|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Risen article.|
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Recent edits to "Reports on government surveillance programs"
Adalie, I can understand that you feel very strongly about these stories. But your edits to this section clearly reflect only one point of view -- the government's -- both in terms of the nature of the programs and the details of the reports. Especially given the secret nature of the programs, the administration's characterizations of them cannot automatically be presumed to be accurate. And when making accusations of illegality against a living person, it is critically important to provide verifiable sources for your statements, and to also include sourced statements describing the person's stated defenses (if any), to avoid immediate deletion on the grounds of WP:LIBEL. Kickaha Ota 01:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Please provide sources
In articles about currently controversial events (and the whole James Risen/New York Times saga would certainly qualify as a red-hot controversy), it is very important that editors provide sources. This should not be hard, since this controversy seems to have been the subject of approximately 1.2 metric assloads (or 1.4 Imperial assloads) of articles in the last week or so. Kickaha Ota 00:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- And while finding sources, please don't forget about the verifiability requirements. Given the extensive coverage of this topic, it should not be difficult to find verifiable articles in newspapers, magazines or news web sites. By definition, saying "Classified sources" (as a recent editor did) is not a verifiable source -- but a newspaper or magazine article talking about what classified sources are saying would be fine. Kickaha Ota 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Claim removed from State of War
The discussion of State of War previously mentioned that the book claims that the CIA disregarded intelligence reports that Iraq was not currently attempting to rebuild its nuclear program. This statement was removed. It seems appropriate for the article and I'm inclined to restore it; but would the person who removed it like to explain the reasoning for the removal? 220.127.116.11 19:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oops. I didn't intend for that to be an anonymous edit. And after seeing some of the other edits from this proxy IP, I especially didn't intend for it to be an anonymous edit. :) Kickaha Ota 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
A puzzling edit
Could someone please explain the purpose of this edit? I could understand someone thinking that Mr. Risen's family isn't important enough for the intro paragraph, but it sure doesn't seem relevant to government surveillance programs either. :) Kickaha Ota 01:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Dismissing KGB propaganda effects
Whats the point of this part? its starts by stating in 1! sentence that this author dismisses the idea that the KGB was responsible for the'cia killed jkk theory' which is fine because it's properly referenced and then devotes the remaing several paragraphs to 'proving' that this(the KGB effort) indeed was the case. It seems to me, this 'fact' is too irrelevant/trivial to devote an entire section to it.~ I kept Risen's remarks since they are referenced and relevant to this page but removed all the text going on to prove the 'KGB involvement theory' since this this is not the place to put them. I suggest they are put on this page maybe on under a section called KGB disenformation or whatever: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories#CIA_and_anti-Castro_Cuban_exile_conspiracy I will park the deleted info here for now so it is not lost:
The Washington Post, in a Mitrokhin related editorial, writes, "In June 1964, a freelance journalist named Joachim Joesten posited an (...) analysis in his book "Oswald: Assassin or Fall Guy?" Following a chapter on "Oswald and the CIA," Joesten asserted that the agency was beyond presidential control and bitterly opposed to Kennedy's policy of "easing the Cold War". It has long been a matter of record that Joesten's book was the first published in the United States on the subject of the assassination. Until the notes of a former KGB archivist named Vasili Mitrokhin were published in 1999, however, it was not known that Joesten's publisher, the small New York firm of Marzani & Munsell, received subsidies totaling $672,000 from the Central Committee of the Communist Party in the early 1960s.
A study by Max Holland, a Research Fellow at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, claims KGB propaganda directly led to the wide dissemination of the "CIA killed Kennedy" conspiracy theory including Oliver Stone's JFK film. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html
Professor John McAdams, who teaches a course on the Kennedy assassination at Marquette University in Milwaukee says, "The greatest and grandest of all conspiracy theories is the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory."