Talk:Douglas Feith/Archive 2

Archives
Archive1-Feb.10th,2006-Mar.23rd,2006

Team B

Team B was an operation in the 1970's. It was famously leaked during the 1976 election. Feith was in law school at this time. The references to Richard Pipes contained in the speech that was linked to were about his 'lectures and books' at Harvard, and then his job at the national security council at the same time as Feith. Feith was at the national security council in 1981-1982, not the 1970s when Team B was operating. The passing reference to Feith having had the pleasure of being on the council at the same time as Pipes does not at all seem to be him saying he was on Team B (at the age of 21 or whatever it would have had to have been).

As I said before, Feith in his own words ascribes his intelligence critique method to Pipes. As Feith has written:

"I deepened my intellectual engagement in that cause as a student here at Harvard and benefited especially from the lectures and books of Professor Richard Pipes, who headed Harvard's Russian Research Center.

We were part of a rather small minority in Cambridge who thought that working to bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union was not only a noble pursuit, but a realistic project. Richard Pipes joined the Reagan administration to implement that project and I had the honor and pleasure of working with him on the National Security Council staff before I crossed the Potomac River for my first stint at the Pentagon." [1]

Feith not only studied under Pipes, he worked for him at the National Security Council. I am replacing the passage, because the primary source for its information is the subject of this article himself. Abe Froman 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NeoCon

Feith is a neoconservative, not a conservative. --HowardJ87 13:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference. It is loaded language, it is POV, it is subjective, it is sometimes used as a derogatory term, there is no citation justifying its use, it is irrelevant, it is certainly not the defining characteristic of the man nor his major accomplishment and therefore should not be the initial adjective used to describe him. It is merely opinion and has no place in a biography of a living person. I don't see the first line of Barack Obama's bio saying "he is an extreme left wing liberal politician", even though he is rated the most liberal U.S. Senator. I believe it is being inserted here as a pejorative term by the man's enemies or people who disagree with the reasons for and the prosecution of the War For Iraqi Freedom. It should not be used.

He has referred to himself as a neo-conservative and that is what he is. Sorry. I'm not sure who rated Obama the "most liberal senator" since he clearly is not - Feingold and Bernie Sanders are way more left wing than Obama. This is not the same - Feith is a professional ideologue. --Kelt65 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Where has he referred to himself as a neocon? Where is the citation? You can say it all day long, where is the citation? 71.100.167.23 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

STill does not belong there. Its loaded language. Does this mean I can add to the opening paragraph [comments removed per BLP]? The opening paragraph defines the public person. It should be PURELY factual and unbiased, not a smear or an attempt to paint the guy as an idealogue. Quit reverting my changes, 3 times and its a violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.167.23 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Neoconservative" is a factual appellation, not a derogatory one like the ones you mentioned and I have removed per WP:BLP. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with Gameliel, and I find it disturbing that ideologically motivated editors find it necessary to label this individual with the "neoconservative" stain right at the outset of his article. Within the article you could find some rationale for this, perhaps, and I say perhaps, but to include it as the very first thing you read about the person is to include a bias and to taint the entire article. Also, the individuals who keep reverting it are engaging in an edit war. It should be removed, I will do so and I hope those who keep removing it will refrain. A fairminded person must admit this is not the main information dealing with this man, a respected public official. And contrary to Gameliel, this label is derogatory in many people's minds, it is in mine. I find it offensive, in fact. Its not right. 64.27.4.133 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it is already addressed in the "VIEWS" section: I find this appropriate. We should not get into a practice of labelling every politician or public servant with subjective labels as to their relative slot on the political spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.4.133 (talk) 05:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Franks quote

This story, originally printed in Gordon and Trainor's Cobra II, does not fit into the category of Franks's professional criticism of Feith. It's taken out of context. If anything, the story deserves to be in a section criticizing Franks. If read properly in the context of Cobra II, a reader learns that Franks was foul-mouthedly dismissing a plan to integrate Iraqi troops into the American invading force so as to speed up the development of the Iraqi army, the slowness of which would ultimately hurt the American effort in the post-major combat period. As the quote is now placed, it is seen just as Franks telling Feith he had no time for him. Further, in fact it wasn't even a briefing given by Feith, but that of a deputy of his.

This quote is out of context and is framed as an indictment of Feith when in fact it could be an article of indictment for Franks, the speaker! Now I'm not recommending going and moving this to some 'criticisms of Franks' section even if it exists. But at a minimum this quote\story is far too complex to be placed where it is here. Bueller 08:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is very postmodern interpretation. I prefer the plain meaning of the passage. Is there any evidence from Cobra II, the book, to provide a contextual update? I did not see any in the previous passage. I am readding the passage until the context allegation can be substantiated. Abe Froman 16:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Page 107 of Cobra II, top paragraph gives the context of the Franks-Luti-Feith 'fuckin bullshit' comment. It was the pet project of Bill Luti, one of Feith's deputies, not of Feith. Franks turned to Feith in a corridor to give him the foul-mouthed comment, implicitly just because Feith was in earshot. Even if there were more to it than that, if for example Feith was both in earshot and was associated with the project Franks did not have time for (a feeling which ultimately hurt the war effort), it can hardly be placed fairly as a criticism of Feith worthy of placement in the wiki encyclopedic entry. 160.39.139.144 20:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a citation, so other editors can confirm this context? As for Luti, Feith ran Office of Special Plans, not Luti. Abe Froman 20:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems unfair for you to re-place the inapt story because you want confirmation of the Cobra II account which you haven't gotten to. That's your failure as an editor, not anyone else's. It's page 107 of the book, top paragraph. Anyone is free to look. They will see that this is not a fair anecdote to put on this page. It should be removed. And should not be put back unless you somehow find look at the Cobra II account yourself and convincingly see otherwise. 160.39.139.144 20:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Franks made this criticism. Anon can certainly add contextual detail. Removing the passage is not appropriate since the content is not in dispute, only the context. Please quote the context directly from Cobra II so it may be confirmed. Without it, your argument does not meet WP:V. Abe Froman 20:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

RawStory Meets WP:V

Rawstory meets WP:V. From WP:V: "Verifiability, not truth" is its standard. Rawstory's information also has been "published by reputable publishers," because Rawstory's news stories have been carried in "The New York Times, The Guardian, L.A. Weekly, the New York Post, the Toronto Star, The Hill, Roll Call, The Advocate." [2] Furthermore, the passages Rawstory is cited in are introduced as being from Rawstory. Not only is there zero violation of WP:V, but this is a textbook case of how to follow WP:V correctly. Abe Froman 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon WhiteWashers

A new anon whitewasher ( 128.59.157.26 ) who mass deleted earlier just happens to originate from the same IP block as another, registered whitewasher. Curious. Abe Froman 05:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The new whitewasher strategy appears to be adding monikers for neutrality and primary sources, sans discussion. Abe Froman 17:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I find your whole campaign, almost all ad hominen, about whitewashing to be quite disturbing. What explains your engagement in slandering public officials and abusing wikipedia in the form of turning it into a political posting site? While simultaneously criticizing others, and avoiding the relevant issue-related discussion points, who try to keep this entry fair and up-the-middle? Bueller 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Discuss mass deletions and label monikers in the talk section before amputating or washing the article. Abe Froman 19:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous sources

We've discussed anonymous sources before, especially with regard to those sections that bring against our subject serious accusations. I won't even add more of my own words on this, but cite precedent:

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)

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)

This new piece is accusatory, speculatory and anonymous. Now, we've discussed that removing all anonymous sources would weaken elements of wikipedia [only arguably, considering it aims to be an encyclopedia, but i won't argue this], but as we've also discussed in the above discussion,

[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)]

there are different standards in different publications, and the new information is just not reliable. Bueller 17:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Replaced mass deleted passage. Political disagreement does not disqualify a source a priori. Is there a source claiming the investigation is moving ahead without delay? We can include it. Abe Froman 17:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't respond to a single point I made above. Substance-less talk page contribution doesn't qualify a source. Moreover, if we had a source on the record saying the investigation is moving without delay, we wouldnt simply 'include it,' it would disqualify the initial anonymous source. How are these differences in sourcing not clear? Bueller 18:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait for comments from others on this matter of using anonymous sources for serious accusations before re-posting the controversial, currently-deleted section. Bueller 18:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The removals are whitewashing. The Rawstory news organisation has reported on this. Pat Roberts reply is included. The new passage is directly related to Senator Pat Roberts claim in the previous passage. Carrying both viewpoints makes for the better article. Carrying one, is whitewashing. I am readding the passage and citation. Is there any sources that claim the investigation is moving forward? Include it. Abe Froman

