitriolic, name-calling patterns on this page if you really want this article to reflect the level of preofessionalism it deserves. Evensong 03:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is this coming from? Can you point to the edits to the article that I made that you feel are POV-pushing? I realize there are edits to the intro being discussed below, but where in my edits to the article have I made these various claims about Armitage, about the campaign to punish Wilson, etc.? I feel you are wrong about these things, and on another day might be happy to debate endlessly about it, but there really is no point since at the end of the day you will believe what you will believe and I will believe what I believe. What you are calling the "White House conspiracy meme" is actually the view that appears to be shared by most mainstream journalists on the issue as well as the prosecutor, not something "inhabiting left wing web sites." Sorry if you think I am condescending and name-calling when I say what I believe, but I am going to continue to say what I believe. I realize sometimes my tone is objectionable -- as is yours, often, including in the above post -- I think we all could do some work on that issue, but it will continue to be tough with emotional and political hot buttons, which this case has become. That is why I tried to stop having these arguments in talk - let's not debate what Armitage's role has changed, if anything, in the whole "Plame affair," and let's stick to what improves the article. Sometimes such things will need to be discussed in order to improve the article -- e.g. the undercover vs. covert question -- but if it isn't going to lead to such, let's try not to make a big deal out of it anymore. I'm tired of this, and I gather others are too.--csloat 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is something I have to add. Csloat, there is a great quality about you as an editor I feel needs an particular mention. You announce your edits, you put them up for discussion, you are open about it. The tone, not so hot. But the fact that you are so open about the changes really deserves open acknowledgement. So here it is. Good job! Evensong 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you Evensong, and I will work harder on the tone of my comments.--csloat 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of Wilson being discredited - his word holds a lot of weight. hell, he was the presidential daily breifer for ronald reagan! Kevin Baas^talk 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will leave a signed report, but the below author is correct. The SSCI report eroded Wilson's cred. Kerry dropped him as an advisor when it became public. It is a big part of the PlameAffair story. Check it out before you edit the page on that subject. Susan Schmidt of the WaPo may be a good place to start. Evensong 20:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wilson was discredited in the congressional report. Wilson lied about how he went to Niger, what he reported and what he did while there. Its just the Kos-kids who still believe in his kool-aid. August 29, 2006 This unsigned comment added by 148.63.236.141 at 16:33, 29 August 2006

Please remember this is a talk page concerning the article, and is not a general-purpose blog. Frame all commentary in terms of improving the article. The claims concerning Kos submitted by 148.3.236.141 is not relevant to Plame affair and is not supported by evidence, and therefore has nothing to do with an encyclopedia article. The claims concerning whether the congressional report are amply addressed in the article. rewinn 17:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Covert but not a crime?

here's another excerpt from the Isikoff article: Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged. Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward. Isikoff doesn't attribute this info to his sources and it's public knowledge that Armitage was a crucial witness and has appeared at least three times before the grand jury. so i'm not sure if his sources told him plame was covert or it's his assumption, but either way, both sides of the debate may be right. She may have been covert, but leaking her name was not a crime.Anthonymendoza 18:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course she was covert, at least in the literal sense; that debate seems to have been settled when the CIA asked for an investigation. Whether she met the more restrictive IIPA definition of covert is a more disputed question (though everyone who actually would know the answer who has talked about has said that she was). Leaking her name was never a crime; leaking her status as an undercover employee of the CIA was (probably) a crime. If Armitage did not know her covert status, that means that someone leaked the info to Armitage, since he could not have found out from looking at Who's Who or whatever that she was a CIA employee. Again, I'm trying not to get sucked into debates about it -- there's a lot we don't know here, and it's best if the article reflects that. But the things that we do know - e.g. that the CIA considered her covert, and that their opinion on the matter is the only relevant one - should not be distorted by talking points every time a new article is published.--csloat 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

the newsweek article also states Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.). so he learned about plame from the state department memo, which i think has always been suspected as the true original source.Anthonymendoza 18:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And this memo, which was clearly marked CLASSIFIED, indicating all of the information in it was CLASSIFIED (including her employment with the CIA), was sent to him by whom? More importantly, the information was then confirmed by whom before to Novak and other reporters? Did the second "whom" know she was covert, and did they ask the reporters not to publish this CLASSIFIED information? Or did they seize the opportunity to destroy the career of the wife of one of their political enemies? These are the sorts of questions prosecutors might be asking about these events, even if they don't occur to Wikipedia editors.--csloat 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

i would think that fitzgerald has looked into all/most of those questions since it's reported he investigated Armitage aggressively. but as far as the IIPA goes, here's what Isikoff wrote in a previous article:

