User talk:Leak watcher/Valerie Plame affair: New details uncovered

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sources[edit]

I see plenty of sources?? Jason Safoutin 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes and not properly referenced :D just inline linking.... sorry. Anyway I am not enitrely sure what this article is about. The intro / lead is very confusing. (first scentence is misleading). And it is marked as OR. Does that mean Leakwatcher has done the analysis of the document? If so I think we need to tread carefully over this. --Errant 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The OR is the research put into it. The user has been doing all the work himself with some references to articles and evidence he/she came across. It may need to be cleaned up a bit but there are sources and in OR sources are not necessarily required. Jason Safoutin 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to: Image:File1.PNG and the related text about filling in the spaces. This appears to be research / modification done by User:David Brotbacher who also uploaded the images. THis article was created in his user space User:David Brotbacher/Libby learned from Rove about Novak article early and moved across to here by leakwatcher!! a bit odd. Anyway, if this image / research was done by David we need to establish his expertise at this - otherwise it is just speculation as the text xould be manipulated in several ways (and to me the text doesn't line up correctly anyway). --Errant 19:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the article need work yes...clean up, yes. The images are OR and created by an individual. Things may need to be moved around, but I don't see what the issue is?? Jason Safoutin 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted all sources I remember using in the article into the bottom section. Is this adequate? Karl Rove and Armitage have both admitted they were sources of Robert Novak, and Rove's last name is the only one that will fit, if you observe the document I linked to. The document has been posted independently at two other places aside from the Law Professors Blog Network, but they are either blogs or more partisan sources, and therefore would be less appropriate. I am David Brotbacher. David Brotbacher was an alias I regretted choosing, and I decided I should use a different username to post the actual news story. Leak watcher 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The issue is that those images are the personal opinion of the user. Unless he is an expert on doing similar things to this (text analysis etc.) then the work is speculation at best and libel at worst. It needs addressing. I have had a play around and can fit no end of the names related to this aritcle into those spaces. In some cases they look, to me, a better fit than what the user has suggested!! Does that mean we are both right? No we are both wrong - unless he is an unbiased expert! --Errant 20:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources / the rest of the article looks fine by the way (in need of a little formatting and modifying) but basically sound, my only issue know is with the image and 1st paragraph / note section --Errant 20:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enlarge the PDF so that it is 150% its original size. Use Time New Roman font at size 18. It also works if the PDF is at 118% its original size and the font is size 14. Write the names over the redacted symbols in Microsoft Paint. Can you see it now? Leak watcher 20:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trying it again now in Fireworks.. Hold on a sec :D --Errant 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im semi convinced. I matched the text size on 800 zoom, then I lined it up with other tex on that line (using a line to show where the gbottom of the text lay - again on 800 zoom) and also matched it up with the small piece of text still left on the redacted section. It looked ok, but then I added the parenthisis around my sample taxt, it matches up on the left but is miles of on the right. Increase the point size and the brackets are too large and the text doesn't line up. Im not saying you are wrong just that this is the sort of thing that needs to be looked at by an expert in text analysis. --Errant 20:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I uploaded the anajysis I did to my server http://tomnrob.com/user_bin/00001/storage/rovearmitagetext.png for you to take a peek. Note the brackets below. If you hover it over the deleted section the length is correct - suggesting one more letter is needed in deleted section (as the lower set has an extra letter to Rove and Armitage). --Errant 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that size 18 Time New Roman is actually a bit smaller than the actual text in 150% mode. Overlap the size 18 Times New Roman word "information" with the word "information" in the text and it's about half of a letter "n" short. The difference is miniscule, but it increases with longer amounts of text. I'm sure that's where the extra letter went. A better correlation between the size of the text in the document and the point size needed to overlap it could probably be found if multiple attempts were made on the PDF at different sizes. Also, it says I don't have permission to access your server. Leak watcher 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but I did the comparison at 800 zoom and matched up the word and in my sample text with the word and higher up the document till it matched exactly (or near on). Although I agree there was a slight difference in size which may account. I kind of believe your right now, so yeah leave it in the article. I would like a senior admin / crat too look at it at some point tho just to assess the libel / legal rmifications if there are any (it IS only specualtion after all as there is no definitive proof). Dont worry about that tho, thats my request so I will track one down :D If you rewwork those sources to use the {{source} } template (take a look below your editing window for more) then I thinks its ok again to publish. You might want to convert those inline links to footnotes to make it read better (if your not sure how to use <rewf> tags then just add the source templates and I will go through and convert the links for you :D )--Errant 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

back to develop[edit]

