Talk:Valerie Plame

Objections

Objecting to another editor's removing of bonafide accurate sourced verifiable pertinent information from the introduction to this article and his reverting of typographical format corrections in blanket reverts, obstructing attempt to make this introduction more economical and hence more readable and at the same time more accurate. Doing so without prior discussion here is not in keeping with tagged notice re: controversial articles: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; most important policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; by omitting the most significant aspects of the subject ("Valerie Plame"; Valerie E. Wilson), the editor is weak[en]ing neutrality of the article. Far more important than "extended controversy" are the grand jury and federal case that the "CIA leak" of Plame led to. Previous introd. was highly redundant as well. --NYScholar 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC) [tc in brackets; updated --NYScholar 08:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)]

Oh, "redundant" is definitely a word I would use, yes. About five sixths of the article is redundant. NPOV does not require exhaustive coverage of subjects, and this article must get an awful lot shorter if it's ever going to be readable. This is a biography article.

I assume that your contention with NPOV here is that labelling the affair as "controversial" without pointing out that the controversy is mostly due to an executive which completely ignores the law makes it seem as though something Wilson did contributed to the controversy. This is a valid point of view, but I don't think the correct solution is to drag the whole of Plamegate in here. Rather, we should try to minimise POV issues by leaving difficult issues to articles in which they can be treated to full inspection (there are a dozen articles on this subject) while indicating notability.

I'm not sure what you mean by my "obstructing attempt(s) to make this introduction more economical". That sounds like I'm preventing people from making it shorter. The opposite is true, both in this particular case and in general (I'm somewhat of a rabid minimalist/deletionist). Chris Cunningham 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If it were not for the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation relating to her husband's NYT op-ed and leading to United States v. Libby, Valerie Plame (Valerie E. Wilson) would not be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about her at all. She would still remain unknown and not a known public figure: WP:BLP#Well known public figures. I believe that the current brief introduction to who she is which defines her current notability (see "current" template as well as WP:BLP template) is appropriate. Each article in Wikipedia needs to be able to convey significant and pertinent information without dependence on other Wikipedia articles; the hyperlinks and cross-references in See also are simply here for the convenience of readers. If one is not interested in her notability relating to the above-mentioned matters, one does not have to read the article. But to eliminate the most significant aspects of her notability is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The introduction currently is brief. In the previous ed's version, there were sentences that repeated the same information (redundancy), and it was unnecessarily vague. Now it is specific. A federal grand jury investigation pertaining to the subject [her very notability beginning w/ the leak of the person's name to Novak and his publication of it] leading to an indictment of a government official (who was forced to resign as a result of it), a federal court case (United States v. ...) in which he is the defendant, his conviction [his sentencing and a presidential commutation of his prison sentence are in the article linked to his name], and an ongoing civil case naming him and other high-level current and former gov't officials as parties go far beyond being mere "controversy"; these are specific events significant enough in the life of Valerie Plame to merit inclusion in the introduction defining her notability; they are significant enough for her to have a website devoted to her legal support. It is reasonable and logical to include the specific references (with sources) to them in the introduction (as it currently is worded). More details are appropriately placed in the main article following the introduction (see table of contents for each section). [updated.] --NYScholar 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. That said, we should still aim for brevity in this; we have entire articles on the various parts of the affair. The article as a whole needs to be seriously trimmed. Chris Cunningham 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that by now (over a month later), the article has been considerably trimmed. --NYScholar 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In my view, an argument can be made that it was actually David Corn who outed Valerie Plame as a "covert operative". If you read Robert Novak's original piece, he referred to Plame as merely an "operative", in the same way that Paul Begala is said to be a "Democratic operative" (which in no way implies that Paul Begala is covert). Corn was the first one to refer to Plame as "covert" after interviewing her husband, Joe Wilson, in his article for The Nation.Tom Nally (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Tom_Nally