The Rice reference is anonymous and not allowed under BLP guidelines. I am removing it on sight under those rules, which dont require discussion. That entire "criticism" section reads like a laundry list of negative quotes dug up against the man, with very few substantive facts backing them up. It reads like a smear. Some of the slurs are directly contradicted on record by those purported to have made them. Therefore, they should not be included. I'm removing the more egregious ones.66.96.196.85 (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Archival

The Talk Page is getting large. I propose we archive all but the 2 most recent talks. Abe Froman 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are strict rules dictating such moves, I'm disinclined to archive the talk page. The more that is more easily viewed\accessed by users, the better. Users should know that this page is full of objectionable material, and should not have to go hunting through the talk archive to discover this. That the article is so objectionable is problem enough. Bueller 05:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Archival of the page is not deletion. Users can click on the archive to see the old talk. This page takes several seconds to load, already. Other editors, thoughts? Abe Froman 14:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wilkerson

I have replaced the following section

When asked to characterize Feith's role in US government, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson replied "Was he nefarious? Absolutely." Colonel Wilkerson "believes that Feith placed Likud's interests above America's during his service at the Pentagon." [3] [4]

with

Regarding Feith and his colleague, David Wurmser, Colonel Wilkerson has stated "A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own."[5]

Let me know if that's a problem. My reasoning is: (1) The news.com.au story is now a dead link, (2) I don't see how TomPaine.com meets WP:V - there's no discussion of their fact checking policy for original articles and they're a self-published arm of a left wing think tank; (3) the TomPaine article doesn't even have a direct quote, which makes me more leery about it, and (4) American Prospect has a similar quote (which I included) that is a lot closer to WP:V - American Prospect is a publication with fact checkers, and it uses a direct quote rather than a paraphrase. Thanks,TheronJ 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit. Abe Froman 14:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring and splitting out content

This article has reached the point where it's getting clogged with lots of praise/criticism/controversy. How about if the page was restructured as was done recently with Juan Cole so that the main article is mostly biographical and factual and the bulk of the opinions are shifted to a new article like Views and controversies concerning Douglas Feith? --Lee Hunter 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is within the suggested maximum length. I generally do not like splitting out articles into main -> criticism -> whatever unless the articles are over their maximum suggested length. Splits, in my experience, make topics harder to edit and creates conflicts between content in either article. Abe Froman 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose a split. The article is badly organized; for example, "praise" includes a list of accomplishments that, if true, belong in the "Career" section (which is also badly organized; one would really expect a chronological discussion). Feith has continually been controversial during his career; separating that out would mean that the "controversies" article would have to provide background for the controversies, background already in the "main" article. John Broughton 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much a question of length but of achieving one solid main article which can simply cover the straightforward biography of a person's life. All the other stuff is cherry-picked by supporters and detractors for maximum positive or negative effect (for the record, I'm in the Feith-detractor camp) and we wind up with this weird unreadable mess which is the article in its current state. Initially, I was against this kind of split for the Cole article, but in the end I realized that it really improves the usefulness and readability of the encyclopedia as a whole while still giving space to all the roses and rotten tomatoes that people want to see enshrined in the record. But I'm not going to make a big deal out of this. If everyone likes the status quo, that's fine too. --Lee Hunter 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the three of us actually differ that much. Since the article is within suggested maximum limits, it could (a) stay as one article while (b) having the praise/criticism/controversy rewritten as (essentially) the second half of the article.

The text on controversies/criticisms needs to be organized around issues, not who said what. I'd certainly support a combining and rewrite of sections 5, 6, and 7. Perhaps that could start by listing, here, the specific topics (individual controversies) that the new section would contain (e.g., "Support for Israel", "Actions by the Office of Special Plans" (with subsections), and "Personality and intelligence".) John Broughton 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the criticism and praise section is the best organized part of the article. The problem is the "career" section sandwiched in between early life and praise/criticism. If this were rewritten chronologically and given a decent narrative tone the article would be more presentable. Abe Froman 16:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

That neutrality tag has sat there for most of this year. I want to remove it unless anyone objects. Abe Froman 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say, go for it. The tag shouldn't really be used unless someone has articulated specific problems. --Lee Hunter 23:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors aren't expected to be mind-readers. It's easy to repost, but with an explanation, if someone feels strongly. John Broughton | Talk 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

It is important to mention that he is Jewish. That is something he should be proud of and is something that is important for everyone to know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.220.161.66 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Is is redundant. The article already had the information. Reverting. Abe Froman 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Nowhere does it mention that he is Jewish; all it mentions is that his father was a zionist. So do not say that it is redundant. It is something he should be proud of and it is very important for all to know it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.27.215 (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

As far as I observed since I started editing, the only times an editor inserts a religious affiliation into an article opening, that religion is always Jewish. Frequently they're inserted by vandals and they included anti-Semitic comments. We should have no toleration for such behavior. --Oakshade 05:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Heritage-trolling has also been a problem in the Paul Wolfowitz article. Abe Froman 15:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A person's Jewish heritage is an important detail when they're in a position of power, because all too often they were allowed to climb the ladder of power solely because of their Jewish heritage, and favoritism shown to them by other wealthy powerful Jews. When a segment of society represents only 2.5% of the general population, and has a GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE influence on US foreign and domestic policy then there's a problem, especially when it adversely affects the livelihood of the other 97.5% of the people. Using your Goyische slaves to fight the enemies of Israel for you doesn't help America or Americans.

Tenet's Memoirs

I think we should use WP:RS sources to characterize Tenet's memoirs. [6] The passage has been reverted several times to a WP:OR version, and I do not think this is proper. Abe Froman 15:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Two more citations [7] [8] have been added to the passage to assuage any doubts about the information's reliability. Abe Froman 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One more citation added, this one [9] from MSNBC. Four citations buttress the claims made in the passage. Abe Froman 16:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the more sourcing, the better, always. But, especially in a section that is supposed to represent the professional criticism of a specific person--especially one who has just written a book that represents his view of events--it is best to quote from that book. Arguably, it's best to quote from that book alone. Nowhere else in the professional criticism section do we have characterizations by news outlets (let alone by op-ed writers [see SF Gate article], who are not reliable sources for facts but are opinion writers); instead, the sections use direct quotes from the professional critics. In keeping with this, I tried to use only Tenet's language.

There is a serious question as to whether even quoting (rather than paraphrasing, as appears now) from the news sources--SF Gate (op-ed piece), Whittier, whatever..--is sufficient, as they too are not quoting Tenet but making characterizations. Presumably, then, it would be fair to quote detractors of Tenet who characterized his book or his claims about Feith as stupid, revionist, etc. I would think such things would be superfluous to this section about Tenet's criticisms of Feith. But not if other characterizations of Tenet's criticisms are allowed. So it's poor to set a precedent that would allow for a bulletin board post-off between positive and negative characterizations of Tenet talking about Feith.

I'm inclined, then, to go back to my edit as I had it--just Tenet's language. But I'll wait for a response to these concerns.

Bueller 21:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Four independent sources summarize Tenet's book the same way, and this is communicated in the Tenet passage. Not all of the citations are op-ed's, MSNBC, for example. Quoting the book alone introduces problems of context. We are not going to reproduce the entire book in this article. Synthesizing the four citation's reports on Tenet's book is the nest way to succinctly communicate his claims. I have kept the direct Tenet quotes and Feith's response in the passage to address any concerns of balance. Abe Froman 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Froman, what you're doing is dishonest. The SF gate link should be removed--just dismissed; it's an op-ed piece the characterizations of which we shouldn't be quoting. As for MSNBC, I just followed the link. It doesn't at all say what you're saying it does. To examine: it mentions Feith twice. The first mention is a general one about being Feith "so captive to the core beliefs of Wolfowitz and other neoconservative thinkers to such an extent that he refused to brook any alternative interpretation of events." Fine--doesn't say much. Saying he was an ardent neocon who saw things the neocon way--not really news, and not the criticism of intelligence manipulation that your paragraph currently characterizes it as. The second mention of Feith is actually about the Iraq-al Qaeda issue, but it too has nothing to do with the 'fictions' or 'no evidence' that your paragraph misleadingly claims. Instead, it talks about Tenet's account of what a Tina Shelton said--and the upshot of the stuff reported on MSNBC is that Tenet identified her as a naval reserve officer with no experience while she was really an intelligence official all along. So Tenet actually looks bad. From where in here did you get the loaded characterizations of Feith's misdeeds? Froman, your citations and insistence on printing your own characterizations rather than quoting sources--and primary ones, like Tenet's own recent book--is starting to look selective and misleading.

Meanwhile, you say you have all these sources. Ok. In fact, the Whitter News source and the SF Gate are the same article! And both are op-ed pieces! Both written originally for a site, truthdig, which a huge partisan agenda. These sources aren't at all independent. It's important to always assume good faith, I realize. But this does not seem right.

