Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Libby knew CIA spy by name before it was published

Interesting:

Handwritten notes taken by the CIA show Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide knew the name of CIA spy Valerie Plame Wilson a month before her cover was blown.[1] Nomen Nescio 23:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon user edit war

We've got a new edit war started by 68.39.117.39 (talk · contribs), also using the ip 12.150.11.25 (talk · contribs). This user refuses to explain anything in talk or in the edit summaries but simply makes the changes without discussion. I have already reverted him but he keeps coming back. He is editing like this on several pages -- Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson, and Valerie Plame. I've asked him to stop on the 68.39.117.39 user talk page.--csloat 02:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasparoff 02:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Apologies for previous bad behavior, I have now read the rules. csloat continues to avoid NPOV and put biased POV comments and articles on the above 4 pages. Even his comments in Plame affair talk shows his lack of neutrality on this issue, 'Cheney to Fitzgerald: "Want to go quail hunting this weekend?"-csloat 22:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) '

I attempted to remove the biased POV editorial by the Boston Globe, which is all opinion and no fact. I'm not sure why the belongs on these pages and not the news articles and gov't reports I posted, including but not limited to: The Duelfer Report, The Butler Report, The WaPo, The WaTimes, PBS' 'Capitol Report' show, Senate Intel Committee Reports, The Financial Times, among others.

In addition, all *factual* articles and newslinks I posted, with citation, that show where Joseph Wilson lied, backtracked, retracted earlier comments, or 'mis-spoke,' were deleted. I attempted to add/edit the above sources into the relevant sections of the above 4 pages, but csloat wilfully deleted my changes each time. It is against wiki policy and spirit to remove posts which add factual discussion to the topic at hand and are properly cited. I apologize again, for not knowing the 3RR rule.

I am happy to repost commentary tomorrow on those pages, without other edits, and leaving the blatant editorializing of the Boston Globe editorial [funny how that works] be for now. That, at a minimum, does not belong and it is a disgrace to remove quotes from the above news sources and leave that be.

csloat---back to you. Oh, by the way, there are no personal attacks on you at all in what I wrote - there are comments on your actions and words, I have not resorted to name-calling or anything of the sort. Best.

Please stop repeating yourself. My jokes about Cheney were not entered into articles as you are well aware. Do not simply delete editorials because they are editorials. As long as they clearly are indicated as such, this is not a POV issue. Please see WP:V and WP:NPOV for details. Thanks.--csloat 23:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Boston Globe Editorial

The Boston Globe also editorialized: ".... Such betrayals might have been expected in the Cold War. They should not occur because political operatives in the White House want to tarnish the reputation of a critic or settle scores with a CIA they may regard as too reluctant to tailor its analyses to the talking points of a vice president or a president."[2]

This is all unverifiable opinion, as such it does not belong on the main page. There is no proof that anyone in the WH wanted to 'settle scores' with the CIA, much less the PotUS or VP. When there is proof or testimony to such, put those facts in not this overly biased and pusillanimous jumble.

If we can all put editorials from any newspaper we want, Wiki will become useless. I am happy to put the above to dispute resolution if there is a disagreement, but it does not belong on the main page.

We already can put whatever editorials in that we want and Wikipedia is not useless. Please stop deleting sourced material just because it represents an opinion. If you have counter-opnions to add from recognized sources feel free but do not just delete stuff you don't like. I notice you only delete opinions and editorials that you disagree with. Please stop this nonsense.--csloat 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kasparoff/Geomason - again, I must ask you to please stop the nonsense. Thanks.--csloat 18:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Label

why is this label on this article? there haven't been many significant edits lately, so we should work on how to better this article now so the label can be removed. any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 19:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

it should be removed and only be used when someone has a specific NPOV problem. Preferably it should only be used for sections that can be improved for NPOV.--csloat 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

unless someone has a specific complaint, i vote to remove the label. i think this article is neutral. Anthonymendoza 13:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Novak's article