To do list

The "To do" list does not represent consensus of editors who have worked on this article: see the archived talk pages for the history of contentious editing of this article. Tagged "controversial": See Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. Much of so-called "Plamegate" (in Wikipedia it's called the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation, with contentious re-naming back and forth of the various names; see their editing histories and talk pages) depend[s] on the biographical details presented in this article as it currently is written. Editors new to editing this article need to read the archived talk pages and the current talk page and to follow these guidelines and policies linked in them. --NYScholar 09:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [corrected in brackets]. --NYScholar 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC) [corrected heading; meant it as a sub-heading of "Objections." --NYScholar 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)]

This use of the third person is confusing: are you talking to me? I was the one responsible for the reordering and proper archival of the old talk content, so I know it very well. As for the defense of the current article's layout, noted, but I'm not new to Wikipedia and I know a poorly-written article when I see one. That a subject is Big and Important does not necessarily mean that it cannot be presented in a succinct and accessible article. Chris Cunningham 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering proposing for deletion per WP:PSEUDO

As it stands this is clearly a pseudobiography. NYScholar is unwilling to refocus the article so that it avoids intimate discussion of the Libby affair and acknowledges that this is the primary reason for notability. WP:PSEUDO is abundantly clear that in such cases we shouldn't have a biography at all. Chris Cunningham 11:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Second this suggestion. Don't care who posted what. At the least, the article should be trimmed to a fraction of its current length. I saw 'Valerie Plame-Wilson' listed as a technical advisor for the television show 'Covert Affairs' and came here for a reminder of who she was. This article is gross overkill considering that she was essentially a bystander in the events that made her name well-known. She worked as an undercover agent for the CIA. Her cover was blown by members of the US government, for which 'Scooter' was tried but not convicted. She and her husband filed various lawsuits, none so far successful. She wrote a book. End of story. If we need to know where Valerie went to high school or college, or how she met her husband, then we need to know that about everybody in the world!! There's no excuse for this article being longer than e.g. Henrietta Lacks or Ashley Alexandra Dupré Spike0xFF (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Opposition to the above section

There is no justification for the above user to single me out from the over 6 pages of archived talk pages including many, many contributors who have worked on this article and who consider it a bonafide biographical article on Valerie E. Wilson, aka "Valerie Plame" and Valerie Plame Wilson. That point of view on the article is idiosyncratic and certainly does not express any consensus on this article. Those who have worked on this article assiduously and in good faith over a long period of time, updating it when events [plural] in the life of Valerie E. Wilson (aka Valerie Plame) warrant doing so, do not regard it as a "pseudo" biography. It is a bonafide biographical article focusing on the most salient features of this subject's life. The last section, which mentions her autobiography in preparation is enough to warrant the focus of this article on the relationship between the subject (Mrs. Wilson) and the events that have made her a well-known public figure: WP:BLP#Well known public figures. There is no basis in Wikipedia policy WP:BLP and WP:BLP#Well known public figures for deleting this article or for revising it in the manner that this user wishes to do. See WP:NPA: Focus on the content of article not on contributors. My comments earlier are addressed to new editors of this article who might be misled by the "to do" list. This current talk page and the previous six archived talk pages document the history of the content of this article between 2003 and 2007. At no time in that history (to my knowledge) has anyone else suggested that this subject does not warrant this article on her. In my view the suggestion is absurd. Re: "intimate discussion of the Libby affair": "intimate" appears to be misused in that phrase; re: unwillingness etc.: six pages of archived discussion and this current page document the interest of many, many Wikipedia editors and other Wikipedia users in the conjunction of events that make this subject (Valerie E. Wilson aka "Valerie Plame" or Valerie Plame Wilson) well known (in Wikipedia's own terms). Re: "unwillingness"--???? That suggestion to refocus the article so that it does not focus on the relationship between Mrs. Wilson's life and the events following Novak's disclosure of her identity and their impact on her life is an absurd one and I don't believe it deserves any credence. --NYScholar 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)]

Clearly, Mrs. Wilson's life as a formerly-classified covert operative of the Central Intelligence Agency warrants a biography; the fact that the Plame affair focuses on her is based on that aspect of her life. Most of her working life was for the CIA; there are very few if any other people who have been in her exact situation and, as a formerly classified covert CIA operative, she is notable.

