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)

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

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.