Talk:Scott Ritter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Serious NPOV problems

This article strikes me as having serious NPOV problems. From the counterposed "Seeing...As Threat"/Non-Threat section titles, to the phrasing of "sudden change", to the extended discussion of dropped criminal charges, this is an article intended to discredit Scott Ritter from beginning to end. I came to learn about Scott Ritter and his statements in the public sphere, not to read a litany of accusations. -mithras

I agree. The opening paragraph doesn't even mention his noted criticism of the Bush administration or his exposure of the false case made for war. Instead it features claims of his alleged sexual misconduct which have never verified in a court of law and certainly does not mention the possibility of these being completely false charges brought against him in an attempt to silence his outspoken criticism. --Wm 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of a repair job for this article. --JWSchmidt 01:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Any NPOV article has to address Ritter's sudden change in his view of Saddam Hussein. While Ritter was a weapons inspector, he was the most outspoken critic of Saddam possible. Perhaps you can think of better wording, but the topic itself cannot be avoided. Also, the criminal charges were not dropped. Rather, Ritter pled guilty to a misdemeanor rather than go to court on the felony. The Deputy DA was fired for disposing of the case without the DA's input, a clear indication that the DA was unhappy Ritter was treated so leniently. RonCram 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ritter's sudden change in his view of Saddam Hussein" <-- It is possible to be both a critic of Saddam Hussein and against the idea that the United States should abandon UN-mediated inspections and invade Iraq. --JWSchmidt 03:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You do not seem to realize that Ritter thought the US should have invaded long before we did. Ritter was constantly complaining that the UN Security Council would not back up their resolutions and the Clinton Administration was afraid to act without the UN. By the time Bush decides to invade, Ritter had changed his view about Hussein's capabilities and tendencies. Ritter became a proponent of the position that Saddam was basically powerless. This was a big change from his earlier views when he said Saddam could have WMD within months. You cannot rewrite history. Ritter is who he is. RonCram 04:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ritter thought the US should have invaded long before we did" <-- If there is a source to support this, it should be in the article. Currently, the article says, "we really needed the Security Council to step in in a meaningful fashion and seek to enforce its resolutions that we're not complying with."
"the Clinton Administration was afraid" <-- afraid of what? Starting a war with no reason? --JWSchmidt 13:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

If we are going to get serious about this article, I suggest that all references be placed in a numbered list and citations to those references be converted to this format. --JWSchmidt 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article does not mention that the reason Ritter ran into difficulties in UNSCOM was that he was suspected of spying for Israel. Also, the National Review claim that his legal trouble in Albany might have been connected to his sudden 180-degree switch of views on whether Iraq had been disarmed and was a threat would seem to be dismissed by the fact that he had already made the shift by 2000. David | Talk 09:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

""the Clinton Administration was afraid" <-- afraid of what? Starting a war with no reason?"

-maybe you should ask Ritter that, since he was the one making the accusation :). Although Ritter did not to my knowledge say the US should invade, resolutions according to Ritter spoke of the "most severe consequences", and he wanted the US to live up to those.

"...seem to be dismissed by the fact that he had already made the shift by 2000."

-we´ve been through this, this does not dismiss or render allegations baseless, although they are still loose allegations and should not in any way be presented as fact. -Christian 83.227.193.148 12:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

DN!: Ritter clarifies planning to bomb Iran

On the 21st of October 2005, during an interview (towards the end [54:52]) with Amy Goodman at www.democracynow.org (interview available), Scott Ritter rectify this sentence mentioned in this article: "On February 18th, 2005 Scott Ritter announced to an audience in Washington that George Bush had ordered plans drawn up to bomb Iran in June of 2005," by using the word "prepared" instead of "ordered". [ 82.120.71.27 13:33, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC) [1]]

Oct 21, 2005 Democracy Now! Partial transcript of Scott Ritter interview, RealAudio streams, and MP3 downloads. As of posting time, this DN transcript does not contain the section of Ritter's interview in which he clarified his public speech, stating that "a lot of people" misunderstood the June 2005 date. Amy Goodman asked him if the Wikipedia article was correct, and Ritter's answer was somewhat convoluted. The Wiki sentence appears to be technically incorrect, not about the "ordered plans drawn up" part (awkwardly changed to "prepared" by 82.120.71.27), but the "to bomb Iran in June" part. However, Ritter focused on a recurring misunderstanding of the key word "ordered", and to set the record straight used the key word "prepared", clarifying that Bush ordered bombing preparations to be completed by June 2005, not an actual bombing. Ritter said his speech had listed a lot of preconditions to a future Iran attack that a lot of people had not remembered. For example, Ritter said that one of those preconditions was the appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN, which has now occurred. Ritter went on to make more strong statements about what was coming in regard to Iran, but these should await a fuller transcript. At posting time the DN Ritter segment is linked at the same page, but streams the entire 1 hour show. Ritter's Iran comments occur during file time 54:52-58:42. At posting time the DN Oct 21 entire show MP3 audio download is unavailable. Milo 09:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sealed Child Endangerment Charges

Removed from the article:

In June 2001 Ritter was arrested in Albany, New York and charged with "attempted endangerment of a child" for trying to meet up with a 16 year old girl he met online. The charges were later dropped, the records sealed, and the prosecutor Assistant DA Cynthia Preiser was reportedly fired [2]. However, the matter frequently reappears in the US media, which Ritter has called "part of an attempt to silence him" over his opposition to Bush [3].

This implies the unverifiability of the statements. It probably can be restated in an acceptable fashion, but it cannot stand in this form.
--Jerzy·t 06:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection. This paragraph is supported by numerous news reports in the US media, including the two references. Why can it not be included? Seabhcán 08:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The whole thing supposedly hinges on sealed records which AFAIK implies their contents are not verifiable. If it is verifiable that something was sealed, say so, but don't claim to know (or give the appearance of so claiming) what's in them! As i say, maybe it can be rewritten, but it is at best failing to make sense of what it is trying to say, in which case it needs to start by clarifying what "the records" embraces and how the fact of sealing can be verified.
--Jerzy·t 01:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As in most countries some US media commercially lean on the publication of gossip. That doesn't mean gossip should find its place in wikipedia. Otto ter Haar 07:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

You guys might want to take a look at RonCram's recent changes to this page, which not only reproduce this gossip, but make it the basis of a claim that Scott Ritter was blackmailed or something else that is not really clear.--csloat 00:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

csloat, I think "blackmail" is probably as good a word as any. Sources say the record was unsealed when federal officials looked into possible federal prosecution. The Asst' DA was fired, not for prosecuting the case but, for dismissing it. The discussion above makes readers think the arrest was unwarranted, a view which is not supported by any news accounts. RonCram 08:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the charge of "blackmail" being supported by any news accounts either.--csloat 09:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The article does not use the term but it is well-sourced. I invite you to read the link. RonCram 09:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I said "news accounts." The link is to a National Review opinion piece. And it doesn't make much sense anyway; his trouble with young girls is well known already, and was at the time; it's not clear how he could be blackmailed with information that is already in the public eye. It makes even less sense that the blackmailing would continue (after all, Ritter has not changed his tune) after the person supposedly blackmailing him is in prison and his regime has been overthrown. The article is pretty funny; the author's comment that for anti-war folks child molesting is a "lifestyle choice" gives you a sense of this guy's style of argument. But the article doesn't even suggest any evidence that Ritter was "turned" by Saddam - it's sheer conjecture, and it is notable that no mainstream news accounts are even reporting such conjecture. Your statement in the article that "many people believe" this conjecture is reality is simply not at all backed up by the article, which presents only one person's speculation. --csloat 10:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to your statement, Ritter's problem with young girls was not known prior to the arrest. And Ritter's change in POV was stark prompting many people to talk about it. I had several conversations with different people myself about why he changed his mind after being most outspoken about the danger Saddam posed. After those conversations, which I believe were repeated across the country, I saw it discussed on TV panels as well. And the possibility someone had "gotten to" Ritter was discussed. The only other possibility discussed on the TV panel that made any sense at all could be called a Ritter "personality defect." As long as he was involved in weapons inspection, he thought it was important and wanted others to view it as important. Once he was no longer involved, he wanted others to think he had completed his job and to believe Saddam was no longer a threat. That theory was not very satisfying either because Ritter had resigned because the Security Council was not backing up the weapons inspectors and he felt there was more work to do. Still, I probably would have gone with that as the reason if the arrest was not announced later on. The other piece of the puzzle is the money that came from Saddam through Shakir al Khafaji. It looks like Saddam used a carrot and a stick approach. Too bad it worked. RonCram 13:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not say Ritter's problems were known before the arrest. I said that speculation about Ritter's being blackmailed is sheer conjecture, and the statement that "many people believe" the blackmail theory is not backed up by the article. The fact that you and your friends shared the speculation is not in the article and certainly doesn't belong on wikipedia - I think it qualifies as "original research." I don't know what TV Panels you are talking about but if you have references it would be a good idea to use them. I'm not out to defend Ritter, but I don't think your theories about carrots and sticks are backed up by any published accounts linked on the article here, and I don't think they are encyclopedic. Your conversations with different people and your assumption that others had similar conversations are just not substantial evidence for an article like this. I don't know enough about Ritter to have a strong opinion on this myself, but just reading what's in the wikipedia article, it appears to be much more a smear campaign against Ritter than it does an encyclopedic account of anything that happened.--csloat 16:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"I did not say Ritter's problems were known before the arrest."

-csloat

"his trouble with young girls is well known already, and was at the time" "it's not clear how he could be blackmailed with information that is already in the public eye"

-csloat

You´re gonna need Scott McClellan to get out of this one :)

Not saying that Wiki should present rumors (the blackmail part) as anything else than rumors, however the charges themselves are official and should be in, as are charges filed against other people found in their bios.