The last source you link to, from the Tucson paper, also does not say the loaded things about 'fictions of connections' and 'no solid evidence' etc. To start, it too is not a news article but an opinion piece. Read it--it's full of the writer's opinions about what looks good and bad in Tenet's book, what the lessons are, etc--not news, but opinion. But further, it's hardly an indictment of Feith. The article does write that: "Tenet does report efforts by some members of the Bush administration - primarily Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense officials Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith - to go beyond CIA's judgment about an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida." Ok...but the next paragraph says: "However, even there, Tenet does not say that there wasn't a basis for worry. According to Tenet, the CIA, while not concluding that there was an operational relationship, did believe that there was cause for concern in three areas: "safe haven, contacts and training."" This is equivalent to indicting Feith for talking about Iraq-al Qaeda while there was no solid evidence about any such relationship? As Tenet would say, 'Nonsense.' The Tucson article concludes by saying: "So, based upon what Tenet reports, the unmanipulated intelligence at the time believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that there was a troubling degree of interaction between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida."

So in fact, Froman, none of the articles you link to are legitimate. They don't say what you claim they say, they are not 4 sources but 3, 2 of the 3 are opinion pieces, and at least one of those opinion writers writes for a thoroughly biased website. This is not proper posting. Before, I waited for your response. But it was woefully inadequate, as demonstrated. I'm now reverting back to what was posted some time ago, which stuck to what Tenet did write in his book. I agree with you about the difficulties of context when quoting from the book because we can't quote the whole thing. But all commentators agree that the most relevant\interesting Tenet-Feith info from the book was on Iraq-al Qaeda issues, and it was about these issues that Tenet was quoted in this entry. It doesn't seem that there are context problems then. Bueller 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

* First of all, Buehller must Assume Good Faith. I edit dozens of articles on Wikipedia, and to be accused of dishonesty, by a virtual single-topic editor [10] no less, is laughable.

* Second, the fact that three of the citations are op-ed's does not disqualify them from being used. Re-read WP:RS. WP:RS only requires that the op-ed writer source the primary material to support their statements. Also, if Buehller feels so strongly about op-ed's in this article, then why does he post op-ed's from the Wall Street Journal when it suits him? [11] Buehller's position of "no" on op-ed's that critizice, but "yes" to op-ed's that praise or alleviate is hypocritical.

* Third, In all three cases, the citations Buehller attacks do cite & meet WP:RS, since they are citing Tenet's book, and appear in major publications. Each citation Buehller attacks supports the characterization of Tenet's memoir that the original passage presented:

To wit:

• Citation 1

"Team Feith's main task was to create and maintain the fiction of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden when no solid evidence supported that assertion...The intelligence unit Feith headed set about discrediting the conclusions of every other intelligence operation while cherry-picking evidence to support the invasion of Iraq as a logical response to 9/11." [12]

• Citation 2

"Tenet does report efforts by some members of the Bush administration - primarily Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense officials Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith - to go beyond CIA's judgment about an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida." [13]

• Citation 3

"Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, comes in for a scorching review. To Tenet, no one else in the administration was so captive to the core beliefs of Wolfowitz and other neoconservative thinkers as Feith, to such an extent that he refused to brook any alternative interpretation of events...Tenet also chronicles his battles to keep administration officials from linking Saddam and bin Laden, even though pressure to do so was often great. Tenet writes that on Aug. 15, 2002, Tina Shelton, whom he misidentifies as a naval reservist on Feith’s team, visited the CIA to brief analysts and Tenet on the alleged connection." [14]

As anyone can see, each citation is saying the same thing about Feith's team's work, using Tenet as the anchor citation. To claim otherwise is not supported by the sources. I am replacing the passage for the reasons given above. Abe Froman 14:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It's remarkable that you can reply to me with such a non-response. I'm glad you lay out those places where the articles you link to mention Feith. It becomes clear that you were paraphrasing almost entirely from Robert Scheer, the one who wrote in the SF Gate and, though you claimed it was an additional source, in the Whittier News. His were the words about 'fiction,' 'no evidence' etc.. that went further than the words in Tenet's book in order to support Scheer's admittedly left\progressive perspective on current affairs, Feith included. Tell me Froman how, when attempting to reproduce Tenet's professional criticism of Feith, it's possibly better to rely on the openly biased characterizations of Tenet's words than on Tenet's words themselves? What you're doing does not pass a common sense test. Again, look at all the other professional criticism entries. They quote the person in question, not truthdig articles. Would it be reasonable to start a post-off between Scheer and Charles Krauthammer, then, on Tenet's memoirs? Wouldn't make much sense. But as it is now, this is yet another hilarious part of this Feith entry that clearly slants against him.

Also, just a note: the three sources do not at all say the same thing. Robert Scheer says what Robert Scheer says. The MSNBC line says Feith gets a 'scorching review,' but just for his neocon associations--not news, as we said. It doesn't elaborate on the Iraq-al Qaeda stuff as you claim, with words about invention fictions. And the Tucson article so clearly doesn't support your point. Because as I said in my previous post, which you've clearly largely ignored, the writer's very next line was that while Tenet has some complaints about Feith, he talks a lot about the TRUE and UNMANIPULATED connections between Iraq and al Qaeda with regard to safe haven, contacts and training. By the way, this goes against the Scheer line that no solid evidence supports any Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Anyway...unless we want further posting from bloviating newspaper op-ed writers parsing just what Tenet said and didn't say about Iraq-al Qaeda, we should stick to Tenet's criticisms of Feith, which is how they were posted before.

Also, it's again notable and funny that someone who takes himself so seriously as a contributer has no idea about or interest in encyclopedic content. Nowhere is Feith's own op-ed published in the same way that Robert Scheer's is. Scheer's is taken as an account of fact--and the funny thing is that it's taken as an account of the fact of Tenet's printed criticisms...instead of those printed criticisms themselves! It's comical. So for Froman to say that I'm advocating a 'no' argument on some op-eds and a 'yes' on others is disingenuous, at best.

And Froman, I try very hard in my posts to comment directly on what you've said or posted. I quote heavily, as I did from your post and from the relevant op-eds and news articles to which you linked. Please do me the same courtesy in your responses, because you tend not to, and instead to sweep in broad strokes and ignore much. Thanks. Bueller 16:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Buehller agrees with the information in the citations, they meet WP:RS, as I demonstrated earlier. Expecting the citations to exactly parrot each other is an illegitimate reason to exclude them. The fact that the citations say largely the same thing, three separate times, is proof that the content drawn from them is representative of conventional wisdom. And we are not even talking about Feith himself, we are talking about citations about a book review. Disruptive editing and removal of content from this article, repeated over a course of days, is beginning to meet the definition of WP:POINT. I have no problem with expanding the information gleaned from the citations. Indeed, Feith's very own op-ed responses to Tenet is included in the passage, and has never been removed. Why Feith's op-ed is kosher, and any other is not, stretches Buehller's argument against op-ed's to sophistry. Removing content to fit Buehller's intense personal views on this biographical subject is not in the interest of the article. Abe Froman 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post quote is a good addition. Granted, that's if we already allow for lower standards and are quoting newspapers' characterizations when we have direct words from Tenet, but it's a better source than the op-eds cited elsewhere in the paragraph. They should still be removed. Also, there's a huge difference--more than sophistry, though Froman surely likes the philosophical word--between a truthdig op-ed and Feith's own response to Tenet's book. Anyone who can't see that there is a different in kind between these two 'op-eds' is an unfair observer. It's also convenient for Froman to throw around criticisms like appeals to WP:POINT, but why is it that his actions aren't stubbornness and point-proving? Further, they're dishonest. When he earlier "rewrote some sentences to make it clearer these are Tenet's views" (his words), Froman was making things up. In fact, Tenet never cites the Office of Special Plans in his book. Moreover, Tenet does not write about the total lack of evidence for an Iraq-al Qaeda connection because he supports connections in his own account. Froman's adding of 'According to Tenet' sentence beginnings is dishonest. It is irresponsible, unencyclopedic and point-proving--see WP:POINT--to comment on a criticism of Feith (Tenet's, from his book), without having looked at that book. Bueller 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting Truthdig? The cites were from Think Progress and the Washington Post. If Truth Dig repeats it somewhere, it's immaterial. The direct response to Feith's self-exoneration is germane, it meets WP:RS, and should not have been removed because of personal dislike for the material. I am readding it. Abe Froman 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

On new Tenet-Feith stuff: All sorts of critics dislike what Feith has to say, and what Tenet has to say. Tenet's book was panned all over, by critics on the right and the left. But this wikipedia entry isn't the place for fighting the back and forth on Feith's claims and Tenet's claims that can go on forever. The entry should not go beyond the words of those involved.