There is not "one event" that makes her notable. [The template applies to "current events" as well as "a current event": see the portal called "Current events"; this article relates to multiple current events (plural).] There was (to the superficial view) "one event" that precipitated an entire cascading series of additional events--including a grand jury investigation and a federal trial, Congressional hearings, and who knows what to follow post-Libby's prison-sentence commmutation--that occurred in relation to the outing of her identity as "Valerie Plame," CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction who happened to be married to a critic of the Bush administration, himself a former ambassador who served previously in Iraq and Africa. That entire series of events (not "one event") brought her otherwise-highly-notable life to the attention of the public. To suggest otherwise is (again) absurd. [updated in brackets. --NYScholar 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)]

The reference to WP:PSEUDO in the above section is a misapplication of that section and a very narrow and, it appears, highly-prejudicial point of view on it. The user apparently does not want to see a biography of Mrs. Wilson in Wikipedia; given the high interest of readers of Wikipedia in "who" she "is" (including the readership of Vanity Fair, which focused a profile article on her and her husband from a biographical perspective and which provides a main source for this Wikipedia article, as cited), that desire runs counter to that of most other readers. The fact that her autobiography commanded a large advance from a major trade publisher (Simon and Schuster) also shows the absurdity of the claim. Her autobiography is about her whole life, not only the part from 2002 to 2007; key events that we do not yet know (from 2002 to 2003) would be revealed in that autobiography if she is able to clear that with the CIA (which is still uncertain and the subject of a law suit). A person does not get a whole lot more notable in Wikipedia than this subject. The desire to minimize the presence of the original text of the article in Vanity Fair makes this user's claim all the more dubious. The article focuses on the other aspects of her life that this article also documents and it is one of several sources of information about the known facts of her life already cited in this article. There is no applicability of WP:PSEUDO here. --NYScholar 21:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC) [updated --NYScholar 21:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)]

This biography, the biography of Joseph C. Wilson, and the biography of Lewis Libby are cross-linked due to conjunctions between them. People who read the other biographies express interest in linking to a biography of "Valerie Plame" (see Talk:Lewis Libby). There are no reasonable or convincing grounds for the appeal to WP:PSEUDO. The above user is misreferencing it. --NYScholar 21:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For further evidence of the notability of the life of Valerie E. Wilson ("Valerie Plame"), Mrs. Joseph C. Wilson IV, in Wikipedia, see the article's menu for "What links here". --NYScholar 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to the above user's point of view on this article (that it is "poorly" written), it is part of the Wikipedia Biography project (see "what links here") and (as the template notice states above) is rated as a "B-class" article thus far. There is no rationale for deleting this article or for revising it in the manner stated in the "to-do" list that the user posted within the past few days. I do not believe that the recent changes introduced by the user (mostly deletion of sources and deletions of reliably- and verifiably-sourced information and possibly-unintentional redundancies) are improving the article or are useful for other readers. --NYScholar 01:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The "B" rating relates to a previous version of the article; it is a blanket rating that was possibly occasioned by a "clean up" template no longer on the article; the rating calls for more development, additional sources of the kind now supplied, and so on; not for deletion based on lack of notability or "pseudo" article status! If the article were newly rated, it would perhaps get a higher (not a lower) rating based on the criteria included in the earlier rating. --NYScholar 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've spent considerable time attempting to cooperatively edit this article with you. For you to boldly state that "The user apparently does not want to see a biography of Mrs. Wilson in Wikipedia" after this (again I can only assume you're talking to me, given this approach of addressing your comments to thin air) shows a suprising lack of good faith on your part. This article is exemplary of the kind of thing WP:PSEUDO is for; it is entirely based on information uncovered in the Plame affair, the content overlaps with that of the other articles to an enormous extent, and you previously stated "If it were not for the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation relating to her husband's NYT op-ed and leading to United States v. Libby, Valerie Plame (Valerie E. Wilson) would not be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about her at all."