-sorry for anonymity, dont have the login on this comp. Feel free to delete this statement after the matter has been cleared up, however I just had to point out csloats statement discrepancies.

LOL... I'll hire Scott McClellan as soon as you show me where I argued Scott Ritter's problems were known before his arrest. His arrest was in 2001; I was talking about 2003.--csloat 21:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The documentary was made in 2000, at that time he was NOT arrested. His problems if present at that time were not known, thus he would have been "eligible" for blackmail. So if you didnt mean that his problems were known before his arrest, your point about blackmail being impossible would be wrong (so it´s either being wrong or calling McClellan ;) ).

In the National Review opinion piece (I know it´s hardly a news article) it is clear that Robbins is talking about why Ritter "changed his mind", and that the arrest (or rather the 2003 events in this case) suggested to Robbins that that was the reason. I´m still not sure as to what happened in 2003 as opposed to 2001 though, on Robbins it seems that the 2001 arrest was not known or confirmed until 2003, or something like that. CNN said in 2003 "he (Ritter) was angered that a case more than a year old would come to public attention now".

And I think you can agree that it is, regardless of one´s opinion on Iraq, quite interesting, that Ritter says in 1998 that without effective monitoring Iraq can reconstitute WMD, and then, after YEARS of inspection absence and thus without effective monitoring, he says the Iraqi WMD are not a problem. Furthermore his comments in 1998 can easily be interpreted as scolding the US and Clinton for NOT taking military action (although perhaps not as in an all-out invasion) when the Iraqi obstruct inspections. But then, after years without inspections and when the inspectors say again that the Iraqis are not fully cooperating, he is against taking action.

Anyway that is beside the point, the point is that the underage girl charges are not gossip but were reported in mainstream media. They have had an impact on Ritter´s reputation that´s real. So thus they are relevant, the speculation of whether Iraq could have "blackmailed" Ritter is perhaps not, but if the statement (made by Ritter) that the charges could be a smear attempt is in, maybe they kind of balance each other out in a sense.

193.11.218.40 23:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL, I'll take being wrong; I called Scott and I can't afford his fees :) You're right about the dates, but my point still holds, since if he was blackmailed in 2000 it's not clear what was hanging over his head after 2001, and certainly by 2005, with his supposed blackmailers out of power, the whole theory is difficult to swallow (Ritter has not, of course, changed his tune). But whatever - certainly anything's possible, but not every possible speculation deserves note in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how these things "balance each other out" -- it appears to me that the fact of his arrest (and the unconfirmed information about what's in the sealed records) seems to be being used to discredit the information he has been offering as an inspector. The blackmail theory is an interesting conspiracy theory but until there is some actual evidence of it, it's not clear to me that it belongs here at all. If it is going to be here we should be precise about who is actually putting forward the theory.--csloat 00:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah.. first though I could speculate that stuff that was used for blackmailing was far worse than what has come out today (but yes this is pure 100% speculation). I dont know if he would be in the clear just because Saddam is gone. But yes these are not hard facts.

However, Ritter´s "defense" vs the charges is.. eh.. weak to say the least.. what I read he didnt even claim to be innocent, just that they had decided not to prosecute and that was the end of it he thought.

Anyway my point is that the charges themselves are hardly gossip and so they are relevant, especially since they affected Ritter´s reputation negatively and he was plagued by them when he was trying to voice his opinion on the invasion. That IS hard fact.

The speculation should IMO not be in there unless the article goes in-depth on their implications and different theories. The hard fact, that the charges were made and have hurt Ritter, should however be.

193.11.218.40 00:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement on this -- speculation doesn't belong here. As for his defense against the charges being weak -- well, what would you expect? If he's into 16-yr old girls like that, he's got problems that are serious and no doubt embarrassing, especially if he was caught red-handed soliciting them. Of course, the records are sealed, so we don't know what happened, and the fact that a decision was made not to prosecute suggests that the case was weak at best. What I find suspicious in all of this is the attempt to use his possible predilection for exploiting teenagers to discredit his opinions on unrelated matters (matters for which the available evidence backs up his position). I haven't researched this but I suspect that Ritter has an explanation for his change in position that is stronger than his explanation for luring teenagers on the internet. Either way, though, speculation about blackmail really doesn't belong here and it's odd to make it seem like the sole possibility for the change in position. The claim fails occam's razor pretty miserably.--csloat 02:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, however his change in position (though IMO it´s rather his tendency to go Bull-in-china-shop in all his sayings than actual 180s) should be noted (which it is), and the charges should also be since they had an effect on Ritter´s credibility that was real whether or not the allegations were true. I´m in favor of cutting the blackmail part unless it is written as "Right-Wing.. speculation" or something of the kind, or if it is included together with Ritter´s argument that it was a smear.

As for "and the fact that a decision was made not to prosecute suggests that the case was weak at best."

It seems that this and that the seal meant he couldnt talk about it is what Ritter wanted to imply, but when challenged that the lawyers (for CNN) had said was no reason he couldnt talk about it, he dodged (the link is here on the wiki page). To me it seems far more likely that he agreed to some kind of therapy or similar than that he was innocent - but here we go, speculation again :). Still, the mention of the allegations themselves is not gossip since they actually happened.

Though I have to say something is off with Ritter. He just says very weird things, like:

"..effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once.."

While in interviews before his "change of opinion" he goes on again and again about how Iraqis obstruct efforts. Sealing off an inspection site from inspections for days, weeks even, and destroying ALL evidence within is not significant obstruction?

I guess he has a clear case that he did say Iraq was not fully disarmed but that the Bush administration had no real evidence that Saddam had reconstituted WMD programs. However in the administration´s defense they did have significant amounts of intelligence to that effect, it´s just that it was wrong :).

In Bush´s defense, ISG did find that Saddam was (1)in violation of sanctions, (2)he had forbidden equipment (though not weapons themselves), (3)he was going to get WMD as soon as sanctions ended and the opportunity arose, (4)he wanted military officials and his enemies in Iraq to think he did have WMD, and (5)the Bush administration was not alone in thinking he had WMD.

But then it´s hard to find anyone in the WMD mess who doesnt seem to have contradicted him/herself.

Sorry for turning this into a debate :) On-topic, what I want to say is again that the charges should stay but the speculation about blackmail should not unless the page takes the full step into revealing all the speculations.

193.11.218.40 13:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate?

Although many internet sources list Ritter as born in 1960 (as did this article), in his book Endgame, Ritter talks about his 37th birthday on 15 July 1998. John Elder 2 July 2005 22:31 (UTC)

The sudden change

"The sudden change in Ritter's point of view"
Can someone explain to me exactly what this "sudden change" was? --JWSchmidt 00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That he first says that Saddam can get WMD in months if effective inspections are not taking place, and that the Iraqis obstruct and lie about their programs, then he now says there were no significant obstructions and that the threat from Iraq is low despite the passing of several years without inspections.

Ritter would probably say that he has not really changed his opinion, and it would be fair to put it as "apparent change in Ritter´s point of view". After all the statements are there so everyone can make their judgement on what he says.

83.227.193.148 20:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not see this "change in Ritter's point of view" as being mysterious. I suppose Ritter went to Iraq thinking that he could play an important role in arms inspections. In 1998 Ritter was fresh out of Iraq where his life had frequently been placed on the line by "intelligence" meant to provoke conflict with Iraq and reveal Saddam's patterns of movement. After a couple of years, the games that had been played by the intelligence community had been published and he had the chance to research what had happened in Iraq. Ritter realized that the inspections were a sham and that policy had been regime change, not disarmament. Yes, realizing that you have been a puppet of intelligence spooks could certainly change your point of view. It seems absurd for wikipedia to try to explain Ritter's changed point of view in terms of things like "brushes with police" and "Saddam Hussein's regime used knowledge of Ritter's activities as leverage to convince Ritter to change his public stance toward Iraq". --JWSchmidt 21:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well you just apologized for him with a large post of complete and utter speculation. Congratulations, I guess you think we should print that in Wikipedia then?

Oh and the policy from 98 and on was regime change, this was official US policy. At this time Ritter also says he believes that Iraq may have disassembled WMDs and are hiding them throughout the country, and that the Iraqis are not complying with inspections. He also says they were not allowed (because the US werent prepared to make good on threats of military force) to inspect several sites that may have shed light on the issue. After this several years pass without inspections. What you are saying is that Ritter´s position after several years of being OUT OF the intellingence loop is more accurate than the one he had when he was IN the intelligence loop.

Ritter may say that he hasn´t changed his opinion, and it is up to anyone do decide if they think he really has, however there is a broad consensus that his statements are not compatible with each other, and some of them seem outright contradictory. The statements themselves are printed on the Wiki page so everyone can make up their own opinion, so what´s the problem?

193.11.218.40 12:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"complete and utter speculation" <-- This is what prompted my comment (above). The article has a bunch of speculations including the idea that Ritter was a puppet of Saddam: "Saddam Hussein's regime used knowledge of Ritter's activities as leverage to convince Ritter to change his public stance toward Iraq". What evidence is there to support that speculation? It has been revealed that the CIA was using UNSCOM as cover for attempts to remove or kill Saddam, attempts that continued in secret from 1991 to 1998. "What you are saying is that Ritter´s position after several years of being OUT OF the intelligence loop is more accurate than the one he had when he was IN the intelligence loop." <-- Yes. That's the idea. After several failed coup attempts, UNSCOM was being given "intelligence" that would lead to inspections that could allow for identification of Saddam's location. When the inspectors left Iraq, Saddam's likely locations were attacked (see). People like Barton Gellman played an important roll in telling the story of CIA activity in Iraq during the inspections. What is interesting is that during the Clinton administration it was people like David Wurmser, then at the American Enterprise Institute, who were promoting the idea that Saddam had WMD and it was Clinton administration policy that prevented the discovery of the WMD (see). After the invasion of Iraq, we learned that there were no WMD. --JWSchmidt 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

""Saddam Hussein's regime used knowledge of Ritter's activities as leverage to convince Ritter to change his public stance toward Iraq"."

