Talk:Plame affair/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Plame affair. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Article name

Excuse me for raising a topic that I am sure has been raised before. Probably several times... But I am new to this article and I am baffled by the article title.

Plame Affair sounds like an episode of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.!!!

This was a major scandal of utmost gravity.

A) How was it determined that the article should be named in this way rather than some other way?
B) Why is the article after a person who was a victim in the matter rather than after the type of incident that it was?
C) Even if there was universal agreement that it should be named after her - why the ambiguous, comparatively benign word "affair" to describe a scandal that has resulted in 4 felony convictions and unchallenged testimony documenting White House actions that if not illegal - are certainly ethically questionable?

Articles describing major issues in Bill Clinton's administration have titles such as:

• Lewinsky '''scandal'''
• Whitewater ('''controversy''')
• 1996 United States campaign finance '''controversy'''
• Bill Clinton pardons '''controversy'''
• Travelgate goes to White House travel office '''controversy'''
• Filegate goes to White House personnel file '''controversy'''

Ronald Reagan's administration has:

• Iran-Contra '''Affair'''

George W. Bush's administration has:

• Plame '''Affair'''

This is patently wrong and reflects POV. To be consistent with other Wikipedia articles - this should be officially renamed CIA leak scandal (which currently redirects to Plame affair. A converse re-direct can easily be implemented - with Plame affair re-directing to CIA leak scandal

Comments? Davidpatrick 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Further research on Wikipedia indicates that the title as it was ("Plame Affair") was an aberrant title next to the titles of the articles for the vast majority of other political scandals in recent years. Article title has been changed to reflect that. Davidpatrick 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle that "CIA leak scandal" is a better, more descriptive, and more balanced title. On the other hand, the "Plame affair" seems to be a far more common title for it in many sources on both the left and right. Google hits for "Plame affair"=322,000; hits for "CIA leak scandal"=53,800. Also, the liberal encyclopedia dKosopedia titles their article "Plame affair". It doesn't take a right-wing conspiracy to understand why it was named that in the first place, since that's what the news frequently calls it, and there is at least a moderate argument for the former title being a better reflection of the neutral point of view.--ragesoss 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's always a balancing act between media catchphrases and popular shorthand for events on the one hand - and being encyclopedic and consistent within the portals of Wikipedia on the other hand. And the Google argument cuts both ways - as of course sometimes Google refects mirrored content. And we're trying to find a balance between encyclopedic and user-friendly. My gut instinct is that the initial tag of using her name "Plame" (rather than a description of what the scandal was actually about) was partly because she was an attractive woman - it humanized complex political intrigue and it made for a glamorous tabloid story! "Pretty blonde spy outed...!" So her name became a central part of the story. But suffixing her name with "Scandal" makes it seem like SHE did something wrong - which no one has implied. And "Affair" is a very bland word for something that has resuted in criminal convictions and gigantic political upheaval. But I did some more thinking - and some more work on this.

Here's what I think swings it for the new title. I did some more Googling - to get a more in-depth read.

"Plame affair" 322,000
"Plame scandal" 96,900
"CIA leak scandal" 54,100
"CIA leak" 1,030,000

So - while it is true that both "Plame affair" and "Plame scandal" get more Google hits than the full wording "CIA scandal leak" - there are an overwhelming number more hits for the words "CIA leak" - of which a large percentage can be safely assumed to be about this matter rather than any others.

In that sense - the words "CIA leak" are the equivalent of the word "Lewinsky" or "Iran-Contra". ie - it is the neutral, factual descriptive - to which the appropriate suffix then needs to be added. It's clearly a scandal. And that's where we are... Davidpatrick 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This name is incredibly imprecise. It's not like there has only been one leak about the CIA ever. The name should be something that actually identifies the subject, not something that might happen to describe it or possibly god knows what else. Derex 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be just "CIA leak scandal" (see above)

However - as a temp. change I have added "(2003)" to make it more precise.

