Talk:Larry C. Johnson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

1 Anon user POV-pushing
2 POV-pushing by Ombudsman
3 Why are you trying to smear Johnson?
4 Csloat reversion
5 Stop the POV Pushing
6 Please stop the nonsense on Larry C. Johnson
7 changes to the page
8 His blogging
9 When, exactly was this Written
10 To the anon writer
11 Challenge to Anon
12 RfC on this page
13 What is going on?
14 Please identify which of my edits have not been discussed here
15 Protected
16 Unprotected hours ago and what happens?
17 RfC opened for Mr j galt
18 Removing NPOV tag
19 Larry Johnson's pre-911 mindset
20 welcome back galt
- 20.1 more recent galt edit
21 reorganizing the page
22 created redirect from "Larry Johnson" this is the info I found there
23 NPOV tag + galt edit war
24 Why didn't Larry Johnson serve in Vietnam?
25 Larry Johnson is completely discredited
26 Let's keep the material in its proper historical context
27 Wow, you guys have been busy
28 rv war
29 What format is standard?
30 4 reverts by csloat today?
31 Golani Brigade info
32 Neutrality and format (notes/reference/ext. links) issues
33 Notes

[edit] Anon user POV-pushing

Anonymous user User:65.87.105.2 has been very active on the Plame-related articles pushing a certain POV defending Novak and the Administration. The material he inserted without comment is part of his POV-campaign. It is refuted (or at least put into proper context) here and here, among other places. I just wanted these links available to anyone who wants to deal with this, in case I don't get to it. :)--csloat 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) I want to add that he is a registered Republican and a Bush supporter until recently[1]; this is not just propaganda, as the anon user's edits imply.-csloat 23:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV-pushing by Ombudsman

This has been discussed already; please see above for the cite. The bullshit that Johnson only "claimed" he was a registered republican is a bogus attempt to poison the well.--csloat 19:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Johnson said he supported Bush, but there is no evidence that he supported Bush other than his post-election statement. There was no pre-election endorsement for Bush even though Johnson could publish his columns in the NY Times and he appeared on numerous television news shows. Johnson gave no money to Bush, although Bush raised hundreds of millions of dollars from other donors. Johnson didn't volunteer for the Bush campaign, even though the Bush campaign headquarters was within a mile of his DC office. Of course we don't have a photo of him voting in the voting booth. So when Johnson says he previously supported Bush while presently denouncing him, we can only write that "he said he supported Bush." We have no 3rd party authentication for his claim of support, and his motive for lying is high: it gives him more credibility as a critic if he was a former suporter. I will now reinsert that line as previosly written. If you have a source to authenticate his claim, please add your cite. Good day! P.S. Who is ombudsman?--24.55.228.56 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have disputing that he voted for Bush? The article cited above says it quite clearly; it is not just "he says," and you offer no intelligent reason to doubt it. There is nobody on earth that has published anything suggesting that the facts are any different than this; your insertion of this is just to raise doubt where there is no reason for it. Should we say also that George W Bush only says he is a Republican? or a Christian? Come on. The source is right there, I will put it in since you are so anal about this ludicrous point. Happy new year.--csloat 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PS I want to add that your logic is internally contradictory. You claim that Johnson is lying about voting for Bush in order to enhance his credibility - yet it is clear throughout the article that he thinks Bush is absolutely wrong about the war -- why would he think it would enhance his credibility to admit that he used to support a President whom he thinks is wrong (and in fact, a liar and a traitor)? In any case, the speculation that Johnson might be lying about this is not supported in any published source; it is not up to wikipedia editors to publish such conjecture.--csloat 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. But because kids read these things, I will explain it to you anyway. If Johnson previously supported Bush, then he cannot be dismissed as just another left-wing anti-Bush wacko when he criticizes the Bush administration on the Plame matter. So when he says he was a supporter of Bush while criticizing the Bush administration in the same breath, it sounds suspicious. If Johnson truly supported Bush, where is the paper trail? Why didn't he donate to, volunteer for, or endorse the campaign? Apparently, when you write that Johnson supported Bush, you mean that he voted for Bush. Since Americans vote via secret ballot, it can never be proven how he voted. So that's why this article will say that he said he voted for President Bush in 2000. Good day! --24.55.228.56 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, the third party confirmation that Johnson supported Bush is in the article. But let's follow your logic -- where is Johnson's passport or photocopy of his driver's license? How do we know that is really his name? Shouldn't we change this article to The person who claims to go by the name Larry C. Johnson? You're making ludicrous charges. Lots of people who supported Bush did not contribute money. And your credibility argument is just ludicrous. If "it sounds suspicious" that he changed his impression of Bush after the war started, doesn't that hurt his credibility rather than help it? Again, you are totally contradicting yourself in your crusade to tarnish this person's credibility. Until you cite a source that actually questions his credibility on that issue, your questioning of it is original research.--csloat 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you trying to smear Johnson?

I have no objection to legitimate criticism of Johnson on this page, but the smears that this anon user keeps posting simply do not belong here. This is not the place to speculate that he might be lying about facts that nobody else contests. There is no reason to add "he claims" to his support of Bush or to other claims that went uncontested during his sworn testimony. There is also no reason to give so much space to the whine that Johnson looked at the world with a pre-911 mindset -- before September 11th. Such claims are thrown in here only to impugn his credibility, and they do not add anything to the encyclopedia. They also don't make any sense - we've established above that there is no logic to the claim that Johnson would lie about formerly supporting Bush, and the whine about his pre-911 mindset is just idiotic, and he answers it clearly. There is no need for so many paragraphs on it at all, but if it's going to be put in here, it must be put in the context that it actually became an issue - that is, the context of a conservative smear campaign.--csloat 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On Hatch - Hatch reads the papers like everyone else. Such a significant claim would not go unnoticed by the conservative media if it were false. Even the Weekly Standard has not published anything challenging this claim. The only reason you keep doing this is because you want people to view Johnson as some kind of liar, yet you can't find a single source to back up your BS. Please knock it off; Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. If you think Johnson is a liar, write an article about it, get it published, and maybe it will get picked up by the mainstream media -- in which case then there might be a reason for someone to include this silliness in wikipedia.--csloat 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No one is smearing Johnson and I resent the accusation. I am simply trying to maintain NPOV in the article. Your suggestion that too much is being made of his pre-9/11 column downplaying the risk of terrorism is pure POV. He held himself out as an international expert on intelligence and security and yet he was 100% wrong on the threat the US faced. That's pretty significant. csloat, you are a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. Your m.o. is to accuse others of POV pushing while repeatedly reverting their edits.[2] I won't be pushed around by a POV bully.--24.55.228.56 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You are smearing Johnson; there is no other reason to add qualifiers to sentences that are not contested by anyone in the world. Actually, when the article is read in context, he is not 100% wrong, but that is neither here nor there. The fact is I am not resisting this information being put in the article at all; I am simply stating that it is not that big a deal -- everyone had a pre-911 mindset before 911, and the few who didn't - like Clarke, Scheuer - were seen as paranoid. The only reason Johnson's pre-911 views have been made an issue is to make a nonsensical smear against him. I am not pushing you around; I am trying to keep the article useful and relevant and free of idiotic statements and right wing propaganda.

As far as his expertise goes, please point to a single source actually questioning his expertise. Something other than innuendo based on something he wrote before 911. There is no need for personal attacks; I am not a "bully." If you are not trying to smear Johnson, why is it you insist on implying that he is a liar by putting qualifiers in every statement, when those statements are not contested by anyone on earth?--csloat 03:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW - If anyone doubts that you are a POV pusher, they can read your blog remarks on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair here: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 After reading it, no one will be surprised by your repeated POV edits here.--24.55.228.56 03:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I never claimed not to have a POV; but I am not interested in pushing it on Wikipedia. What I write on a blog and what I write in Wikipedia have different goals. I'm sure you are capable of understanding that.--csloat 03:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure, it's just a coincidence that your Blog and your editing here have similar POV (anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-Iraq War, pro-Larry Johnson). LOL! (BTW - I love the Plamegate poll!)[3] If you have strong opinions about an issue or a person, it's probably best if you refrain from editing articles about them. --24.55.228.56 03:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That's advice I see you won't take. Of course, since you are afraid to get an account here and edit under a pseudonym, I can't call you out on your POV by pointing to a blog. But I can point to your edits, which have been relentlessly singleminded. Whereas anyone who looks at my edit history can see that I am not pushing a particular POV but putting in information that I have some knowledge or expertise about. As I said above, the goal of writing on a blog and the goal of editing an encyclopedia are two different ones.--csloat 04:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Csloat reversion

I am reverting recent edits by anon ip because (1) he changed the pre-911 section to eliminate the context of why this became an issue. This is all garbage - part of a right-wing smear campaign led by the Weakly standard. I mean really, this whole point is that Johnson had a pre-9/11 mindset ... before 9/11. But I'm not deleting this section, even though I think it should be deleted; I am simply keeping it in context, which is that Johnson's pre-9/11 column was not a significant issue until he came out against the war and it was then brought up in the weakly standard. (2) I am deleting the added quote because it is totally misleading -- read the rest of the article it is from rather than cherry picking the one sentence that seems to support the opposite side. The very paragraph that your quote is from also says "According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991." He also concludes that any connections between Iraq and transnational terrorists (eg al Qaeda) were attempts to respond to the coming US invasion: "Nonetheless, it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden." And of course the paper concludes that a US invasion will massively increase Iraqi terrorism (a prediction which turned out to be totally accurate). I think it is better to just delete the quote rather than add all this context.--csloat 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat, well known POV warrior and blogger, wants people to believe that Johnson's misguided column in the NYT was first criticized by conservatives in the Weekly Standard years after it was published. In fact, a liberal publication, Slate magazine, criticized the column two weeks after it was published. That reference goes back in. Also, Sloat has added voluminous quotes in the article in an illfated attempt to make Johnson more understandable. The quote I added goes back in and the other quotes will be trimmed back to normal size.--24.55.228.56 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Slate is not a partisan magazine that I know of. Please stop the name-calling and address the arguments; it is getting tedious to have to refute smears from an anonymous user who berates me until he loses the argument and then disappears beneath a stack of Weekly Standards until he can figure out a new way to smear Johnson on an encyclopedia. The Slate column was not notable until after it was revived by right wing pundits, and that is a fact. As far as the quotes go, you are selectively quoting in order to mischaracterize Johnson's views - I would rather delete them completely but since you insist on them, I will insist that they reflect his claims accurately - if that means extending them, that is what we will do. Taking things out of context in order to promote your POV is petty and has no place in an encyclopedia.-csloat 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not "name calling" to speak the truth. You are, in fact, a left-wing POV bully and blogger with strong pro-Larry Johnson views on the Plame Affair. People can read your blog here and judge for themselves: here: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 You have attempted to spin, twist, and cherry pick facts in Wikipedia so that it adheres to your POV. Regarding Slate Magazine, it was founded by Michael Kinsley, the liberal side of Crossfire, published by the Washington Post and edited by Jacob Weisberg. That might not be liberal from your POV perspective, but it would be for the rest of America. As for being anonymous, I can find no listing in my phone directory for a "Commodore Sloat." Good day!--24.55.228.56 01:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is deja vu. I have responded to your name-calling about my blog already; it is just not relevant here. Slate is not a partisan source - it may have been founded by liberals but that is not the same as the Nation or the Weekly Standard which are openly partisan sources - my comment was not about how its founders vote, which is irrelevant. I don't care if you want to be anonymous - I am just getting tired of responding to your name-calling and such. Your edits are openly mendacious -- you take quotes out of context to make it appear as if he is saying something different. I don't mind anyone anonymously editing if they do so with truth as their goal; that does not seem to be the case with your edits. In any case, I see you are granting the rest of my points about these edits, so please stop reverting. I've tried to address your concerns by trimming the quote section and building the information there into the body of the page. Hopefully we can improve the article, not get in little fights about whose territory it is.--csloat 01:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the POV Pushing

Larry Johnson is an obscure anti-Iraq War activist known for two things:

1. He wrote a column two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, in which he argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism, titled The Declining Terrorist Threat. Since he holds himself out as a terrorism expert, this column is a significant embarrassment.

2. He attempted to insert himself into the Valerie Plame scandal by asserting that Plame was an "undercover" CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003."[4] However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's CIA status from 1990 to 2003. His assertion calls into question his credibility on other topics.

The attempt here to puff up Johnson as a hero, a victim, or as a someone who accurately predicted terrorist acts is pure POV. I will continue to correct it and revert it when appropriate. --24.55.228.56 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He was never known for #1 until after #2 when he testified to the Senate special committee. Plame's CIA status is obvious because as I said above the CIA is the only entity in a position to tell anyone her status, and the CIA made it clear. Nobody has puffed Johnson into a hero or victim - show me those words on the page please and we can deal with such issues. All I am doing is showing the contexts for the various quotes you pull out of context. You have not responded to my arguments about this above.--csloat 04:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean he wasn't known for no. 1 until after he testified before the democratic senators in 2005? He was criticized by Slate Magazine, a national news source, just 10 days after 9/11 on September 21, 2001.[5] That was 3 1/2 years before his testimony! This is an example of your attempt to paint Johnson as a victim of a right-wing cabal. It is simply not true. As for the CIA making Plame's status clear, that is an outright lie. Cite that claim. The CIA has never discussed whether Plame was a covert agent when Robert Novak published his column. You are making up facts to suit your POV.--24.55.228.56 05:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So? Should we have a wikipedia article about every article in Slate? Come on. Nobody else talked about that Slate article; this was simply not news - just an example of a former intel analyst that Slate thinks got things wrong. This was not an issue for anyone until 2005; this article was forgotten until then. Again, who cares about all this? Johnson made a reasonable argument in 2000; and as you can see from the rest of the quotes he was clear on the threat from al-Qaeda. Slate quoted only part of the article in order to make him sound completely surprised by 9/11 -- but really, so what if he was? A lot of people were, certainly most of the Bush Administration. Johnson is not a victim of anyone, but it is true that there are some right wing pundits who tried to use this article to smear him. Nothing new in the world of politics. The CIA did claim Plame was covert; see it yourself in my response to your talk page, or just use your brain. Do you expect us to believe Johnson is the one who said her cover was blown? You think the Justice Department will stop in its tracks for a former CIA employee's unfounded allegations? Of course not. They investigated because they got a call from the CIA. I can't believe anyone still holds the position you claim to hold - it makes it difficult to take you seriously.--csloat 06:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: The following discussion of the Larry C. Johnson article is being moved from my talk page to the Larry C. Johnson discussion page where it belongs.--24.55.228.56 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop the nonsense on Larry C. Johnson

Please do not make wholesale changes to the article without responding to discussion in talk. Name-calling and verbal abuse is not enough; you need to actually address the arguments. You are steamrolling reversions with no regard for the WP:3RR and without responding to specific arguments against these reverts. I see you engage in similar behavior on other articles according to what I see on this page. Your actions are destructive of wikipedia goals.--csloat 01:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My actions are constructive and in defense of wikipedia. I am drawn to articles where an editor with extreme POV on a given topic, such as Commodore Sloat, attempts to repeatedly insert POV into that topic and bully others. I will not be bullied. Larry C. Johnson is an obscure bit player in the Valerie Plame scandal. Johnson attempted to insert himself into the Plame story by asserting that Plame was a covert CIA agent when named by Robert Novak in 2003. However, since Johnson had himself left he CIA in 1989, there is no way he could know Plame's status. Commodore Sloat is a well-known POV pusher, esp. on issues related to Iraq (e.g., Iraqi insurgency, Saddam Hussein, and al Qaeda. He writes an anti-Bush blog and has strong views on Larry C. Johnson and the Plame affair: http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=14 He even has a Plamegate poll![6] Commodore Sloat should not be editing wikipedia articles when he has strong POV views on the subject. I will continue to fight efforts by POV bullies to force their views on others via wikipedia.--24.55.228.56 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The CIA, not Larry Johnson, asked the DoJ to look into the revealing of the identity of a covert agent. The CIA is the only entity who can tell us whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert, and they have made it clear that she was covert. Johnson never claimed to be revealing information that was not known or unique to him on this matter (and that is not even an issue on the article so it is really irrelevant anyway). I'm glad you are impressed by the Plame poll on my site, but it really has nothing to do with my contributions to wikipedia. I try to evidence every change I make with an edit summary or longer discussion in talk, as per wikipedia policy. The fact that this strategy is up front does not make me a "bully." I do not try to force my views; I show evidence for what I believe to be accurate. I do not make edits to push a POV and I back off when counter-evidence shows that I was wrong about something. In the case of the Johnson page, I made a number of edits that improve readability and explain context; I justified each change with a lengthy discussion on the talk page. You wholesale reverted all these changes without so much as a reasonable edit summary; in talk you just call me names and point to my blog but you don't respond to the substance of any of the issues raised.--csloat 02:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you have only attempted to insert your POV in the article suggesting that Larry Johnson is a hero for taking on the Bush administration. Contrary to your comment above, the CIA has never taken a position on whether Plame was covert. Nor has the independent counsel who is investigating the matter. However, Larry C. Johnson has asserted "For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak."[7]. Johnson left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003.--24.55.228.56 03:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the Justice Dept ever investigated the Valerie Wilson affair is because the CIA took a position on whether she was covert. The CIA brought this case to the Justice Department; Larry Johnson didn't. That is a basic fact that none of the right wing speculation about whether she travelled out of the country has ever refuted. That's a nice quote from Johnson but as you well know, you can find almost the exact same quote uttered by Patrick Fitzgerald. I am not sure why you are on a vendetta against Johnson regarding this point when it was a point made by the CIA and the Justice Department, and a point the Bush Administration has not publicly contested. Johnson has not claimed any special knowledge of Plame's post-1989 status; he has simply explained the same point that has been made in the New York Times, by Patrick Fitzgerald, and by the CIA (among others). This really isn't a controversial point outside of the world of right-wing bloggers and the OReilly Factor. --csloat 04:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"The only reason the Justice Dept ever investigated the Valerie Wilson affair is because the CIA took a position on whether she was covert." This statement is a lie. Cite it. You can't because it never occurred. This is exactly the POV nonsense you have been spewing in the Johnson and Plame articles. When asked whether Plame was covert, Patrick Fitzgerald said, "I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward." Fitzgerald has never said Plame was covert. Johnson was the first to make the covert claim on July 13, 2003. Elisabeth Bumiller's NYT article did not come out until Oct 5, 2003, and no source is cited for her outrageous allegation.--24.55.228.56 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the freaking indictment yourself, or just use your brain. Who do you theorize asked the Justice Dept to investigate? Johnson? The Democrats? This is not POV nonsense; these are the facts -- you can read about it yourself in any newspaper account. Fitzgerald was not asked whether Plame was covert before saying that; read the transcript yourself. Fitzgerald said she had a cover that was blown. Johnson was not the first to make the covert claim; the Justice Dept was already investigating the issue by then. Please show me the article by Johnson on July 13 -- I have not seen it. A quick search shows me that this is likely the first mention of her status, and it is pretty clearly confirmed by intelligence officials. Her "allegation" is not "outrageous"; it is the clear conclusion of intelligence officials, likely the CIA. Seriously, what is your theory on who asked the Dept of Justice to investigate this crime? You think they would just do so on Larry Johnson's word if the CIA did not indicate she was covert? It doesn't matter of course since that is not our dispute here - you have taken this far afield of the topic at hand. --csloat 06:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This thread will be moved to the Larry C. Johnson talk page so please respond there. I don't want to clutter my page with this silliness. Of course, I have read the indictment. [8] It does not say that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate the matter. Nor does it say the CIA took a position on whether Plame was covert. In fact, the DOJ initiated the investigation on its own. The DOJ did not need the CIA, the Democrats, or anyone else to ask it to initiate the investigation. And that's what every news account said.[9] Again, on July 13, 2003, Larry C. Johnson was the first to allege that "For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak."[10]. (Click on the footnote preceding this sentence to read his words as he published them.) Never mind that Johnson left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003. He is a fraud who purports to know things he cannot know. All other articles that say Plame was undercover either cite Larry C. Johnson or no source at all. Please respond only to the Larry C. Johnson talk page. Thank you!--24.55.228.56 02:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not make changes to the article based on information on your talk page. I am reverting your changes wholesale as you have not addressed the issues. The fact that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate is in every news account that tells you the history. Look at factcheck.org's timeline or look at the July 22 article I linked in response to this silliness. Your claims about the CIA are ludicrous. Look, the CIA and DOJ are in the same town. They have each others' numbers in their Rolodexes. They make room on each others' calendars for meetings when they need to, and they certainly would have done so before spending who knows how many taxpayer dollars on an investigation that could have been settled with a five minute phone call. If Plame was not covert there would have been no investigation. But that's not the issue at issue on this page at all, which makes this conversation ludicrous. This page is about Larry Johnson. If you have evidence that he is a "fraud," please cite it -- not your own speculation, but show me published verification that someone in their right mind believes your theory. You are simply misinformed about the articles that say she is undercover - there is a Newsday article that I linked you to before that says intelligence officials (not former hacks who haven't worked their in 20 years, which seems to be your view of Johnson) confirmed she was undercover at the time of the outing. Besides, do you really believe the DOJ would initiate an investigation at Larry Johnson's urging?--csloat 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One more thing - you seem to think that Johnson's 7/13 TPMCafe article is a big deal because it seems to be the first to identify her as undercover -- but the issue is not who was the first to use the word "undercover" at all. Johnson, obviously, is not under investigation here, and nobody (except you, to my knowledge) has accused Johnson of being the one who "outed" her. If you think he should be, it is simply not wikipedia's job to put something like that on the national agenda. You may wish to send a copy of Johnson's article to Fitzpatrick with a note attached. If you think this article should mention that article, I don't have a problem with it - there is already a quote from it on the page anyway. But I cannot understand what you're suggesting with all this - do you think Johnson was lying when he said Novak outed an undercover agent? Do you think he just misspoke? Then why did intelligence officials confirm that she was undercover a few days later? And do you think that the DOJ investigation started in motion because Johnson used the word "undercover"? Or do you think he is the one who outed her? (as if that could somehow blow her cover further?) This argument is just nonsense, literally. And, finally, it has no relevance to the recent changes whatsoever, so please do not revert everything again based on a snippy response to all this stuff.--csloat 05:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat wrote: Fitzgerald was not asked whether Plame was covert before saying that; read the transcript yourself.' People can read the transcript here. The following is the question and answer word for word:

QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?

FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

Contrary to Commodore Sloat's lie, it is clear the covert question was asked and answered by the special prosecutor exactly as I stated. POV warriors are destroying wikipedia.--24.55.228.56 02:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Sir, I must ask you to stop the personal attacks. I have never lied about this. Frankly you are the one who is wrong here - read the question again yourself. "Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert" Not "Can you say whether Valerie Wilson's identity was covert" - it is clear, in fact, that the questioner is aware it was covert. Please attempt to employ basic reading comprehension before calling other people liars.--csloat 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes to the page

The argument above may be interesting for people interested in trivia about the Plame affair, but it has nothing to do with any of the edits that have been reverted. These edits revert edits by me that were carefully explained one by one. The argument above is not responsive at all to those explanations. Therefore I am reverting.--csloat 04:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How absurd. You repeatedly attempt to create the impression that the criticism of Johnson's article was a right wing attempt to discredit him. It wasn't. And it is documented on this talk page. Also, as discussed here, the quotes you have added are excessive and will be trimmed back. I will also begin editing those other sections discussed here to restore NPOV.--24.55.228.56 11:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not attempt to create that impression; the pundits who smeared him did. And most of the world is not talking about this - it's a trivial point. Looked at in context, the smears were wrong. He was quoted out of context and the report used against him in an absurd argument that really has no effect on his credibility - so what if he wrote something in 2001 that you consider incorrect? By the way I am reverting your silliness on the Hatch/Republican issue - we put that one to bed weeks ago. You never responded to the arguments, yet you keep coming back to this stupidity. There are exactly no press accounts questioning Johnson's Republican past or his relationship with Hatch. There is no reason to insert stuff like "He believes..." when there is no reason not to believe what is represented. Shall we insert that George Bush "believes he is a Christian"? Come on.--csloat 12:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I looked over each of your changes and will be reverting it all back. In every case your version is less readable and more POV. Your changes mostly amounted to a revert to your earlier versions with minor changes. The big issues have all been argued here and you have conceded every relevant argument. A few other specific points:

1. Intro - without explanation, anon erased information that was sourced (e.g. "decorated veteran" and inserted the false claim that Johnson is "known for his controversial claim that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent when her name was released in a column by Robert Novak."[11]. Skeptics contend that he left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003." I am reverting; this is not what he is known for; the claim is not controversial, and there is no skeptics other than this anon editor who contends this.

2. I am reverting the section on Republican ties because its whole purpose is to cast doubt on something that has not been questioned anywhere but wikipedia. If Johnson is lying it is not up to WP to call him on it. We are free to quote from media accounts which call him a liar if that is happening anywhere.

3. I am reverting the stuff on the pre-9/11 column because the version I made is more complete and more readable. The column itself is only part of his pre-9/11 views; there is no reason to select out of context only those views which you want to argue against.

4. Anon erased without explanation the section on the 2003 advice to Bremer, which is certainly more significant to who Johnson is today than anything he wrote in 2001.

5. Anon erased those quotations or parts of quotations that don't support his view of Johnson (which is obviously unfavorable). I prefer to keep quotes and views in context.

6. The hearing was a joint Senate-House meeting of Democrats. We need to find a better way to phrase it but neither of us is correct yet.

Finally: if you have quotations from someone smearing Johnson feel free to insert them. But do not use this as a forum from which to smear him yourself. Hints that he might be lying, that he was the real boogieman in the Plame affair, etc., have no place here if they are not part of the public discourse about this issue. I have not erased your quotes from Slate about this but I will continue to delete random conjecture from anonymous editors.--csloat 13:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His blogging

Should it be included that he posts his writings on several group blog sites such as Booman Tribune? [12]. Add the Political blogger category. --waffle iron 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it might be an idea to simply mention that he posts articles to blogs as opposed to reproducing a chronological recounting of every position he has taken on every issue since 1996. The highlighted blue links appear to work spectacularly well for linking to external sources when you click them. Hence there doesn't appear to be a lot of need to reproduce huge commentaries here in their entirity. Dear god, can you imagine the result if the same treatment was applied to Noam Chomsky Wikipedia entry. A man who has written 8000 books, comments on everything that has ever happened anywhere and can talk for hours without pause. This commentator really hasn't contributed anything exceptionally significant to the topics he is quoted at length on. Yes, he was worthy of PBS interviewed him in a documentary about terrorism. On the other hand John_P._O'Neill had an entire PBS documentary dedicated to his predictions prior to 9/11. Compare the two articles and figure out which one needs some serious culling of the exploits of a far less significant figure. Attriti0n 10:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When, exactly was this Written

In an expanded version of this argument, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:

The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals assoicated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.

DTC 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is this is from 2001, that it is a longer presentation that he based his 2001 editorial on.-csloat 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation on that? DTC 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim to have one. I said that was my understanding of it -- I don't recall where I read that, nor do I have any reason to doubt it (read the piece yourself, it's pretty easy to date based on the information in the text), and I'm not here to do research for you. If you doubt something, look it up yourself.--csloat 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot cite it outside of a blog, then it should reflect the unknown nature of the information. Please refresh yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. DTC 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What is unknown about this? The exact date of publication? Feel free to add in the entry that this piece appears to have been written between 2000-2001 based on the dates referenced in the article. Or email Larry Johnson yourself to find out for sure. I have not objected to any such clarification of the exact date of a particular article.--csloat 00:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats the problem, as stated the article says it was written around the same time as the Op-ed piece, what if it were written well after. DTC 01:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To the anon writer

Stop the nonsense please. Every single one of my changes was carefully argued for above and you conceded every argument; the only point you contested is a trivial one about the Plame affair -- even if you thought you won that argument, it has no effect whatsoever on your proposed changes to the article -- it's simply not relevant. What is relevant are specific changes that I took the time and energy to spell out and justify one by one. You are simply reverting out of spite because you have a different POV, but you can't actually defend it in discussion. This has become a conduct problem rather than a content dispute -- your behavior is incivil and repugnant to wikipedia. Please stop.--csloat 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am adding the NPOV tag until the issues are hammered out and people can come to an agreement. Please listen to each other!--Ombudsperson 23:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are adding the NPOV tag, can you please specify the NPOV problem you see? I am happy to work with others and support changes that actually improve the article. But I can't accept an article that is rife with original research whose only purpose is to hammer away at a particular POV. As I have said over and over - if there is published criticism of Johnson, let's have it, but random speculation by anonymous editors is not encyclopedic. Please indicate what NPOV problem there is in this version of the article and let's address it. Thank you.--csloat 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one more thing - we cannot come to an agreement when one user refuses to argue and prefers to steamroll his edits instead. I justified every single change; the anonymous user ignored every argument and reverted the page anyway. If there is a specific matter that the NPOV tag is meant to address, let's address it; otherwise, the tag should be removed.--csloat 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you are one of the two parties engaging in an edit war, it may be difficult to see the other side. Without question, NPOV is disputed here (which is all the tag says). Hopefully both parties will respect the tag until agreement can be reached. I will do what I can to mediate. What issues do you think the anon has not addressed? --Ombudsperson 00:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What issues do you think he *has* addressed? I listed six specific reasons for my changes above; they are even numbered; he did not address a single one. Prior to that I argued for my version in the following way (quoting myself directly):

Again, he did not address a single one of these issues. Instead he just called me names. I am bringing up specific points justifying each change. I am happy to debate each point with him, but he refuses to do that. Instead he calls me names and reverts everything. The goal of wikipedia is not to find "agreement" among members when some are determined to disagree no matter what. We will never agree, but if he presents arguments that I either find compelling or simply cannot answer, I back off.

You are the one who brought up the NPOV tag; that is only constructive if you have a specific NPOV issue you would like to see addressed. So far nobody has articulated one. An anobnymous editor accusing me of being a "POV bully" is not a specific issue.--csloat 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another example of arguments he simply ignored --

I am reverting your changes wholesale as you have not addressed the issues. The fact that the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate is in every news account that tells you the history. Look at factcheck.org's timeline or look at the July 22 article I linked in response to this silliness. Your claims about the CIA are ludicrous. Look, the CIA and DOJ are in the same town. They have each others' numbers in their Rolodexes. They make room on each others' calendars for meetings when they need to, and they certainly would have done so before spending who knows how many taxpayer dollars on an investigation that could have been settled with a five minute phone call. If Plame was not covert there would have been no investigation. But that's not the issue at issue on this page at all, which makes this conversation ludicrous. This page is about Larry Johnson. If you have evidence that he is a "fraud," please cite it -- not your own speculation, but show me published verification that someone in their right mind believes your theory. You are simply misinformed about the articles that say she is undercover - there is a Newsday article that I linked you to before that says intelligence officials (not former hacks who haven't worked their in 20 years, which seems to be your view of Johnson) confirmed she was undercover at the time of the outing. Besides, do you really believe the DOJ would initiate an investigation at Larry Johnson's urging?--csloat 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is he wants to put WP:NOR speculation into the article -- insinuate that Johnson must have been lying, when there is no support for such a claim in any published account of these events, for example. --csloat 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Challenge to Anon

I have added the NPOV tag because of your ongoing dispute with csloat. Csloat said that he has attempted to discuss issues with you but you have not addressed 6 points which he has numbered (please see above). It would be appreciated if you would please address each of his 6 points before making any changes to the article.--Ombudsperson 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to mediate. Please add to the six points the other points that I quoted in the section immediately above; the most important ones, I believe, are in the section that begins "I am reverting your changes wholesale." Thanks!--csloat 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think every one of csloat's points has been discussed in detail already, but I will rehash them again to satisfy ombudsperson before I revert the article:

Actually this is the first time you addressed these points. I'll deal with them in turn but let me add that you never addressed the most important points which are in the section I hilighted above.-csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

1. It is clear from Johnson's bio that he is not a veteran. Unlike me, he has never served in the military.[13] He was an analyst in the CIA. To call him a veteran is an insult to those who have actually served in the armed services. He said he received "exceptional service awards" while serving as an analyst. I guess he is a "veteran" like csloat is a veteran of wiki edit wars. The suggestion that he is a "decorated veteran" is offensive partisan hyperbole, if not altogether false.