Fitzgerald has been said to be investigating whether any aides violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act—which makes it a felony to disclose the identity of a covert CIA employee: it requires showing the violator knew the agent's undercover status. (The State memo makes no reference to that.) But the CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice.[2]

so the CIA never asked the Justice department to investigate any violations of the IIPA. rather, only disclosed to the Jusice dept. that classified information had been leaked. so the covert question may be a pointless debate. the basic questions of this affair have all been answered. we know who leaked the information, and we know leaking the information wasn't considered criminal by fitzgerald. libby's trial will be very limited and rove is in the clear. what else is there to debate.Anthonymendoza 19:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't anything to "debate," I agree with that. We haven't answered "the basic questions of this affair"; what we have are a number of conflicting pieces of information from various sources of varying reliability, a tight-lipped prosecutor, and little in the way of an apparatus that allows to make sense of this mess. If that's enough for you to draw conclusions from, be my guest.--csloat 23:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to revise this article

This time is long past to revise this article with the facts. Armitage, who was a foe of the administration policy revealed Plame's name. This was not a smear job by the President and the White House has been COMPLETELY exonerated. -- 130.126.138.6 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I would support this change, as long as we source it clearly to "User:130.126.138.6," since that seems to be the only source for these conclusions.--csloat 23:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is another source. --Tbeatty 01:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Relax. This is an encyclopedia article, not a daily news report. Most of the stuff reported is noteworthy and if it turned out that the accused are innocent, that goes into the article too. Compare O.J. Simpson and John Mark Karr rewinn 01:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ha... an anonymous Wikipedia editor and a raving alcoholic showing signs of mental breakdown; ok, now we have two sources! Seriously, when the Washington Post reports that the White House has been "completely exonerated," I might be interested in the news. Until then, all we have is wishful speculation on both sides.--csloat 01:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of those who don't understand csloat's reference, the slate article proferred by Tbeatty was written by Christopher Hitchens <<< the preceding comment, made by me, has been editted by me for the sake of civility rewinn 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Discredited by whom, rewinn, and in what way? You were discussing the need to "[f]rame all commentary in terms of improving the article." How does this opinionated, conclusory and derisive dismissal of Hitchens help achieve that end? Evensong 03:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, I'll just delete the language which may be offensive. rewinn 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest Armitage's role appears noteworthy enough to promote his section in the article, as I have done. Some of the endless details and quotations in the Novak and Rove section may need spinning off into their own article, or on to those person's own pages. Perhaps some of the quotations should be eliminated or grossly reduced; as long as there's a link to the quotation source why are there paragraphs of this stuff in the article? rewinn 01:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Hitchens. Why was he discredited? "Slate" seems pretty credible and they continue to publish his articles. --Tbeatty 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to discuss Hitchens here since he's not even in Plame affair but FWIW I suggest you note the article cited above is editorializing, not reporting (note language such as "paranoid myth" and "Wilson fantasy") ... scarcely the neutral language of a fair man, and references his prior articles in which he makes grandeous claims about proving that Saddam sent a nuclear diplomat to Niger in 1999, and repeats all sorts of irrelevancies such as "[Novak] was never told the name Plame but discovered it from Who's Who". If you want to discuss Hitchens more, feel free to continue on my talk page. rewinn 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

NYT says they've talked with a lawyer in the case that confirms Armitage's involvement: [3] Like I said above, this doesn't call for a wholesale purge of this article, but the careful editting retaining that which is noteworthy should continue, as it has for a while. rewinn 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

CNN has now independently confirmed Armitage was novak's sources as well.[4] i agree that further editing is needed now that this essential fact of the case has been revealed. i'm going to start with the Rove section. most of it should be merged into the Karl Rove page. i've always been curious as to why rove has his own section in this article and libby does not. Anthonymendoza 14:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter what, Armitage's role as leaker of the information needs to be front-and-center. That's what started it all... Valtam 18:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a job well done