- You have cut the beginning of that quote; "National Review editor James S. Robbins seems to believe that...". So it is not a wiki opinion nor fact, just a speculation. I don´t think it should be in, but it is not labeled as anything other than speculation.

"Yes. That's the idea. After several failed coup attempts, UNSCOM was being given "intelligence"..."

- I´m not denying this, but it has nothing to do with my point! The discrepancies in his statements are in relation to Iraqi WMD capabilities and Iraqi (non)obstruction, not in relation to intelligence infiltration.

And remember that Ritter actually resigned because he said the US did NOT want a confrontation with Iraq. Quote "...put pressure on the special commission to slow down, to postpone, to cancel certain operations because they would lead to confrontation, which the United States was not willing to step up to." (PBS interview). Of course soon after the US did get confrontational with Iraq and bombed. I don´t see what´s strange about using all kinds of intel to get good targets for an airstrike, doesnt mean that the only purpose of inspections was to map USAF targets or anything.

193.11.218.40 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ritter's legal problems

Editors are deleting information about two important points. 1 - Ritter has claimed the charges against him were dropped. This is not accurate. You cannot say charges were dropped when the court has ordered him to attend sex offender counseling. The court cannot ordered anyone to do anything without a confession or conviction.

The reference to "counselling" seems very weak. I am extremely skeptical of it. If you want to keep it in you will have to make it clear that Ritter says that all charges were dismissed. Need a better reference to support these claims. --Wm 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The reference to the court-ordered sex offender counselling is already cited. All you have to do is read the article.RonCram 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

2 - Some people have claimed Ritter was never arrested. It is important to maintain in the article the point that his attorney has gone on record confirming he was arrested. RonCram 05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Some people may, some people claim anything. As Ritter himself does not deny being arrested you cannot reasonably claim that it is "disputed". --Wm 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I can reasonably say it has been disputed because it was disputed on these pages before you got here. Since it is not disputed now, and is only a few words long, it shall remain.RonCram 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It reads very badly. The statement "Ritter was arrested" is sufficient. There are no references that assert that we was not arrested. It is not disputed by any reasonable person. --Wm 06:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the fact that you have made a new section for this topic, although I am not entirely happy with the heading, it will do for now. --Wm 07:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

'Headings' about Ritter's changing views

Removal of the headings regarding Ritter changing his view on Iraq does not help the narrative. What caused Ritter to change his view? Why was he so willing to see the US go to war in 1998 when he was an weapons inspector? Why was Ritter a Saddam defender in 1999 or 2000? Removing the headings to obscure this sudden change is not helpful to readers seeking to understand Scott Ritter. The fact that Ritter changed his view after he resigned as a weapons inspector and no longer had access to classified information is important to readers. RonCram 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The idea that Ritter "changed his view" is put forward to discredit him. It is pushing an agenda. So what if he changed his view? You could say that he developed his view, it is no big deal. The way that you claim that he changed his view is colored with an agenda that trys to discredit Ritter. I think we should wipe the article clean and start it again incrementely adding details. It is a real mess. You talk about narrative but it is all over the place and impossible to read. --Wm 05:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact Ritter changed his view would have to be discussed even if Ritter had not gotten arrested. People were wondering why he changed his view prior to his arrest. Some people have tied the two together and they have a valid point. Encyclopedia readers want a synopsis of the man, what he believes in, what he accomplished, etc. People also want to know who his critics are and what they said about him. You cannot censor the information and only tell the good. You cannot find a single article in Wikipedia about a person that does not have some space devoted to the man's mistakes or his detractors. Ritter is not a saint. Sometimes you just have to accept things the way they are. RonCram 06:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I accept that various views should be represented but I do not accept that this article comes anywhere near any sort of reasonable representation of the facts. In addition it is a total mess in terms of organisation and structure. --Wm 06:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Like the elephant designed by a committee, regarding the organization and structure. I have to agree with you that it could be cleaned up. But it is difficult when editors come in with differing POVs. I am somewhat surprised to see you do not think the article is a reasonable presentation of the facts. Are you looking to add facts? Or to remove them? RonCram 06:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to find them. Instead they are buried in a pile of obsfucation, rumour and innuendo. The basic facts should jump out of the page: 1) He was a weapons inspector 2) After time, he concluded that significant weapons remained (this does not mean he thought they never existed) 3) He reported his find to the CIA 4) The CIA disregarded his reports but they were later vindicated by extensive post invasion investigation 5) He resigned in protest 6) He has some other views about the sdminstration (here report the views) 7) He was arrested but the charges were dismissed (as regard the "counselling" I am *very* skeptical that this is not misinformation but am willing to wait to look at it further) --Wm 06:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Extensive use of quoted material

It is not normal practise in Wikipedia articles to attempt to pursue an argument and supply screeds of quoted text in that attempt. The extensive use of quoted material here makes the article almost impossible to read. For the most part, it should be sufficient to determine what facts can be taken from the source material and then make those statements with reference to the source material.

We should remove the quoted material, summarise the facts and make reference to it. --Wm 06:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, except when it comes to quotations. Perhaps there is a way we can keep the essence of the quotes but remove the extraneous introductions? RonCram 06:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about this section:

The major discrepancy in Ritter's stances on Iraq's WMD capabilities come down to the following 1998 and 2002 interviews.

August 31st, 1998

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have proscribed weapons?

Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability."

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has proscribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/826175/posts]

July 17, 2002

SWEENEY: Let's ask what you believe the weapons of mass destruction situation is in Iraq at the moment.

RITTER: Well, look: As of December 1998 we had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability -- "we" being the weapons inspectors. We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start the process of producing these weapons since December 1998.

SWEENEY: And how do we know that hasn't been happening?

RITTER: We don't, but we cannot go to war on guesswork, hypothesis and speculation. We go to war on hardened fact. So Tony Blair says he has a dossier; present the dossier. George W. Bush and his administration say they know with certainty; show us how you know.

[4]

I think it is possible to clean that up, if Ritter's view change was given a separate heading and his legal troubles given a separate heading. Would that make sense to you? RonCram 06:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in here, RonCram, but the quotes you have given show that he has changed his mind. However, the reason he has changed his mind is clearly stated by Mr Ritter in his second interview: "[weapons inspectors] had accounted for 90 to 95 percent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability... we destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production and we couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years [and] biological weapons have a shelf-life of three years." I think that's a pretty good reason why he doesn't believe they were a threat. Perhaps back in 1998 they had weapons, who knows? This is also speculation. However, it would explain Ritters change in stance. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No. His views only changed in that the circumstance in Iraq had changed. That is, whereas they had previously held a certain armoury and had attempted to deceive weapons inspector, in time arsenal had greater been reduced for one reason and another. Ritter only reported what happened. Yes he did report that there were weapons *and there was*, later he reported that there none, again *he was correct*.

Ritter's Viewpoint on Iraq Changed

This simple fact has to be addressed and given ample space. Wm wrote that it was not Ritter's viewpoint that changed but that he observed a change. This is ridiculous. Ritter did not change his viewpoint until after he had resigned as a weapons inspector. Ritter did not have any new information that he could have observed. He was out of the picture. That is the main point. With an absence of new information, Ritter suddenly and inexplicably changed his view on the danger of Saddam and his WMD capability. That point has to be discussed and illustrated with proper quotes for this article to be helpful. Censorship will not be allowed. RonCram 06:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I beleive that you are wrong. I believe that he reported the situation regarding weapons to the CIA prior to resiging, and they rejected the report. --Wm 06:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the point is disputed, therefore it is important not to present the "change of viewpoint" as some sort of absolute truth. It is subject to all sorts of interpretations. --Wm 06:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is not reasonably disputed. We have Ritter's comments in the article just days after he resigned as a weapons inspector and he is militant in his belief that Saddam could reconstitute his WMD in months. Sometime between that date and 2000, Ritter changed his viewpoint. RonCram 07:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that after 2000 Ritter no longer thought that Saddam could reconstitute WMD in months? --JWSchmidt 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Shakir al Khafaji

Could we please have a reference regarding the claims about Shakir al Khafaji regarding the funding of the film and the Oil for Food program. --Wm 09:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The source was readily found on the Shakir al Khafaji page.RonCram 14:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, got that. Thanks. --Wm 21:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact of Ritter's viewpoint change is not controversial

Wm, you cannot say there is a controversy surrounding the fact Ritter dramatically changed his point of view and then remove the evidence of the dramatic change so that your viewpoint seems reasonable. Your POV is showing. Ritter did not just say the weapons were there in 1998 and not there in 2000. Wm, you really need to read the sources before you try to edit the page. If you would only take the time to read the sources first, you would see the point. Ritter claimed that Saddam would NEVER change. He claimed that Saddam could reconstitute his weapons programs in a matter of months if not constantly supervised, and he probably was doing while the inspectors were there because the UN would not let the inspectors be confrontational enough. Ritter changed his view after he resigned so he no longer had access to information the UN and Bush Administration had. How could he learn anything new that would convince him Saddam had changed his spots? Wm, please read through all the sources before doing anymore editing. RonCram 14:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not remove evidence. I (attempted) to summarise it. I am only trying to extract your argument and make it succint so that it can be comprehended by the casual reader. You may think the point is obvious, but this is not necessaryily the case and talking of POV, examine your above statement "surrounding the fact Ritter dramatically changed his point of view". Now, you refer here to a "fact", something which is very poorly written and very unclear. The word "dramatically" is itself a value judgement and might depend on the opinion of the writer, so it is very questionable to speak of a "fact".