From Novak's article today, " I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America." Ouch! Sounds like Wilson may have committed libelous actions against Rove. Novak's article Scribner 18:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a logical conclusion; the Who's Who in America entry does not mention anything about his wife's employer or employment. "Valerie Plame" is the maiden name of Wilson's wife, who has used the name "Valerie E. Wilson" since their 1998 marriage. The entry gives her maiden name, as is customary: "[So-and-so] married the [former] [So-and-so]." See the revised note in the first paragraph of the article. (For other W users, I corrected the misspelling of "Novak" in the above comment, and added the Wikified link to his name; the primary source for his article is given in the notes and references.) --NYScholar 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to Ref

I am chan[g]ing the html links to refs. Still working on one more section. -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Extensive cleanup in progress

Over the past several days, I've done extensive further cleaning up of this article (It really needed to have a cleanup tag on it, given all that had to be fixed). The notes section still needs some further cleaning up, missing source citations are still needed in some places. If considering adding any controversial material, please post it on the talk page first for discussion, and please do not use numbered external links instead of full citations. Checking and verifying sources are essential according to WP:BLP prior to putting material in such articles. (See the tag at the top of this page for links to related policies; esp. see WP:Cite, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability, as well as the others provided. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

i'm sure everyone who has contributed to this page is grateful you've taken on the task of cleaning it up. thanks! however, i feel you've added alot of editorializing. for example, the following paragraph appears to be your own analysis:

That explanation clarifies the central issue: the central issue is not merely whether or not Mrs. Wilson was a NOC at the time that her employment with the CIA was revealed publicly; the issue is, more importantly, how the revelation of someone who at any time was a NOC and might again be a NOC or any kind of covert agent affects that intelligence agency employee's ability to protect herself and her sources and to be active in such a position at any time again in the future; protecting such a CIA employee's past, present, and/or future "cover" is thus not only a matter of her own personal security, but it is a matter of ongoing national security.

an anonymous editor removed it. i hope you don't plan on reverting. i only mean this as constructive criticism and hope you don't take offense to it. Anthonymendoza 01:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the appreciative comment. For your further information: I didn't regard what I wrote as my "POV." It was a logical deductive summary of material already cited and documented in the references in notes and quotations in the text. Please re-read the deleted passage in the context of the sources as quoted in the text and in the notes. The deletion of the passage does not damage the article, but, for the record, I still think that the passage helped to clarify the issues debated by the sources cited and quoted in a summary manner. Personally, I have no particular POV on this subject. As a Wikipedia editor, I simply was and am trying to maintain adherence to WP:NPOV throughout this article. Its earlier lack of neutrality of point of view is questioned in my comments in various places throughout the editing (cf. the article on Joseph C. Wilson, where similar problems occurred/occur at times particularly when anonymous editors throw in material without reading the whole article or the talk page or despite reading them). --NYScholar 03:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning of special prosecutor

Cut from article:

• Clearly, Fitzgerald would not have permitted Armitage to identify himself publicly unless he was certain that doing so would not compromise the federal investigation or Libby's future trial in any way, as these matters involving Mrs. Wilson proceed through the courts.

This makes sense to me, but I don't think it is "encylopedic". Especially on such a controversial subject.

We should attribute this conclusion to a verifiable source. --Uncle Ed 19:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The "conclusion" is simply a summary statement deduced from quotations and references already cited in the text and notes. I suggest that you read the material as cited more thoroughly so that you can follow the logic of the sentence. It was merely a deduction from earlier material in the text, not a "POV." The article was "rife with POV statements" (not like the one I contributed as a summary) which have been corrected over many hours of editing. See my subsequent comment below as well and this full talk page, espec. the preceding section.--NYScholar 03:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

doesn't make sense to me, but this article is now rife with POV statements like the one you cut. so much so that the POV tag may be in order. I would hope someone with a fair minded view on the topic would go over the edits made by nyscholar. i don't have the time anymore to edit extensively on wikipedia, and frankly, i really am tired of debating valerie plame. anyone care to tackle this page?Anthonymendoza 19:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See previous section; as a fair-minded person, with no particular POV on this subject, I spent a great deal of time and trouble deleting highly-biased and unsupported statements and unreliable sources from earlier versions of this article; I supplied citations, quotations, and references to reliable sources (WP:Reliable Sources) throughout. If you "don't have the time anymore to edit extensively on wikipedia," I suggest that you refrain from taking the time to disparage the contributions of others without any evidence to support your disparaging remarks. --NYScholar 03:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