Look up the word. I thank you for your service to our country but I implore you to gain a better handle on its language before you take insult at the use of this word. I don't think this word means what you think it means. The article does not say he is a veteran of the US military it said he is a veteran of the CIA and state dept counterterrorism office. It's a way of saying he doesn't work there anymore, get it? The word decorated comes from the intro to Johnson given in the link that is right there after that sentence. If you have a better way to say that please suggest it, but what you've changed it to removes the information that he received commendations. You also have not explained why you deleted the link to the Dorgan pdf, which is where the phrase "decorated veteran" comes from.--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is an absolute fact that Johnson is primarily "known for his controversial claim that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent when her name was released in a column by Robert Novak. Skeptics contend that he left the CIA in 1989 and there is no way he could know Plame's status from 1990 to 2003. If he is not known for this, what is he known for? His ridiculous NYT article? His claim that Plame was covert is incredibly controversial, and there are numerous skeptics other than this editor who contend this.[14][15]

This is garbage. The first link you cite is to a blog that supports Johnson's claims. The second is to a cite that questions Plame's covertness but doesn't discuss Johnson. The only thing coming close to justifying your claim in those links is a random comment by a poster to the blog, who is quickly refuted by another poster. You really want us to believe Johnson is known for something that is only commented on by pseudonymous comments posted to obscure blogs?? And nobody I have seen makes the claim that Johnson is known for outing Plame. He is known for being very vocal in reaction to the outing of Plame. These are different things. Notice that he is not under DOJ investigation.-csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

2. csloat wrote, "I am reverting the section on Republican ties because its whole purpose is to cast doubt on something that has not been questioned anywhere but wikipedia. If Johnson is lying it is not up to WP to call him on it. We are free to quote from media accounts which call him a liar if that is happening anywhere." No one referred to Johnson as a liar on this issue. However, we need to source material in wiki. When Johnson is himself the source, it should be noted. And yes, others have done the same.[16]

Why is there a complete section on this? You don't call him a liar but the whole tone implies it. This is trivial anyway -- Johnson is not known for his party affiliation. Why is there no section on George W. Bush about Republican ties? If you want to say "self-described Republican" for every Republican that is fine, but if you nitpick about it only on this page I am led to question your motives. There is no need to pile a bunch of weasel words into every claim someone makes when the claim has not been contested in any published source.-csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

3. csloat wrote, "I am reverting the stuff on the pre-9/11 column because the version I made is more complete and more readable. The column itself is only part of his pre-9/11 views; there is no reason to select out of context only those views which you want to argue against." First, everyone can plainly see that csloat made the article more confusing and less readable. Second, the NYT column "The Declining Terrorist Threat" stands by itself. (The title speaks volumes- LOL!) In true POV fashion, Csloat attempts to defend Johnson by introducing ancillary material that was not in his NYT column. BTW - Johnson had previously downplayed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in a Frontline piece which I will introduce to this article.

I would be happy to open up a vote on the two versions to see which is more readable. I don't understand why you insist it is more accurate to pick a sentence from a single work before 2001 rather than to indicate the author's more specific claims from a variety of sources. This was introduced by journalists trying to make the guy look less credible. And frankly his views are not as laughable as you pretend they are, especially prior to 9/11. They were shared by many (it's pretty clear, for example, that as much as you seem to think he underestimated the threat in 2001, that he thought the threat was far more serious than Bush or Condi did at the time). I am not familiar with the Frontline piece but I am all for including more information to paint a more complete picture. You are advocating only including the quotes that paint a specific picture -- that is where your POV is hampering your editing.-csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

4. csloat wrote, "Anon erased without explanation the section on the 2003 advice to Bremer, which is certainly more significant to who Johnson is today than anything he wrote in 2001." There is absolutely nothing of significance in the paper he wrote to Bremer. There is nothing profound and nothing predicted that a H.S. student couldn't have forseen. The only noteworthy thing he has written is where he departed from conventional wisdom by telling America that we have little to fear from Islamic terrorism two months before 9/11 (i.e, the NYT article).

Well it is quite possible that any HS student could have foreseen the disaster coming in Iraq, but Bremer sure didn't, which is why Johnson sent this to him. Nor did most of the Bush Administration, unfortunately. The NYT article did not depart from conventional wisdom; that was conventional wisdom. But it is absolutely manipulative to delete his 2003 statements and only include his 2001 statements in order to portray a particular view of him. What if I erased all the quotes from the George W Bush page except the quotes that make him look bad?--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

5. csloat wrote, "Anon erased those quotations or parts of quotations that don't support his view of Johnson (which is obviously unfavorable). I prefer to keep quotes and views in context." The quotes in the Johnson article exceed the other text. Not even Abe Lincoln and Ben Franklin have that much space dedicated to quotes. Csloat has placed excessively large quotations in the article that are inappropriate. Johnson's brief quotes are often so absurd, csloat tries to bury them in a giant paragraph. The quotes simply need to be trimmed back. I tried to leave part of all quotes by trimming them back to one or two salient sentences. In fact, it is Csloat that has deleted quotes that don't support his view of Johnson (e.g., "There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks."

I erased most of the quotes from the quotes section and integrated them into the text, so if you look at the diff, my quote section is about the same size as in your version. I am not burying his quotes, I am showing their context. You are literally cutting them out of context to portray a distorted picture of him. I did not delete that quote; I put it in context by showing what else he said in the paragraph. Look at it yourself in my version - the sentence is there; it just makes more sense when you read it all.--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

6. csloat wrote that, "The hearing was a joint Senate-House meeting of Democrats. We need to find a better way to phrase it but neither of us is correct yet." This is first acknowledgement from Csloat that this was a partisan Democratic meeting. And yet he continues to write "U.S. Senate hearing." Why?

I am not wedded to that phrasing; I am happy with either way. I never denied it was a Democratic meeting; but rewording that is not my top priority - I am far more concerned with your distortions of the record here.--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that those have been answered, I will now revert Csloat's POV edit. I am getting tired so I will address his other unnumbered points later. --24.55.228.56 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you should wait until you have answered them before you revert -- as I said, the most important points were not part of these six. Let me summarize to make this easier. I'll also sign each one so you can respond in turn if you like. However, I do not want to go on forever like this, the fact is, I will not convince you or vice versa. I suggest we put this to a vote, with the two versions side by side.--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

7. Your selective quoting is manipulative. Your version cherry picks the one sentence you think casts Johnson in a bad light - as you said yourself, "Johnson's brief quotes are often so absurd." That's because you've taken them out of context. You want the most absurd sentence to make him look bad. His comment on Iraq and al Qaeda makes a lot more sense when you read the whole paragraph, for example. So you remove the rest of the paragraph, including its conclusions. I am not averse to having fewer quotes or shorter quotes but if your whole goal is to stick in the most absurd sounding sentence, you are just cherrypicking in order to smear him. Wikipedia is not paper - we can take the space to get things right, if we feel it necessary to bring them up.--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You are the one making selective quotes. In fact, didn't you create the quotations section? Every quote you provide is to defend Johnson after his completely wrong NYT column or to paint the Bush administration in a negative light. --Mr j galt 02:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not create the quotations section, I don't think. I did not provide the quotes; I simply added context to quotes you provided. My version actually has a shorter quotes section than yours does, in fact. The problem is you are quoting out of context sentences and I am providing more complete quotes that inform the reader what he's talking about. Please do not just respond to one thing here and then revert - you really need to respond to these issues one by one, or just make one change at a time if you only are defending one of these changes. All your other claims have been decisively refuted.--csloat 02:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

8. You are engaged in Original Research that has no place here. If there are no published accounts suggesting that Johnson outed Valerie plame, there is no justification for implying that here. If there are no published accounts questioning whether Johnson is a "real" Republican, or that he lied about Orin Hatch, there is no justification for implying that here. Weasel words are just a way of making these implications and they don't belong here.--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Johnson is a Republican. He prefaces nearly every comment with that statement. I do doubt that he ever voted for Bush - something no one can ever prove or disprove. As for Orrin Hatch, Johnson clearly did not get a patronage job at the CIA on Hatch's say so. To say that he says those things is appropriate because there is no 3rd party corraboration. Johnson did say somewhere that he donated to the Bush 2000 campaign. If so, this would source his claim on that count. It is not original research to say that he is the source of uncorroborated information about himself.--Mr j galt 02:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that covers it. Please do not simply respond with insults and revert the article - enter your responses and then let's put up a vote on two suggested versions of the article.--csloat 06:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Who do you think you are? No one can revert except for you? You don't own the article. Your POV pushing here is obvious and documented. I will now revert.--Mr j galt 01:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't own the article, but I have made clear and documented arguments about why the version I have put forth is superior to the one you have been putting forth (it's obvious you are 24.whatever). Until these arguments are responded to, the version I created and carefully explained should stand.--csloat 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Did you not read the detailed response to every one of your arguments? Every single point received a detailed and carefully explained response documenting why it should not occur. It has been carefully explained why your POV pushing should not occur. I will now revert. Have a great evening!--Mr j galt 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You might want to read the above more carefully before you get all sarcastic; I have carefully responded to each of your responses and explained what is wrong with them. Please read them and actually think about them rather than immaturely reverting every time.--csloat 02:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on this page

I have started an RfC on this page to deal with this dispute, so there should be some outside users taking a peek. There are essentially two versions of this page in dispute -- this one (csloat version) and this one (Mr j galt version). I believe I have argued clearly and explained my reasons that I think the J galt version is fundamentally flawed. It is filled with innuendo and speculation that is not backed up by any published source. I believe this constitutes original research contrary to wikipedia's purpose. I believe that his version cherry picks sentences out of context in order to undermine the author of those quotes; he resists my adding the rest of the quotes for context and even objects to my adding quotes from 2003 that explain the author's current views, while he insists on putting in older quotes in order to portray his pre-9/11 views in a bad light. I also believe there are fundamental factual inaccuracies on his version (e.g. the claim that Johnson is "known for" outing Valerie Plame). None of this has any purpose on wikipedia, IMHO.--csloat 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting the disgreement here. No one said Johnson "is known for outing" Plame. Johnson was out of the CIA for 14 years so he would have no idea what Plame was doing. Plus he couldn't "out" someone who wasn't covert anyway. There is no original research here. Just POV pusher csloat trying to downplay Johnson's incredibly wrong pre-9/11 column with excessive quotes and citing criticism from only conservative sources. --Mr j galt 04:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The second or third sentence in your version states that Johnson is known for telling the world that Plame was covert. Please would you stop? You conceded the substantive argument here over on Talk:Plame affair. I provided the evidence that Plame was covert. But this is all beside the point -this article is about Johnson, not Plame, and your edits have nothing to do with what you are arguing here! I am not "downplaying" any of Johnson's columns; I am just putting them in context! How many times do you want me to repeat this?-csloat 07:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on?