Also, this principle aside, the point that the CIA said there were no iraq-al Qaeda ties before the war (and that this has been proven right, as the writer opined), is wrong. Tenet himself wrote a letter to Senator Bob Graham in 2002 [15] saying among other things that "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade" and "Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression" and "We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." This certainly does not support Froman's narrative that there were no ties recognized before the war. It also goes against some things that were in Tenet's book, for those who have read the book, but Tenet omitted this letter from his book conveniently. But, this criticism (the omission of the letter), for another example, is not proper to put into this wiki entry because it's outside the scope of Tenet's criticism and Feith's direct response. So it too should be left out of the entry. Bueller 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Again- The think-tank Think Progress critically responded directly to Feith's self-exoneration. The Washington Post was used to cite its arguments. Both Think Progress and The Washington Post meet WP:RS. Therefore, the passage is germane, meets WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Removing the passage because of personal dislike is not a valid reason to keep the information out. I'll reword the passage and readd it. Abe Froman 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This is beside the point. This entry is not the place for backs-and-forths over Iraq-al Qaeda stuff. Tenet was quoted because he himself criticized Feith, and Feith was quoted because he argued back directly. Outside commentators are immaterial, not because they weren't 'germane' but because they exist on both sides and can be posted ad nauseum. Shouldn't be in this entry. Wikipedia isn't a collection box for political disagreement back and forth. Bueller 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel in should be in this entry, for the reasons already given. Abe Froman 20:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither your feelings nor your reasons already given respond directly to my point that outside critics should be left out because Wikipedia isn't a posting board. This would set a poor precedent for allowing outside commentators to be cited ad nauseum on wikipedia biographical entries. Bueller 20:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you respond, for example, to the point that a. you said that the CIA said there were no iraq-al qaeda ties pre-war. yet b. TEnet's letter to bob graham says the exact opposite. ? Allowing such poor narrative would not be demonstrating encyclopedic accuracy, not even close. Bueller 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not engaging in an argument over whether the CIA is right or wrong vis a vis Mr. Feith. The single sentence User:Buehller has removed 3x is a think-tank's direct response to Feith's exonerating op-ed. The sentence is anchored by the original critic, Think Progress, and the Washington Post. Both Think Progress and The Washington Post meet WP:RS. Therefore, the passage is germane, meets WP:RS, and WP:CITE. I believe User:Buehller's continued activism on this single sentence's removal begs a review of WP:POINT.

Sentence in question: Critics have responded that Feith's attempt at self-exoneration ignores the fact that the CIA was correct in its prewar assessment that "Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq". [16] [17] Abe Froman 21:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Froman, because you are bringing in an outside commentator (which is questionable enough in principle), you've opened an argument over this CIA\Feith Iraq-al Qaeda stuff. The outside source you bring in, by the way, is not 'a think-tank' but 'the blog of a think-tank' (blogs being not normally considered reliable sources). This blog post, acknowledges Tenet's letter to Bob Graham. In that letter, as noted, Tenet talked about "credible information" linking Iraq and al Qaeda. On the other hand, the blog post also links to a CIA assessment which said that there was nothing 'conclusive' known about iraq-Al Qaeda. So what we seem to have here are two contradictory notes from the CIA. But this blog post, from an openly partisan website, explains away the Tenet letter as some sort of quid pro quo with Pres Bush for receiving a medal of freedom. Ok--conceivable, but it's also a conspiracy theory. Hardly reasonable for encyclopedic entries. The blog post's statement that there was no relationship between iraq and al Qaeda is based on this explaining-away of Tenet's Graham letter. This is all too convenient--it is not serious to explain away this letter, an official letter to the head of the Senate Intelligence committee, by saying that Tenet got a medal of freedom so must have been acting dishonestly to serve president Bush. So when you anchor\quote\whatever the blog as saying that there was no relationship, it's not based on any serious scholarly analysis, but on ignoring the Tenet letter based on a conspiracy theory. This is a prime example of why it's not good to bring in outside commentators to wiki entries like this. They're often crap.

I've been asked to comment here but I'm not willing to wade through all the points above. Here's what I can tell you -- Tenet's 2002 statement that there was "solid" evidence of Iraq-AQ ties was bogus, and it contradicted the conclusions of the CIA on the matter (especially the CIA assessments that followed in 2003, 2004, and 2005). Tenet has admitted as much when his book came out, and you can see the CIA assessments cited for yourself in the 2004 and 2006 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reports. The Feith memo is widely considered to be garbage, it reported on raw intel that had not been checked out. At this point in the game there is no single credible source that supports the bogus 2002 claim of Tenet in that letter, and certainly none who supports Feith's assessments of the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. Michael Scheuer, who led the analysis of the CIA knowledge of Iraq-al Qaeda ties, has been definitive on the issue (see his updated book), and Paul Pillar has likewise made categorical statements on the matter. If you want to read what every single intelligence assessment - CIA, DIA, FBI, State Dept intel, as well as Czech, Israeli, French, and Spanish intel - had to say about it, read Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as well as the attached timeline. csloat 23:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment about op-ed sources, I see them in lots of articles. I think they are fine to use, as long as they are properly characterized and attributed in the language of the content, and not presented in Wikipedia's voice. - Crockspot 23:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The comment that 'the' prewar assessments of the CIA were proven correct is far too tendentious to include here, especially as a point that seeks to refute something Feith said. As we have seen and argued all too much, there was not one body of CIA prewar assessments. At some times, like the Tenet October 7 2002 letter, the CIA talked of credible evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that went back a decade. This was in line with what Feith's office said. At other times, as in the reports cited by the Washington Post in the one article linked to, the CIA said that the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship was more murky and their info was inconclusive. So it seems 'the' CIA prewar assessment wasn't even always the CIA prewar assessment, so to speak. It is then inappropriate to ignore some of that prewar work--the Tenet letter, for the best example--and then come back to say that Feith ignores the fact that the CIA was right all along. As we see, there is no such fact. And that Think Progress argues it is so, ignoring the Tenet letter, does not make it so. And the Washington Post article, which also selectively alludes to a skeptical CIA report rather than the Tenet letter--which, mind you, was not some report but was a letter from the Director to the Senator who headed the Intelligence Committee, a really big deal--also doesn't prove that 'the' assessments, as if there was one body of them, were proved right. Bueller 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this leftipedia?

Its obvious that several people writing here have negative opinions of Feith. THey allow it to color the article by adding modifiers like "controversial" to nouns.

Is this article just a discussion page for leftist college students to chat about who they dislike? Or a neutral encyclopedia article? Brittanica does it better!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 12:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Wikipedia political articles have a subtly leftist tone to them, and it is wholly inappropriate for an allegedly objective and informative web site. The posters' political views should not be expressed in the articles they edit. Changes will be coming, beginning with eliminating the unnecessary modifiers in articles such as these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgainstTheMasses (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Being obviously POV does not help you become a better editor. Abe Froman (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly like to concur with the above comments. This type of slander and allegation would never be tolerated on a leftwing politician's page. I have been lectured ad nauseum about BLP considerations and had my contributions disallowed when it concerns a leftist, but conservative figures seem to be fair game. This article is a mess and a disgrace, I barely know where to begin. Its filled with innuendo, slanted arguments, opinion and propaganda links. ThinkProgress as a reliable source? Its a leftist mouthpiece and slandermill. As per usual, I'm sure this will all be disregarded and the distortion of this man's bio will stand. Much agreement with Bueller's points above, and its evident "Froman" has an agenda against this person. 71.100.167.23 (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