since her role was classified, there still is alot we don't know. it's best to just lay out the facts and not come to any deductions. Anthonymendoza 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The "deduction" is not about her; it is a summary statement about the prosecutor's willingness to state what he does or does not state. That is based on "the facts" of prosecutorial discretion; it has nothing to do with facts about Plame's specific status at all. You need to re-read the paragraphs relating to the statement before commenting further. I don't think that you understand what the deleted sentence was originally referring to. It's been quoted out of context in this section of this talk page. Return to the history and examine the original context (including notes).--NYScholar 20:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Most "deductions," if challenged, fail under Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. To quote the relevant section:

“ Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. ”

See here. Thanks, TheronJ 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure the deduction is germane to the article -- Fitzgerald has an ethical obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to Libby regardless of whether he permitted Armitage to go public, so I'm not sure what his consent to the public disclosure has to do with the Libby trial. TheronJ 20:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I really suggest that people read the sources already cited in full. I don't know what "his consent to the public" means in the above comment by TheronJ. That comment makes no sense to me at all. Most sensible people know that prosecutors do not disclose information in public that will harm ongoing investigations and upcoming trials. That is simply common sense, not "original research." I have not, however, restored the deleted sentence. Anyone with any sense can understand the point I made originally. I no longer need to make it in the article. It's already clearly made by Fitzgerald himself in the quotations from his press conference that I've added instead. --NYScholar 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[Deleted inappropriate postings: WP:BLP: see talk page guidelines in notices above. This is not a message board. --NYScholar 22:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)]

Removal of information from the article

To other editors: Please stop removing sourced information from this article. I have restored the information removed. If one does not understand the distinctions between "diplomatic cover" and "NOC" (Non-official cover) status, one has not read the material already cited in various notes and references given throughout the article. Johnson makes very clear the distinctions between these types of cover: "diplomatic cover" is a kind of "official cover"; "NOC" is the opposite: "non-official cover." He and others explain the dangers to NOCs that are not applicable to those with diplomatic cover. Later in the section on "Career," sources cited say that Valerie Plame's NOC status began in the "early 90s"; the embassy address cited by Crewdson is also given vaguely as "early 90s"; clearly, it is possible that Valerie Plame could have used the embassy address ("official" or "diplomatic cover") still in the early 90s but prior to becoming a NOC. The exact dates are not known to the public. Her prior CIA status is still classified. Until it is declassified (possibly after Libby's trial concludes, if ever), or detailed chronologically in her own autobiography, the precise dates are still unknown and, therefore, all those unidentified anonymous former CIA agents who speculate that she could not have been a NOC while identified w/ an Embassy address are doing just that: speculating. They are not taking into account that she could have possibly not been a NOC at the time of the address and have become a NOC after using it (Crewdson himself states as much--see bolded sentence quoted below). Early 90s can be any date between 1990 and 1995. She could have used the address in 1990-1991, e.g., become a NOC in 1991, 1992, 1993, or 1994, and the address could still have been on record but not used by her at some point between 1993 and 1994 (e.g.). Crewdson does not specify dates in the "early 90s"; there is a five-year period during which Valerie Plame's cover status could have been re-defined. He does state, moreover: "After Plame left her diplomatic post and joined Brewster-Jennings, she became what is known in CIA parlance as an [sic] 'NOC,' shorthand for an intelligence officer working under 'non-official cover.'" (bold print added for emphasis)

The article also cites her husband Joe Wilson as saying that she had already worked for the CIA in her (then current classified) undercover status for "close to twenty years" when she was "outed" by Novak in 2003 ("the job she's been doing for close to 20 years"--part of reply to Wolf Blitzer, as cited in article); possibly from around 1984 to 2003. (Another key point--pertinent to the Wilsons' legal actions--is that, from her perspective already cited, she intended to return from administrative work for the CIA to that undercover agent status in the future and the outing prevented her from reassuming that clandestine aspect of her career at a later time. Also, if "most people" would have "assumed" that she worked "overtly" for the CIA [as one of the sources cited by Crewdson says], then, from another perspective, her cover was working; she had them "fooled." [I.e., she was "hiding in plain sight.")