But it is not necessary: see: CIA leak grand jury investigation

KEY POINTS:

This is a scandal not an affair. And "Plame scandal" is not right either - as the subject matter of the scandal was not the VICTIM - but the ACTION that CAUSED the scandal. I don't know what other CIA leaks led to a scandal. But if the argument is that there have been multiple "CIA leak scandals" - then the "2003" solves that. If not - then it should revert to just "CIA leak scandal"

For precedents on naming articles after the ACTION - and not using weasel words such as "affair" to describe major scandals and controversies - see also:

• Whitewater (controversy)
• 1996 United States campaign finance controversy
• Bill Clinton pardons controversy
• White House travel office controversy
• White House personnel file controversy

Davidpatrick 14:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First, Why "affair?" The word means, "A matter causing public scandal and controversy: the Dreyfus affair." see: |answers.com. Second, why, "Plame?" It seems self-evident, she was the covert CIA agent whose name was released to the public -- with the subsequent reprecussions. CIA Leak Case is far too generic, even adding the date suffix does not give the subject matter clarity that Plame Affair does. The term "affair" speaks to both public scandal and to public controversy. I think a two word title with a Major subject name, "Plame" followed by "Affair" is more clear and more economical than the more abstract and non-specific, "cia leak case," and other such titles. Rather than debate the article's title, I'd suggest more work be done to improve the content of the article itself. Perhaps in time, when all cases are reasolved in this on-going affair, a new, better title will become evident. Until this, for reasons stated above, I think Plame Affair is the best title choice. Calicocat 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Huffington Post and the Plame Affair

we've had this debate before, as to what this article should be called. and each time the consensus has been plame affair. i was curious as to why it's now a topic of debate and found this on the huffington post [1]. Davidpatrick is using the huffington post's argument verbatim to justify the change of the title to this article. this is not the way to reach consensus, and just because the huffington post finds bias in the "plame affair" doesn't mean the title should be changed. rather than engaging in an edit war, we should debate it once again, and vote for consensus. Anthonymendoza 17:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly open to a debate. I have found the arguments for a change compelling. Let's see what others think. Please can people discuss the merits of the issue. Among the issues I think that are compelling to be addressed are these:

1) What are the titles of articles about other political controversies/scandals affecting controversial presidents such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?

2) Is there any inherent weasel aspect to referring to a matter in which a high-ranking government official is found guilty of 4 felonies as an "affair"

3) Are the titles of articles on Wikipedia about political scandals more commonly named after:

a) the activity that caused the scandal?
b) the name(s) of the protagonist(s)
c) the name(s) of the victim(s)

I think those answers and other thoughts about this would be very interesting to debate. And might help us reach an informed consensus. Davidpatrick 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i personally don't understand what is so "weasel" about the word affair. doesn't the word affair imply this was a controversy and a scandal? how does the word affair make this subject appear to be unimportant?Anthonymendoza 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A valid question. Here's the answer. From Wiktionary.

Noun affair (plural affairs)

1) That which is done or is to be done; matter; concern; business of any kind, commercial, professional, or public; — often in the plural. a difficult affair to manage

2) Any proceeding or action which it is wished to refer to or characterize vaguely. an affair of honor, i. e., a duel an affair of love, i. e., an intrigue.

3) (Military): An action or engagement not of sufficient magnitude to be called a battle.

4) A material object (vaguely designated). He used a hook-shaped affair with a long handle to unlock the car.

5) An adulterous relationship. (from affaire de coeur.)

Do you think any of those definitions accurately and full reflect the nature of the contents of the article? Davidpatrick 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

according to Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary, affair means matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal. and according to the American Heritage Dictionary, affair means a matter causing public scandal and controversy. to me, the word affair is appropriate here.Anthonymendoza 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Debate about article title

That is just two dictionaries. In addition to the Wiktionary definition - here are THREE MORE dictionary definitions that DON'T reflect that meaning.