Now, you say the point is that Ritter claimed that Saddam would NEVER change.. I don't see that his view ever moved from that assessment. I don't think anyone is claiming that Saddam reformed in some way, only that WMD were no longer to found in Iraq, which was vindicated by fact.

I will certainly try and slow down on the edits and I will be off to the library to see if I can find some relevant books. Cheers. --Wm 22:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

When Ritter's dramatic change in viewpoint is a common topic of discussion around the watercooler, the fact it happened cannot be considered controversial. The reason for the change may be controversial as different people may attribute the change to different factors. But no objective observer can dispute that Ritter changed his viewpoint dramatically. His shift was not a minor one. RonCram 02:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The so-called change is controversial because I dispute it. I agree whether or not there is a controvesy in the wider community is highly debatable. However, you will note that I am not the only person on this page who has questioned your assertions. If the "change" is so obvious, why is it that you cannot summarise what the change is in a simple sentence? Please provide a simple sentenence that summarised that change and also if possible, your best references that discuss this so called change, by this I mean references to commentators who agree with your view that some sort of inconsistency is present in Ritter's views over time. For example, to provide a simple sentence you could say something like: Prior to being dismissed Ritter believe that Saddam had WMD, but after the resignation came to believe that the WMD arsenal no longer existed. Other than this, simple and unsurprising statement of facts, frankly, I have no idea what idea you are tryng to push. I must insist that your ideas are expressed in a straightforward and coherent manner so that they can be understood without undertaking a separate research project. In seems to me that have so far completely failed to express your view in a coherent statement and in a way that simply relates facts and doesn't try and superimpose your own reading of events. --Wm 05:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me emphasise this again. You have changed the heading back to say that a Ritter's view changed, but nowhere in the following paragraphs have you given any explanation at all of what you allege that change of view to be. Yes, you have restored the deleted quotes, but this does not explain the nature of the suppossed "change" that you are alluding to. You must explain what this so-called change is, or it must be concluded that it is mythical. I expect that if you cannot provide a clear and coherent explanation of this change is alleged to be, that you will allow the heading to be removed and changed to a non-POV heading. --Wm 05:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we would all be surprised if Ritter's views on Iraq did not change after he quit his job. What Wikipedia needs is a clear description of what those changes were. In 1998 there was much interest in Ritter from those who wanted Clinton to adopt a more aggressive policy of confrontation with Iraq. Since Ritter was willing to dispute Clinton's policy, he got attention from those who wanted a new Iraq policy. When Ritter did not turn out to be a supporter of plans to invade Iraq, attempts were made to say that Ritter had changed his position. We have to distinguish between the views of those who had hoped to use Ritter for political advantage and Ritter himself. --JWSchmidt 14:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Scott Ritter as an Israeli spy

Here are extracts of a Washington Post story of Friday January 8, 1999 which should be reflected in the article. It's headed "U.S. Says It Collected Iraq Intelligence Via UNSCOM" and was written by Thomas W. Lippman and Barton Gellman. It doesn't appear to be reflected in the article at the moment. Full article is here.

The United States for nearly three years intermittently monitored the coded radio communications of President Saddam Hussein's innermost security forces using equipment secretly installed in Iraq by U.N. weapons inspectors, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.

In 1996 and 1997, the Iraqi communications were captured by off-the-shelf commercial equipment carried by inspectors from the organization known as UNSCOM, then hand-delivered to analysis centers in Britain, Israel and the United States for interpretation, officials said.

...

The idea of taking scanners into Iraq originated with Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine officer who was working as an UNSCOM inspector in 1995. On a trip to Israel, Ritter proposed that Israeli intelligence provide inspectors with commercial all-frequency scanners and recording devices that they could carry with them.

...

In March 1998, for reasons that are in dispute, the United States took over the operation and arranged for the installation of the more sophisticated, stationary equipment. The equipment was automated and could have been moved as UNSCOM inspectors left the country.

Ritter has accused the United States of putting pressure on Britain and Israel to pull out in an effort to gain full control of the intelligence produced. U.S. officials said Ekeus and his successor, Richard Butler, were concerned that inspectors' lives would be endangered if the Iraqis discovered the portable equipment they were carrying.

...

Ritter was cut out because of questions arising from his marriage to a Russian and because of Washington's fears that a Justice Department investigation into allegations that Ritter had improperly given classified information to Israel would provide anti-UNSCOM propaganda fodder for Saddam Hussein.

In August, shortly after Iraq expelled the arms inspectors, Ritter resigned and made the explosive accusation that the United States had undercut UNSCOM by cutting off the flow of crucial intelligence data. U.S. officials say they did not cut off UNSCOM, only Ritter personally.

David | Talk 16:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

David, I would like to see the information from this story including in the article. Unfortunately, Wm is busy deleting valuable information at the moment. See below. If you have time to make the appropriate entry, it would be appreciated. RonCram 15:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

prohibited weapons prior to 1998

"Iraq certainly did have prohibited weapons prior to 1998" <-- this statement seems to be so vague as to be nearly meaningless within the context of its use in the article. If you read Ritter's comments (in the sources provided in the article) from the time shortly after he left Iraq in August 1998, it seems that he was concerned that Iraq had "components of ballistic missiles illegally retained by Iraq". Similarly, he was concerned that Iraq could begin to produce WMDs within six months of the end of inspections. That was his position in 1998. Why is saying "Iraq certainly did have prohibited weapons prior to 1998" relevant to deciding if Ritter had a fundamental change in his views? --JWSchmidt 18:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This edit is far from satisfactory. I am goint to try and slow down and get some books in to help fill out the picture. --Wm 22:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Wm's misleading edits

Wm has deleted information, mainly Ritter's own words, showing Ritter's dramatic and sudden change of viewpoint regarding Saddam after Ritter had resigned as a weapons inspector. By making these edits, he is able to redeem his failed view that Ritter's change in viewpoint was somehow gradual or based on new evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth. By cutting down the full quote to just a few words, there is no way to see the contxt or the intensity with which the words are spoken. There can be no doubt that Ritter was pro-war during the Clinton Administration (and very frustrated that Clinton and the UN were not more confrotational) to a change to being antiwar during the Bush Administration. From 1998 to 2000, Ritter was not a weapons inspector and had no access to classified information. What caused him to change his mind? Ritter's answers in his film are far from satisfactory. If Wm wishes to document Ritter's reasons in his own words, that would be a helpful addition to the article, but deleting information to make it look like Ritter never changed his view or that he changed because he had access to classified information is false and deceptive. Readers of Wikipedia deserve better. RonCram 15:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "change of view" is that you are referring to. I have asked you to attempt to explain in this discussion in a simple sentence a succint summary of this so called change but you have not responded to this simple request. Note: JWSchmidt's comments which seem much more coherent to the scrambled mess you insist on inserting into the article. I have performed many small edits, most of which do not relate to this issue but you have reverted them all on the basis of this argument. I am asking you nicely to instead of reverting the dozen or so edits in one go, to instead restore the individual parts of text that relate to this issue.

Now the heading that states that Ritter's view changed has no explanation of what that change it. It is nonsensical. If you cannot explain what the change is then clearly the heading is not justified.

Instead of reverting the dozens of edits, try moving the article forward by co-operating with my structural changes and restoring the information that you feel has been removed. You may not have noticed it but your reverts have actually removed additions to the text (for example, a reference) that I have added and you have not discussed or mentioned in your justification for the revert. --Wm 19:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. Re-reading the above comment from you it appears that you assert as follows: Ritter was pro-war during the Clinton Administration but moved to an antiwar position during the Bush Administration.'. If this is what you are asserting it appears that the quote that you keep on re-inserting in the article does not support this. It only shows that Ritter supported a strong weapons inspection program and does not show that he advocated invasion. --Wm 20:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wm, first, during the Clinton Administration, everyone understood Ritter to favor invasion during the time he was a weapons inspector. If you read the section above, you will find this: "During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Senator John McCain later rebutted by stating that he wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War. "Above your pay grade" became a popular phrase in American congressional hearings thereafter." Ritter favored enforcement of weapons inspection process, and everyone knew that meant invasion.

Second, the Ritter quotes you emasculated show that Ritter believed, in 1998, that Saddam could and would reconstitute his WMD program in a matter of months. Yet in 2000, Ritter makes a film claiming Saddam is fully disarmed. Ritter seeks to leave the impression that Saddam was incapable or unwilling to reconstitute his WMD in 2000. At this point, Ritter does not favor an invasion to enforce the inspection process. This is a sudden and dramatic change in viewpoint and it happens in an informational vacuum. During this period, Ritter was not a weapons inspector and had no access to classified information.

Wm, you really need to read the issure more closely before you start making edits. Some of the early edits and suggestions you made were good. They made the article better. But this last round has been unacceptable. If you wish to add information that puts Ritter is a positive light, please feel free to do so. Ritter has made a number of significant contributions to the country and those should be better attested in the article. But you cannot excise well founded criticism against the man just to polish his reputation. RonCram 20:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ritter was pro-war during the Clinton Administration .....a change to being antiwar during the Bush Administration". I think that the terms "pro-war" and "antiwar" do not capture the true nature of Ritter's positions. The temptation to use such terminology hides the details that we are trying to deal with here. It is not a contradiction to to be in favor of military action such as bombing suspected WMD facilities (in an attempt to enforce UN resolutions) while being against a full scale invasion.

I agree that it is best to make relatively small changes to the article so that each change can be discussed and/or reverted on an individual basis. --JWSchmidt 20:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

RonCram. The quote by Bidden does not show what Ritter's views about invasion were. It is something you are attempting to infer but is not explicit in the quote. Why can't you provide a reference that either quotes Ritter directly and expressed the view that you claim that he held, or failing that, provide reference that states directly that Ritter held that view. What you are infering from the quote you provide is a long way from what is explicitly stated. It seems bizarre that you are attempting to make this argument with this reference, it shows nothing about Ritter's views of the invasion, only that he did not have the authority to decide on invasion which is obvious and would not be disputed by anyone.