It is possible, therefore, that her NOC status may have begun in 1994 (e.g.); the energy firm that became part of her "cover" (as a NOC)--Brewster-Jennings--is said to have been established in 1994 (Crewdson, et al.).

Understanding the logic of the sentence that I have restored depends on one's understanding these crucial differences between kinds of "cover" ("official" and "non-official"; "diplomatic" and "NOC"). One must read all of the material cited in order to follow these distinctions. The material cited is in the notes and references.

All of the material is sourced. If the article is going to cite anonymous sources (cited by Crewdson) who question whether Plame's NOC status was "genuine" or authentic, then WP:NPOV requires presenting reliable sources (not anonymous ones) who affirm her NOC status as genuine and authentic. Suppressing this information by deleting it is violating Wikipedia policy re: NPOV. --NYScholar 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

the sentence i deleted makes no sense and still doesn't since whether or not she was a NOC is not the question. if she had an embassy background, the likelyhood of her being deep cover and conducting espionage activities is called into question. why does it matter what larry johnson thinks? the operative who supervised her, who was an NOC for 24 years himself, would have more knowledge about this question. and he has stated over and over again that she didn't have deep cover, did her NOC duties in a "nice european city" and worked out of CIA headquarters since 1997. i find you edits really confusing.Anthonymendoza 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Anthonymendoza: You still seem very confused to me, but I do not think that my sentence is the cause of your confusion. I don't think that you have read carefully the quotations from the unnamed anonymous sources in Crewdson's account. Some of those quotations do specifically call into question (doubt and cast various kinds of aspersions on) Plame's NOC status (whose dates are still unclear and open to interpretation). It is therefore not true that "whether or not she was a NOC is not the question." That is precisely the question that is raised in the quotations cited by Crewdson.

Your clause "if she had an embassy background, the likelyhood [sic] of her being deep cover and conducting espionage activities is called into question." is confused (it seems to me): all Crewdson establishes is that she used an embassy address (not precisely what its use means; e.g., "that she had an 'embassy background'" is not clearly established either. The dispute in Crewdson's account concerns precisely whether or not Plame was a "genuine NOC." The qualifications ("genuine" used by Crewdson; and "true blue" used by one of those unnamed anonymous CIA sources cited by Crewdson) are very peculiar (it seems to me): either a CIA operative was a NOC or was not a NOC; "genuine" implies degrees that really make no sense. (The use of the word "genuine" seems an attempt to call into question Plame's NOC status in a somewhat back-handed way.) What seems truly at issue (controversial) is not "whether or not" she was a NOC (which is otherwise established by named sources like Johnson, et al.) but more pertinently when she started to be a NOC. Crewdson's account (and its citations from the anonymous sources) really does not disprove that she was a NOC. It reveals that his sources do not think that she was a NOC when she was using the embassy address (if that information is reliable, which is not clearly established either). But their assumptions do not rule out the likelihood that she became a NOC after that time in the early 90s when that embassy address was "listed"; also, it is possible that the embassy address was part of her "cover" ruse: that is another interpretation of what one of the unnamed CIA sources is quoted as saying. It could have been part of her cover if her cover was a "diplomatic cover" prior to her having NOC status. That is my understanding of the possibilities brought out in Crewdson's account.--NYScholar 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The article already establishes that her status as a NOC is precisely what is in dispute/"controversial": Anthonymendoza deleted the word "controversy" earlier, however, and then substituted other language that makes the controversial issue less clear. Omitting the word "controversy" may harm the general reader's perceptions of what is at issue as well. These issues are precisely "controversial." Deleting the word and additional information pertinent to the "controversy" may unintentionally mislead W readers.