Wow, I am amazed. In less than a month, this article was reduced from a horribly bloated 170K down to it's current size of 74K! That is some impressive editing. The article is much improved because of it. Well done. Kaldari 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

i personally think the page is at a good length now. the longest section is the Novak article, but since the novak article is at the center of the plame affair i think it should be the longest section. any thoughts about further editing?Anthonymendoza 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, kudos. I don't know who is responsible, csloat, Anthony, or others. But you all really deserve a thumbs up. Good job. Evensong 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the article uses long citations completely irrelevant to the investigation. There are also many points relevant to the investigation (the crux of the Plame affair) not addressed in the article. Some are breaking. There is also an absence of objectivity by shifting the focus away from the outing of Plame to the methods and rationale in which one journalist was used to out Plame. This undermines the thesis that the outing was part of a conspiracy. As for comments about it being over, it is not over as long as Fitzgerald has a sitting grand jury. And even if Fitzgerald's investigation fails to indict any others, the political ramifications could broaden, as did Watergate when Congress got involved.

References

i'm going to begin the long task of properly labeling all the references. feel free to help :) Anthonymendoza 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

i condensed alot of information into the background section. i didn't realize how much duplicate info there was/is in this article.Anthonymendoza 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The references are biased towards Novak's defense, and detract from the core issues established in general coverage of the case. Ideally, references should be limited in a discussion of political events as they tend more towards sophmoric-level reporting rather than comprehensive analysis, which can never depend on single (and lengthy) citations in such a broad case. If there are to be references, would have to include 2 to avoid bias, if this is a two-sided issue.

covert nonsense again

I fixed some changes that had been recently made by someone (Ed Poor I think) attempting to claim that there is dispute about whether Plame was under cover. The Moskowitz letter settles that debate. I did not go through the whole article; just the intro and the background, where the disinfo was pretty blatant. There is debate as far as the IIPA's definition of the term "covert," but not about the fact that she was under cover. Let's not start all this again. Ed, or whoever made those edits, please read the moskowitz letter and review the discussion for the past couple years on this article; I don't feel like making all the arguments about this yet again. The discussion about some people thinking she was not covert or whatever belongs on one of the sub-pages, it should not be on the main page. I have a feeling this will be an ongoing problem resulting from shortening the page by breaking it up -- perhaps there should be a table of contents that includes the sub-pages at the top so people do not continue adding info to this page that really belongs on a sub-page?--csloat 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