As for "singling you out", we have been the primary contributors to both discussion and article editing over the last four months. The talk page in particularly has been practically untouched by other sources in this time. it is difficult to engage in constructive discussion with editors who are not actually present. Chris Cunningham 09:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; until two or so days ago, I did not have awareness of the above user. I did not notice that he "has been" among "the primary contributors to both discussion and article editing over the last four months" regarding this particular article. I am not focusing on the contributor; I am focusing on the content of the article. I see no reason for the user to turn this into a personal dispute. As I said, I did not notice his contributions until I saw very recent deletions of reliably- and verifiably-sourced material that I had provided. This article is not one that I have had listed on my "watch list"; it only was listed when I made some corrections to and updates to it recently. I stand by my comments above. It is not I who have proposed that the article be deleted for bogus reasons; it is he. I suggest that other editors carry on editing this article following Wikipedia policies and guidelines and that they not be misled by the (what I regard as misleading) references to WP:PSEUDO. In my view, it does not apply to this article, as he claims above. Please see WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. I have been editing this article in good faith and no one is justified in making any claims otherwise. [This article is not on my current "Watch list"; there are only two items on it currently, and neither one is an article.] --NYScholar 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

revisions for style and clarity

My goal with these revisions is not to get in the middle of the arguments here, but to make a more readable article. I have no vestedness in the content at all, but have approached it as a reader/writer. There was a lot of replicated information -- and the sense of Plame's career was fairly well lost in the citations that were included as part of the text itself. Much of what I've done is to move reference information into the references themselves, pull out the arguments related to the legality of the court case (which belong elsewhere), and make the whole thing more readable. Hopefully it will be a bit easier for someone not steped in the case to undedrstand who Plame is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialistesq (talk • contribs) 09:13, July 31, 2007

Images

Requesting help with finding a suitable image that does not violate Wikipedia's fair use rationale, non-free use policies; I have been unable to find a "free image" via the internet. If one has an image suitable for posting as an illustration of the subject of this article in her infobox, please assist. (I received no advance notice that the recent image was going to be deleted and did not know of its deletion until after it occurred. I had uploaded a new image and new rationale just a couple of days ago. I received no 48-hour advance notice that it was being deleted. Perhaps that notice pertained to an earlier uploaded image? Confused by this.) --NYScholar 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The image of the lecture was removed too and replaced w/ an editorial interpolation saying so; I've removed both editorial interpolations, as this is now discussed on the talk page. The images were one in the infobox and one illustrating the Nov. 2007 lecture; I've moved the source from "External links" (where I had originally placed) into a new note citation; the image is located in that source. --NYScholar 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a new image, which is a cropped version of the same photo that appears on the book cover and which is the version of it featured in her publicity shot. I've also provided a "fair use" rationale for its use. Please click on the photo to read it. (Every time photos that I have uploaded are deleted, I have not been receiving notification of that, contrary to the "bot" statements in the editing history. (It is just chance that I notice the deletions often well after the deletion occurred, since I don't keep this article on my "watch list".) --NYScholar 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Valerie Flame

Curently, "Valerie Flame" redirects here, but there's no indication in the article of what this might mean. The "Judith Miller (journalist)" article does describe the "Valerie Flame" notation. So, maybe "Valerie Flame" should redirect there instead? I can understand the counterargument that "Valerie Flame" is technically another name for "Valerie Plame", but if you look up "Valerie Flame" because you heard it somewhere and want to know what it's all about, you're kind of stuck here with the vague idea that it has something to do with Valarie Plame but no idea what.Originalname37 15:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See Plame affair, other articles already cross-linked in this article, specifically: CIA leak grand jury investigation#Miller: "Mr. Fitzgerald asked me about another entry in my notebook, where I had written the words 'Valerie Flame,' clearly a reference to Ms. Plame. Mr. Fitzgerald wanted to know whether the entry was based on my conversations with Mr. Libby. I said I didn't think so. I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall." I don't see a problem. "Valerie Flame" is not "technically another name for 'Valerie Plame'"; it's a typographical error [Miller's mistake] relating to faulty hearing and/or transcription in Judith Miller's verbatim notes that she made while talking or after talking (retrospectively) to Lewis Libby and pertaining to her own grand jury testimony about those conversations. The erroneous name (not "another" and not an "alternative" name) could be on a disambiguation page w/ a proper link to a section discussing this matter. If time, I'll take a look. Or someone else can. --NYScholar 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NYScholar. I think that any of these will solve the problem.Originalname37 18:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You might enjoy consulting Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House#Excerpts from reviews with quotations from the book (review published today by Janet Maslin), who (coincidentally) quotes Valerie Wilson re: this exact matter. --NYScholar 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Family Life