  1. headline is misleading: all the article substantiates is that one may infer, on what appears to be thin evidence (text fits, meetings) that Libby learned from Rove - not enough for the categorical assertion the title makes.headline reports an event that occured in 3/1/2006 - not exactly news.
  2. it is not clear what the news event being reported is. much of the article is a compilation of old background, whose relevance to the news event is unclear - eg. why is Libby's defence strategy relevant?
  3. if the article is going to make a claim, then it needs to get a response from the people involved, or atleast report faithfully their stated position on the event.
  4. the lead paragraph should summarise the content of the article, and report on the 5Ws.
  5. other than the text-fitting thing, it is not clear from the rest of the article what other evidence is reported which substantiates the claim that Rove is the other source. if all such evidence is gathered together into one or two paragraphs and clearly identified, it'll help editors (such as this one) to better judge the merit of the claims. Doldrums 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For 5, the National Journal reported Libby and Rove met at the end of a senior White House meeting on July 11, and Libby and Rove meeting on that date fits the context of the document. For 2, old background is compiled in order to inform the reader that has not been keeping constant track of news reports relating to the case. For 3, potential sources close to Rove and Libby should be contacted, but unfortunately such sources are inaccessable to me. For 4, the National Journal sentence can be moved to the first or second paragraph, if you wish.

For 1, the Washington Post once reported that Libby and Rove met in the days before Novak wrote his column to discuss convesations they had with reporters, according to their source. Lastly, parts of Fitzgerald's memo that were not even redacted say Libby learned from Rove before the column came out. Is this enough evidence, or does the headline still need to be changed? In any case, the headline can be attributed to the unredacted part of the March 1, 2006 document, but the new information comes from the parts revealed through my editing techniques. Leak watcher 05:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

newsworthiness[edit]

from discussions i had with the author of the article, i understand that the new information in the article is an inferencee that Libby learnt <something> from Rove on a particular date - July 10/11 (that Libby learnt from Rove itself appears to be old news). this inference is based on the "text-fitting" and prior information from testimony and news reports. i do not understand the significance of the new information and why it is newsworthy. i suggest that the lead paragraphs be reworded to make it clear what is the new information and what is not, and why the new information is newsworthy. Doldrums 06:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Doldrums. This article appears to be background research in search of a news event. Has something happened we ought to know about? -Edbrown05 06:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please hit me over the head with it so I will understand. -Edbrown05 06:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the same set of days Libby thinks he might have met Karl Rove according to testimony after his indictment matches the testimony he gave before his indictment that he learned the information from Tim Russert, who Libby testified had said that "all the reporters know" Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Russert denied having told Libby that in his testimony, and according to Fitzgerald, Libby's other alleged sources for the information testified or publicly wrote they didn't, either. It is claimed in his indictment Libby made false statements to the FBI regarding his source before his indictment. After his indictment he began to say he learned the information from Cheney.

Also now in the article---I had had it in my head, but did not think the names were important at the time---were two new names of reporters claimed Libby may have contacted that seem not to be known in the media or shown in Libby's indictment. The Fitzgerald affidavit section seems to suggest Libby claimed prior to his indictment he learned the information about Plame being a CIA operative from Tim Russert, Ronald Kessler, Andrea Mitchell, and perhaps Cooper and Miller.

Secondly, I just put together information that three newspapers reported Armitage was out of the country with Colin Powell with information that the Department of State reported Powell was in Santiago, Chile on June 10, 2006, and information that the sources of Time claimed Colin Powell had read the National Intelligence Estimate memo in mid-June.