This is well trodden territory, just look back in talk. The sources are verifiable. I will remove this tag in a bit if there is no further support for it in Talk. Abe Froman (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page, AgainstthMasses claims that the Washington Post article does not back up the claim that is being made. He is incorrect. The only claim being made citing that source is that Feith "refused to comment on the investigation." The article says "Bryan Whitman, a senior Pentagon spokesman, said that 'it would be inappropriate for the Defense Department to comment on an ongoing Justice Department investigation.'... Feith did not return a call seeking comment yesterday. Franklin, who officials say is cooperating with authorities, has also declined to comment." Perhaps we can quote this directly but it does back up the claim being made (in fact, it is even stronger than what is said in Wikipedia). I am not sure I understand his problem with this section other than that. csloat (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Post problem appears to have been fixed with "not cooperating" replaced with "not commenting." However, I am concerned about using rawstory as a viable source when it openly admits to having a political tilt. Also, the Guardian editorial is expressing speculation about Feith's involvement in some grand AIPAC/Israeli/neoconservative conspiracy to infiltrate the US government. Should Wikipedia be endorsing this position? That hardly seems as though it is following NOPV guidelines, as the Guardian article seems more opinionated than factual. Please advise. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgainstTheMasses (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says what it says. As a Verifiable Source, it is not up to editors to censor things that "seem more opinionated than factual." Let the sources speak for themselves, as long as the editors cite their sources. Abe Froman (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you keep making this assertion about Raw Story's "tilt." If you have evidence that they admitted to a "tilt" in this particular article, please show your evidence rather than just repeating the claim. Thanks. csloat (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I just re-read the Guardian passage you are objecting to. I don't see your point at all. They are quoting a source on the inside, and they are not saying anything all that controversial. This is pretty well-known information -- if anything, the article can be strengthened with more information to support the claim. Do you really believe Feith was unaware of what was happening in his office? Or what is your claim exactly? The more I examine the evidence, the less your objections seem to have substance. csloat (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For info on rawstory, please refer to the wikipedia article on it, it says it all: it's a leftward leaning source. As for the Guardian story, I don't think it matters what I believe or what you believe or what any of the editors here believe, and that is precisely the point. Our own personal beliefs should not be reflected in this article, whether you like the guy, hate the guy, or whatever. That's part of NPOV-not letting your personal beliefs influence your work, particularly in potentially controversial political articles. However, I'm going to try to strike a compromise here that will allow you to keep this material. I'm simply going to point out some information on the sources' political stances. Please review the qualifiers that I include and if you approve, I will have no problem leaving the sources and getting rid of the POV tag. But to take Guardian and Rawstory as pure objective fact, with no POV tag, is not right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgainstTheMasses (talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Douglas J. Feith, not about the Guardian or RawStory, and it is not the place for your theories about those sources' alleged biases. Please do not attempt to poison the well by adding such items to citations from reliable sources. You can read more about verifiability of sources at WP:V; there is no requirement (nor is it even desirable) to insert such personal value judgements every time a source is cited. csloat (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to just conveniently assume that these leftist theories are pure, objective fact, then we have a point of view problem, and the tag stays. Under NPOV guidelines, you cannot inject your own political views into a politically-based article, and doing it in a subtle manner is just as bad, if not worse than doing it in an outright manner. I would like to compromise and resolve this problem, but if you are intent on keeping it exactly how it is with zero changes, then I have an obligation to warn readers that the section does not represent a neutral point of view with a POV tag. I respect both your arguments and am willing to work with you on devising a solution. Again, I am open to suggestions on how we may fix the section, but it does need to change from its current state.

Ok, I just read Abe Froman's talk about how Rawstory cites other sources. If this is the case, can we cite directly to those other sources instead of to a leftist weblog? The POV implications are troublesome when a leftist weblog is the only cited source for a crucial piece of information in this section that says Feith used Franklin for high profile tasks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgainstTheMasses (talk • contribs) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the material you are objecting to. There are no "leftist theories" here; these are objective (as in observable) facts that are reported in reliable sources. Are you suggesting the Guardian made up the interview it reports? Or that the Washington post made up the fact that Feith chose not to respond to requests for comment? These are facts -- either they happened or they did not, and it is not up to us to judge, but simply to report, the Guardian reported _____, etc. If you have a reliable source indicating that these reliable sources are lying, please present your source, or stop making this argument. The POV tag will be removed if you are unable to present a clear argument as to what is POV here and how it should be changed to reach NPOV. All you have suggested so far are ways of censoring this information or of creating a POV problem in this article through well-poisoning -- neither is an acceptable approach. Also, please do not make up facts that are incorrect. RawStory is a verifiable news source with an editorial staff -- not a "leftist weblog." Again, if you have evidence that Feith did not know Franklin, or did not work with Franklin, please present it -- otherwise you are simply whining that you wish certain well-reported facts were otherwise and you think you can have those facts censored by complaining about the source. csloat (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on me to show that Feith is not the centerpiece of this alleged neoconservative/Israeli conspiracy. That's a pretty bold claim to state as fact and the section as it stands, without any qualifier, is taking the obviously biased stories from Rawstory and the Guardian and presenting them as objective fact. I do not intend to delete the material all together, only to add qualifiers to inform the reader of the stances these sources take. I don't understand why that's objectionable, because if you've read other articles on Wikipedia you'll notice that a qualifier is added to describe a source that repeatedly takes a particular stance on an issue. Withholding source qualifiers is just as bad as withholding the information all together. When I added qualifiers before, you were displeased, so I haven't done so again, because I am trying to respect your viewpoint on this issue. But the reader has the right to know if a news source takes a particular stance on an issue, and if this information is deliberately withheld, there is POV. AgainstTheMasses (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to provide counterevidence to the evidence in the article that you are implying is made up. The stories are not "obviously biased" in any way. They state as objective fact what their reporters have learned from their sources (including that such-and-such a source has such-and-such an opinion). This is pretty clear in the material itself, and is perfectly reasonable according to Wikipedia standards. If you add well-poisoning adjectives to this material those adjectives will be deleted, unless you show direct relevance to the material at hand. You have yet to do so. csloat (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

2nd that.Abe Froman (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions by Bueller

Please don't censor sourced and relevant material just because you happen to dislike it. There are plenty of opinions cited in this article as opinions; that is perfectly fine (note we even have sections of praise and criticism explicitly devoted to opinions). It is particularly a POV problem when you only delete those opinions you happen to disagree with. Please don't do it again; thanks! csloat (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Csloat, i was very clear in my comments. i wasn't saying that the Fieth entry should be rid of opinions. i said it should be rid of opinions by random mideast analysts. the praise\criticism sections you mention absolutely present opinions--but of professionals who worked with feith. this standard seems reasonable. but putting in material from any commentator would open the page up to be a posting board for pro and anti feith opinions, which would not be right.

also, your assertion that my deletions were POV is demonstrably false, and betrays your own point of view issues. if i remember correctly, i deleted quotes by two clearly anti-feith analysts (carnegie, and asia times) and one clearly pro-feith (gaffney). all 3 deserved deletion because they don't meet the standard of 'professional' criticism or praise. what is unclear or improper about this? Bueller (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The opinions you deleted were notable and were cited in reliable sources; your deletions are unjustified and I will continue to revert them. These are opinions of noted experts who were cited in reliable sources about a topic they have expertise in; please do not continue to censor them. If you think these citations don't meet some standard of "professional" work, please cite your specific reasons for each quote you would like to delete. csloat (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Again: I am not saying that the experts quoted were not sufficiently 'expert' or 'noted.' i was simply saying that opening up biographical wikipedia entries to the opinions of analysts--experts, whatever--is asking for entries to become worthless political bulletin boards. previously, this whole controversial entry had a reasonable standard: praise and criticism was reserved to people who had had a professional relationship with Feith and commented on it on the record. this made sense, and worked for a long time. now, csloat has introduced a new standard allowing for any expert in any publication anywhere to be included. this would be absurd. at the bottom of the Feith entry are probably 30+ articles and editorials about him. Many are anti-Feith (Justin Raimondo et al) and many are pro-Feith (Thomas Jocelyn et al). It would be counterproductive if we started peppering the wiki entry with the narrated opinions of these people. so, i am again going to delete the quotes of perkovich and gaffney. and i point out again that in doing so, i am deleting both an anti-Feith statement and a pro-Feith statement. there's nothing NPOV about this. i'm upholding the standard of professional criticism\praise, so as not to open the entry up to comment by any analyst anywhere.