It's quite possible that VP's great-grandfather was not named Plamevotski. A Google search for Plamevotski gets one hit -- the Wikipedia. A phone number search of the U.S. gets no hits. Ditto for Ellis Island. Same results for Plamevotsky. I'm sure that VP thinks this about her great-grandfather, and he probably was a rabbi, but maybe not named Plamevotski. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonrysh (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually verified that the information stated (that her great-grandfather was name "Plamevotski" and a "rabbi" from "the Ukraine") as appearing on page 173 of Fair Game is actually there? Google searches turn up unreliable sources that are apparently repeating this Wikipedia article information; it needs verification. --NYScholar (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she goes over her family history on that page and mentions that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Terrible chart

The graph or flowchart looks like it was made by a retarded elephant. If nobody wants to remake, just remove it. I think it hurts more than it helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.200.199 (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a useful illustration from Wikipedia Commons. There are not other free illustrations that relate to the section. --NYScholar 07:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the chart is interesting. I redid a graphic based chart based on this which I feel is much less confusing. Maybe gone from retarded elephant to drunk monkey. Trying to find out how to upload it for review prior to posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Check out this graphic chart. Changing to full version will improve clarity. If an editor likes it or suggests modification, let me know. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Plame6.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying the revised graphic chart. (Would it be possible to upload a version with darker print to make the full version easier to read?) Thank you for the work. --NYScholar 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

high school

I removed the datum on her high school; it was not in the source cited for the sentence. Additionally, we probably don't need it anyway. GRBerry 15:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed again. WP:BLP says to not allow unsourced material that is negative or privacy invading into the article. GRBerry 15:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review

I have requested a fair use review for Image:Vpw fairgame.jpg - see WP:FUR. In essence we shouldn't be using a copyright photo when a free photo exists to illustrate a living person. Purgatorio (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the link to this "free photo" that you refer to; I don't know of such a "free photo" of her that exists. The templates in the image page prior to your request for a fair use review are the templates used for publicity photos of a person relating to a book; in this article there is discussion of the book. The illustration relates to material in the article (the book), not simply to Valerie Plame Wilson. An earlier photo from her public relations speakers' bureau agency was removed; that is a different matter. But Wikipedia generally permits a photo from a book cover when the book is pertinently part of the content of the article; in this case, it is (as it is in the article on the book). Fair use rationale pertains to both this article and that one. --NYScholar (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see further discussion on the talk page of the image and the updated image page at Image:Vpw fairgame.jpg. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There I write: "I've now found the "free photo" in the request move link and edited the article accordingly, placing the "free photo" ("free image") in a more appropriate place in the article; the infobox image is, however, still justified, as I explain in response in the request review section. It illustrates content in the lead and in a detailed section of the article (where it used to appear [also] but was deleted by another editor some time ago). The rationale for its use in Valerie Plame Wilson, the author of the book, remains; it is used within fair use, due to the discussion of the book in the article on her (aka Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson)." --NYScholar (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that another ed. has moved the "free photo" from where it was placed (in the section on the book and her lecture appearances (about the book) to the infobox, replacing the book cover photo previously there. It works okay for me (though I preferred it the other way). --NYScholar (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Burned?