From this, I infer that if the Los Angeles Times report that State Department intelligence officers sent Armitage the memo, and if the Associated Press report that Armitage ordered Carl Ford to send Colin Powell the memo is true, and if Armitage gave Powell the memo while they were both in Buenos Aires, Argentina, then the sources of the Washington Post story by Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei lied.

I can have the Washington Post look at the Wikinews article and look for a confirmation of information in here, perhaps? Leak watcher 09:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you trust someone at the post, otherwise they could/would steal our material Jason Safoutin 11:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already left an e-mail with the Washington Post. I noticed that according to the source I had used for the Washington Post account, I made the mistake of confusing "Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell" as "Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements by Powell." With that corrected, the Washington Post article fits neatly into the timeline in the Wikinews article now. I also updated the Wikinews article with information that, according to the Time article, Powell did not inform the White House of the memo until after July 6, meaning the memo passed around the Air Force One may have originally been from Armitage. I contacted the Washington Post and asked them if they could independently confirm using their sources that Powell received the memo from Armitage while they were together in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

This Wikinews article could or should go ahead and be published now, as its content has changed substantially since earlier. Leak watcher 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing[edit]

I've updated the content a lot in the past day or so, and if no one has any objections now, I'd like to go ahead and release the article. If no one has any objections by nine hours from now, I'm going to go ahead and try publishing it. Is this okay? Leak watcher 07:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no sense and offers no insight. Sorry I'm so stupid. -Edbrown05 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information that Libby learned the identity of Joe Wilson's wife from Karl Rove is new, as is the information that Armitage and Powell were both out of the country when Armitage was given the document by Department of State intelligence officials, according to a June 12 date given by the Los Angeles Times, and they had been in Buenos Aires, Argentina two days before then. The following day, Armitage leaked the information to Bob Woodward accidentally. Is there anything that can be done, in your opinion, to improve the article? Leak watcher 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more comments[edit]

some minor issues:

  • lead paragraph does not indicate when the event - the court document being made public, happened. according to the source info provided, the document has been public for months, so this information is not news.
  • "names known to be involved can be easily placed..." does not indicate that the placing is speculation.
  • "the date of Libby learning from <someone> about novak's article, which i was told by the author was news information, is also old news - it too is present in the affidavit.

the major issue: i am yet to figure out what news event this article is reporting on and whether the speculation that it advances, by calling Rove the unknown person who informed libby of novak's article at a particular date is well supported by evidence. And so i cannot agree to its publication. Doldrums 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked out the issue with Doldrums in an IRC channel, and Doldrums has told me that he has no objection to the article being published, nor has he any support. When I asked if he has even read the entire article, he stated that he did not wish to express the effort to work to help edit the article's contents. Leak watcher 08:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

Its very cool that someone sought out to explain all these subtle details, but can you please make it easier to read, say by adding sections with openning paragraphs giving rough explanations? It'll really help this story get the information across & people will read more if section breaks & summaries alllow them to lose focus & then return to serious reading. Nyarlathotep 08:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem[edit]

here is the main problem highlighted. What credibility does this more accurate version of the article have than one which implies the textual analysis was done by someone who could be considered an expert in the field? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-sourcing, rambling, etc.[edit]

I haven't tried to read through the whole thing. But the rambling section on "Aspen" alone is reason enough not to "publish" this. We get to learn that Aspen is named after a type of tree, thanks to the American Heritage Dictionary, and that Wolfowitz was not mentioned in a high school history textbook. The coordinates of Aspen and Jackson Hole? What? We get apparently extraneous details about a professor Wolfowitz and Wilson once shared, as well as the professor's connections. I don't see any reason why these details are necessary—it stinks of conspiracy theorist thinking which thinks that any connection is a worthwhile connection (when you are talking about high-powered east coast people, you will find lots and lots of connections; the circles of people who go to Harvard and Yale and end up either in politics or business have huge amounts of overlap, for obvious reasons). The addition of lots of useless sources in the attempt to make it look respectable (the high school textbook, the dictionary) only serve to make it look even more desperate, much less all of the junk about staying in Aspen.