I have been following this article and I really don't understand. I've noticed a lot of reverts, but it seems like most of the drama has been initiated by Mr J galt's ad hominem attacks on people that disagree with him instead of meaningful debate. That's my outside opinion. --waffle iron 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you can't see that there is a genuine disagreement over the content of the article. Larry Johnson is a controversial figure who says he knows Valerie Plame was a covert agent in 2003, but there is no way he could know it since he left the CIA in 1989. Don't you see there is a problem with that?--Mr j galt 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I know she was a covert agent in 2003 when the story broke and I was never in the CIA. I don't see how that is material. --waffle iron 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You are kidding, right? You know she was a covert agent in 2003? Really? How did you learn that? If you can provide us with the source then this dispute will all be over. --Mr j galt 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Robert Novak published an article. I read that article. We are now talking about me doing so on the internet. --waffle iron 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You misread Novak's column. Robert Novak never said Plame was covert. In fact, Novack later reported that Plame was "an analyst, not in covert operations." [17].--Mr j galt 14:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Exposing a CIA employee, regardless of classification is in extremely poor taste among other things. And how do you know he was telling the truth? We can play this game all day. --waffle iron 18:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You accuse waffle iron of misreading Novak, then you quote him out of context! Let's look at the whole paragraph of that article: "A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an 'operative,' a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is 'covered' -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations." So what we have here is the fact that Novak says the question is not whether she was undercover, but what her duties were. The "official contact" at the CIA states that she is "covered" he explains, "working under the guise of another agency." That is, under cover. The CIA, with good reason, does not want to give any more information than this. Why should they? Her role was under cover; she was pretending to work for another agency, and Novak blew her cover (as Fitzgerald put it). You are nitpicking over whether she was an "operative", not whether she was covert. She was covert, but not in "covert operations" according to Novak. One can be an "analyst" and still be undercover; and here Novak seems to admit that she was. Novak seems here to be claiming that she was not an "operative" - which may or may not be true - but he does not claim that she was not covert. It's pretty clear he knew she was.

By the way, what the hell does this argument have to do with this page? The fact is, this has been debated to death over at Talk:Plame affair and you have conceded all the main arguments over there, but Plame's covert status is not an issue for this page. This page was protected not because of Plame's status but because of your insistence on censoring quotations and other information from this page so you could portray Johnson as some kind of criminal. You now seem to have conceded all the arguments here that are relevant to this page - can we be assured that if the page is unprotected you will not go on another childish revert rampage deleting things that undermine your POV?--csloat 03:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Plame was not covert. Novak has said she wasn't covert. The special prosecutor has all but said she was not covert. Larry johnson is the only person on the record saying she was covert, and he left the CIA in 1989! More alarming, you believe that I conceded to your POV? Are you kidding? What have I conceded to? I hope someone hasn't stolen my identity.--Mr j galt 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're just asserting over again the points that have already been decisively refuted.--csloat 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is your points that have been refuted, especially the Plame was covert nonsense. Can't we all just get along? --Mr j galt 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

you're just making this assertion, which is plainly false! As for plame being covert, that is on another page -- it really isn't relevant to this page at all. And it's the only argument you've continued to defend on this page - does this mean you will back off trying to censor the material on this page? It would be nice to know so we can decide whether it should be unprotected. --csloat 05:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please identify which of my edits have not been discussed here

Csloat, you indicate that I may have made a change to the article without discussing it here. Please specify the change that you don't believe has been discussed here by me or others. I will be happy to discuss it. I am under the understanding that all matters have been discussed. --Mr j galt 14:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

All of your edits have been refuted above in the section titled "Challenge to anon". Stop playing dumb.--csloat 15:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Refuted? LOL! Well that's where we disagree. At least all matters have been discussed.--Mr j galt 17:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I look and I see refutations to each of your points above Mr. Galt. You think simply "discussing" things and then ignoring their refutation is enough justification for a mass revert?

Who ever you are . . . In fact, I was the one who refuted csloat's points. All of csloat's have been refuted, not the other way around. Let me guess . . . you also see the glass half empty, right?--Mr j galt 05:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That was me, not signed in. Please look above to each of your supposed refutations, galt, and notice that I have added a response to those refutations, and that you have not answered my response. In other words, you concede those arguments, or at least I assume that you do, since you have given up trying to justify your claims at that point.-csloat 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the lack of a response with conceding a point. You have made 250 edits in less than 10 days, most of them redundant. I have a life and I will not be making that many responses. For the record, unless I say that "I concede that point," I haven't. You know what they say about when you assume . . .--Mr j galt 12:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that's fine, but you have no business reverting when you are unable to come up with responses to the points made against your edits. I have pointed out the reasons why your edits are wrong, and you have failed to respond with any justification for them. It's that simple. --csloat 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Article is now protected until consensus is formed on how to move forward. When you are ready to proceed, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected hours ago and what happens?

Mr j galt is looking to start another edit war by changing the article to his prefered version instead of listening to discussion and making incremental changes. --waffle iron 20:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with making the changes from my NPOV version? Why should we start making incremental chnages from CSloat's POV version?--Mr j galt 20:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

By making large undiscussed changes you're asking to provoke another edit war. Notice that I didn't claim that your version or CSloats is POV or NPOV. --waffle iron 20:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And to further prove my point that you're not acting in good faith, compare the first change you made and the version you prefered in the last edit war. They're exactly the same and it indicates you haven't listened to any of the discussion in the talk page over the past week and a half. --waffle iron 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Beyond that, galt has also made massive unexplained edits to the first paragraph, hiding them by explaining his other edits there. At the very least we need to return the first paragraph to its unmolested state. The fact is, many of galt's edits have already been discussed and rejected (for example, the BS mindreading that suggests that he only "claims" to have supported Bush, and the demonstrably false claim that Johnson is "known for his controversial claim that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent when her name was released in a column by Robert Novak." That, as we all can see, is complete hogwash. In addition he has significantly degraded the organization of the page -- getting rid of entire sections and taking sentences out of longer quotations in order to take them out of context. I am going to revert and we can discuss specific changes one by one. Please post discussion and then make the change rather than vice-versa. If galt does this again will someone please begin the process of a conduct RfC? I don't want to be the one to do it since for some reason he has chosen me as his primary adversary. (He refers to this page and others as "csloat's version" even though they are obviously collectively edited). We may need to protect this page again until he cools down or is banned.--csloat 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Galt's behavior is openly hostile and anti-communicative. I think it's time for the RfC. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another form of harrassment from Ryan Freisling. I will add any abuse of the RFC process to the POV violations, the original research violations, and the wikistalking violations in Ms. Freisling's conduct RFC. --Mr j galt 22:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I present to you [Commodore Sloat] this medal for your tireless efforts in the pursuit of truth, and the fight against right-wing propaganda. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Your parrotting is at once tiresome and telling. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You do that....Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Commodore Sloat believes wiki is to be used as an extension of his anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, anti-rightwing blog.[18] If Ryan Freisling's longstanding support for CSloat's POV pushing is not apparent, one needs only to review the "medal" that Ms. Freisling awarded to Csloat on his talk page.

I can plainly see that there is a left-wing bias in many wikipedia articles, but I find it hard to believe that the bias is so pervasive that the Arbitration Committee would attempt to block me for standing up to these POV bullies. We shall see . . . Let's roll!--Mr j galt 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Posting that proves what, exactly? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur.--Mr j galt 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. On that, at least, we agree. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing NPOV tag

I believe it is high time to remove the tag at the top of this page. There has been no activity for almost a month, and nobody ever cited a specific reason for the tag. If there are specific changes that could be suggested they should be; otherwise the tag should probably go.--csloat 21:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --waffle iron 21:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This remains a puff piece for Larry C. Johnson that reads like a press release from his office. I find it particularly objectionable that he is described in the first sentence as a "decorated veteran." In fact, Johnson never served in the armed forces. The NPOV tag should stay until NPOV is reached.--Mr j galt 22:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a quote from the link that follows: "Larry Johnson is a decorated veteran of the CIA and the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism." It never calls him a veteran of the armed services. That's hardly a NPOV issue; look up the definition of "veteran." Thanks.--csloat 22:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That is partisan Democratic Party exaggeration. Your source is the highly partisan opening statement of Sen. Byron Dorgan at a committee consisting only of Democrats (no doubt written by Johnson). Johnson is more commonly described in the media as merely an ex-CIA employee. Veteran connotes military service. The decorations he received are the 2 Exceptional Performance Awards at the CIA, a very minor and routine form of employee recognition at the agency. Johnson NEVER served in covert status and NEVER engaged in CIA paramilitary operations.--Mr j galt 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, please look up the word in a dictionary; you are incorrect about its meaning. Your assertion that Johnson wrote Senator Dorgan's statement does not appear to have any evidence. I fail to see how your nitpicking claims about what Mr. Johnson did or did not do have anything to do with this.--csloat 23:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the npov tag since the only stated issue is galt's misunderstanding of the word "veteran." Rather than consulting a dictionary he went ahead and removed the word, which is fine; hence, I am removing the tag.--csloat 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Johnson's pre-911 mindset

I think it is fine to include information about Johnson's "pre-9/11" mindset that he had, well, before 9/11. But why are they so prominent? Do we need this many quotes to substantiate that Johnson was wrong about some things 8 years ago? Should we include as much material on his post-9/11 views (perhaps to demonstrate a "post-9/11" mindset?) It's all a little bizarre. I realize our dear friend Mr. galt would like to include these quotes for POV reasons, but I wonder if there is a way to state the facts that he believes are important here without trying to turn the page into a press release from any office, whether it be Johnson's or Gary Schmitt's.--csloat 23:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited the section galt added for accuracy and wound up making it longer. But it's amazing how galt used snippets of quotes completely out of context in order to paint almost the exact opposite picture of what Johnson actually said. He made it clear bin Laden is the most dangerous terrorist and a threat, but points out that bin Laden is just one symptom of an underlying phenomenon. Everything since 9/11 suggests he was right about that. He also says bin Laden could be contained "as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested." I'm going to shorten the quote a bit but if we're going to use such quotes, let's get them right.--csloat 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] welcome back galt

wow, you've been back less than 2 days and already trying to start a revert war. Please read before you revert, galt. Every piece of quotation that you had on the page is in the quotes I provided; the only difference is that I included the context so that the quote is not distorted. Your selective quotation has him saying the exact opposite of what he said!--csloat 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You attempt to bury Johnson's controversial statements and flat out wrong predictions and assessments in gigantic quotations, arguing the bizarre statements need to put into context. More than 1/2 of this article consists of direct quotes from Johnson that you have inserted for this reason. Although Johnson at one time allegedly made a living out of security assessments (I doubt this is the case anymore), he was flat out wrong about the threat of Islamic terrorism pre-9/11. Even Frontline wrote in their introduction to the 1999 interview, "[Johnson] explains why he believes the U.S. has often exaggerated the terrorist threat and analyzes the danger posed by Osama bin Laden."[19] As it turns out, it was the U.S. and all other security consultants were correct and Johnson was wrong. Your suggestion that this is not the case is pure POV.--Mr j galt 00:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your claim above that "Every piece of quotation that you had on the page is in the quotes I provided," I am not sure if you mean that as a joke. You have removed perhaps Johnson's most incorrect assessment, "Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader," within the most alarming paragraph:

There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[20]

Your cherry picking of only those quotations that hold Larry C. Johnson in a favorable light is a major reason why this article lacks NPOV.--Mr j galt 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

An oversight, not a joke; let's include that paragraph too if we must, but let's also put that in context. I don't see anything "alarming" about any of this. It's 1999. And, frankly, he's right about the fact that the U.S. exaggerated bin Laden -- it's that very exaggeration that gave bin Laden more credibility among extremists, and it's that credibility that made bin Laden prove Johnson wrong in the end. I have never objected to the portrayal of his pre-9/11 views as pre-9/11; it's just the overbearing and ridiculous insinuation that his pre-9/11 views destroy his credibility. Believe that if it makes you feel better, but please stop insisting on enshrining your delusions in an encyclopedia.

There - I added the paragraph for that quote too. I really don't think that we need this much from the interview, but if you insist on pulling "scare" quotes out of context in order to distort Johnson's views I'm going to have to insist those quotes are substantive. You simply cannot accuse me of cherry picking -- you are the one cherry picking; I am just filling in the quotes so that everyone can see that your "cherries" have pits.--csloat 01:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the full quote has NPOV. It it also worth adding a citation linking to the interview and say when it happened, because the link doesn't. --waffle iron 02:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point!-csloat 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more recent galt edit

Why do you insist on taking quotes out of context? Your recent addition was a good one -- in fact, your "favorite paragraph" has Johnson explaining himself more clearly. But then you insist on removing the sentence from the other quote where he makes clear that he is talking about leadership, and you add that he "doubted Bin Laden organization's ability to plan and put their lives on the line" when what he actually said was that it hasn't happened yet. Finally, why is all this so important to you? I'd be happy with one sentence indicating Johnson elaborated on his views in an interview with PBS. The details of his views 7 years ago are not that notable; the only reason you are noting them here is to try to attack his credibility in a POV manner. If you are going to include quotes from interviews I am going to insist that the quotes are used in context.-csloat 02:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No one removed a sentence from "the other quote." The full paragraph from "the other quote" was inserted by me verbatim:

"There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened."[21]

This is the full paragraph, complete with the topic sentence. Because it shows that Johnson, a self-described security expert, did not think Bin Laden's group could plan an operation and put their lives on the line, you want to combine it with parts of the paragraph from above, changing the topic sentence for obvious POV purposes. If you insist, you can add the whole preceding paragraph, but don't combine the paragraphs together to mislead people about what the concluding paragraph entails.--Mr j galt 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop playing "gotcha" with the quote. He was asked about leadership -- specifically, about whether bin Laden was central to the threat to America -- and he responds specifically that bin Laden was important as a leader but had not as of yet been effective. As for cutting the paragraph, this is an interview. The paragraph breaks were introduced by an editor, not by Johnson. If you want even more of the paragraph in there, fine, but I don't see what purpose it serves. The thing about Ali and Mustafa does not make any sense without the context of the question. Should we put that in too? I don't see the point.--csloat 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the full quote and the context again. --waffle iron 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reorganizing the page

I've changed the order to start with the most recent stuff, since galt seems insistent that everything johnson ever published must be described here, but this is still ridiculous -- the page should highlight his most notable work primarily. There are only a couple sentences on the plame affair, and several paragraphs on the 1999 interview. There is nothing on his essays since the plame scandal, which have been far more influential than anything he said in 1999. It's as if I took up the entire page on Ronald Reagan with quotes from his 1940s radio rants when he was a democrat. I'm not saying we should remove the stuff but I do think some of his more recent and more notable statements should be hilighted.--csloat 03:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Every bio I am aware of, including Reagan's, is in chronological order. Your have put this article in reverse chronological order to mitigate the embarrassing and flat out incorrect analysis that Johnson gave prior to 9/11. I will change it back. Please don't make major changes like this to the article without reaching consensus.--Mr j galt 01:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I put it in reverse chron order in order to hilight the stuff he is most known for. His pre-911 views (which, by the way, are not "embarrassing" at all) are just not as important or relevant to his notability. The 2003 letter is more notable, but the most notable is the stuff that isn't here at all yet, his post-2003 views on the Iraq war and on the Plame affair. His pre-911 views are a mere footnote to his current views.--csloat 01:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

PS don't use nitpicks about chronological order as a cover for making other substantive changes to the content of the article.--csloat 01:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Johnson is best known as the self-described expert in national security who wrote "The Declining Terrorist Threat" just 2 months before 9/11. When you say, it was "not embarrassing at all," you are showing your extreme POV in support of this man. Slat Magazine wrote; "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored."[22] Johnson stopped being "at odds with conventional wisdom" since that embarrassment, and he now just parrots other analysts. I have yet to see any original thinking in his post 9/11 and Iraq War analysis or anything I couldn't have figured out myself. He left the CIA in 1989 (where he worked as an analyst, not in covert ops), so he can't provide any legitimate insight into the 2003 Plame Affair. --Mr j galt 02:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the edit for sheer readability. I don't object to the information provided at all - but the disputed text galt is reverting is plainly inferior and less informative. In addition, the other changes (chronology, NPOV) haven't been addressed enough to justify turning the article on its' head. Reverted on these bases. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re -- "a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored" -- apparently it was, by everyone but Slate. Most people had never heard of Larry Johnson until the Plame scandal broke. Johnson is not a "self-described" expert in national security; he was actually employed as a counterterrorism expert for both the CIA and the State Department! Your vehemence about Johnson seems peculiar; it makes me wonder if there is something personal here. Johnson does not parrot other analysts -- who? Can you show this? As for "original thinking that you couldn't have figured out yourself" -- who cares? This isn't about whether he is smarter than you; this is about why he is notable. Did you go to high school with this guy or something? And what's with the continual emphasis that "he wasn't in covert ops" -- who said he was? Why does that have anything to do with the question of why he is notable now?--csloat 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of ex-CIA and ex-State Department employees. That does not qualify one to be a national security expert. Johnson never served in the military and his academic background in national security analysis is nonexistent: he earned a BS in Sociology and MS degree in Community Development from the University of Missouri 30 years ago. Other than his embarrassing NYT column, he is not notable. He is a nobody in the security field and is not deserving of an article in an encyclopedia. Your pre-occupation with puffing up his credentials and impact are puzzling to me. You wrote, "Most people had never heard of Larry Johnson until the Plame scandal broke." Guess what? Most people still have never heard of Larry Johnson.--Mr j galt 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no desire to puff up his credentials and I never did. You're the one who keeps bringing up his lack of covert and military experience. He is frequently interviewed in mainstream news articles on these topics, esp. the Plame affair but also terrorism issues generally. Nobody has published a critique of his expertise -- they have criticized his pre-9/11 conclusions, as you are fond of reminding us, but his expertise has not, to my knowledge, been the subject of serious question. If you really care to know the truth, do a statistical analysis of the number of times he has been cited in mainstream newspapers and television news for the periods 1999-2001, 2001-2003, and 2003-2006. Don't worry about whether he is positively or negatively cited at first, just give us the raw numbers. I think you're well aware of the evidence you will find.--csloat 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] created redirect from "Larry Johnson" this is the info I found there

Larry Johnson is a former CIA officer who has become a political commentator after he ended his career with the CIA.

Johnson wrote a New York Times Op-Ed on July 7, 2001, titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat." In it, published just two months before 9/11, he forcefully argued that terrorism was not a great threat to the United States, peoples' fear of it was irrational and misplaced, and it should not dictate policy. Johnson also co-authored a November 7, 2000 Op-Ed in the New York Times that identified Osama Bin Laden as a major threat that the next President would have to deal with.

He was a Fox News contributor, and told his story about his experiences there in the movie Outfoxed. Johnson was troubled that the management at Fox News would dictate what the reporters and commentators should say. One particular example he mentioned in the movie was that at some point Fox News management wanted to use the term "homicide bombing" instead of "suicide bombing". Johnson thought the term "homicide bombing" was inappropriate because every bombing is a "homicide bombing". Johnson's contract with Fox was terminated at the direction of Rupert Murdoch following his appearance on the Hannity and Colmes Show in November 2002 in which he argued that an invasion of Iraq would be a diversion in the war on terrorism.

Although Johnson is a registered Republican, he was given the honor of delivering the Democratic radio response to President Bush's weekly radio address on July 23, 2005 [23]. In his radio address, Johnson divulged that he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, but has been very disappointed with him, especially regarding the War in Iraq and the Valerie Plame scandal.

Johnson went further in the radio address to accuse the Republicans of lying regarding Plame's status as a covert agent in the CIA. Johnson insisted that she was undercover, a point later substantiated by the U.S. Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Although Republicans have made claims that Plame was no longer covert in 2003, Johnson has publicly stated that based on occasional social contacts with Plame, he is aware of Plame having made several overseas travels on official business between 1998 and 2003 (the five year minimum requirement of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982).