Due to the whole Plame affair, could Valerie Wilson be considered Burned?--Silverhand^Talk 14:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The biggest lie of this entire 'outing' farce is that Plame was a 'Jane Bond', or an 'undercover agent'. This could not be farther from the truth. Robert Novak on CNN Crossfire, September 2003:

"[The CIA] asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/

I invite you to verify this and demand that you correct the record. Allowing this false characterization of Ms Plame's CIA service to stand gives ammunition to the half-wits in the blogosphere who claim that Bush, Cheney or Libby somehow 'committed treason'.67.142.178.22 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That is probably not possible because it has to stay secret. One would have to assume that these people are sometimes analysts and sometimes operatives in the sense of participating in operations, government funded and initiated operations. I was nosy about what kind of operations and where but we cannot ever know that it seems. They must also be operations that the system mightn't like admitting, so the secrecy will never be lifted. 2001:8003:A928:800:950E:FF20:63AA:DF93 (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Red Star

Although it hasn't been released officially yet (street date is Nov 18 2008), the band Third Eye Blind have made a song called Red Star which is primarily about Valerie Plame. I'm not much of one to make changes to main pages, but figured it might be worth noting here at least. I mean, if a parody song is relevant, surely this is too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.66.230 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

revert of anon ip

I reverted an anon's changes to the page because he had included duplicate information on Richard Armitage that is already covered elsewhere, and he had deleted significant published commentary from a reliable source. If the anon wants to defend some of these edits perhaps there is a compromise available but I don't think the information he deleted should be deleted. csloat (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Connection between Plame and Libby?

Could somebody who understands this history please add a sentence or two to the "Plamegate" section explaining how we get from Novak leaking Plame's role to Libby getting indicted? Even after reviewing a couple of the related articles, I'm not sure I understand the flow. We go from "Novak published the information" directly to "Fitzgerald explains the background of the indictment of Libby". Perhaps a capsule summary of how the information flowed to Novak, pointing out Lewis's role and mentioning his role in the investigation? Jordan Brown (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Second the above. The introduction of Libby into the article leaves it unclear how or why Plame was involved. It should not be necessary to read 'side-bar' articles for this understanding, which is clearly the crucial justification for the Plame article's very existence. Old Aylesburian (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful Link

This NY Times page:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/LIBBYDIARY.html

provides two competing timelines for June/July 2003 which the editors of this page may find useful. One is derived from the prosecution evidence at Libby's trial and one from the defence evidence. 114.73.120.206 (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Important fact missing

The first couple sentences don't even mention the most notable thing about Valerie Plame: the fact that she was outed from her covert position. Here is the edit I suggest:

Valerie Elise Plame Wilson (born April 19, 1963), known as Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson, and Valerie Plame Wilson, is a former United States CIA Operations Officer. She worked as a covert operations officer until her name and true affiliation were released by officials in the Bush Administration. Valerie Wilson is the author of a memoir detailing her career and the events leading up to her resignation from the CIA.Rodeored (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

OBJECTION to above comments.

To say she was under cover as an operations officer at the time her identity as a CIA employee was revealed is incorrect due to one single fact - no one involved was accused of exposing a CIA officer who was under cover which is a federal crime of great seriousness. While she may have and probably was under cover early in her career, by the time her association with the Agency was exposed she was clearly no longer under cover. Her job in counter-proliferation did not require true cover. There is mention she was under Non-Official cover during her tours overseas. If she worked in the US consulate as claimed then she was under Official Cover not Non-Official Cover which has absolutely no connection to the USA government. Also, if she was assigned overseas or travelled at any time overseas with her husband, who was an accredited US State Department Ambassador, she would never travel under any type of cover, she would identify herself if necessary solely as a US government employee - this is because it is EXTREMELY doubtful the State Department would allow her to be under cover with her clearly overt US State Department employee husband as they would never tolerate the flap that would result if her cover was blown overseas - ALL ambassadors would be immediately assumed by the world to be CIA when in fact they NEVER are CIA always State or appointed by the President from private sector. Also, if one was ever under Official Cover then can never later be under Non-Official cover, the other way is possible but not non-official to official, the association with the US government was established and cannot be erased, and saying you quit and now are private sector does not work.

If reporters covering this issue knew half of their job they could have resolved this issue with one step - do a credit or background check of Ms. Plame. If her employment is CIA or if there is ANY mention of CIA in her background then she is most certainly NOT under cover. Only a very small fraction of CIA employees are under any kind of real cover. Any kind of cover is EXTREMELY expensive and laborious to establish and maintain, any kind of NON-OFFICIAL cover is HUGELY difficult to establish and maintain. Note an officer under non-official cover would have rare if any contact with the official USA presence in a given country so as to eliminate any possibility of anyone suspecting there may be an association of any kind. Read Dulles's book on tradecraft, it is all there. Use your heads folks, don't be fooled.