(1) According to Collins Online Dictionary
affair
1 activity, business, circumstance, concern, episode, event, happening, incident, interest, matter, occurrence, proceeding, project, question, subject, transaction, undertaking
2 amour, intrigue, liaison, relationship, romance

(2) And according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
1) affair. something done or to be done; business.
2. affairs Transactions and other matters of professional or public business: affairs of state.
3a. An occurrence, event

(3) And according to the Oxford Dictionary

affair

noun
1 an event of a specified kind or that has previously been referred to.
2 a matter that is a particular person’s responsibility.
3 a love affair.
4 (affairs) matters of public interest and importance.

Even if you disagree with all of those respected FOUR dictionaries - and I really don't think this should be a battle of the dictionaries - at the very least I'm sure you will graciously concede that if there are FOUR respected dictionaries that DON'T give the "scandal" definition - then at the very least there is a lot of ambiguity about how people perceive that word.

And of course the word "affair" is just one of the three questions I raised as pertinent to this debate. Davidpatrick 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

data

Let's try to assemble some data.

The New York Times returns 3 hits for "C.I.A. leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair", over 100 for "C.I.A. leak case" (which we have a separate, awkwardly-titled article for, CIA leak grand jury investigation), and over 200 for "C.I.A. leak".
The Washington Post returns 3 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 9 hits for "Plame affair", and lots for "CIA leak", most of which are "CIA leak case" and "CIA leak investigation".
The Washington Times has 6 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 13 hits for "Plame affair" (though most are from Op-Ed).
Google News archive has 460 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 1690 for "Plame affair".
BBC News returns 4 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair".

Presumably none of these results (unlike general Google hits) are shaped the fact that Wikipedia and her downstream re-users have been using the "Plame affair" title until recently. However, "CIA leak case" is ambiguous and could refer to either the investigation and legal goings on or the broader topic in general. It is often used in the latter sense, and I think it might be the best title for the article, despite the ambiguity.--ragesoss 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting data. Focusing a moment on Google News - we see the following:

Plame affair 154
Plame scandal 17
Plame case 102

CIA leak 3,838
CIA leak case 2,127

This indicates that at some basic level the "CIA leak" aspect has been deemed more newsworthy and less tabloid-y than the naming of this matter about the victim - however pretty, however blonde, however more gossipy, however "sexier" (in media terms) it is to make it be about the victim rather than about some abstract action.

The overwhelming evidence is that this is about the "CIA leak" So the question then is - what is the best suffix?

"Case" implies only the legal aspect
"Investigation" implies only the investigation aspect
So what other word accurately and fairly describes the ENTIRETY of this? Taking into account other articles on Wikipedia about similar events

Affair? (see above)
Imbroglio
scuffle
misunderstanding
storm-in-a-teacup
incident

or...

scandal...

Davidpatrick 20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i will "graciously concede" that affair can in fact refer to a scandal, and that, according to the research above, this topic has been referred to as both the Plame Affair and Cia Leak in media outlets. therefore it is up to a consensus of editors as to what this topic should be titled. i will not revert your changes but reaching a consensus on wikipedia is essential to producing good quality articles and i am disappointed that you made the changes without discussion and that your edit is being called courageous on the Huffington Post. there was no conspiracy by right wingers when the name Plame Affair was chosen. it was agreed to by consensus. i personally think that the title Plame Affair is good, but if the consensus is now for CIA leak scandal, i will accept it. i'm not sure how to proceed, but i suggest a vote. Anthonymendoza 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have acknowledged that you found two respected dictionaries that DO present definitions of "affair" that have that meaning. You certainly don't have to reciprocate - but I would appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that there are four respected dictionaries have definitions of the word "affair" that exclude any reference to "public anxiety, controversy, or scandal" or any similar concept.

As stated above - I don't think it should come down to a battle of dictionaries - though it is a little bothering that there is that discrepancy.

I'm sorry that I proceeded without consensus. It was not my intention to create a fight. I absolutely agree that - to quote you - "we should debate it once again, and vote for consensus"

So before we put it to the vote - by which I will certainly abide - I do think we should debate the pros and cons in a civil fashion. So that we can vote after an informed considered debate. I am prepared to accept that there was no political motivation behind the original selection of the article title. However - I do believe that it was an unfortunate choice of title "Plame" that reflects a tabloid emphasis (female victim rather than egregious action) and "affair" that is ambiguous in meaning and/or was appropriate in the early stages before it elevated into a fully-fledged scandal.