Whereas Anthonymendoza seems convinced by what are basically unsourced quotations (anonymous sources) cited by Crewdson--people who refused to go on record with their doubts about her NOC status--I am not convinced by them. I am sorry that he finds "[my] edits" to be "really confusing." It seems to me, however, that he still does not understand the crux of the controversy about Plame's NOC status (how "covert" her "cover" may have been and when it may have been thus). (His deleting the word "controversial" or "controversy" from the earlier version shows that.)

It is clearly possible (as more than one cited named source establishes) that Plame was a NOC beginning at some point in the 1990s (at least). The reason why there was an embassy address listed for her is simply unknown. All that Crewdson establishes is that he found an embassy address listed in doing database search of her name. What it means is not clear and all the speculation by the unnamed CIA sources that he cites does not make the meaning of that address any clearer. It is all still in the realm of speculation and it cannot be given any more credence (belief) than other speculative interpretations presented by the named sources. In deleting information that counters it, Anthonymendoza is skewing the presentation in favor of POVs expressed by the unamed anonymous and therefore unreliable sources who cannot be checked.

Re: the named CIA supervisor (we have no reliable source to verify his claims, by the way): his cited statements still do not make clear precisely when (what date--year) Plame's NOC status began or may have begun. His particular statements are missing important details needed for compiling a full chronology of her career--a career which, still being classified, is thus still not convincingly established. His statements are, therefore, also partial (not complete) accounts of her career history. The gaps are conspicuous. His assertions are not understandable without knowing the full context of her career (dates of beginning NOC status), which we do not definitely have. All there is, really, is the possibility of Joe Wilson's "close to 20 years" suggesting that Plame began as a covert CIA agent (with cover--either official--e.g., embassy etc.--or non-official cover--NOC status) for "close to 20 years" prior to 2003; that is, possibly from about 1984 until 2003, with the Brewster-Jennings cover beginning after the firm's founding in 1994 (if Crewdson, et al. are correct about that date), that is, after the use of the embassy address in the "early 90s."

The questioning of her NOC status in Crewdson's account due to the citing of the embassy address of the "early 90s" does not contradict the possibility of her having NOC status after that point. The Wikipedia reader (general reader, not CIA agent) does not know how to interpret some of these points about what it may or may not signify (mean).

Hanging one's understanding of Plame's career on unreliable (unnamed anonymous) sources (such as those cited by Crewdson) or on sources with large gaps of precise dates for their claims (such as the CIA supervisor named) is risky; it does not conform with Wikipedia:Reliable sources or WP:Cite. One is required to cite conflicting points of view in order to present NPOV. Omitting the named reliable and verifiable sources of information in favor of unnamed anonymous sources is not conforming to those W policies. --NYScholar 18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

it is not unknown why she had an embassy address. people who remembered her have said she was "posing as a junior consular officer." it's also important to note that Michael Isikoff has reported that when the CIA requested the investigation, possible violations of the IIPA were not in the request.[3] also, according to stanley moskowitz, the investigation request had to do with "possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."[4] i'm not confused about anything. i've edited the Plame affair page extensively and debated the topic to death. read the ramifications section. there was no serious damage that resulted from this "leak". another problem with the Valerie Wilson page is that it is now too long.Anthonymendoza 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"there was no serious damage that resulted from this "leak"." That's quite false. An ongoing intelligence operation investigating WMDs was destroyed. The specifics are classified - that does not mean there was "no serious damage" and it does not mean it was not a "leak." csloat 02:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