I hope my specific points are addressed before this delete is reverted again. Thanks! Bueller (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed your points. You haven't supported your censorship at all. You are making up standards for Wikipedia that you are selectively enforcing on this article without any reference to Wikipedia's actual rules and standards. If you wish to make up new standards for Wikipedia articles, please seek consensus for those standards. You also have not explained these standards -- why are these particular experts invalid whereas the experts cited here already are valid? Why is it invalid to include factual information about what Colin Powell reported to the Bush Administration about Feith? Who decides what constitutes a "professional relationship with Feith" and why is Gaffney's history with Feith invalid under those terms? Why is the Washington Post, Asia Times, or Arab News an invalid source? You are enforcing a standard that you have totally made up and haven't even fully explained yet. I suggest you think about what standard you think should be here, go to WP:V and WP:CITE and WP:BLP and argue your case for those standards on the talk pages, help develop a new consensus for your standard on those pages, and then come to pages like this to enforce the new standard. Otherwise your deletions will continue to look like censorship and will continue to be reverted. csloat (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As part of assuming good faith, Csloat, I'm going to assume that you're simply being a little particular with language. When I talked about 'standards,' I obviously wasn't referring to specific Wiki standards, or else I would have said so. (It happens to be that the Wiki:Verifiability standards talk about 'mainstream' newspapers, so I actually think they would exclude some of the sources linked to in the Feith article, but this is beside the point.) I am talking about standards of reasonableness and common sense. Allow me to lay it out this way: In wikipedia, as in the world, we have to deal with scarcity. Articles are by definition selective. Not all information about a person is posted on their wiki entry. So, selection must happen. And selection takes place based on standards. As you've so nicely pointed out, some of those standards are codified with goofy abbreviations. Others are just standards that come up more organically, as entries develop. An example of this latter type of standard is that those quoted in Feith's article are those who have had professional relationships with him, and have either praised or criticized him on the record. In the case of a public official like Feith, who has been commented on by many journalists and national security analysts, this seems like a reasonable organic standard. The alternative to the standard would be to include the opinions of an infinite number of experts\analysts. This would make for a crazy wiki entry that ignored the necessities of common sense writing and scarce space. So, again, I say that the place for the opinions of people like Perkovich and Gaffney is in links at the bottom of the article, where readers can also find the opinions of other analysts. Within the narrative of the entry on Feith, we should limit the opinions listed to professional colleagues. If not, we are just asking for a post-off between anti- and pro-Feith analysts which would be quite unencyclopedic. Bueller (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Your 3RR violation has been reported; self-revert or you may be blocked by an admin. (2) If you weren't referring to Wikipedia standards when you said "standards," your personal standards have no bearing here. Your personal view of reasonableness seems quite unreasonable to me, so we should default to Wikipedia standards, which are explained here. (3) Your "selectiveness" is unexplained. It boils down to simply deleting anything added by csloat. That is not a standard. (4) Your claim that people quoted here must have a "professional relationship" with Feith is a standard made up out of thin air. It has no bearing on this article. (5) You are not even obeying your own standard. Colin Powell had a relationship with Feith and you are deleting that. So did the sources cited by Asia Times and the Wash Post. So, arguably, did the chief of CEIP. (6) Your claim that the alternative is to cite "infinite" experts is ludicrous. The ones you are deleting are relevant and have been cited by reliable sources making claims that can be sourced to numerous places. They are not fringe voices at all. (7) I warned you about the 3RR on your talk page and here; I expect to see you self-revert your deletions within the next couple hours. csloat (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(1) Ok. this procedural threat is beside the point of our disagreement. (2)You haven't explained anything about your disagreements with my view of reasonableness. I'm not claiming status as any all-powerful wikigod, but I'm trying to understand and lay out the basis for inserting information. Tell me, Csloat: Why do William Cohen and Donald Rumsfeld have long bios without any quotes representing the opinion of outside pundits? Why has the Feith article gone years without pundit\analyst opinion? Why have its criticisms and praises been limited to professional colleagues speaking on the record? Is it because no outside commentators criticized\praised Cohen and Rumsfeld? Impossible. Is it because wiki editors realized that introducing a standard whereby any outside commentator's opinion is relevant in a biographical entry would be absurd? I think so. (3) My selectiveness is clearly explained. It has to do with selecting praise\criticism from colleagues of Feith, so that we don't run the risk of dealing with an entry full of pundits' opinions. (4) I haven't invented this standard; I deduced that it's been the standard for years, as the Feith entry has shown. (5) Of course Powell had a relationship with Feith. But there's a big difference between the already-existing Powell statements on Feith, and the one recently added. The preexisting ones were on the record statements he made in prominent places--to Bob Woodward and at a press conference. The newly added 'criticism' is an assertion made by an unknown writer in a barely-known publication, and it does not quote Powell. You cannot tell me that this is of the same quality as the previous Powell opinions. (6) I'm not saying that this will necessarily introduce Fringe voices. But the page can still be ruined if perfectly mainstream pundits--like all of those listed at the bottom, from Maureen Dowd to Thomas Jocelyn--have their opinions added into the entry as if they are sufficiently important. (7) See (1). Please wait to re-add controversial information to the entry until the matter is resolved here. Bueller (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(1)You still have not reverted yourself; please do so forthwith. (2)I have explained. You have not explained why your silly standard is "reasonable"! It is not. You just made it up out of thin air and your enforcement of it is selective to the point of abusiveness. (3) The people quoted are not "pundits." They are experts with specific expertise on this topic (and at least one of them - perhaps three - meet your own standard yet you are censoring them anyway!) (4) This is not about Cohen or Rumsfeld; if you have problems with those pages go there. (5) Your selectiveness is not clearly explained to anyone but yourself. (6) The newly added material is not an assertion; it comes from the State Dept - if you have a problem with the source even though it meets WP:RS, find another source. It is easily found given that we have a date on it. (7) Thomas Jocelyn is not mainstream, and I'm not debating you over his quotes or Dowd's quotes, so your comment is irrelevant (and you seem intelligent enough to know that) (8) This material is not controversial. (9) Please show good faith and an intention to obey the rules by self-reverting your abusive censorship. Thank you. csloat (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the changes by user "Bueller" and I would just like to say I agree with his assessment. This article is becoming a hobby-horse upon which to hang any negative quote, article or opinion piece on Feith is being dredged up and tacked on. Its extremely unencyclopedic. In my opinion, the article should stick to historical facts that are _manifestly true_, such as the fact he served in the Bush administration, under which bureau, some of his acts and accomplishments there etc. All this subterfuge smacks of character assassination by editors out to paint this man in a negative fashion. You can dig up negative articles on nearly any public figure, that doesn't make them encyclopedic nor scholarly. 71.100.167.23 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically: WHY are the Colin Powell and Hayden comments in the article? Both men DENY criticizing Feith and praise his work. Hayden says directly that Levin mischaracterized his words and he has no bad opinions of Feith. If no one has a good answer, I will remove them. 71.100.167.23 (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they were well-reported in reliable sources and are a large part of the public discourse about Feith. If you know of other information about these figures' assessments of Feith, please feel free to bring that information out too, but don't delete well-sourced information that was widely publicized just because it happens to be critical of someone you admire. csloat (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In the citations listed both men CLEARLY refute the criticism and instead offer glowing praise for Feith! The only criticism leveled is hearsay or just out of thin air. If you are going to include criticism, it has to be based on fact. Powell VERY CLEARLY STATES he did not say what was attributed to him, and that in fact THAT ATTRIBUTED TO HIM IS NOT, in fact, HIS OPINION. So why is it included. I remain unconvinced. Where are the high BLP standards applied to bios of say, Glenn Greenwald's bio, which is scrupulously kept clear of ANY and ALL criticism of his sockpuppet behavior? Disgusting bias here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.167.23 (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice you reinserted this scurrilous material without addressing my points. The Colin Powell quotes should be in the _praise_ section if anything. You are repeating a quote Powell denies making, and he instead offers an opinion publicly that is diametrically opposite of the assertion in the false quote. Why are you choosing to give credence to the quote Powell denies and disbelieve his direct praise of Feith and disowning of the false quote? Why is the false quote included at all, since Powell denies it and offers, freely, a positive assessment of Feith. The only reason to include and give play to the false, disowned quote is to smear Feith unfairly. Yes, Powell is a major figure. And he praises Feith without reservation and denies the quote you use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.4.133 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Viceroy" Jay Garner

While I agree that this term is used correctly in the traditional sense of the word, and the modern military slang/jargon of CPA Authority or whatever is indeed weasel words, isn't it just as weasel-wordy to apply a term that usually applies to a specifically permanent military occupation (for instance, Napoleon's stepson was Viceroy of Italy.) to this one? Seems a bit contra-NPOV to me. I'll let somebody else make the call on that one, though. Ender78 (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Negative comments