I would point out that during the 1970s the "Watergate scandal" certainly started out being described as the "Watergate break-in". And perhaps at one point it became the "Watergate affair". But as more details emerged - it was invariably dubbed "Watergate scandal".

If there had been a Wikipedia then (!!!) - and the original article had been called "Watergate break-in" or "DNC break-in" - would we have then not at some point changed it to "Watergate scandal" as the extent of the perfidy became apparent?

By that standard - a title that was perhaps appropriate way back in July 2003 (before anyone really knew what this matter was about) - might perhaps be changed by April 2007 to reflect the undisputed increased gravity of the events it covers.

I respectfully suggest that that is one aspect we should definitely debate.

And I would also respectfully request that the other three issues I raised be debated. I don't think it will do us any harm. And it may help us reach some consensus.

A recap of those three questions = plus the new one:

1) What are the titles of articles about other political controversies/scandals affecting controversial presidents such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?

2) Is there any inherent weasel aspect to referring to a matter in which a high-ranking government official is found guilty of 4 felonies as an "affair"

3) Are the titles of articles on Wikipedia about political scandals more commonly named after:

a) the activity that caused the scandal?
b) the name(s) of the protagonist(s)
c) the name(s) of the victim(s)

4) When a public event changes in complexion and gravity over a period of four years from its first minor status into a full-blown scandal resulting in felony convictions of a senior White House official - is it appropriate to change the article title to reflect the change in emphasis and gravity of the story?

Davidpatrick 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

we have debated this before though, so i think the best course of action to get others involved is to start the vote now. editors can vote and leave there rationale, and at the end of a week or two, a clear consensus should emerge.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote on article name

CIA leak scandal

support: I'm new to this article. However I have followed the topic intently for the past 3.5 years. It's not really about whether or not the old title was/is biased. It's about four simple things: A) Is the title consistent with the titles of Wiki articles about other political scandals? B) Is it better that the primary word of the title of a scandal be about the VICTIM - or should it be about the action that CAUSED the scandal? C) Does the suffix "Affair" (which 4 respected dictionaries do not define with any implication of scandal) sufficiently convey the gravity of a matter which led to the Vice President's assistant being convicted of 4 felonies? - or would the word "Scandal" convey that more effectively? D) Is it wrong for Wikipedia to change an article title that may have been appropriate when initially coined - to reflect the considerable change in gravity of the topic as it has unfolded? Just as the "DNC break-in" in 1972 subsequently became the "Watergate scandal" by 1973/4 (and ever after). I respectfully submit that the answers to those 4 questions lead us to confirming this change - with no ill-feeling to those who feel otherwise. Davidpatrick 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support subject to using "CIA Plame leak controversy (2003)" as a better option. Samdira 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support: An good article can have several good names. Some people know it as a scandal, as it is a scandal in my view. -Mardus 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

support: see updated sections below; name change proposal needs further discussion and resolution due to related redundancy problems in editing of article? In my view, consistency of the names of the articles in Wikipedia (see current "See also" list) trumps numbers of hits in "Google" searches; similar discussions have been made by editors and other users relating to the name Valerie E. Wilson. (Please see the discussions in the related articles and their talk page archives.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Plame affair