Second, AFAIK it was not necessary to invade in order to conduct an inspection process, I had the impression that the inspection process was under way and was called off to facilitate the invasion. Your argument seems very vague and very inconsistent? Please, we need to strip back this article and clean it up. It is not appropriate attempt to persuade by evidence within the article as you seem to be attempting. We should form a factual conclusion, state it as simply as possible (but no simplier), and provide references to support it. The article is is not a place to put forward a viewpoint. Cut down to simple facts first, then describe various opinions held by various people. --Wm 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wm, the problem is that your edit and delete information before you have done your reading. Then you complain that the article does not make sense as it stands. Of course not! You have already gutted the information that held it all together. Let's make a plan to start again. First, revert to my last version and then read all the sources so you know the story. Then go do your own research and make a list of points you dispute. Let's talk about them here. Tell me why you dispute the points and give your sources so I can read what you are reading. Do not go into an article and make wholesale changes without reading the article and the sources cited. If you are willing to do that, it will show good faith. If you think portions are poorly written, remember first of all that I did not write the whole article. I may well agree with you that some portions are not well written. Instead of deleting a paragraph for poor grammar, let's see if we can rewrite it. Is it a deal? RonCram 21:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You haven't resonded to my comments about the Bidden quote or the suppossed necessity to invade Iraq. --Wm 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to strip back to basic facts (preserving all references). e.g. "Ritter did this", "Ritter said that". We can also refer to commentary by notable persons if felt appropriate but we should not attempt commentary within the article itself. There is too much editorializing and attemps to prosecute an argument withing the text and this seems to me unWikipedian --Wm 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

btw, I think the article makes more sense now because comparing it against when I started it is much better structured, shorter and easier to read. At the same time I have not removed any facts, instead existing facts have greater prominence. It is still very, very far from satisfactory though, and yes I certainly am not clear about many of the issues. I would like to see some other people get involved and have put in some requests for people to come and look at it. As stated previously, I will also obtain some reading material from my local library as soon as possible (but v. busy so may be a few days) --Wm 22:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to research the Biden quote to give it better context. Since I remember the incident, I understand what the quote means. In the meantime, are you willing to do the reading? Are you willing to try to work on it collaboratively? RonCram 22:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, you have to work collaboratively, that is the only way that it is possible to work. Let us try and not to make purely personal comments but concentrate on discussing the actual facts and substance of the content. --Wm 01:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As regards the context of the Bidden quotes I appear to have located a more complete transcript [5]. At first glance, it seems that the use of the quote in the article to infer that Ritter urged military action in Iraq is misrepresentative. Are you able to find a suitable quote from Ritter that supports the view that he advocated military action? To me it appears that he is only advocating that inspection procedures be vigourously and propeerly conducted. --Wm 02:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged by some...

"It is alleged by some that after Ritter had resigned his position as weapons inspector, his viewpoint on the danger of WMD in Iraq changed in some discreditable way because while for example, on August 31, 1998, he stated that Iraq had "proscribed weapons capability" but then after he had resigned he began to express the view that Iraq was no longer a serious threat."

Will someone please tell me who alleges this? I have read the entire talk page, and I haven't as yet once seen a source to a significant commentator who believes Ritter changed his position. In this I agree with Wm - please find a source for this! I am perfectly happy to agree that this is the case, but I can only do this if we can provide a citation. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it may have started with Rush Limbaugh in January 2003, "You know we've all wondered why it is that Scott Ritter has done a 180 on what he originally saw as a weapons inspector and then the last couple years, it's like 'Nah, the Iraqis don't even have the capability to make a thumbtack, much less a chemical weapon.'" --JWSchmidt 13:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The page is not done. I am working on a rewrite. For now, read these sources.

Washington Post calls Ritter's change a "bizarre turnaround" [6]

CNN's chief Eason Jordan says Ritter's "chameleon-like behavior is really bewildering" [7]

London Guardian [8]

Sam Shulman's op-ed [9]

Weekly Standard draws a parallel between Saddam's money funding Ritter's film to Saddam's bribes of other pro-Saddam journalists [10]RonCram 17:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere! However note these are opinions, not facts as previously claimed. Note in paticular this quote from Guardian article: "Ritter maintained his position had remained 'consistent' since his resignation from Unscom in 1998, shortly before its mission ended - then and now, he favoured effective inspection and arms control, and to claim he had changed his views was 'baloney'. --Wm 19:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I feel that the language "turnaround" is an opinion, sure! Let's just source who believed it and leave it at that. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Surely you jest! All of these people can read and they all, from the Washington Post to the Jewish World Review, say Ritter changed his view dramatically and yet you believe Ritter? Remember Ritter is the same guy who originally denied he was arrested. It was not until his mug shot was posted and Ritter's attorney confirmed the arrest that it put the subject to rest. RonCram 20:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing at all to do with what I believe and everything to do with reporting the facts. You claimed that the turnaround was a "fact" and "undisputed", yet here we see in a reference that you yourslef have supplied that shows that indeed it is disputed, not the least by Ritter himself. The references are fine and we can report the view expressed in them, just as we must also report the respnse by Ritter to those claims. This is not a place to put forward arguments, we must remain neutral and make reference to views expressed elsewhere. --Wm 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wm, the only one I know of who disputes it is Ritter himself. He denies he changed just as he denied that he knew the funding for his film came from Saddam. Yet, he knew the man who funded had close ties to Saddam. Ritter denied he was arrested claiming it must have been some other Ritter. I will give you an assignment: Find a publication that thinks Ritter's views have not changed. RonCram 22:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Fellas! Cool it! The problem, up till now, has been that we have needed sources for the whole turnaround debate. I am very impressed that RonCram has come up with the goods (I suspected sooner or later he would), please lets not get caught up in whether something is a fact or an opinion. After all, those who have the opinion believe it to be fact, others believe it to be speculation. At the end of the day, we just say that "Several commentators have described Ritter's comments as a change in belief. Among them were CNN's Eason Jordan, who said that "[Ritter's] chameleon-like behavior is really bewildering", the Washington Post (who said it, btw?) said that Ritter's change was a "bizarre turnaround" while The Guardian says that he had a "change of heart". The Guardian also records that Ritter strongly denies these allegations." - Ta bu shi da yu 09:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I would generally consider myself to be on RonCram´s "side", in this case he is wrong - but not entirely. Ritter´s "change" in position should not be reported as such, especially in the way it is now. The reason I say this is that Ritter says he hasnt changed his mind and offers arguments for this. He says that he has never given Saddam a "clean bill of health". Before the war, he says that Iraq may have reconstituted WMDs, but that conclusive evidence of this has not been presented (which is true, and the administration didnt really claim they had any conclusive and irrefutable evidence). In this case he´s not really "changing" his view anymore than the administration - like the administration, he can be said to be judging a specific situation based on what he knows. The administration viewed Iraq in a different light after 9/11, and Ritter viewed Iraq in a different light because of the threat of invasion. IMO however he did present views that can be interpreted as clashing, and this should be reflected. Why not divide this part of the article into "views before XXXX" and "views after XXXX" or something similarly NPOV, with XXXX being the point of time in which the apparent change took place. Then we have the info there, and structured, but not POV.

Also, Ritter did not AFAIK advocate invasion, he advocated "tough measures", "stepping up", "confronting" or something of that sort (the quotes are not his actual words I dont remember those). Just put his statements as quotes on the page and people can decide for themselves if they thought he had a change of heart.

-Christian 83.227.193.148 12:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Isn't the opening paragraph the most transparent partisanship on the 'pedia today? Isn't Ritter better known for his strict adherence to chasing teenage girls through the internet? Crid 02:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Cited criticism belongs in the body. The intro cannot contain summarized controversial conclusions. Scott Ritter has been in the mainstream media three times in his life: once during his military career, again as a UN inspector, and now as an opponent to current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. In the all three instances, Ritter has been an outspoken critic of those who failed to rigidly adhere to consistency, facts and agreements. You can accuse him of seeing the world only in terms of black and white, but he has never been convicted of a crime involving teenage girls. --Peter McConaughey 05:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I live in the same area as Ritter, know the abandoned Burger King resturant where he was busted by the police. I worked in the Albany, NY -area media at the time and know all about his little "lapse." The Albany county assistant district attorney who cut him the deal was fired by the district attorney because if of it. If that alone doesn't speak volumes toward the truth, then you must be deaf. There is absolutely no doubt the reason Ritter went to that abandoned Burger King was to meet what he thought was a 14-year old girl and masturbate in front of her. The record may have been sealed, but the details were leaked to the press. The man is a pervert. Even though I am against the Iraqi occupation, I'd rather Ritter join some other side, or leave the country alltogether. Because of his lapse into perversion he is more of a liability to the anti-war movement than a gain. Yeah, maybe Ritter has never been convicted of a crime involving teenage girls, but then Hitler was never convicted of killing a Jew. Doesn't mean both didn't happen. -- Jango Davis 03:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Some interesting questions can be asked about this: A lot of people are chasing teenage girls through the internet, why don't we hear about all of them on CNN? This happened in june 2001, why did the story break in january 2003? It seems as chasing teenage girls won't get you airtime on CNN, being a critic of the regime won't get you airtime on CNN, but if you're a critic of the regime your teen-chasing will get you airtime on CNN even if it's 18 months retrospect. Sure, his brush with the police belongs in the article, but my bet is that you wouldn't have known if he wasn't a dissenter. Geir Gundersen 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is not the place to air Mr. Davis's preferences or WP:OR -- Jibal 03:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ritter is not known for his early career as a intelligence officer, as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, and more recently as an opponent to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. None of those things get you on national news. Ritter has received national and international notoriety by being an outspoken critic of people who fail to adhere to consistency, facts, and agreements in those three areas.