Johnson, Larry Johnson, Larry

Thanks. This is a superior article to the pro-Larry Johnson mess that is in this article at present. Unless there is an objection, I will replace the current article with the above text.--Mr j galt 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I object. --waffle iron 03:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Me too.--csloat 08:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It should be changed to the new text. --Mr j galt 02:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag + galt edit war

Galt - please do not start another one of your edit wars. This is absurd. You have not justified any of your massive changes. I left the NPOV tag but you must articulate a specific change or changes that would make this article more NPOV. Simply whining about an editor's blog is not a specific recommendation for change. The changes you propose with your massive revert have all been rejected thoroughly in the discussion above. Please do not continue reverting.--csloat 03:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I have repeatedly justified every edit I have made. I have commented extensively on this discussion page. And it is I that has rejected your edits (because of your POV pushing), and not the other way around. For instance, your attempt to put this article in reverse chronological order (like the Memento movie is a transparent POV attempt to minimize Johnson's embarrassing pre-911 remarks. I reject that and I will continue to revert that in the interest of NPOV. It is true that, unlike you, I do not write an anti-Bush political blog on Plame and Iraq War subjects (See csloat's blog at http://www.shockandblog.com/blog/index.php). But as I have written before, I think it is better if wiki editors write on topics on which they do not have strong political feelings. You have repeatedly attempted to push pro-Larry Johnson POV in this article (just as you have done in your blog) and you have repeatedly attempted to insert Larry Johnson quotes and PR mentions in other articles throughout wikipedia.[24][25] Wikipedia strives to be a serious encyclopedia and should not be misused for POV, publicity, and vanity purposes. Please discontinue your POV edits.--Mr j galt 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Galt, how many times are you going to cite my blog as a reason to butcher wikipedia entries? My blog has nothing to do with this. And, as I've said before, you are greatly exaggerating its significance -- I rarely update it, and it has very few readers (I'm flattered that you are one of them). The thing is, my blog has a discussion board where you can actually post your complaints and arguments! If you want to argue with what I say on the blog, please feel free to; there is no reason to bring your arguments here. The chronological order has been explained already; it has nothing to do with minimizing remarks that are not embarrassing at all. It is simply about hilighting the things Johnson is actually well known for today as opposed to things that he said when he was not a notable figure at all. I insert quotes into wikipedia when they are well sourced and relevant to the subject matter. If this was about "vanity," I would be editing entries on Commodore Sloat and shockandblog.com, rather than those of someone I have never met before.--csloat 20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Galt - you claim the edit you made is according to the cite, but it is not. The original text was more accurate:

"that's relevant because Senator Hatch is the one who wrote my recommendation letter getting me in the CIA." [26] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the clarification that Johnson provided in his Democratic Radio address the following day: "Senator Orin Hatch wrote the letter of recommendation for me which I believe that helped open the doors to me at the CIA." (Read and listen to those words here.) I don't think anyone seriously believes that the CIA hires people merely on a politician's recommendation letter. It's an attempt by Johnson to exaggerate his Republican credentials. This is one of the many POV problems in this article.--Mr j galt 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree. A career CIA man's recommendation letter being from a Republican Senator is a noteworthy indicator of his political views, not 'trying to exaggerate his credentials'. That's POV. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Politicians of both parties routinely write recommendation letters for constituents regardless of political party affiliation. When Johnson said "Senator Hatch is the one who wrote my recommendation letter getting me in the CIA," he was exaggerating the impact and he soon corrected himself. The following day, he changed his statement to say "I believe that helped open the doors to me at the CIA." Since he wasn't the one doing the hiring, he can have no idea which factor was the determining one in his hiring. (Just as he can have no idea whether Plame was covert when he had left the CIA nearly 15 years before the scandal.) Also, there is nothing to indicate Johnson ever had a personal relationship with Hatch. The so-called Hatch recommendation letter sentence is a POV problem whether you see it or not.--Mr j galt 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Your quote clearly substantiates the text, it does not invalidate it. As for your view of what is 'routine' in political recommendations to the CIA, it's original research at best. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The CIA does not require letters of recommendation for employment and makes its employment decisions based on merit and fitness, not on the basis of recommendations from politicians. [27][28][29][30][31] No one other than Larry Johnson has ever suggested that a recommendation from a politician is the determining factor on whether a CIA applicant is hired. This article can say that Johnson claims this happened, but he is not an encyclopedic source on CIA hiring procedures. It remains one of the many POV problems in this article.--Mr j galt 13:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Galt, you must be joking. Do you seriously believe anyone in their right mind would cite a relationship with Orrin Hatch in order to increase their credibility? Sheesh. This notion that Johnson is just pretending to be Republican is ludicrous. Give it up.--csloat 11:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Take your own advice. This is obviously a topic on which you have strong political feelings.

Of course, Larry Johnson gains more credibility as a critic if he is a Republican, a former Bush supporter, and if he rubbed elbows with Republican Senators and they bestowed the power of their offices to him. Johnson mentions he is a Republican, former Bush supporter, and the Hatch recommendation letter at every turn to suggest that he knows the Republicans well and he has found they are bad people. In fact, Larry Johnson is a nobody. He is just one of the countless millions who registered as a Republican at their local clerk's office. csloat, please knock of the pro-Larry Johnson PR campaign and stop belittling my contributions.--Mr j galt 14:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he mentions that he still considers himself a conservative republican, not that he is a "former" one. Surely you must be capable of understanding that not all Republicans or conservatives think alike? If he's a "nobody," why don't you show us that by offering a report of the number of times he is cited as a credible expert in mainstream news accounts? If you are right, it should be close to "zero," so it shouldn't take you very long. I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Also, I am not belittling your contributions -- it is your deletions that I have more of a problem with.--csloat 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

He says he is a conservative Republican only in an attempt to increase his credibility when criticizing Bush and the Iraq War. I am unaware of any actual conservative viewpoint he holds. He is cited often in left-wing publications and blogs (like yours). He craves publicity and when he is quoted in the mainstream press, it is only because his remarks are so outrageous and partisan. It does not make one a "somebody" when one is merely a publicity hound.--Mr j galt 18:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in whether you believe Mr. Johnson is a Republican. But until your suspicions are shared by published sources, they do not belong on Wikipedia. I'm still awaiting your report of how often he is cited as an expert in mainstream publications from 1990-200, 2001-2003, and 2003-present. Exclude all left-wing sources from your sample if you like.--csloat 01:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I have only viewed this article once I can't comment on all the reverting, but reading this discussion page I can say neither one of you (j. Galt and csloat) are demonstrating anything near a neutral point of view. Personally I agree more with j. Galt I do think that Larry Johnson is playing up his role as a Republican to increase his credibility when criticizing the President. j. Galt has not made that case however. csloat you show your bias consistently with things like referring to the "Weekly Standard" as the "Weakly Standard", and "Do you seriously believe anyone in their right mind would cite a relationship with Orrin Hatch in order to increase their credibility?"

I can easily see why someone would believe your edits are biased. The fact is Larry Johnson is not mainly known for his 2003 claim that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, he is mainly known for his 2001 article on terrorism. Almost everything else comes as a result of that. In addition I believe that he was not a career CIA officer as has been stated above, most of his work was in the State Department. The article as it stands now (22 Apr) seems fair. My $.02 as a neutral outside observer.

[edit] Why didn't Larry Johnson serve in Vietnam?

Johnson was of draft age during the Vietnam War but he did not serve. Has he explained himself? This is an important issue that needs to be addressed in the article, especially since Johnson claims to be an expert on war-related matters.--Mr j galt 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Let's use Wikipedia to speculate about things that have never been published about or discussed in any mainstream news outlet whatsoever.--csloat 17:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not serve in Vietnam because I graduated from high school in 1973. US troop presence and combat activities were drawing down. Unlike George Bush, or Paul Wolfowitz, or Dick Cheney, I have not advocated sending other peoples' children to war. Hope this helps set you at ease. Larry Johnson

As I always suspected, Larry Johnson monitors this page. I have no doubt he is also a frequent editor of this page (using a wiki account). This edit makes it clear that wikipedia is prone to abuse and that we must continue to fight the efforts to make wiki vanity articles and puff pieces. --Mr j galt 03:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I see. Tell us more, Mr. galt.--csloat 06:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Johnson is completely discredited

In his 2001 article, Johnson writes in the first paragraph:

Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. None of these beliefs are based in fact.

The article then quotes Johnson's response:

Johnson defended himself from the attacks of pundits such as Schmitt, responding: "The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August of 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States."[13]

His response is a complete lie. No where in the op-ed piece did Johnson warn about a threat from Bin Laden or Islamic extremism. He did discuss terrorist actions between Islamists and Hindus taken place in the Kashmir region of India. Instead, Johnson points a finger at Bush for following Johnson's advice. Johnson could have and should have mentioned Islamic terrorism against U.S. targets including the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the embassy bombings, the Cole bombings and many other targets that killed more than people than the number Johnson listed as killed in Kashmir.

It is my view that the article should point out that Johnson has lied but I do not know of any published articles that point this out. I do not want to be accused of adding original research to the article. Can someone look for a published article on the issue of Johnson being a political hack who is totally discredited? RonCram 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'm reading that right, you're asking someone else to launder your original research by cherry picking citations and doing the edits for you? I really hope that isn't the case. --waffle iron ^talk 14:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I am simply asking if someone is willing to find an article that points out how Johnson has lied when he tried to defend his earlier article about how Islamic terrorism is not a threat. If you don't feel up to the task, or politically inclined to do it, no problem. I'm certain someone will find the time. Or I will. RonCram 15:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly right, waffle iron. As usual, Ron wants claims inserted into the article that are not confirmed by any published source in order to turn a biographical article into a smear piece. Only this time he wants someone else to do it for him.--csloat 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! That, coming from you?!?! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And the predictable incivility and baiting from TDC comes to deflect the point, yet again. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let's keep the material in its proper historical context

For some reason, material from 1998 keeps getting juxtaposed against Johnson's op-ed piece of July 2001. This is not just confusing, it is deceptive. I think the current presentation by year may be the best way to keep the historical context clearly presented. RonCram 19:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not deceptive but it was careless. I had understood that article as being from 2001 and being a longer version of the op-ed piece; I believe Johnson said as much somewhere. Ron do you have an actual date on the piece or are you just extrapolating from the first paragraph's discussion of "August attacks"? I think you're probably right about the date. Please assume good faith rather than immediately charging deception when you find errors.--csloat 22:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying it was intentionally deceptive, but it does mislead readers. So, whether it was intentional or not, the way it was written was deceptive. It is obvious from several comments that it was written while Clinton was president. The note about the "August attacks" without reference to a year makes it clear it was written in 1998. RonCram 03:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, you guys have been busy