support: i've edited this article for over a year and there has never been any real complaints about the title until the Huffington Post[2] made the claim that it was biased. the title Plame affair is concise, specific and recognizable. i find no POV in the wording.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support That Huffpost article is fascinating. I'm actually the one who produced 5 of 6 of the names she mentions, which had been quite POV before that and I took some heat for softening those. I think this name is fine, simple, and neutral. My problems with CIA leak scandal are multiple. First it is imprecise, even with the 2003 tagged on. Also, the scandal has persisted into 2007. Also, it sounds as if the CIA leaked something rather than someone leaking something about the CIA. Also "scandal" has in implication of wrong-doing, which is debated here — it was on that ground that I softened Whitewater to a controversy. So, while Plame Affair may not be optimal, it's certainly better than this. That the HuffPost thinks this is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy is quite laughable. Derex 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support It's simple and it works. CIA leak scandal is unacceptable because it wan't the CIA that did the leaking and there have been innumerabl leaks involving the CIA. If anything it should be White House outing of CIA agent Plame, but that seems too long.--agr 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support I started this article a long time ago and felt then, as I do now, that "Plame Affiar" is the most neutral and specific title. The program Frontline on PBS also adopted "Plame Affair" in an extensive report on the subject. In dicussing this very complex case Plame Affair provides a clear discriptor that seems in keeping with wikipedia article naming conventions. CIA Leak Contro... are longer and less descriptive. The Plame Affair is one piece of the larger issue of the Iraq War and Occupation, which itself contain many CIA related issues and leaks; so, again, Plame Affair best reflects the issues with this case. The outting of Plame and her front, Brewester-Jennings, exposed and compromised a long-term covert CIA operation of great value to the United States and as such, again, the inclusion of the name, Plame, provides clarity and neutrality. Calicocat 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support per the above/. Arkon 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support: short and non-ambiguous. -Mardus 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

support per above. Its a more neutral name, shorter, and non-ambigious Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA leak case

support. It's not optimal because it can suggest just the legal aspects, but on the other hand major news organizations (e.g., the CSM, NPR, USN&WR) have used it as a catch-all for the topic, in the Sherlock Holmes sense of "The Case of the CIA Leak". "CIA leak case" has been used consistently as something broader than just a name for US v. Libby, and is a far, far more common media term than "Plame affair" or "CIA leak scandal". This article is kind of sprawling and should probably be broken into separate articles on "Mission to Niger" (covering the story up to and including Novak's column), Journalists and the CIA leak case (for the "other journalists" material plus a brief summary of Novak's role), and more effective use of summary style for the existing sub-articles.--ragesoss 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That name is fine today, because there's only one leak in the news. What about two years from now, when there are no leaks in the news? The title needs some reference to Plame or perhaps to the nature of the leak, but I can't think of anything that is not completely stilted. I'm a little annoyed that we're having to spend time debating what was a perfectly reasonable title that stood uncontested for over a year simply because some blogger took offense. There are plenty of *actual* conspiracies by conservatives on Wikipedia that I could have pointed him to, but this ain't one. Derex 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

weak support. Scandal and Plame affair are good enough.

I think that you make some good points. I offer the following observations. First of all - I think we can agree that we should diffuse the political aspects of this and allegations of left/right bias - and address just a few practical issues. We in Wikipedia DO make changes to article titles from time to time - if it is thought that it conveys a fairer or more accurate impression. You yourself "softened Whitewater to a controversy" (presumably it had a different suffix at one time.) Was that change achieved with no debate at all? I don't resent the time spent debating - if it results in an improvement. Isn't that the nature of a wiki - and Wikipedia?

Anyway - the issues you mention HAVE arisen before. Look at these titles:

• White House personnel file controversy

If there is ever another WH personnel file controversy - presumably the article about the next one would get the year added.

• 1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Which was presumably the thinking with that article. A 5-word title - because it was deemed necessary.

Yes, I know. I named both of those as well. Used to be "Filegate" and "Chinagate" and "Whitewater scandal" and so on. The criteria for a good title are non-partisan, uniquely descriptive, and short as possible. There have undoubtedly been many leaks about and from the CIA over the years, which makes some unique tag important. The year is a poor tag in this case, because it lasted 4 years. No wrong-doing has been proven with regard to the leak itself, which may have been entirely legal (or may not). Derex

I respectfully repeat my request that people look at these questions I've raised - and offer their thoughts...

A) Is the title consistent with the titles of Wiki articles about other political scandals?

B) Is it better that the primary word of the title of a scandal be about the VICTIM - or should it be about the action that CAUSED the scandal?

C) Does the suffix "Affair" (which 4 respected dictionaries do not define with any implication of scandal) sufficiently convey the gravity of a matter which led to the Vice President's assistant being convicted of 4 felonies? - or would the word "Scandal" convey that more effectively?