csloat: While you may believe the Moskowitz letter settles the debate about whether Plame was under cover, that's just your POV. 71.212.31.95 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether she was or was not undercover is not the point, Csloat. There is, in fact, a dispute in the real world regarding her undercover status. You obvisouly do not agree with those who claim that she was not undercover, which is fine. But to delete any reference to the fact that a dispute exists, and to furthermore label it as "disinformation" is proof positive that you are editing from a POV position. You need to stop it. Evensong 02:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not my POV at issue here. The Moscowitz letter is from the CIA. The CIA is the only organization or entity that can speak with authority as to whether or not she was under cover, and they have spoken. The "dispute" is about how "deep" her cover was or about whether she was "covert" under the terms of the IIPA. But there is no dispute about whether she was actually under cover. Either she was or she wasn't, it's not a grey area; it is a definitional question, and the organization who decides the definition is the CIA, and they have said that she was. I am not arguing that there is no dispute about other questions - e.g. whether her husband told other people about her job or such - but there is simply no dispute about whether she was under cover. The CIA ended that debate when they asked for the investigation. Period.--csloat 04:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is your POV. You can have five priests swear she was undercover, but the facts also speak. If by undercover you and the CIA meant that her affiliation with the CIA had to be kept secret, the CIA did a piss poor job of doing so. They stationed her at spy central CIA headquarters whence they required her to travel daily, with no objection from her. This is not, factually, the most discrete way to conceal one's affiliation with the CIA. If you have some other understanding which allows a CIA undercover agent to have such open contact with the CIA, I am all ears. Frankly, if the CIA labeled her as "undercover" but didn't treat her as such, then this is a case of the Emporer's Clothes. He's naked despite what the experts say, and so was Plame. It's a legitimate point of view based on the facts. Evensong 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about priests swearing! If the CIA did a bad job of keeping her undercover, as is your pov, that does not mean she was not definitionally under cover. One is a definitional question, the other is a subjective question. The definitional question is settled by the fact that the CIA labeled her undercover. I'm not saying your POV is illegitimate (though it is dubious, IMHO), but I am saying it is irrelevant to the question at hand - was plame under cover? The CIA says yes, then the answer is yes. It's as if you have a job as assistant manager at McDonald's. There can be debate about whether you did a piss poor job of assisting or managing things, or about whether McDonald's did a piss poor job of outlining your responsibilities as Asst. Man., but the bottom line is that that is your title, and McDonald's is the only organization who can say whether it is or is not your accurate title. This is all we are debating about, and your claims about how good a job the CIA did at covering for Plame are obfuscations of this fundamental fact. Again, we have been having this debate for two years now and every time, your side has lost, and a consensus of sorts was developed that the term "undercover" - as used in the CIA letter - was the best solution to the dispute. This is why this debate gets so frustrating.--csloat 07:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Moskowitz letter did not state that Plame was operating under cover. It stated that CIA had reported to DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning "the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and had requested that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation of the matter. Moreover, as Evensong pointed out, the question of whether Plame was operating under cover has been disputed, regardless of whether she actually was or was not. That is a significant aspect of the controversy which is the subject of this article. Your POV that the debate has been settled is irrelevant. 71.212.31.95 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Your POV that there is a dispute is what is irrelevant. The dispute is over whether her cover was deep, not whether it existed. She was under cover according to the CIA (please read the letter as you are wrong about what it says). We've covered this ground already, please review the discussion from a few weeks ago on this.--csloat 19:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also a dispute whether the Moon is made of green cheese and whether pi should be defined as 3. Not every dispute is notable. The putative dispute whether Plame's identity was secret is not notable. rewinn 19:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The dispute over Plame's status has been much discussed in the media and is clearly a part of the public controversy over the matter. To suggest that it is not notable is absurdly pov. 71.212.31.95 20:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Your claim is not supported by any authority. Several government officials who are in a position to speak with authority, acting in their official capacity, have confirmed Plame's undercover status. You must cite at least one official, whose job it is to make such determinations, acting in his or her official capacity, stating that Plame was not undercover ... to have any authoritativeness in your claim.

Let me make a suggestion which is intended to be helpful. Your contributions page documents that you have very little experience working on wikipedia, except for Plame affair. If you wish to be an effective editor (or to effectively push your POV) you would be well advised to branch out a little. Edit a few other places. Get to know a few other subjects. After a while, this editting issues will come easily to you. I don't know whether you will take this advice, but I hope you do so that wikipedia may gain one more good editor. rewinn 21:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between the (unresolved) question of whether Plame was actually operating under cover, and the question of whether the assertion that she was operating under cover has been disputed. As I noted, the dispute about Plame's status is clearly a part of the public controversy, and should therefore be discussed in the article. I am not myself making any claims about whether Plame was working under cover or not. (As far as I know, she may well have been.) And thanks for trying to be helpful, but I can assure you that I have considerable experience with how Wikipedia works. 71.212.31.95 22:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you refuse to provide an authoritative source for your claim that there is any question whether Plame was operating under cover, there is no need to evaluate your likewise unsourced claim about knowing wikipedia policy. However, to the extent Plame affair is biographical, see Wikipedia:biographies of living persons. If you wish to push your theory that Plame might not be under cover, it would go in Alternate theories of the Plame affair. rewinn 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, the dispute about Plame's status is clearly a part of the public controversy, and should therefore be discussed in the article, regardless of your opinion as to its merits. Your prattle about my "unsourced claim about knowing wikipedia policy" does not impress. And Plame affair is not, of course, a biographical article. 71.212.31.95 00:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