For the record, I think that the redaction additions are actually plausible. The names do seem to fit and it seems reasonable possible that they could be the ones mentioned. However I'm not sure that particular fact is worthy of anything but a blog post. The rest of the article seems like conspiracy mongering. The fact that it is 7,000 words long doesn't help anything. If the author really wants this to be a publishable article they will need to edit it down to the BASICS, the FEW NEW FACTS this is supposed to contain and their relevance to the IMMEDIATE issue. This is NOT the place to launch into an elaborate conspiracy theory, and adding details does NOT make it look more plausible—it only makes its sophistry more blatant. --Fastfission 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is below. In short, read the entire 16 page article and examine the sourcing before you judge. Please respond swiftly. This needs to go out soon, and failure to read it shows incompetence as an editor. Anonymous Writing 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My response, copied from my talk page[edit]

removing tags[edit]

please do not remove tags without addressing the concerns raised in them. if u think the concerns are not valid, discuss on the article talk page to reach a concensus on the issues. Doldrums 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left the reason in my edit summary. The person that raised the concerns did not examine my sources or read the whole article before judging. I would have liked them to start from the beginning before questioning the content. Anonymous Writing 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please do not remove tags, and publish disputed articles. a number of editors have raised concerns over the content and fitness of this article. unless the concerns are addressed and there is a consensus to publish the article, please do not publish it. note that repeated reversions are considered edit warring and is frowned upon. (see Wikinews:Three revert rule. Doldrums 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I reverted you, I thought my edit had not gone through due to a glitch in the system. I cannot edit Wikinews much at this time for reasons I cannot explain due to privacy issues. The story is not abandoned, and do not delete it, please.

Also, "a number" is not accurate because I convinced the others to let me go ahead and publish the article, because only one editor's concerns have not been replied to until now, in the edit summary. I should not have to prove the legitimacy of an article to "editors" that refuse to read it, take one quick glance at it, and dismiss it as utter garbage. Those that know nothing will understand nothing. Read the article and become enlightened on the issue. Anonymous Writing 07:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had been so busy writing this article I nearly abandoned food, sleep, water, and bathing. I stayed awake for a week typing the article, thinking through my fingers and providing more than seventy sources to prove its legitimacy. Please do not throw the article recklessly into the waste bin, the memory hole, for it never to return. Anonymous Writing 07:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a story in the mainspace is abandoned if it has not been worked on for several days and will be deleted for it. if u believe that the story can be "rescued", u can either start rewriting the article to address concerns (in which case it becomes un-abandoned) or copy the article to ur user-space (ur user page User:Anonymous Writing or a subpage of it) and work on it at leisure (while the mainspace article gets deleted). when the copy in ur userspace is ready for publication, it can be moved back to mainspace for publication. note that removing an abandoned tag without making any constructive edits to the article does not make it "unabandoned".

i appreciate that you have expended plenty of effort in creating this article, but the article still has to meet wikinews content guidelines to be published. as far as i can tell, me, User:Edbrown05, User:FactFission, User:Brian McNeil have expressed concerns over this article. Doldrums 07:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I convinced Edbrown05 on the talk page of User:Leak watcher. As for Brian McNeil's complaint, that an amateur working alone with enough persistence and patience can be as good as an expert was the entire spirit behind a wiki, I always thought. I interpreted it as a complaint against the person that made another edit. That it is too long to read is not a valid complaint, I feel, and is merely a symptom of laziness. I broke the article down into many sections so that the reader can keep coming back to it later between breaks. Anonymous Writing 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for facts, nearly every fact is new in the context of the situation. Anonymous Writing 07:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed bad section[edit]

I removed the section invoking FastFission's complaint. Is it more suitable for publishing now? Leak watcher 22:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should it be tagged with template:editorial?[edit]

Bawolff ☺☻ 08:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leak_watcher/Valerie_Plame_affair:_New_details_uncovered&oldid=377941"