One has to cite "verifiable sources" according to WP:Reliable Sources. In terms of the Fitzgerald Grand Jury investigation, Fitzgerald himself is a "reliable source." The "anonymous" sources cited by Isikoff in his speculative reports written prior to the news conference (linked by you above) contain information that is neither "verifiable" nor "reliable" for Wikipedia article purposes. It is Ikikoff's speculation:

recent attention on a classified State Department memo that had key info about Wilson's wife. The memo, dated June 10, 2003, was labeled top secret at the top of the first page; a paragraph referring to "Valerie Wilson" at the CIA had the letters snf in front of it, for "Secret No Foreign," meaning the info is secret and can't be shared with any foreign national, says a government official who reviewed it but asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the material. The memo was taken by Secretary of State Colin Powell aboard Air Force One during a trip to Africa in July 2003, and Fitzgerald has questioned White House aides about who saw it. Fitzgerald has been said to be investigating whether any aides violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act—which makes it a felony to disclose the identity of a covert CIA employee: it requires showing the violator knew the agent's undercover status. (The State memo makes no reference to that.) But the CIA's initial "crimes report" to the Justice Department requesting the leak probe never mentioned that law, says a former government official who requested anonymity because of the confidential material involved. Fitzgerald may be looking at other laws barring the disclosure of classified info or the possibility that current or former White House aides made false statements or obstructed justice. (Italics added.)

According to Fitzgerald's own press conference remarks, wherein he makes clear precisely what he is investigating, the crimes for which Libby was indicted and will be tried have to do with lying, perjury, misleading investigations, etc. I think that if one reads Fitzgerald's comments, one can understand precisely what he was and is investigating. (The investigation is ongoing, apparently.)

I've added the date etc. to an earlier source by Isikoff and a source you cite above to "References" in the article.

I provided Fitzgerald's press conference comments earlier so that one can see what they are. It is possible to summarize them perhaps (so the article is not as long), but his own words do clarify precisely what his investigation deals with. Prior to that reporters like Isikoff relied on "anonymous" sources to help them to understand what its focuses might ("may") be. The issues as to whether or not there was "serious damage that resulted from this 'leak' [note your own "scare quotes", which clearly imply a POV]" is still the matter of a civil law suit (Plame/Wilson's) and in the courts, as is the upcoming Libby trial. Your conclusion that "no serious damage . . . resulted" is not a fact; it is your opinion, and thus your POV. The article needs to follow Wikipedia's own policies for maintaining WP:NPOV. Fitzgerald's Grand Jury investigation does not question that there was indeed a "leak"; perhaps you need to re-read his comments to see that. The use of scare quotes around "leak" is not appropriate. It is a quotation from Fitzgerald, and he does not question whether or not there was a leak (calling it that), but rather says that he was/is investigating the circumstances of the leak. By now, no one is doubting that a leak did occur. Many facts relating to that leak (of Plame's identity as a CIA agent) are, however, still being investigated and they will again be raised as issues in the pending court cases, it seems; among those issues (for the civil case) is what damage was indeed done to Valerie E. Wilson and Joseph Wilson (both personally and professionally) as a result of the leaked information provided to Novak for his Aug. 2003 column, and so on. Some of those facts are not yet established by verifiable and reliable sources primarily because these cases have not yet gone through the justice system.