I don't understand what that means. I do understand what "his early career as a intelligence officer, as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq, and more recently as an opponent to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East" means. Hilighting such things as "adherence to consistency, facts, and agreements" is vague and silly; it makes him sound like a logician. Also, he was well known as a UN weapons inspector long before he was openly critical of US policy towards Iraq.--csloat 20:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Having just read his book Iraq Confidential, I think I can shed some light on this. The sanctions against Iraq was supposed to be lifted as soon as Iraq had been disarmed according to the security council resolution, but the US stated officially that sanctions would last until Saddam Hussein was removed. (This would be the inconsistency and agreement part of it). Scott Ritter and the rest of UNSCOM documented that Iraq was disarmed, but the US insisted that they search for more hidden SCUDs and the like. The US would not be convinced of the disarmament, becasuse the didn't want the sanctions to be lifted. Therefore, the US had to nurture doubt about the completeness of the inspections, while doing everything they could to ensure that complete and effective inspections didn't happen. (That would be the fact part of it). At the same time the US plotted overthrow and used every opportunity to gather intelligence about Iraq through the UNSCOM, while not even sharing this intelligence with the UNSCOM. Geir Gundersen 10:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored POV Deletions

I have restored the sections on Ritter's legal problems and the quotes regarding Ritter's bizarre turnaround. It is beyond me how wikipedia editors can delete information just for POV reasons. Do you really think that people are going to forget about Ritter's bizarre change? Or the fact his movie was financed out of Saddam's Oil for Food money? Or that he was arrested? RonCram 01:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is an offical policy of Wikipedia.

The arrest may be relevant to his character. But you can not take information from blatantly bias editorials.

Some Ritter critics, such as National Review editor James S. Robbins have suggested that Saddam Hussein's regime used knowledge of Ritter's activities as leverage to convince Ritter to change his public stance toward Iraq (see 17) but these speculations have not been substantiated by evidence.

• if you read the op-ed it sounds like a pissed off blogger

Nevertheless, Ritter's access to the media was never based on his message. Harry the Hippie has the same message, and may be even more articulate, but Ritter had man-bites-dog appeal. He was an outspoken hard-line inspector who transformed suddenly into a rather forceful apologist, and thus became instant producer-bait., this is not a source for NPOV

• The documentary is also relevant, but for a NPOV the documentary should at discussed for more than a sentence before 2 paragraph criticism, and you cant site a forum posting and assume its a creditable source. At least find a real source to base your argument
• Information on these two issues almost solely exists in the right-wing media, search in google, it gives you freerepublic, nationalreview, weeklystandard. Of the first 40 pages less than five are of reputable sources and most are op-eds. You don't want people to start quoting Democracy Now or Mother Jones as NPOV sources, so don't use these sources... ZyMOS 22:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales states that NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".

I agree with ZyMOS that the article dwells a little too much on anti-Ritter details from partisan sources. I tried to tone that stuff down with my previous edit, and I thought the result was a pretty good step toward neutrality. I think maybe we could further trim the section about legal entanglements but keep the charge that this left him open to blackmail - it was prominantly discussed in the mainstream media and is a significant reason for his marginalization, whether the charge is true or not. As long as the proper caveat is in place ('unsubstantiated by evidence') I think it is relevent & neutral to mention it. Also, I agree that a full discussion of the documentary would improve the article, but I haven't seen it and feel unqualified to write one - I don't think we should flag the article for NPOV just because no one has written that section yet. Anyone else agree the flag should be removed with or without minor changes? Rustavo 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Robbins is as entitled to his opinion as Cram is to his. That doesn't make anything "bizarre" or the result of blackmail simply because they say so. The fact that some people are willing to stick to their views even in defiance of facts doesn't mean that it's bizarre to change one's opinion over time as one is reconsidering them. Quite the contrary. But if Robbins teeters on the brink of slander, that doesn't mean that it's NPOV to aid him in that. Presumption of innocence is still the basic premise of a free and fair judicial system and I don't think it is Wikipedia's role to aid in witch hunts or second-guess the judicial system. --OliverH 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 'second guessing the judicial system' is at issue here - it wouldn't be NPOV to write that OJ was "falsely accused of murder" just because he was acquitted, and conversely, there's nothing wrong with discussing Ritter's arrests just because the charges were dropped. Regarding the blackmail accusation, I think the appropriateness of mentioning that turns on how widely discussed those accusations were, rather than whether or not they were true - if a slanderous accusation becomes a major event in someone's life as a public figure, than it should be discussed just as any other major event would be (of course, an NPOV article needs to identify an unsubstantiated accusation as such.) If the accusation was not widely known, then I agree, it is not appropriate to mention it and thus aid the slanderer.

I guess as a general rule it makes sense to err on the side of leaving that sort of accusation out unless a contributor (i.e. RonCram) can conclusively demonstrate that it was a widely circulated and expressed accusation, so I've taken it out and rewritten some of the parts referring to the documentary. I think the article is pretty neutral now, but I will leave it up to someone else to remove the flag. Rustavo 04:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Added news references to the Albany County District Attorney's handling of the case, including the firing of the assistant district attorney who cut a deal to dismiss the charges against Ritter without the DA's knowledge or approval. -- Jango Davis 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored deleted reference regarding the Albany County District Attorney's handling of Ritter's case. -- Jango Davis 04:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored deleted entry under Legal Problems with teh dates of both of Ritter's arrests. This is a strictly factual report. Why does the truth bother Ritter supporters so much? Oh yeah, cause its the truth! -- Jango Davis 13:28 (UTC) 27 September 2006

New Sections

OK, so I just posted two new sections in the Scott Ritter article. The first is a quick overview of his opinions, book, and film following the withdrawal of inspectors in 1998. The second is a description of his views about the WMD issue prior to the 2003 war, primarily through quotes from the book he did with william rivers pitt. In my opinion this improves the article, because it gives more info about what Ritter was saying in this period, before later sections delve into the whole controversy of why he might have been saying it. I'm kind of a noob here, so I look forward to people's edits and thoughts on my work. - Rustavo

Just made some more changes to the Ritter article. I moved the Iran comments section up so that it comes just after my Iraq prewar comments section. This seems like a more logical arrangement to me. I also edited the criticism of Ritter section and the section about his legal troubles. In the Criticism section, I tried to flesh out the change in Ritter's public statements between 1998 and afterwards, and I cut out the quotes of pundits criticizing his position changes. To my mind, this stuff wasn't very neutral, and didn't really contribute to the article - it seems better just to explain what he said and when he said it, and let the reader draw their own conclusions as to whether he is "bizzarre" or "chameleon-like" In the section dealing with Ritter's legal problems, I tried to shorten it, since it doesn't seem especially relevent to his public role, and a lot of it seemed speculative and written in such a way as to imply that he "got away" with serious crimes due to prosecutorial mishaps - even though no details of the actual charges are in the public record. Also, I'm sorry for not filling in the nature of my edits in the correct spot - I'm learning as I go along. Look forward to hearing what people think Rustavo 18:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved some of the uncritical articles out of the criticism section. Orville Eastland 15:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing speculative about Scott Ritter's attempt to molest a someone he throught was a teenage girl, but who turned out to be a state trooper. I live in Albany, NY and worked near the abandoned Burger King where he was arrested when he showed up for his "date." He charmed a local female ADA into the deal that got him off, which she was fired for because it happened without DA Paul Cline's permission, who lost the next election in part due to his lack of leadership and control of his staff in the Ritter case. You can bet if Cline knew about the deal he would have quashed it and hauled Ritter into a very public court. Ritter absolutely got away with a perverted attempt to sexually abuse what he thought would be a teenage girl. After all this, not only do I question Scott Ritter's creditibility to even claim the sky is blue, but I have to question the agenda of anyone who would dilute the truth of his crime. I'm against the war in Iraq, but I'd rather this pervert keep his mouth shut and move out of my region. I will be keeping my eye on the section about his legal problems so this section does not get furthered watered down so as to dilute the truth of Ritter's perversions. -- Jango Davis 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What you question and what you read into other people's comments is completely and utterly devoid of any relevance. And for the record, the fact that you falsify statements by a DA makes YOU lose any credibility. --OliverH 18:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not falsify and statements by the DA. You must be really desperate to believe what is documented on the public record is my falsification. I have posted only what was documented in the news. I live in Albany, worked by the place Ritter was arrested, I've worked in the Albany-area media and know what was said. The DA's position on the "deal" the ADA made with Ritter behind the DA's back is evident by the DA's firing of that ADA. One must wonder what your real agenda is if you feel that you must so vociferously defend Ritter's attempt at child molestation. The readers of this record can decide for themselves who has creditibility here. My creditibility is not in question, only Scott Ritter's character and the questionable motives of those who defend his attempt at child molestation.- 05:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that I did not defend Ritter's attempt at anything. You just take a lot of leeway reading into what people are saying what you'd like them to say. The DA explicitly refused to confirm a link between Ritter and the firing. It might very well be that there was one, but it is not the job of Wikipedia to speculate on it. Much like it is not up to you to claim I do things that have no basis whatsoever in what I have said. If you can't stick to what's referencable and demonstrable, then this is not for you. Your credibility is very much in question since you now demonstrate a serious problem with truthfulness and a reckless readiness to fabricate. --OliverH 17:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Your "creditibility" is INDEED in question because YOUR biographical details are the entire basis of your claim to authority. Your claim of proximity to the investigation is what you're basing your authority to contribute to Ritter's biographical details. This is the internet, friend. I can claim that I was on the UNSCOM team, or that I was Ritter's closet gay lover, and I can probably whip up some pretty convincing "evidence" with photoshop and plop it on a random server in about 30 minutes, but that doesn't make it true. Your claim that you have intimate knowledge of this situation doesn't give you any more authority than anyone else (especially since your "media" experience never taught you how to spell "credibility,") and your STATED AGENDA ("I'd rather this pervert keep his mouth shut and move out of my region") has shot your "creditibility" to hell. Please recognize your bias and recuse yourself from this entry. 209.137.225.29 20:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You're defense of perversion is pathetic and desperate. Cline's actions speak for themselves. He fired the ADA for cutting the Ritter deal behind his back and without his knowledge or approval that is fact. But of course, the FACTS are the one thing you Mr. Scott "Pervert" Ritter's supporters dislike. Now, when you are on the losing side of the moral high ground in the perverted swamp with Ritter, who want to squelch discussion on the discussion page because you don't like it...POOR BABY...what are you gonna do, cry now? I can "discuss" whatever I want to discuss about that pervert on the DISCUSSION PAGE. That's why it's called a DISCUSSION PAGE. Just like my fellow liberals...all for freedom of speech except when you find yourselves on the losing side of argument, then you pull out Roger's rules.

