Talk:Frank Wisner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In popular culture / fiction.[edit]

So uh I just read Tim Kring's _Shift_. Might wanna mention that if only to clarify how far reality that work strays with Mr. Wisner's life. (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I take issue with Turgidson's reversion of my additions ...[edit]

I apologize in the delay in this post as for whatever reason was unavailable for me to hit on my browser for a period of about six hours after I posted the initial revision.

To quote from Wikipedia on disputes:

"Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to."

Instead of simply removing the questionable sentences in my additions as the above guidelines on disputed text suggests, Turgidsan instead chose to revert, thereby removing all my contributions to the text, justifying his actions as follows:

"(rv POVish additions (with formulations such as, "CIA began preparing to put him out to pasture"), based on a couple of blogs of questionable reliability)"

Of the two sources I use as references, only ONE was a blog and its sole purpose was to serve as an additional backup to the quotation I provided from Deborah Davis's biography of publisher Katharine Graham, a reference of which was made in my primary source, the article by Roger Morris. I have since replaced the 'blog' reference with the original published book including its ISBN-13 number.

Second, is NOT, despite Turgidson's un-researched insinuation to the contrary, a blog site of any kind but is rather a reputable online news organization. Should Turgidson believe to the contrary, I would challenge him back up his accusation with even ONE news article (sans unintentional and thus noted published retractions) they have printed of "questionable reliability". The demonstrated level of accuracy of MSM, I believe would reveal a much poorer track record.

The primary article from which I drew as a source was the second of a two part article by Roger Morris titled "The CIA and the Politics of Counterrevolution: Robert Gates, The Specialist (Part 2)"[[1]]. Had Turgidson taken enough care to read it, or at least researched the author, he might have discovered the article are in fact excerpts from his upcoming publication "The Specialist; The Rise and Rise of Robert Gates" whom Turgidson is claiming of 'questionable reliability'.

Here is Morris's biographical information which you can find augmented at the conclusion of the article:

Roger Morris is an award-winning author and investigative journalist who served in the Foreign Service and on the Senior Staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Before resigning over the invasion of Cambodia, he was one of only three officials comprising Henry Kissinger's Special Projects Staff conducting the initial highly secret "back-channel" negotiations with Hanoi to end the Vietnam War in 1969-1970. He is the author of several critically acclaimed books, including "Richard Milhous Nixon: The Rise of an American Politician, 1913-1952," and the best-selling "Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America" as well as, most recently, "The Money and the Power: The Making of Las Vegas and Its Hold on America" (co-authored with historian Sally Denton). His "Shadows of the Eagle," a history of US covert intervention in the Middle East and South Asia since the 1940s, will be published by Knopf early in 2008. His studies and commentary on American politics and foreign policy appear regularly on the website of the Green Institute where he is Senior Fellow.

In this case I feel that Turgidson's decision to 'revert' all of my Frank Wisner entry instead of simply removing/disputing the sentences he found POV'ish, and furthermore to label my sources to be of "questionable reliability" was both sloppy and irresponsible as it acted contrary to the aforementioned quoted 'guidelines' of conducting 'reversions' in Wikipedia, and thus was a disservice to Wikipedia itself.

Since the original posting of my dispute, I was unable to access the site for a period of about six hours during which Turgidson has chosen to trash my reversion without giving me proper time in response.

Arias 08:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is too long winded for me to go point by point. Look, I added a whole bunch of stuff to the article, based on reputable, verifiable sources -- you cannot simply go about and blindly revert that material. I also put inline references, which is the better style. Now, if you want to put your own material, please go ahead, but do that without deleting sourced material, or removing relevant wikilinks, or valid categories, etc, etc. Turgidson 12:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and contrary to your own instructions to not delete sourced materials, you've chosen to remove my addition of Operation Bloodstone and Wisner's primary involvement, as well as my quotation from Deborah Davis's mention of Wisner based on nothing more vague references to your poorly researched claims that they were sourced from blogs of questionable reliability and have chosen not to provide any further justification for your censorship after I challenged your claims to be demonstrable falsehoods. I find it ironic that in your choice arrogance you would now instruct me that I cannot simply go about blindly reverting material when if you had followed the wikipedia guidelines from the start or had conducted due diligence instead of arbitrarily trashing my sources to justify your censorship, this whole situation could have been avoided. Instead, you revert whole blocks of my additions with no credible justification before making your own additions, making any attempt for me to recover my information appear to be removing your contributions. Instead of questioning my conduct, maybe you should first question yours, as your hypocrisy is equally irresponsible and reprehensible. Arias 23:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Before engaging in such vitriolic personal attacks, please review Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:NPA and WP:AGF. If you can refrain from such attacks in the future, and assume good faith from fellow editors as a starting point, then (and only then) we can talk. Otherwise, I have nothing to say to you. Have a good day. Turgidson 00:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Granville, Johanna (2004). The First Domino: International Decision Making During the Hungarian Crisis of 1956. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, Texas. ISBN 1585442984. . Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)