I have removed several sections of the "Criticism" section which are merely individuals saying derogatory things about Feith, without citing actual 4vents. Come on now people, are we going to fill the bio page of every politician or public servant with salacious quotes and people saying bad things about them? Let's stick to facts and events in the career of the guy, not ad hominem attacks and quotes defaming the guy, by some minor functionary. How in the world does this add to the informative value of the article because someone calls him arrogant? I seriously question the intent of some editors who seem just out to smear Feith, not make a serious informative article. 64.27.4.133 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Colin Powell "a minor functionary"? Or the former Viceroy of Iraq, General Jay Garner. It's astonishingly rare for this kind of blunt criticism to be made such people; when it is made, it's notable and worth citing. If these were isolated comments, one could make an argument that they weren't important. But in fact they echo other statements, by less important people (so I won't put those back in, but they still offer confirmation) that there is considerable controversy - and thus importance - on the issue of exactly how intelligent - or perhaps "wise" would be a better word - Feith really is. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is fascinating. The week Feith appears on 60 minutes supporting torture and blaming everyone but himself for the failures of the Iraq war, and promoting his new book of course, anon ips appear on Wikipedia not to add something newsworthy about his book or his sometimes startling comments, but rather to delete well-sourced, well-publicized (and, frankly, generally accurate) criticism from major public figures. Bizarre. csloat (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are merely digging up negative quotes, some anonymously sourced, some from partisan sources, to defame and smear Feith. These quotes add nothing to the informational value of the article and smack of partisan hit jobs. Are we to burden the Democrat nominees for president with every negative remark someone has made about them? It would entail page upon page. Collecting negative quotes, especially thinly sourced as some of these are, is not helpful nor informational, it is merely a vendetta to make partisan points about a member of an Admin with which left wingers detest. This should have no place in Wikipedia. I agree with Bueller's assertion that this material should be removed and back his determination that this material is inappropriate. That is why I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.4.133 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not digging up anything; I am restoring well-sourced material that you are deleting. Feith was a controversial figure for good reason; there is no need to sugar coat that. Hayden said what he said; if you want to include a quote from him backtracking later, go for it, same with Powell. This is not about "burdening" the page with "every negative remark" -- these were well-publicized remarks discussed by prominent officials and reliable media sources. This is not about left and right wing, and it is not about "Bueller." csloat (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, anon, you are completely wrong about Gen. Hayden -- his testimony was videotaped and while he may have backpedaled later on, which you are welcome to quote, there is no question he said what he said. Now please stop censoring stuff on this page. csloat (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

removing material that does not mention Feith

The highly distorted and partisan descriptions of the Robb and Senate reports do not discuss Feith. This is a biography. If they mention Feith specifically somewhere we can use it; otherwise that material should be removed. If we do leave it in for some reason, we should include more balanced reporting of what was included in the reports (including several statements that directly contradict the partisan description included by editor Calidan). We should also put this stuff in context. The way it is mentioned now is completely non sequitur here so it should be removed. csloat (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A reading of the reports shows that names are not used; rather, descriptions of governmental positions and offices are. And Feith's Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy is mentioned throughout. It's quite ironic that in the 'accusations and refutations' section of this article, there are many references to investigations of and pertaining to Feith. Yet when those investigations turn out to exonerate him, though, they are considered non sequitur and removed. Everything in this section means verifiability standards, and the deletion reeks of partisanship. Calldan (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're using this article to answer charges against Feith that are not even made in this article at all. And neither report mentions Feith or his office -- see this article, which notes in part: "neither the Robb-Silberman report nor the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar Iraq intelligence exonerated Feith. Indeed, the Robb-Silberman report does not mention either Feith or the Office of Special Plans. As for the Senate Intelligence Committee, The New York Times reported on October 22, 2004, that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) had issued his own report (pdf) accusing Feith of establishing "a non-Intelligence Community source of intelligence analysis" because Senate Republicans had prevented the Senate Intelligence Committee from assessing Feith's role in intelligence operations leading up to the war." You mention investigations that are mentioned throughout the article and claim that you are showing that those investigations exonerate him -- that is manifestly false. Nowhere in the article does it state that the investigations were conducted by Robb, Silberman, or the SSCI. You're adding a non sequitur to the article in order to make some kind of partisan point and then accusing your opponents of partisanship -- bizarre. csloat (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Condoleeza Rice Section

A partisan newsletter quotes an anonymous source. This is not a valid source, and it expressly against BLP rules. And, as such, I need no discussion to remove it, and I will continue to remove it. On another article (coincidentally concerning a leftist Democrat) the exact same standard was applied to unilaterally remove content. I am following that precedent.

The Powell comment is denied by Powell, therefore the inclusion is slanderous, biased and a smear, against BLP and is also removed, and will continue to be removed. You cannot slander people with thinly sourced lies that are denied by the original source and backed up by hearsay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.4.133 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The 3RR applies to you whether you use different IPs or not. I think this page should be semi-protected so only individuals with login ids can edit, at least until the relentless near-vandalism stops. If you have serious thoughts about improving this page, we'd like to hear them, but your approach the last couple of days has not been helpful. csloat (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable sources reported Rice and Powell saying these quotes. It seems tendentious to me to exclude them because they later, allegedly, had a change of heart. Abe Froman (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no change of heart. The Rice quote is anonymously alleged, and reported by a left wing partisan newsletter. No reputable outlet reported it. Its a salacious quote to begin with, and has zero value unless you are trying to smear Feith and give the impression Rice thought he was an Israel shill. You offer zero evidence this is true other than an anonymous quote. Its a disgrace that this article has been highjacked by partisans who obviously detest Feith and drag up innuendo and thinly sourced slanders and their perfidy is protected by leftist moderators. Colin Powell denies the ugly assertion in the Woodward book. I've skimmed articles about Democrat cabinet and bureaucratic veterans: you don't find these smear jobs there. This should be an even-handed biography of real events and provable and well-reported incidents. Both the Powell and Rice incidents don't meet that test, and to boot they are irrelevant and only included to smear the man's reputation, not to inform people on his life. The other "criticisms" are equally detestable and thinly sourced, and seem to be chosen for their prurient value, as to see who could insult Feith in the most vulgar terms, and the quotes chosen for that reason alone, not for their value into the man. I tried rewriting and compromising, as I see Bueller and others did: people like Froman and csolat refuse to cede one nasty, thinly sourced quote in an effort to bias the article. They even complain about a neutrality notation on the article. They want their worldview and smear of the guy fully represented and not an iota changed. This is not how wikipedia is supposed to work. This article is a disgrace. The entire "criticism" section should be rewritten in a scholarly manner with proper references, all scurrilous and slanderous material removed and only well-sourced and relevant material included. The "praise" section is equally useless, and only included as a sop so that the haters can get in as many digs as they can and still try to appear "balanced", although I notice the criticism is 2x as large and sourced by writers with no corroboration. Shameful display. And what about "no name calling" when Froman has a huge section right here calling anyone attempting to introduce fairness a "whitewasher". Its ok to make personal attacks if you are a leftist, it seems. Its ok to violate BLP when you have a leftist worldview attacking Bush admin officials. All rules and decorum go out the door when in the service of smearing conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.196.85 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Conservative is "a left wing partisan newsletter"? Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the long-running Washington newsletter, The Nelson Report, edited by Christopher Nelson, quoting an anonymous source, Feith was standing in for Rumsfeld at a 2003 interagency 'Principals' Meeting' debating the Middle East, and ended his remarks on behalf of the Pentagon. Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said, "Thanks Doug, but when we want the Israeli position we'll invite the ambassador."[22][23]

Where, exactly, do you see the American Conservative. I clearly labeled it "Condoleeza Rice section" and addressed the Criticism section.

This is just the first objectionable section. First, its anonymously sourced. 2nd, its only sourced by a partisan NEWSLETTER, which is a propaganda hack used to pump out left wing talking points. Its like using one of those Ron Paul newsletters to prove that blacks and Jews are inferior to whites, look it says so right in the newsletter! Lastly, even if properly sourced and from a legit news organization, exactly how does this elucidate Feith's bio? What information does it give us? Its only raison d' etre is to smear Feith. _IF_ it is accurate, and we have zero way of confirming that since its anonymous and not backed up by anyone, what is its value? It may have been a joke. It may have never happened at all. But what does it tell us? Are you averring, by this little smear, that Condoleeza Rice considered Feith a shill for Israel? If she did, why can't you back it up with a bit more than this. This is filed under "Criticisms of Feith". It does not qualify. This is not a criticism, we don't know what it is, if anything. This is my point, quote miners like Forman just seem to be stacking any negative quote they can find about Feith on the article, regardless whether or not it illuminates the article or offers valid information. I present to you that it does not, and certainly not pertinent enough information to ignore the ban on using anonymously sourced slanders in BLP. This is just the first objection I have. This should be removed for all the reasons above, then I'd like to move along to the Powell quote, which is a vicious smear on both Powell and Feith and is denied by Powell. He had no change of heart, He says he never said it and in fact believes 180 degrees the opposite of what Woodward claims. The only reason for its inclusion can be the sensationalist inclusion of accusing a Jew who supports Israel of acting like a Nazi. Its a despicable smear, thinly sourced and of no biographical value and adds no understanding nor information to the career or Douglass Feith.

I further have arguments against some of the very vulgar and salacious quotes used further down, which I also consider have been chosen for their shock value and disgusting smear potential. Using quotes like calling him "the dumbest motherfucker on the planet" offers nothing but the proof that the contributors have only nefarious and mendacious intent and a vendetta to smear Feith, evident by the writings of Forman above where he accuses anyone who disagrees with his thinly sourced smears as being a Whitewasher, personally attacking editors contrary to rules. He forfeits any consideration of good faith when he evinces a personal interest in smearing someone he admits to disliking and obsessively smearing. All his contributions should be suspect by this very fact.