Information that Anthony M cites from "anonymous sources" is not "known" information; these are not facts; they are allegations, beliefs, conjectures, comments, etc. by people whose names are not known and the information is not verifiable or verified by multiple named sources. Those are therefore not facts of the kind that Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain. Especially if the articles are about living persons: see top of this page. See my earlier comments about how deleting contrary information from reliable sources skews the article. Nothing in Anthony M's reply convinces me otherwise. He clearly writes from his own POV, based on earlier speculations of journalists which has been updated by reliable sources, including some of the same journalists (e.g., Isikoff and Corn). --NYScholar 19:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is a passage already quoted in the article. It is in part Fitzgerald's reply to a reporter's questions about the "leaking" of information about Valerie Wilson: [I've provided this in the original format below, in a more recent comment, so I'm removing it here for space reasons. (NYS)]. --NYScholar 20:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, however, I will refer people back to my earlier [and later] comments, in which I respond to AM's taking out sourced information earlier (which I restored later); the information countered the aspersions cast on Valerie Plame (Wilson) by anonymous sources that he had left in, skewing the article toward their and his own POVs. I won't repeat the argument; it's already given in my earlier commments. What he responded with does not address what I was saying, but goes to other matters that are, nevertheless, already established clearly in the article. At this state of public knowledge, no one disputes what the indictment charges/alleges about Libby. At this state of public knowledge, no what disputes what the civil suit against Libby et al. alleges. But the outcomes of both Libby's trial and the Wilsons' suit are still unknown. AM writes as if they are known. They are not. --NYScholar 20:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it's not my POV. bob woodward, andrea mitchell, and dana priest, all who have intelligence sources, have all said there was no damage done. libby's trial will not be about plame in any way; fitzgerald has made that clear. libby is the one trying to enter into evidence the true nature of plame's work. why would he do this if she was a deep cover NOC conducting espionage? according to corn, plame worked on the Joint Task Force on Iraq, and after the war "Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management." so no ongoing intelligence operation was disclosed and she was moving on in a new direction. i have seen nothing to suggest the Joint Task Force on Iraq continued after the war and that this program was rendered useless after her exposure. i also don't follow your logic when you say fitzgerald was never investigating the leak, only the circumstances surrounding the leak. it appears to me that fitzgerald turned his attention to circumstances surrounding the investigation, which is quite different. it's also important to note that the disclosure that woodward learned of plame's identity from armitage came after fitzgerald's news conference, thus making some of his assertions false. and i disagree that fitzgerald's comments at the press conference can't be summarized. this article is now very difficult to read. at least attempt to condense it. look, i agree there is alot we don't know, and we possibly will learn some startling revelations during the trial, but for the most part i agree with the new york times and washington post. this all ended up being much ado about nothing. Anthonymendoza 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This article, Anthonymendoza, is not appropriately about your opinion--whether or not and what you "for the most part . . . agree with"; and not about my opinion--we are just writers ("editors") of the article, and we are simply supposed to be defining, documenting, and citing the statements made by authoritative reliable sources (not anonymous sources) about what is factually relevant about the subject. The article is supposed to be about the facts pertaining to the biography of the subject, "Valerie Plame" (Valerie E. Wilson).

Conveniently, you ignore the other case (most germane to this article on Valerie Plame or Valerie E. Wilson), and that is her and her husband's civil case, in which several outstanding claims of damage to them still stand undecided.

I do not say what you say I "say" above--that "fitzgerald [sic] was never investigating the leak, only the circumstances surrounding the leak"; please do not restate what I say in your own words and skew it to say something different from what I do state.

You recklessly and misleadingly quote a sentence (e.g., the one about her being "in the process of changing her status") leaving out other information already quoted about her future possible intention to go back into "clandestine" work for the CIA and intending to reserve option to do that. In part the civil suit deals with damage done to her career and her and the Wilson family's personal life by the revelation of information that was not public knowledge and not intended to be public knowledge; information that was at the time "classified" to protect her and other CIA personnel and those working with them (throughout the world). (Read the testimony of the former CIA agents to the Senate investigation again; apparently, you missed a number of their explanations.) As far as Fitzgerald's investigation; it isn't/wasn't only dealing with Libby. His discovery of Libby's alleged lies and perjury led to the 5-count indictment against Libby; the investigation per se is ongoing. Libby's trial is only one trial that has emerged as a result of it. Fitzgerald's comments quoted in full make it clear that in investigating the circumstances of the leak of "Valerie Plame's" (Valerie E. Wilson's) CIA identity, he would be investigating any possible crime committed by anyone in the course of his doing that investigation (wherever it would lead--as he explains). His explanation is in his own words, not mine: that's why I quoted them in full in the article and did not paraphrase them.

So, once again (quoted directly from the full passage that is in the article), here is the statement that Anthonymendoza misleadingly ellides in his use of it in his reply above:

When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator — to rise up a notch or two — and then return to secret operations. (Italics added.)[(note in text) 30]

Anthonymendoza conveniently leaves out: "Her aim, she told colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator - to rise up a notch or two - and then return to secret operations." (Italics added.) The civil suit in part relates to potential (including future) "damage" done to her ability to "return to secret operations" by the leak of her CIA identity (whether "clandestine" at the time or not). But the civil suit deals with more too, and one needs to read the sources cited about what it charges; those are in the notes cited in the text of this article (and other articles relating to her).