D) Is it wrong for Wikipedia to change an article title that may have been appropriate when initially coined - to reflect the considerable change in gravity of the topic as it has unfolded? Just as the "DNC break-in" in 1972 subsequently became the "Watergate scandal" by 1973/4 (and ever after).

Davidpatrick 14:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A Yes. The same guiding principles applied. In most of those cases (travel office), (personell files), (campaign finance) there was no good short neutral descriptor. In this case there is. B I don't find this a relevant consideration; naming it after the victim in no way implies she was at fault. C "Controversy" could replace "Affair". No wrong-doing with respect to the leak itself has been established, so "scandal" is inappropriate here. Libby was convicted of subsequent offences regarding the investigation. I'm not about to argue Whitewater down from scandal to controversy (as I did), and then promote this up to scandal. That's just not consistent. D Of course we can change names and do it all the time. But usually there is a good reason for it. I don't see one here. Derex

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all - thank you for taking the time to respond carefully to my questions. I appreciate that. You make some fair points but I do not agree with your conclusions.

Succinctly:

A The old title was succinct. But I think that - perhaps by the passage of time and developments - was no longer as effective or appropriate. Not conveying sufficient emphasis of the nature and gravity of the matter.

B I hear your point - but I think there is SOME negativity that accrues. The Lewinsky scandal for example. While she was not entirely blameless in the matter - Clinton acknowledged that (albeit belatedly) - the political scandal was about him not about her. But the matter being named after her victimized her more IMO.

C I disagree with you here. No LEGAL wrong-doing was established relating directly to the leak. Though POSSIBLY (we will probably never know) because as Fitgerald claimed "sand was thrown in the umpire's eyes. But there are other wrong-doings of course. Moral, ethical, etc etc. Bush himself (in 2003) famously declared that anyone responsible for leaking would no longer be in his administration. Not necessarily relating to the LAW. But because Bush made clear that he regarded leaking as WRONG. And not to be condoned. His father had opined (just 4 years earlier): "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999.

Bush Snr. was referring just to "sources" - not even to "covert agents". So leave out the LEGALITY of it. Whether or not it contravened a specific act. The current President Bush - and the former President Bush held that the ACTION of leaking (which there is unrefuted evidence occurred) is wrong-doing. So the word "scandal" is certainly appropriate. And more apt than the word "affair" - which is certainly considered more benign than "scandal".

D As you rightly say - we do change titles all the time. I still believe we need to here.

The benefits of having this debate are manifold. You and others are making some very valid points. I see why "CIA leak scandal" alone could be problematic. I agree that suffixing it with "(2003)" is a poor compromise - for the sound reasons you gave above.

So - in the spirit of compromise - how about the following:

"CIA Plame leak scandal"

It's still shorter than some other scandals/controversies. See these:

"White House personnel file controversy"
"1996 United States campaign finance controversy"

It's snappy. It qualifies WHICH CIA leak became a scandal. Far better than by naming a year. I don't think Valerie Plame is victimized by that choice in the same way as "Plame Affair" does -which MIGHT be taken by some (in the future) to think that she was the CAUSE of the affair rather than the victim or object.

So how would that be as a fair compromise? "CIA Plame leak scandal" Davidpatrick 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The biggest problem with the "scandal" title is that "CIA leak scandal" has very rarely been used in the media. "CIA leak case" has the downside of timeliness and apparent vagueness, but it seems like to me that it has a good chance of become a permanent term for it, the CIA Leak Case. After comparing how news organizations have treated it, I think "Plame affair" is a more appropriate title than "CIA leak scandal", if "CIA leak case" is too vague.--ragesoss 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"CIA Plame leak controversy" would be acceptable to me. I fought to remove "scandal" from Whitewater on the grounds that no wrong-doing was objectively established on the part of the principals. It is my personal opinion that wrong-doing occurred in this case, but I can see that other people might reasonably differ. Since the logic is the same as Whitewater, I'll not flip that position because of my personal opinions differ on this one. Derex 01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all - I genuinely appreciate you making a compromise suggestion. We are getting much closer to an agreement. Speaking just for myself - I won't rule your suggestion out. And therefore I am going to think very carefully over the next 24 hours about it. I do think it is a big improvement over "Plame Affair". I am impressed with your reasoning about the Whitewater matter - and not wanting to have a double standard. I really do respect your position on that. Particularly as you personally think there has been wrong-doing on this matter. But you don't want to let your personal position influence you. That is decent and high-minded.