He hounded the fair and compromising editor Bueller until he gave up on the article and allowed every smear to stand. Now he attempting to do the same with me and other editors, with the collusion of leftist moderators who completely ignore BLP rules and allow unfair and unencyclopedic content and lock the article to ensure its inclusion.

This is unfair and against wikipedia interests and rules. I have protested and get nothing but cant and snark and misdirection (see Gameliel's post above).

UPDATE: HERE. What you are doing is called "Coatracking:" here is a parallel case that explains it exactly:

The article on Feith is dominated by two subjects: Feith's views on various issues ("Views and positions" section) and other people's views on Feith ("Praise, criticism and controversy" section). Both these sections comprise the bulk of the article, each of them easily outweighing the section with biographical information, so that right now the article is not biography, but a collection of quotes, either for Feith or aganist Feith. The article thus suffers from serious WP:COAT problems, which probably put it in violation of WP:BLP as well. The easiest solution would be to: 1. Cut sections "Views and positions" and "Praise, criticism and controversy" to only those views held by Feith and comments about Feith that clearly add to his notability.

here is the relevant paragraph: "But it's true!" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COAT

The contents of a coatrack article can be superficially true. However, the mere excessive volume of the bias subject creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful. When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?

If an article about a journalist mostly describes a conspiracy article he once wrote, the reader will leave the article with the false impression that the journalist's career is mostly about that conspiracy theory, and he is a vocal advocate of the theory.

An article might have a disproportionately large "criticism" section, giving the impression that the nominal subject is hotly contested by many people, when in fact the criticism is merely selected opinions and the section creates an artificial controversy. This, too, gives the reader a false impression about reality even though the details may be true.

The coats hanging from the rack hide the rack — the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject. Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject.

My bolding. This is the exact issue about which I have been on about. I knew it was correct to protest this very flawed article and some research has shown me exactly that this is not a valid way to offer a bio of a public figure. I propose we condense the "criticism" and the "praise" section and eliminate superfluous flummery and content that does not directly impact upon Feith's career and his notability and in fact get rid of all hearsay and tangential remarks and quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.196.85 (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 66.96.196.85 (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you have citations to information such as the above that you think should be in the article and isn't, please indicate the citation and the specific claim. Your rant about how certain documented quotes are "ugly," "salacious," "slanderous", "vulgar," etc., is just not that useful to anybody here. You are welcome to your opinion, but if you don't have any specific evidence you think should be added to the article, you are just wasting our time. Please do not remove well documented information from this article, even if it contradicts your opinion of Feith. There is really not even anything that unusual about the criticism in question; it is quite consistent with what many academics have written (which should also be included in this article but is not at this time) as well as with what is well known about him. If Powell or Rice backpedaled on their criticism, we can print that too (and I believe that we already do in Powell's case), but there is no denying that this has been printed by extremely credible sources. In Rice's case it has also been reported in the right wing magazine American Conservative (link), so this idea that it is some sort of left wing fabrication is hogwash. And there is no way Woodward would make up the Powell quote; I understand that Powell probably regrets saying it, but that does not change the fact that he probably said it (perhaps woodward heard him use a word that rhymes with Gestapo? Red Taco??) or that (more importantly) it clearly reflects an idea that was openly discussed at the State Dept - you're not denying that Wilkerson at least clearly stated and has not expressed misgivings about stating his worries that Feith's primary loyalty may be to another country. You can call this coatracking if you want but these statements are not at all unusual in the public discourse about Feith -- there could easily be several pages of criticism from well respected and authoritative sources that we have left out at this point; almost all of the sources quoted are people close to Feith who have good reason politically to say positive rather than negative things about him, yet chose to criticize certain aspects of what he has done anyway. In any case, if you think there is important information about Feith that is not in the article, by all means share it with us. You have not as of yet. csloat (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Your conduct here invites snark, but the question was genuine. I see now that you were complaining about the Nelson Report and not the American Conservative. Perhaps if your rants had more content and less invective they might be more clearly understood. You offer no reason for us to reject the reporting of the Nelson Report beyond your loudly-voiced assertion that we should do so, and that is hardly enough, especially when outfits like the American Conservative (who, if the Nelson Report is what you claim it is, should have rejected the story out of hand) and the Inter News Service accept it.

Feith's criticism section is not disproportionately large. Feith has simply received a disproportionately large amount of criticism. When the commander of CENTCOM calls a person "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet", that is extraordinary criticism and should be reported. If it was some blogger saying that, I would agree that we should not report it, but you wish to delete widely-reported criticism, and that simply is not acceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Shorter Gamaliel: Shut up and quit trying to inject fairness or sense into our bashfest and leave the article like it is. We see no reason to compromise when we have the block/ban/revert buttons and you have nothing but reason and good sense. The "coatrack" argument exactly fits here and there is no reason to have all that "criticism" other than you have constructed a bashfest about Douglas Feith and you are not about to let anyone alter it. This article is disgrace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.167.23 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

So Beuller and everyone else with objections to anonymous and poor sourcing in this article is wrong and Abe Froman is just absolutely right and there is not one iota of validity to any objections and not a single word of a single contribution Froman made can be changed, so all BLP rules and "coatracking" guidelines are completely disregarded and the article is locked to ensure that St. Froman's infallible holy edits are preserved and no one can change them or in any way add their own contributions nor take away from his. So much for good faith, consensus, cooperation, following guidelines and the honor and honesty and unbiased moderating of the admins. All that is a myth and a steaming pile when it comes down to any article dealing with conservatives or liberals and the cadre of politically motivated moderators and contributors that controls Wikipedia and bends the rules to slime conservatives and protects liberals from any criticism. Hypocritical is what I call the locking and refusal to debate or arrive at consensus in this article, why is there even a pretence at fairness?74.63.75.130 (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not been active in the discussion regarding the Feith page recently. Like many impartial observers, I struggle to collect a balanced portrait of Feith that falls neither too left nor right, but travels down the middle of published notable sources. I know of only one source who has done a better job than Wikipedia has. [18] Abe Froman (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How are you impartial when you only add negative information, thinly and biasedly sourced, refuse to compromise with reasonable changes in language and removal of some of the least reliable and more slanderous and unfair sections? You can afford to be equinanimous, none of your additions are allowed to be altered, none of your additions are permitted to be altered, no one else's interpretation is allowed to temper the very negative and unfair characterization of this man. I can see how you look at your own creation and pronounce it good. You even have compliant mods who will lock the page to preserve all your pet partisan points. As said above, you are just absolutely right and Beuller and everyone else is just absolutely wrong, on every single issue, on ever single entry. The point about "coat-racking" is irrefutable. This article exists only to hang as many libels of Doug Feith as partisan editors can dredge up, no matter if they are anonymously sourced or not. Its against BLP and any fair-minded Mod would remove at least 2 of those very poor sources and quotes. 71.100.167.23 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Its also expressly against guidelines to sneak in disallowed links in the discussion section, as Froman has done with his YouTube propaganda link above, but as evidenced throughout this page, the rules don't seem to be applied to Froman. Why don't you just go whole hog and add it to Feith's main page? There are plenty of unencyclopedic sources there now and no admin seems to have a problem with any link, anonymous, left wing, blogs, whatever you care to use seems to be fair game for Froman. 71.100.167.23 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, a Rick Astley video is a "YouTube propaganda link"? Left wing propaganda, presumably? I can't find it on youtube unfortunately, but would you feel better if I find a link to the video for the Wonderstuff song "Astley in a Noose"? csloat (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is the definitive source of information on Douglas Feith. Gamaliel (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

feith's book

In April 2008 Feith's detailed, footnoted, fact-based book replete with names and dates was published. The title is War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism. Agree or disagree with Feith, this book will be a teasure trove for future historians, because it is not vague, conclusory or non-specific as to who said and did what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.103.14 (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete the section from the WaPo article about Feith's book unless that article has been retracted in some way. Or, if you have the book and would like to include the information directly from the book as it relates here please add it - but there is no reason to delete notable and well-sourced content. The WaPo article was important in its own right, and the specific material published here -- Feith's criticism of the war handling and his rationale for supporting Saddam's overthrow in spite of the lack of WMD -- was newsworthy for good reason at the time and certainly merits consideration here. csloat (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on all the merits of the WaPo information; but it appears verbatim on Feith's book's page, which is linked from his bio page. It doesn't make sense to have only the WaPo information on his bio page, while there is ~8x that much information on the book page. Unless we're going to import all the book page information to the bio page, which is not a desirable or recommended wiki practice. Enyce2308 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)