Now you're just lying about your position. You fully support that pervert and lack the spine to say so. The only creditability in question here are those who continue to defend the actions of an attempted child molester, such as yourself. The only ones I've heard defend Ritter are my fellow anti-war advocates so desperate to believe in there's a "conspiracy" against Ritter because he's against the war. That's a crock of shit. Ritter's creditability as an anti-war advocate is in the toilet because that's where his morals and character resides...in the crapper. But hey, I guess the world's perverts need their advocates too, so good for you. But the only thing a pervert-supporter can creditably prove on this forum is that he supports perverts. I think that raises more questions about YOUR creditability and character than it even does about Ritter's. I mean, what worse? An adult male who thought he'd get a chance to masturbate in front of what he thought would be a 14-year old girl, or someone who wants to defend his right to do so, like you. History will only remember Scott Ritter for his attempted child molestation. Absolutely nothing Scott Ritter has ever done before or since will be remembered. That is the legacy he leaves this world, and the world would be richer without it.-- Jango Davis 20:54 (UTC) 19 July 2006

Unfair biography of Scott Ritter

There seems to be an unfair emphasis in this biography under "Documentary" and "Legal Problems". Negative criticism of Ritter and very negative speculation about an alleged quid pro quo between Ritter's documentary's funder and the Iraqi government are included without even having citations; yet when I added some information to the biography under "Legal Problems" suggesting that CNN might have its own motives for digging up an 18 month old already-dismissed misdemeanor charge on Ritter it was later edited out; and my edit WAS sourced. So I have now added Ritter's own POV about CNN's motives as quoted from one of the CNN articles that this biography itself has already cited. I thought it was Wikipedia policy to include several POVs and not just one. Ritter's POV about CNN's motives surely are relevant. I also added some sourced speculation about CNN's motives for criticizing Ritter; presumably this should be at least as useful as UNSOURCED speculation about an alleged quid pro quo between the guy who funded Ritter's film and the Iraqi government.

Ritter's question about CNN's timing seems to me to be crucial. Why would CNN, a national source of major current news, have dug up a story 18 months old involving a smalltown already-dismissed misdemeanor charge? As far as I can think it must have seemed necessary to someone to try to uncover dirt to discredit Scott Ritter's opposition to the upcoming Iraq war. What other motivation might there be for the belated attention to this on major news source CNN? This is a very common tactic in the US today: if you don't like what someone is saying in public you try to find something in the person's background to discredit them and encourage the public to dismiss what they say.

And how about the timing? CNN airs these old charges on January 21, 2003, less than two months before the invasion began and as the Bush administration is trying to convince the nation it must go to war with Saddam over his WMD. But the former chief inspector, who spent 7.5 years hunting for these WMD in Iraq, had recently stepped forward and aggressively opposed the war stating, accurately as it turns out, that Saddam probably didn't have the WMD Bush et.al. alleged he had. And, if you read about Ritter you'll find he does almost everything in a passionate, gung ho manner. On September 8, 2002 Ritter personally went to Iraq and addressed the Iraqi National Assembly, pleading with them to cooperate with inspections and avoid war (see "Frontier Justice", chapter 2). It was on the day he addressed the Iraqi National Assembly that so many of CNN's negative characterizations, reported in the Toronto Star opinion piece, were made. Then, about four months later, CNN discovers major news that Ritter had these 18 month old legal charges. I think the timing of CNN's airing of the "news" of Ritter's legal problems plus the sort of comments made about Ritter by CNN personnel, cited in the Toronto Star article I also mentioned, provides a pretty strong prima facie case that CNN was out to discredit Ritter.

This biography spends four paragraphs and gives four separate citations, some from lesser and local news sources, focusing on these legal charges, but any POV which might balance and provide context for the airing of these charges 18 months after they were dismissed has been edited out . That's neutral?

And what does a dismissed misdemeanor charge about someone's having wanted an underage girl to watch them masturbate have to do with the value of someone's observations about the existence of WMD in Iraq? In general, I think I'd say it would have little to do with it, but this is a very specific case. Scott Ritter just happened to be a unique source of info about this question. He was inspecting Iraq for 7.5 years for these weapons, very aggressively and at risk of his own life (read "Endgame" or "Iraq Confideential" if you think this is an exaggeration). He was extremely gung ho and very aggressive in these inspections and was promoted to lead inspector because of his performance. It's difficult to think of someone with a more informed position to comment on the existence of WMD in Iraq. He was asked to testify in front of a US Senate committee because of his recognized expertise in this matter. bondjel,9/12/2006 -- Jango Davis 28 Sept. 2006 3:58 AM (UTC)

Chill out. This really isn't the place for a soapbox about this. You can start an anti-ritter blog if you feel the need. Read over WP:BLP before making further changes to the page. Stick to verifiable information about what Ritter is generally in the news for. The fact that you watched him get arrested or whatever is not relevant to any of this.--csloat 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page and the perfect place for it, although I know how much those of you who support the right of people who think they're important to sexually abuse teenagers would like to shut down the truth. I've only posted verifiable facts on the article page and have responded to the wild and paranoid accusations of the pro-pervert lobby on the discussion page, such as bondjel's bizarre "hey, attempted child sex abuse is no big deal" rant above, which apparently you have no problem with because it reflects your own view as well, so don't try to tell me or anyone else you are an objective reporter here because everything you said can be applied DIRECTLY to you. In other words, don't piss on my back and tell me its raining, cause nature is just going to piss right back and give you the same weather report. Wikipedia opened the door with a poorly planned and poorly executed idea for open-source information and I'm walking in. Deal with it. -- Jango Davis 10:32 am (UTC) 28 September 2006

It would be wise to delete your personal attacks above Mr. Jango. Calling someone a child molester because they asked you to read the rules on Wikipedia is a personal attack of the worst possible sort. Please read WP:BLP and WP:NPA. And don't ever call me a child molester again. Thanks.--csloat 16:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite desperate and slightly hallucinatory. No where do I say that on this page and you claiming it doesn't make it so. You do however, appear to support Blondel's premise that minimizes the crime of Riiter's attempt at child sex abuse, so, as with Blondel, you must clearly believe that Ritter's crime is miminal, so don't read into something that isn't there, no matter how much you'd like it to be true, such as that Ritter is not a pervert who attempted twice to sexually molest who he thought who be a tennage girl. Very lame, but keep trying though. You got spunk kiddo. -- Jango Davis 10:19 AM (UTC) 29 Sept. 2006

Ah, so I'm not a child molester myself, just a desperate hallucinating defender of child molesters? One with "spunk" no less. Thanks for clearing that up. Now, will you please review WP:BLP and WP:NPA? Thanks.--csloat 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely off topic. But Mark Foley (R-FL) chairman of the House Caucus Exploited Children resigned from Congress today for sexually harassing a 16 year old male page via email. I wonder, in Jango's apt phrase, does Foley "diminish the moral integrity of the Republican movement"? At any rate, Sloat is completely correct on this one, strict adherence to WP:BLP is mandatory upon penalty of bannination. Otherwise all your Wikipedia are belong to lawyers. Derex 21:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jango, quit deleting the sentence "CNN reported that "Clyne refused to discuss the case, noting there is no public record of it." I'm sure you'll tell us that CNN is run by child-molesters but I'm not sure how censoring this sentence helps cover up Ritter's attempted string of brutal masturbatings.--csloat 19:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the original post so I'm not messing with your post, you're messing with mine by repeatedly adding something that was not there to begin with. -- Jango Davis 01:08, 04 Oct. 2006 (UTC)

"I wrote the original post" and "not there to begin with" are irrelevant -- See WP:OWNERSHIP -- Jibal 03:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I cut out a potentially libelous line about Ritter that had a dead link and for which I could find no corroboration. It was supposedly sourced to WTEN-TV news but a search on their website finds exactly zero references to Ritter. 88.100.20.254 20:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And I've reverted your unsourced allegations of a smear campaign against Ritter. Not only do you need to absorb WP:NPOV, you also need to examine the policy on dead links (do NOT merely remove them). Andyvphil 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)...um, I see the dead link is in the wnd article. Even simpler. We don't need to verify that a cite in a RS was what the RS claims it was. Andyvphil 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The link is DEAD. It is not a dead link within WND, it is a dead link supposed to UPI and also to WNET TV. Please show me where the policy on dead links is. Please show me where the list of legitimate news sources is, since if Wikipedia considers World News Daily to be a legitimate source, it is deserving of the bad reputation it is receiving. Vincent.fx 10:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Will answer your questions after your last of this batch of posts, below. Andyvphil (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out Jango