71, you are raising a red herring. The dispute about Plame's status is discussed in the article already. Your prattle about this dispute is totally irrelevant to what is being discussed here. This discussion is not about erasing evidence of that dispute. This discussion is about whether the CIA nominally classified her as undercover, and they did. We have it in the letter, we have it in the statements of several acting intelligence officials, we have it in the explicit statement of Patrick Fitzgerald, and we have it in on the record testimony from Plame's former CIA classmates. We also have not one single official source -- not one -- saying anything otherwise. The dispute about how deep her cover was or about whether her husband was a blabbermouth is a separate issue, and the attempt to confuse these issues strikes me as dishonest.--csloat 00:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, csloat. I didn't see where the dispute about Plame's status was discussed in the main article. But it wasn't in the introduction, where "Valerie Plame's under cover status" was referred to as if it were an undisputed fact. However, I see that this has been changed to "Valerie Plame Wilson’s classified relationship with the CIA", so the issue may be moot. 71.212.31.95 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the intro. Her undercover status is an undisputed fact. As we noted below, it is acknowledged in the CIA letter, among several other sources. What exactly is your point? Can you explain the alleged difference between her status being "classified" and being "undercover"? And can you suggest why it should be in the intro?? I agree with rewinn; your comments are positively surreal.--csloat 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

71 is also mistaken about Wikipedia:biographies of living persons, for it is to the extent that it is biographical. But what the heck ... this discussion is positively surreal. At this late date are we really discussing whether Plame was undercover? rewinn 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I agree with your recent edit regarding govt employees, but my recollection of what was settled before was that "undercover" was a better term to use since it is in the Moscowitz document. Of course, "classified" is in that document as well. I'm ok with either, but I am not ok with the Ed Poor and the anon editor changes, that claimed her nominal status was disputed.--csloat 08:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell would there be a big investigaion if she was just a regular employee? Kevin Baas^talk 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

because her position was classified and it is criminal to reveal classified information. there are two sources, the moskowitz letter and an article written by isikoff for newsweek that show the cia didn't ask for an investigation because of violations of the IIPA; rather they asked for an investigation because classified information had been "leaked" to the press. the Valerie Wilson page also is sourced with articles that show that while she was a NOC, she wasn't a "deep cover NOC" because of her time at a us embassy under official cover. her marriage to Joe Wilson also would have made her cover difficult to conceal. again, if she was deep cover and national security was jeopardized because of the leak, why wasn't anyone charged with leaking her name? Anthonymendoza 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The CIA letter said she was "undercover." The difference between "deep" and "non-deep" cover is irrelevant for the purpose of the intro; it is only relevant as concerns the IIPA. The comment that being married to a diplomat would have made her cover difficult to conceal is utter nonsense; plenty of undercover agents have been married to prominent folks (at least, that is what agents have told reporters investigating this). Several CIA sources both current and former have confirmed that she was a NOC -- deep or shallow we do not know because we do not know her travel schedule and we are not likely to learn it, though we do know that the court believed that she had travelled in the past 5 years (pre -03) doing undercover work. All we know about that is that she did not live abroad, which is not necessary. A NOC is the most dangerous kind of undercover agent there is because if they are caught, they do not receive any protection from the US government.--csloat 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, the CIA (Moskowitz) letter did not assert that Plame was "undercover". It stated that CIA had reported to DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning "the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" and had requested that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation of the matter. 71.212.31.95 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-read the letter. It also says she was under cover. As I said, I am fine with either phrase, but there is no need to pretend there is a "dispute" when there is none. The dispute is not about whether she was undercover. The dispute is about whether she was protected under a particular legal definition of "covert." As has been pointed out over and over and over again. As you have been asked by others, please review the discussion above and in the archive concerning these matters.--csloat 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read the letter. Please quote in full the sentence in which you believe the CIA asserted that Plame was under cover. 71.212.31.95 19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it in the 1st paragraph? It says, slightly paraphrased, Thank you for your letter to the DCI regarding any contacts the CIA has had with the DOJ "to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier this year of the identity of an employee operating under cover." Valtam 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the words "under cover" are in the first paragraph, but only in the context of describing Rep. Conyer's letter to DCI, not as an affirmation by CIA of Plame's status. The CIA reply to Conyer's inquiry does not address the issue of Plame's status directly, but refers only to "unauthorized disclosure of classified information". 71.212.31.95 22:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so the first paragraph just summarizes the claims in Rep. Conyer's letter. The "under cover" language is not used in the rest of the letter... Interesting... Valtam 00:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, does the rest of the letter make any correction to or offer any disagreement with the statement that the CIA requested an investigation into the disclosure of an employee operating under cover? I don't see it.--csloat 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevance to article???

