Talk:CIA leak scandal legal questions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re-merge, please
The page is redundant, with content taken from Plame affair. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No Merge, Please
Plame affair is way too big. Splitting out elements is necessary to maintain encyclopediality. Legal Q's on Plame affair should be merged onto this page. rewinn 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- agreed. removed tag.Anthonymendoza 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Headings
I re-set the headings levels, since they way they were, there was only 1 first-level heading with half-a-dozen subserviant to it. Now the half-a-dozen legal theories have their own 1st level heading. I'm not sure what to do about the "briefing" material since it doesn't seem to fall under any particluar legal heading. Maybe it doesn't belong here? I also tried to include all the "legal theory" stuff from the main article Plame affair so that page could be shortened. I'm not trying to add any new material or remove any old stuff, just reduce dups. If I dropped anything important feel free to re-add. rewinn 21:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delete
Considering the recent revelations about the Plame Affair this article, based as it was mostly on speculation now shown to be in error, is now obsolete. It is, in fact, embarrassing in retrospect. It should be deleted. What little information in it that is still relevant should be merged into the Plame Affair article. RFabian 13:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean up/plagiarism
This article appears to need considerable clean up still; it is missing reliable source citations throughout. I have added some tags throughout to indicate some of these problems of missing citations and also tagged the article with a "clean up" tag after spending time trying to revise it. It still needs much more improvement. The new "Notes" section needs conversion of external links (that were previously only in the text) into bonafide notes format. More notes are needed as well to support what appears to be a lot of speculation and conjecture and even original interpretation placed in this article by previous editors. See W:NOR, W:NPOV, W:Reliable sources, W:Cite for guidance in editing. --NYScholar 21:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have found plagiarism in this article. I just added a missing source (Dean FindLaw article) from which some of one section is clearly plagiarized: Here is the embedded editorial note I added to the section:
Most of the information about Morison and Randal in this section appears to have been plagiarized from a source written by John Dean; the points taken from it all, therefore, are Dean's point of view, and this article is rife with presentation of such POV and is, therefore, violating W:NPOV. The earlier editors of this article have not always identified their sources of statements made in it and present their own and others' interpretations without giving verifiable and reliable sources, thus violating W:Reliable sources and W:Cite. I added the citation of Dean's article in FindLaw.
--NYScholar 21:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added a section for "References" and "External links," beginning with some useful resources for editors who need to find sources for further documenting this article. --NYScholar 00:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is TERRIBLE
This article should probably be deleted. It contains almost nothing but speculation. It's an example of Leftist activism here at Wikipedia --Jayzel 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