Jango you're pushing the 3RR with this silly mugshot. I've asked you several times to read WP:BLP and to engage in the discussion here. You've stopped bothering with the discussion and you keep putting this nonsense up. I don't have a problem with a link to an article showing a mugshot, but the claim "hey look at this dude's mugshot! creepy, eh?" just does not belong in an encyclopedia. Please remove it, and please engage in the discussion, and please mind Wikipedia policies, esp. WP:BLP, WP:3RR, and WP:NPA. Thanks!--csloat 01:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Tom Delay's mug shot is posted right on the main page of his article so methinks thou protestest too greatly. Clearly, I have precedent on my side and prehaps you are misinterpeting the rules. -- Jango Davis 01:12, 4 Oct. 2006

Question. Is Ritter's mugshot associated in some way with the event for which he was notable? Tom Delay's is, as the charge dealt with political fundraising. What was the charge against Ritter, and how is it associated with his work on the UN Weapons Inspection Team, or for his subsequent criticism of Bush? That is, with the events for which he is notable. Derex 01:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Look deeper into Wiki Derex and you'll Rush Limbaugh's mugshot is also posted in his Wikipedia article, and his case is not only not resolved, but also is not connected to the activities for which he is noted. So, again, the Wikipedia standard is that Ritter's mugshot CAN be posted. All I'm doing is posting a link, not the mugshot itself as both Delay's and Limbaugh's articles do. I think both those examples (Limbaugh's aprticularly) are clear evidence that the posting of mugshots is relevant and allowed. Our dear "editor's" position to the contrary is becoming somewhat similar to, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" So Sloat's interpetation of the rules is incorrect based on existing Wikipedia standards and practices. Now all I need do is figure out how to post Ritter's mugshot like it is posted in Limbaugh's and Delay's articles and we're good to go! -- Jango Davis 19:41 5 Oct 2006

There is no "Wikipedia standard" on mugshots. I don't see the need for a mugshot on Limbaugh's page either; if it bothers you, remove it, or start a discussion about it on that page - it's simply not relevant to this page. (Although, you are incorrect that he is not noted for his drug use, but that is neither here nor there). There is no need for your link. We have the link to the CNN article that contains the mugshot a few times in the article already. The only reason for this is for sensationalistic value -- "ohh, creepy!!" That is not encyclopedic. Why are you so attached to this pic? You have yet to articulate an encyclopedic reason for it -- whining that you see mugshots on other pages simply doesn't cut it. What does that link specifically add to this page that is not already here, other than a sort of predatory voyeurism?--csloat 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And likewise you are incorrect in asserting that Ritter's is not noted for his arrest, indeed, most people likely never heard of him before it, so THANK YOU for proving my point! However, once again sir you purposely misundertsand me or don't read my posts. The mugshot doesn't bother me, it bothers you so you need to resolve the issue, not me. Your interpetation is subjective and not reflected by already established "communty" practice, even if there is no set standard for mugshots. And if there is no set standard then what point are you trying to make since you have no standard to support your position and I have clear established examples? The mugshot is a vaild and relevant news item otherwise buried unmentioned in a link in an article, so there is worth to pointing out to the reader its existance as an external link. The question is, why are you so attached to deviating from the standard and insisting on deleting the reference? I am simply posting a link to a mugshot not mentioned in the Wiki article and absolutely relevant to establishing the fact Ritter was arrested. You are making an issue out of something that shouldn't be an issue. Your interpetation is not reflected by other Wikipedia articles. Posting the link is consistant with current Wiki practices, indeed, if I wanted to post the picture, that would be find as well. You clearly have a problem with the Delay and Limbaugh mugshots so YOU need to delete those pictures and start the "discussion" about mugshot psots on thsoe pages. I'm good with it. It's clearly common practice. What's the problem then? Put your money where your mouth is Sloat and delete those mughots on Delays and Limbaugh's articles. Tell you what. Delete those mugshots on those articles and if the "community" on those pages agrees with you I'll reexamine my position, provided if you also agree that if the community on those pages feels posting the mugshots is relevant then you'll reexamine your position. Just put your money where your mouth is man, that's all I'm saying. This is not my issue, it's yours because your interpetation is different from current Wiki practice whereas my posting a link to the mugshot is not only consistant with current Wiki practice, but a level tamer than posting the actual mugshot as they do. -- Jango Davis 02:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

First, Ritter was well known long before his arrest. He was well known back in the 1990s before the Iraq war. More people know him for his work on Iraq than know of his arrest, and more reliable sources have published (and continue to publish) information about the former than the latter. Your obsession with this topic is an attempt to make this information more prominent than it actually is, a form of WP:NOR. There is already far more in the article about this than is justified by the published information in the real world, but leaving that aside, this mugshot serves no encyclopedic purpose. Your insistence that this is some kind of "standard" is ludicrous -- all wikipedia articles must contain mugshots? Where do you see this "standard"? The fact that Delay or Rush has one is not relevant to this article. The fact that Ritter was arrested is already established in the article; this adds nothing to it; it's just a lurid attempt to sensationalize this arrest for no encyclopedic reason. I am not interested in Delay or Limbaugh; I already have more than enough on my watchlist, so do not tell me what I need to do on those pages. If this is not your issue, you should not be so obsessed with it. You have also violated the 3RR again on this, and this time it will be reported. If you are blocked for your violation, you should take the time to think of an encyclopedic reason -- if there is one -- for the mugshot. "There's one on another page!" is not an encyclopedic reason.--csloat 02:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I support csloat's views on this matter. The article is fairly poor quality as it is, trying to build the mugshot into the narrative is clumsy at best and only further detracts from the article's quality. Linking to the shot in the manner proposed is unnecessary, poor style and politically motivated. Some of the references used seem very minor and this incident smells far too fishy to be over-laboured. As I read it the charges were dismissed yet by some possibly questionable logic and unsubstantied hear-say, some editors seem keen to condemn Ritter regardless. We need more facts and substantive sources to fully understand this incident. --Wm 04:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. First, there are no "precedents". Each article is different, and each article should be developed on it's own merits. If the best case you can put forward is to point somewhere else, then that's not a very compelling argument.

Now, though it is irrelevant, I will address your analogy out of courtesy. Delay was accused of corruption in office; he is notable for being a politician. Rush Limbaugh was accused of narcotics violations; he is notable as a social conservative pundit. So, personal drug abuse goes to the core of his notability. Scott Ritter is was an weapons analyst. The charge has nothing at all to do with his notability. Further he was charged with a misdemeanor, the charges were dropped, and the records were sealed. So, basically we don't know anything at all, beside he apparently wasn't convicted or even tried on any charges. The amount of real estate on this article devoted to a tangential misdemeanor charge of such apparent credence that it wasn't even prosecuted is absurd. Derex 05:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So can someone other than me remove the mugshot? Thanks :)--csloat 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few additional changes to "Legal Problems." I think its pretty clear that Jango Davis has strongly emotional views about Ritter and has made the "Legal Problems" section as long and repetitive as possible because he wishes Ritter's character besmirched. I removed some detail that just made it longer and more drawn out. As others have said, it seems arguable whether this material belongs in a bio of someone clearly known primarily for being a weapons expert and political commentator. Is there some Wikipedia rule that speaks to this? The fact of the arrest is undeniable. The facts that several news organizations picked it up and commented upon it are undeniable. But how relevant is this to his primary reason for meriting a bio and how much space in his bio should it take up? bondjel 10/21/2006

The most applicable rule would be WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is not acceptable for a minor or tangential incident, with respect to notability, to become inflated in importance by sheer volume of coverage in an article. This provision is particularly applicable when it is fairly obvious that an editor has intentionally expanded such a section to advance a point of view. From Jango's comments above, I'd say that's a fair assessment of the situation here. Clearly there should be some discussion, as the media picked it up. But, the bottom line fact is that he was never prosecuted. More of the detail still should be cleaned up as unencyclopedic and tangential under Undue Weight. Derex 21:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Its amazing how much milage I got tweaking you Wiki geeks...hee hee -- Jango Davis 01:35 17 Jan. 2007 (UTC)

Considering the above admission from Jango that his contributions to this page are intended to "tweak" its users (which is vandalism, pure and simpl), I propose that we remove the entire 'Legal Problems' section, because details of a legal charge which was dismissed, about which records have been sealed, and which none of the principles care to discuss, must be, by definition, speculation. I won't do it myself at present, because I haven't put any investment into this page and I think there should be fair notice to those who have, but in the future, whenever I come back here and find that 'Legal Problems' section still here, unless there is some incredibly good argument convincing me otherwise, I WILL delete it. By the way, I have no idea whether or not these allegations are true, and I don't care.--65.93.92.146 08:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but whatever Jango's faults, deleting _all_ references to this is blatant whitewashing.

--Paul Moloney 22:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm back and despite my intention to delete the Legal Problems section whenever I saw it unless I see a great argument otherwise (which I don't, BTW), I do find the simple matter-of-fact presentation by Rustavo to be much more appropriate to an encyclopedia than the ad nauseum repetitions of newspaper editorialising and speculation I saw before, so I won't make any further waves unless this section starts to inflate to eat the article again. (Which may well happen ... there's another election cycle and probably another Jango coming.) There is very little of what you could reasonably call evidence available at this point; so more than a few sentences about this looks like politically motivated overkill. Perhaps you're right that deleting all reference would look the same. It seems an acceptable compromise.--64.229.26.227 10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul Wolfowitz no less acknowledge the US gov't smear campaign against Ritter so that has been referenced and cited. Vincent.fx 11:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And removed, since PW's 1998 testimony has no verifiable connection to Ritter's 2001 arrest, which is where you placed it, and in any case was not an acknowledgement but an accusation. Andyvphil (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)