So let me ask you this question: In your mind - what would be the tipping point in this matter at which it would cross over from being a "controversy" to a "scandal"? Does the perception of wrong-doing have to be universal? If there is just one person still protesting that nothing wrong was done - does that mean it is still a controversy till there is no dissent? I'm not sure about the fulcrum here. eg with Watergate it was probably still considered a "controversy" till Nixon had to fire Haldeman and Ehrlichman - at which point it surely became a "scandal." With Lewinsky it was still a "controversy" until Clinton conceded that there HAD been "improper actions" by him - at which point even his defenders had to concede that it had become a "scandal"

Should this be just about our OWN perceptions? And our own noble desire to err on the side of caution as ballast against our personal beliefs? Is it possible that our caution and bending over backwards to be NPOV might lead us to actually be way behind the general zeitgeist? To what extent should external opinions impact that Wikipedia tipping point? What about the news media's perception? The public/media intersect (as gauged by the internet and blogosphere - which has both left and right wing factions)

I thought it would be helpful to follow the example of ragesoss and do some data research on this "controversy" versus "scandal" issue. To see what the media, blogosphere and web-users' perceptions are.

More data: "Scandal" vs "Controversy" vs ""Affair"

I put in the following 3 phrases/words - each in quote marks (as seen below) - To Google Web. To Google Blogs. To Google News.

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy"

"cia leak" "plame" "affair"

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal"

RESULTS

Google Web

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 147,000

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 166,000

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 276,000

Google Blogs

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 379

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 1,260

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 1,770

Google News

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 20

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 393

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 1,054

Would I be wrong in divining from that research that a large majority of the cyber-public, bloggers and news media do see this matter as having finally reached that tipping point where it went from "controversy" or "affair" to "scandal"?

(the above data research was updated on Monday April 2nd 2007 to add in the data about the word "Affair" to the existing research about the words "Controversy" and "Scandal") Davidpatrick 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Filegate, chinagate, travelgate were also the more commonly used names. Those strike me as partisan talking points, so popular use alone is not sufficient grounds for a name. I would feel comfortable labeling this with 'scandal' if there had been a determination by Fitzgerald that the revelation of Plame's name was illegal — even if he could not determine who revealed it. As I understand it, that is not the case. However, I could be mistaken as I have not followed the case that closely since the election. I do realize that Libby is a felon, but that was not due to the leak itself. Here's the rub: any hint of spin tends to undermine an article. The facts actually speak for themselves much louder if they're not amplified, because a scrupulously neutral presentation has the most credibility. Derex 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(other title suggestions)

CIA leak scandal (2003) (temporary title that was suggested as a compromise earlier today)

Consensus

the consensus of editors who have chosen to comment is that the name Plame affair is best suited for this article. i've restored it. if there is still a dispute over this, i suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead of an edit war.Anthonymendoza 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Might as well leave a note here as well. A copy/paste move is never an acceptable method in which to move a page from one article title to another so I've reverted the move for now. The reason for this is that one of the important things for wikipedia is the ability to track who made changes and when those changes were made. By copying and pasting a page from one title to another title that edit history is lost. Please see WP:MOVE for how to properly move an article. Thanks! --Bobblehead 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

if no one objects, i'll request the page be moved back to Plame affair on WP:RM.Anthonymendoza 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, i've requested the page be moved back since no one objected. any further disputes should useWikipedia:Requests for comment, though it appears the issue may be settled for now.Anthonymendoza 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