Nearly all of the controversy about covertness has nothing to do with improving the article. The passion on all sides is sincere but, please, let's not argue about subjects that just don't improve the article. Otherwise I shall have to comment on the question whether a CIA agent loses her covert status when she marrys an Ambassador. Geez. What better cover than as a blonde bimbo Ambassador's wife? You get to travel the world, play tennis with anybody, et cetera ... it's practically "I Spy" minus Bill Cosby. rewinn 15:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a semantic argument at best. As a term of art, she had "Non-Official Cover" (i.e. Brewster Jennings). I think that would be the only term the CIA would use. But CIA chose to report this as a violation of revealing classified information. Colloquially, "under cover" or "covert agent" implies more than what she was. She was certainly not a foreign agent or "spy" at least in the years leading up to this incident. They didn't seem to believe IIPA was violated. My objection to "undercover" is that it implies more in common usage than it means in usage by the CIA. She was an employee of the CIA, she worked at CIA headquarters but her relationship to the CIA was classified. I don't think anyone can argue that her employment wasn't classified. As far as I can tell, "classified" doesn't have colloquial meaning beyond the government meaning. It has been reported that the CIA PR person confirmed Plames employment. This alone would have triggered the referral to Justice for revealing classified information. --Tbeatty 06:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

First, the CIA said "under cover" as well as "NOC" as well as "classified." The only word there really is dispute about is "covert." Second, your claim that "she was certainly not a foreign agent or spy at least in the years leading up to this incident" is impossible for you to say with certainty, unless you yourself are a high placed CIA official or have personal knowledge of Plame's actions during the time in question. There's a reason people involved have been pretty tight-lipped about this, and I don't think we can assume that we know with any certainty what Plame was up to, where she travelled, who she interacted with, spied on, etc. We do have some evidence that she was working on WMD issues regarding Iran, which is disturbing, but we don't have much detail about precisely what she was working on, and we should not pretend we do. If her employment was "classified," that means she was "undercover." Your claim that "classified" doesn't have a colloquial meaning is misleading. "Classified" refers to information withheld by the executive branch for national security purposes. When someone's job and employer is "classified," that indicates she is working "under cover." Especially when there is explicitly a "cover" set up for her to operate in a "covert" manner. The only one of these words with a "special" meaning in this case is "covert," which has a specific definition in the IIPA. However, in it's colloquial meaning, Plame was certainly "covert" - that we can say with certainty (at least, assuming that Moscowitz, various CIA officers, Pat Fitzgerald, and her former classmates are not conspiring to lie to the the public about this), even if she did not meet the legal definition of "covert" in the IIPA sense.--csloat 06:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you are wrong, merely that some terms are more disputable than others. "under cover" and "covert" to me, in a colloqial sense, implies spying and foreign service. It is simply a perception of the word. Since, as you say, we don't know any of that, it makes it disputable. I agree with you that she fits the dictionary definition of all those words. She had cover, therefore "undercover" technically fits. If she is "under cover" she could also be called "covert", etc, etc. You could even argue she was a "spy" because she worked for the "spy agency." Yet common usage makes me cringe at "covert" and "under cover" but not "classified." "Classified" seems more appropriate given what we know and the common usage of the terms. "Non-official cover" can be used to describe her classified employment as this really has no colloquial usage. --Tbeatty 07:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK :)--csloat 20:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

I have a feeling this will be an ongoing problem resulting from shortening the page by breaking it up -- perhaps there should be a table of contents that includes the sub-pages at the top so people do not continue adding info to this page that really belongs on a sub-page? i agree with csloat here. someone just rewrote the intro to include info that's already in the background section. the problem is that people come to this page and add info without reading what's already in the article, and so the same fact is repeated three or four times, as i learned from rewritting the background section last night. how to fix this ongoing problem??Anthonymendoza 15:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps

Sub-Articles and Related Articles

and perhaps this should be inserted at the top of the article as has been suggested. Anthonymendoza 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

intro revert

csloat replaced the following intro:

Plame Affair refers to the U.S. political controversy and criminal investigation resulting from a July 2003 newspaper column by Robert Novak which identified Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA "operative". Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, alleged that her identity as an undercover agent had been intentionally exposed by White House officials in order to destroy her career, to punish him for publicly criticizing the Bush administration's justification for the war with Iraq. The CIA requested an FBI investigation of a possible violation of criminal law concerning unauthorized disclosure of classified information, but after more than two years a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, Patrick Fitzgerald, had not brought any charges concerning the disclosure.

with this:

Plame Affair revolves around allegations that one or more government officials revealed Valerie Plame Wilson’s classified employment status.

csloat, In what way do you think that is an improvement? 71.212.31.95 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed before. Introductions should be short, so readers can tell quickly what the subject is about, and dryly npov, which has been a problem for this article. Your additional are redolent with pov. rewinn 16:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

rewinn, an intro should briefly summarize the essential information concerning the subject of the article, sufficient to satisfy the needs of a reader with casual interest. csloat's intro is clearly insufficient. Please be specific as to what you think is pov about my revision. 71.212.31.95 16:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review prior extensive discussion in Talk:Plame affair. For one example, calling Plame affair a political matter is pov disparagement of the non-political aspects of the matter. rewinn 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

rewinn, please reread my intro. It says the Plame affair refers to a political controversy and criminal investigation. If there is some other aspect of the matter that you think needs to be mentioned in the intro, by all means feel free to include it. What are your other objections? 71.212.31.95 19:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

We went thru all this last month. Plame affair has legal (both criminal and civil), security, political, financial, journalistic and other aspects. Once you start expanding the introduction to include everything in the article, you are on the road back to making this article longer than History of the World, which would be undesirable. rewinn 19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the intro summary cannot include every detail of all aspects of the subject. But it should briefly describe the essential facts regarding the most significant aspects. My intro is a good faith effort toward that end. If you think there's something else that needs to be mentioned, please add it. 71.212.31.95 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, please review the previous discussion. The word "political" should not be in the introduction becaue it places undue weight on an aspect of Plame Affair that is scantly, if at all, mentioned in the article. The article's content focusses on legal battles with a heaping helping of journalism; very little of the article concerns politics. Feel free to start Plame Affair (politics) if you want an article that emphasizes it; I'm sure that would be full of interesting content. rewinn 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing Rove section

User:Anthonymendoza et cetera: Good job summarizing the Rove section! One can quibble forever ... but the essence is there and a link to the article where more can be found. Good job! Of course, the reward for good work is to solicited for more. How about tackling the Novack section the same way? (I see that you're on it already...) rewinn 19:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

i finished all the references (i forgot to sign in on one edit). i think the article is a good length. i'll look over the novak section and see what can be merged with his page.Anthonymendoza 01:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, time for a WikiCookie

Relax! this is only wikipedia. No-one is going to change their opinion of the topic by what they read here. So sit back and enjoy a cookie! rewinn 02:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

New WP article

Pretty much sums up the Plame Affair. They even call it an "affair." Pretty much nails all aspects fairly.--Tbeatty 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

And here's the key, concluding, paragraph:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Valtam 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I just have to make a shout out to all the liberals who got burned once again trying bring about false accusations. That is all :/ --Firebird 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, Wilson was actually quite correct that reports of Iraq buying uranium from Niger were false. But the facts don't seem to matter much to people pushing this line. Whatever; I'm through wasting my time debating it here.--csloat 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we really back to sought vs. bought routine? Get a new script. Evensong 06:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The WP "article" was not news. Instead it was a blathering right wing editorial piece.Edison 21:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

...just more blogging on the talk page...

Please focus on improving the article, not blogging. Wilson's claims in the NYT article that lead to the Novak article are beyond dispute; if you disagree, quote Wilson's article directly. It's a waste of time blogging on a wikipedia talk page, since who reads this stuff anyway? rewinn 18:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC) T/F It's Lebanon's fault that it got bombed. T/F If she hadn't been wearing that dress...

References

to all editors: please properly cite references when making edits to this page. a lot of work went into properly labeling all the works cited. thanks!Anthonymendoza 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

why is this tag on the page? what are the specific complaints? Anthonymendoza 02:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm removing the tag since there seems to be no dispute. Anthonymendoza 15:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary tag

i personally think the article is as short as it's going to get. any objections to removing the summary tag? Anthonymendoza 18:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

i removed the summary tag since there were no objections.Anthonymendoza 15:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)