Another fact to consider is the Ambassador's trip to Niger. He went around and asked officials if they were breaking UN laws. He must have been surprised none admitted they were doing so. How naive can you get? Was the ambassador so completely clueless as to think the Niger government would ADMIT to helping Saddam? Can no one see this? I worry for my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.145.237 (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Jargon, + Too technical + Biased

Much of the article is too jargon-laden and wonky, it's gibberish to any newcomer to this topic. The editors need to recognize that a list of facts is NOT an explanation, nor encyclopedic. Unlike with journalists (or litigating, often obfuscating or overly-vague lawyers to the Press quoted here), encyclopedia authors are expected to draw conclusions from the whole (the intentionally obfuscated facts-list or he-said, she-said story) and condense them into encyclopedic format, —typically a comprehensible story with context inserted. Example, meaningless quote:

Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[38] According to his testimony, the information that Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told reporters, "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding, "We're looking at what can be made available."[39]

That is so meaningless that one wonders if Scooter's lawyers wrote it. The entire article has the feel of being a BushCo white-wash. For just one example; —the effect of Libby (convicted of) lying through his teeth had on the investigation: it effectively shut it and the prosecutors down in mid-stride, just getting started. Then the article concludes innocence from the lack of charges. Huh? Ignoring: Fitzgerald's "when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown" Careful, presumption of innocence is for the criminal court system, an artificial bias & is far, far from universal, in fact is often silly. The editors here need to put on their thinking caps do their job, not just recite out-of-context factoids and extreme-insider buzz words. The above-quoted can only have value as an addition or reinforcement to the story, it is not a description nor a story of what came down...it's like footnotes without an article. Libby's lawyers would love it.
--71.137.156.36 (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

<Insert>No. You do not seem to understand the policy. You state: "encyclopedia authors are expected to draw conclusions". We do not draw conclusions on this project. That is considered Original Research or Synthesis. We use what reliable sources have said, not what an editor may have concluded. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason that section would be meaningless (no reality context, not memorable) to the average person is there utterly no mention of the popular headline issues or buzzwords of the time: That Plame was snitched on by the White House as revenge against, her "CIA envoy" husband who admitted that he was sent to Niger to verify BushCo's loud and persistent squealing about huge stockpile manipulations of Nigerian yellowcake uranium for Saddam, (part of BushCo's "mushroom cloud" scenario to lie us into war), —but there was very obviously no such thing, never was. Merely adding that to the opening paragraph would do great deal to clear up this incomprehensible "insider" mess.

(See also, Headline: "Court Silences CIA Operative Despite Yellowcake Scandal" 11.13.09 "...even though a government official already outed her as an agent in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joseph C. Wilson, a federal appeals court says.") Not a hint of that context, the very reason all this, & Plame herself, are notable.
--71.137.156.36 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Doug Bashford

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valerie Plame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://wilsonsupport.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of category by User: Cpt.a.haddock

This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at category "Critics of Islamophobia".

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.)

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Valerie Plame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930043217/https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html to https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2002.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325085424/http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316104030-43341.pdf to http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316104030-43341.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419075417/http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205 to http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/075257p.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110222030539/http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/39740 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/39740
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130105085910/http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/06/supreme-court-will-not-revive-valerie-plame-lawsuit/97233 to http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2009/06/supreme-court-will-not-revive-valerie-plame-lawsuit/97233
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419075417/http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205 to http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922140112/http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm to http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007124402/http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9473 to http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=9473
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017203529/http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/ to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Candidate

She is now running for office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe1XMolVyec Kdammers (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Claim Libby (not Armitage) was responsible for outing

My understanding was that Richard Armitage was actually responsible for outing Valerie Plame and has publicly admitted this.. Claiming that Libby leaked her status to Novack is likely false. Is there a previous discussion of this somewhere? (It is hard to believe that I am the first person to point this out.) Thanks. 98.7.1.133 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)