my request to move the page back to Plame affair was denied at WP:MOVE. the administrator stated "I doubt that the naming of this article will remain stable unless a transparent request is made, and a disinterested party closes the decision." the sad part is that the page was moved to CIA leak scandal with zero transparency. an editor who has rarely, if ever, edited this page decided to carry the torch for the Huffington Post and take it upon himself/herself to change the title name. unless someone wants to start an RFC, i'm guessing CIA leak scandal will continue to be the name of the article. this whole episode has made me realize the shortcomings of wikipedia. consensus can be reached, but it only takes one editor to bring about a dramatic change to an article. personally, i've lost interest in all of this.Anthonymendoza 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't need an RFC to make the move. Just recreate the move request in the "Other proposals" section of WP:RM. I believe the admin's concern is that the discussion about moving the article didn't include a posting on WP:RM so wasn't visible to non-editors of this article. --Bobblehead 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be called "Plame affair" rather than "CIA leak scandal". We should try to maintain a neutral tone while discussing this case and the former name is much better. Vivaldi (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

covert

It's high time to take "alleged" off of the claim that Plame was covert. The CIA has said in no uncertain terms that she was, and in fact even Robert Novak, who convolutes the comments in predictable ways, quotes Hayden and his public affairs officer; Hayden says there is no difference between "covert" and "undercover," and Mark Mansfield, Hayden's public affairs officer, emailed to clear this up for Novak -- "At CIA, you are either a covert or an overt employee. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee."[3] csloat 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i've included Novak's column in the article already. the central issue is not whether she was covert under the CIA use of the term (which was established long ago that she was) but whether she fit the legal definition (which, as we debated above, we'll never know for sure). i find it interesting, though, that hayden told novak and Victoria Toensing that he didn't authorize the use of the word "covert" by waxman, but justified the use by saying covert and undercover are the same in CIA terminology. and the cia told hoekstra that defining plames status has a "considerable legal complexity." all of this just adds to the debate, but doesn't conclude it.Anthonymendoza 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does seem to conclude it, and surprisingly enough, or not, we wind up agreeing on this -- she was "covert" as far as the CIA was concerned, but the legal status of that status per the IIPA was "complex," "considerably" so.... :) De jure, at least, though not in fact; if anyone had actually sought prosecution under IIPA, her "covertness" would simply not be an issue, since the legal def is clear enough that it would easily be established (e.g. she was considered covert by the cia and served overseas in the past 5 yrs). But, since nobody has been charged with that particular crime, there is no court decision on the issue, and we have to stipulate that it is a mystery. csloat 09:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move #1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

CIA leak scandal (2003) → Plame affair — The article was originall moved without discussion to CIA leak scandal.[4] The page was then reverted back to Plame affair[5] and then moved without consensus from Plame affair to CIA leak scandal[6] and then to CIA leak scandal (2003)[7] during an ongoing discussion.[8] The move from CIA leak scandal to CIA leak scandal (2003) required the fixing of a double redirect which prevented a move back to Plame affair until discussion could be completed.[9]. All in all, a consensus name is needed. Basically the choices are:

Plame affair (201,000 hits)
CIA leak case (363,000 hits)
CIA leak scandal (43,800 hits)

--Bobblehead 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect - while I think it is useful to look at the number of hits that come up on Google as a general indication - and I have referred to such numbers myself from time-to-time - I don't think that such search results should be definitive. As we all know - Google results have multiple factors - including mirroring. I say this potentially AGAINST my own preference - which is for either of the two "CIA leak" versions. Since the "CIA leak case" gets a greater number of hits than "Plame Affair" (which I think has become overtaken by developments) - you might expect me to be enthused about the Google hits cited - as it outpolls "Plame Affair". But I think that is a false premise on which to base such a decision. Moreover - in offering the three suggestions - I don't the number of Google hits should have beeen listed next to the choices in the way they are above. Davidpatrick 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Google hits are just one piece in the overall evidence and the intention was not necessarily to be the end all/be all on what should or should not be used to determine the "common name". If you have other ways in which to determine "common name" then you're welcome to provide them. That's why there is a discussion section in the move request. --Bobblehead 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)