The Libby trial is only part of the picture, because the civil suit involves not just Libby, but also Rove, Cheney, and Armitage (as of September 2006). Since Anthonymendoza has already made up his mind (without any of the facts that would come out either in the Libby criminal trial or the Wilsons' civil suit or any future trials and suits), he seems unable to understand the as-yet undetermined nature of some of the issues pertaining to the biography (life) of "Valerie Plame" (Valerie E. Wilson).

I suggest that Anthonymendoza's own preconceptions about this matter are skewing which information he allows to stay in articles relating to Valerie E. Wilson (Valerie Plame) and the "Plame affair"; what he agrees with and disagrees with is not germane to these Encyclopedia articles as they are not supposed to be about his opinions (or my opinions) but rather the facts of the subject: controversies and speculations that exist about it (according to reliable published sources, and information provided by authorities (the Special Counsel, e.g.) and others involved in these matters and reporting on them in published accounts in "reliable sources" (not you and not me, e.g.--WP:NOR; WP:Reliable sources; WP:Cite) are germane. Our opinions and our conclusions about the evidence are not germane. This is an encyclopedia article, not "original research" arguing a thesis. It is not our own "research paper" where we have to present a convincing argument to support an original "point of view" on the subject. It is supposed to be a biography of facts about and relating to the subject's life. This particular subject is embroiled in a political controversy. The facts relating to the political controversy are germane. But Wikipedia editors' "opinions" about the controversy are not.

Readers of this article (and other W articles relating to "Valerie Plame") do need to understand that so-called "Valerie Plame" actually no longer exists; everyone now knows that "Valerie Plame" was the CIA identity of Valerie E. Wilson (a real person, not a "cover"). That real person (the real-life wife of Joseph C. Wilson) is actually the subject of this biography and the one who is a party in the (real life) civil suit. "Valerie Plame" (in part the maiden name of Valerie E. Wilson--Valerie Elise Plame) is an ongoing name continually used in press accounts etc. Like everyone else, however, the press has only partial information about the history of this real person's life, since much of it is still not public knowledge. Until she writes her autobiography and until that autobiography is published, there remains much that the public (including the press) does not know, and even after it is published, the public will have only (then) her point of view on the events of her own life. Due to her having been an undercover CIA agent for much of her professional life, the public may never know the actual facts of what she did during it.

I do not know anything about "Valerie Plame" and Valerie E. Wilson other than what is public knowledge; as a Wikipedia editor, I cannot cite anything other than authoritative material in what Wikipedia considers "reliable sources" (including--given exceptions in WP:Reliable sources--of some self-published sources, if those sources are deemed "reliable" sources of what they are stating). As an editor, I've done what I have been able to do with the material available in the public record. I have spent a lot of time checking the sources cited by previous editors in this article and providing the actual bibliographical details of the sources so that other editors and readers of Wikipedia can verify the statements in it: that those statements come from the sources cited and documented.--NYScholar 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

would you please stop your lecturing. i didn't "conveniently ignore" or "recklessly and misleadingly quote a sentence." i have never claimed Plame wasn't an NOC. how deep her cover was is the issue as it may relate to why no one was charged with IIPA violations. the corn article states she "supervised" JTFI officers. and these officers traveled to western embassies to debrief potential leads. she also met with jordanian intelligence officials. and the fact that she was wanting to "rise up a notch or two — and then return to secret operations" shows she wasn't that deep in cover. plus, everything the CIA does is secret, so what exactly she had planned is unknown. and while she "occasionally" travelled overseas, she mainly stayed at CIA headquarters. but the issue is why you are using a quote from larry johnson to try and debunk the tribune article? we know she was a NOC; that isn't the issue. and i'm not ignoring the civil suit. that suit is potentially years away if it goes to court. and every legal analysis i've read gives the case little chance of going forward. rather than spending so much effort trying to make me look like a horrible editor, why don't you focus your energy on shortening this article? Anthonymendoza 18:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)