Overnight, this piece has been completely reorganized in a manner that looks extremely focused on smearing Johnson based on what he wrote in 2000 rather than focusing on what he is actually well known for, which is for being a commentator on intelligence and terrorism matters who is sought after by media outlets. The reason I originally put the information here in reverse chronological order is that I believe that the most important and notable information should be stressed first. As I said, that is his published comments on the Plame affair. Unfortunately, we have yet to write that section, as this page has been plagued by edit wars over the stuff from 2000, which galt and TDC seem to want to make the focus of this article. I have proposed over and over that galt do a search of notable published sources for the period pre-2001 and 2001-3 and 2003-present in order to determine what Johnson is most notable for. It's pretty obvious -- he is most noted for the most recent activity, and he is frequently sought after to comment on the Plame affair, the war on terrorism, Mary McCarthy, etc. I understand that galt and company really think it is important that he wrote an article in 2001 that they disagree with, and I am happy leaving that information in the article, but they have made the entire article about that! Grouping everything from 1999-2001 as "assessments of the terrorist threat" is unnecessary; let's just list the notable articles, in reverse chron order, and keep the summaries of them NPOV.--csloat 22:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated on this page that this page should follow chronological order. The only justification for putting this article in reverse chronological order is to minimize Johnson's embarrassing pre-9/11 statements. Let's keep the article in the traditional chronological order and NPOV. Thanks! --Mr j galt 03:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You have never responded to the reason for using reverse chronological order. Your explanation begs the question. Thanks!--csloat 09:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have, in fact, responded several times to your POV reason to use an unorthodox reverse chronological order format. I wrote on April 5, Johnson is best known as the self-described expert in national security who wrote "The Declining Terrorist Threat" just 2 months before 9/11.[32] Only a POV pusher would want to bury that at the bottom of something in reverse chronological order. I also wrote here on the same day that every bio I am aware of, including Reagan's, is in chronological order.[33] I urge you to read the comments of others before making such statements.--Mr j galt 13:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, I did read your comments, and responded to them. What you wrote on April 5th was false. Please, once again, try to substantiate that with evidence -- take a look through newspaper articles that mention Johnson from 2000-2 and then the ones since 2003. Johnson is not best known for that; you are trying to make him more known for that by emphasizing it here. I am not burying anything; I am merely suggesting that we should hilight what Johnson is most well known for rather than what you feel is most embarrassing to him.--csloat 19:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Mr j galt 100% on this issue. Merecat 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to this page merecat and thank you for contributing, no doubt after careful reading of all the preceding discussion and weighing of the issues. It would be really helpful to this discussion if you contribute with your reasons or analysis rather than blanket statements of unconditional support. Thanks!--csloat 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The superiority of Mr j galt's arguments and the clarity of Mr j galt's edits are such that they need no further explaination at this time. If you object to them, please make a case for your views. If not, then please yield to Mr j galt's edits. Thank you. Merecat 20:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. You may wish to read the case I already made for the proper order above.--csloat 20:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that chronological order is more readable and more common than reverse chronological order. Following a standard format, such as chronological order, should be accepted unless some unique situation exists that requires something different. The current format should be retained.RonCram 00:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue us significant -- his most recent work is what he is known for. He is notable for his comments on Plame and MOM first and foremost, as can be easily verified by looking at sheer numbers of news articles mentioning him over the past five years. The quantifiable evidence is pretty clear. Both you and galt have made clear that your main reason to use chron. order is to hilight comments that are not notable but that you consider "embarrassing." This is not a proper use of wikipedia.--csloat 00:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, it is amazing that the Talk page has three editors supporting the standard chronological order and you are the only one supporting reverse chronological order, yet you revert and write "as per Talk page." The Talk page does not support reverse chronological order. Chronological order is the standard format. Please do not revert again.RonCram 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What is amazing is that the three editors have not yet offered a response to the reasons offered in talk as to why this page should have the most notable articles on the top, yet they keep reverting and writing "see talk" when they have yet to include reasons in talk. That is what is amazing, Mr. Cram.--csloat 05:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv war

I have no interest in continuing another revert war on this article. My position here is simple; I will spell out my arguments about the two versions below:

(1) I feel that the most notable aspect of this person is his recent comments on the Plame affair. His most recent work in general is far more notable than what he wrote in 1998-2001, as can be easily verified by looking at sheer numbers of citations in news articles. Johnson today is sought after as a commentator on issues of intelligence and terrorism. He is not sought after by people complaining that he was wrong in 2000. The editors who wish to foreground his earlier material have said a few times that they think I am trying to hide his "embarrassing" quotes. I don't find them embarrassing at all, but I am also not hiding them. Those editors betray their own POV when saying that, as they clearly are motivated by a wish to foreground quotes they find "embarrassing," even though these quotes are not part of the mainstream media's discussion of this person at all. Thus, I created a section called "Commentary on intelligence affairs" at the top for his most notable contributions. Merecat and galt keep deleting this section without explaining their motivations in talk.

(2) I feel that the rest of Johnson's articles should be in reverse chronological order in order to hilight his most recent work first, since, again, that is what is most notable. I have explained this over and over. The only reply (from merecat, galt, and roncram, I think) is that chronological order is more consistent with what is done on other pages. That may be the case but my sense is that is true for biographies of notable people (e.g. "early life," "education," etc.) but not for the articles they have written. I don't think it's necessary to have this much information about every article, but some editors insisted on trying to find "embarrassing" quotations from each article. If we are going to quote from every article, I feel the most notable articles should come first; in this case, reverse chron order makes the most sense (just like articles would be listed on a curriculum vitae, for example).

I would ask that there be further discussion and/or a vote on this issue (with other people weighing in) rather than a continuing revert war. I would be happy to send this article back to RfC in order to get more voices on board. Thanks!--csloat 01:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, the standard format for wikipedia articles is chronological order. We have three editors supporting the standard format and you stand alone. Your support for reverse chronological order appears only to support your POV. Please seek a concensus before reverting from the standard format. RonCram 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ron, my reasons are explained above. You are also deleting content that is independent of the order of material (as per #1 above). The "standard format" for this article is the format that it has been in before you and your friends started ganging up on this page -- reverse chronological order. I still have not seen you or anyone else refute the above nor have you offered a single reason for the change you are making. You have also not offered a single reason for deleting the content that represents Johnson's main reason for notability -- his Plame affair commentary. Why is it you are so quick to revert but you are not willing to even address the arguments here?--csloat 05:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

CSloat, consensus here is 3-1 against you. Please stop trying to own this article. Standard first-to-last chronological order is correct. I've heard your reasonings, but I reject them as being insufficient to compel us to reverse the order. What you think is important about "recent work" is not the determinative factor. The determinative factors are: a) WP standard method and b) consensus. You fail both of those tests, and your arguments basically amount to suggestions as to why you want us to waive the standards and ignore consensus. By asking us to do that, you are being unfair and by forcing the issue, you are being overbearing. Please stop. Merecat 05:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you reject my arguments, merecat, but I was curious as to what your counterarguments were. You still have not offered any. You have not addressed #1 -- why do you and others insist on deleting the one section that actually addresses what Mr. Johnson is currently notable for? You have only addressed #2 and you have not made an argument for it. I responded above to why your claim that this is "WP standard method" is bogus. You have not responded. I am not asking any standards be waived; I am just asking that this article reflect what Mr. Johnson is actually known for.--csloat 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate the absurdity of your argument, I will offer this: If someone says to me "Bill Clinton", the 1st things I think of are "President", "Hillary" and "Monica Lewinksy". That's the logic you are using and it's absurd. Please stop it. Merecat 06:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? That has nothing to do with anything I said. My points are well explained above. To recap: (1) You insist on deleting (censoring?) the one section about Johnson's commentary on intelligence matters, the one thing he is actually well known for (as is easily verified looking at articles published over the last 7 years where he is quoted or mentioned). I'm not sure how your thoughts about Clinton have anything to do with that. (2) You insist on using chronological order and calling it a "standard," when in fact WP's standards revolve around notability, and in particular, with lists of published works, the standard is to go in reverse chronological order. Again, Mr. Johnson is most notable because he is a sought after commentator on intelligence matters. The version of the page you are defending does not even mention this fact and instead dwells upon what he wrote 6-8 years ago, before he achieved any sort of notability.--csloat 06:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What I am talking about is that for biographies, we go in chronological order, not subjective order. Your assertion that LCJ is most notable for "X" is simply not relevant. Personally, I feel that Bill Clinton is highly notable for Monica Lewinsky. Should the outline of his life lead with that? Of course not. However, that's the argument you are making here. You feel (your word) that "X" makes LJC notable today and therefore, we must lead with "X". Well guess what, I don't think this guy is all that notable and I am convinced that his case does not warrant what you seek, which is "current notability weighting". Sometimes such a thing makes sense, but not here. I'll give you an example: Teddy Kennedy crashes off Chappaquidick bridge. If today were back then, that crash would be very notable - such much so, that it would jump to the head of the line. However, we still would cover the rest of his life, in Chronological Order. What you are asking for, reverse order based on political currency does nothing but introduce new leverage for POV editors who want to turn every article into a battleground. You've really got to stop it. You are out-voted 3-1. Why you persist in trying to boss from a minority position puzzles me. And to that, I can also say "WTF"?. And next time, watch your mouth. If you talk to me that way again. I won't dialog with you. Merecat 06:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not about what I "feel." It is about what is objectively verifiable. As I said, a simple search for number of articles broken down by time period is an objective and verifiable way of checking what Johnson is most notable for.
This has nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky.
This has nothing to do with Ted Kennedy.
Your claim that chronological order is the "standard" is false; when listing published works, reverse chronological order is the more appropriate standard. What we have here is a list of published works.
I have not been "outvoted." No vote has yet been cast. I called for one at the beginning of this section (see above: "I would ask that there be further discussion and/or a vote on this issue.")
This does not need to be a "battleground". I made a clear point about why this should be in a particular order.
Telling me to "watch my mouth" and ordering me around, and threatening me, are all inconsistent with WP:CIV; I encourage you to read that page carefully.--csloat 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You know CS, at this point your initials may as well be "BS" because you swore at me and you know it. From this point on, until you admit that, I have nothing left to say to you at this page except: Consensus as expressed by the comments on this page, is against you 3-1, regarding your demand that we go in reverse-chronological order. Your arguments about the order are unpersuasive and because you are so belligerent about it, I am not going to bother with you about this for now. If and/or when you stop bossing, swearing and demanding your own way, maybe we can talk on other things. Merecat 12:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I said "WTF?" You call that swearing that is fine. If you have nothing left to say to me, you have made my day, as nothing you have said has been productive. I am not demanding anything; I think this should be put to a vote of people who have not participated in the last couple days, rather than going by a phony consensus created by three users ganging up on me. Also, please stop insulting me and telling me what to do, I would appreciate it. The page on WP:CIV is really quite a useful read. Thanks.--csloat 15:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did say "WTF" and it is a swear. Have a nice day. Merecat 16:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What format is standard?

The question raised is "What is the best format for this article - chronological order or reverse chronological order?" My answer is the best format is the standard format. I see no reason to change from whichever format is most accepted by wikipedia. I see no reason why this article should look and read differently than other articles in the encyclopedia. Based on my limited research, it appears to me the standard format is chronological order. As evidence of this I point you to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda and to Plame Affair Timeline. I also direct your attention to Wikipedia:Timeline standards. Nowhere in this standard does wikipedia talk about reverse chronological order. Contrary to csloat's argument that this is the article is a "list of published works," this is not a bibliography. What we have here is a series of quotes from different sources including television interviews that is best seen as a series of events. It is clear this should be presented in chronological order to preserve the historical context. RonCram 14:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "standard format" for published works is reverse chronological order. This is not a bibliography but a list of published works - more like an annotated bibliography. It is clear that this should be presented in reverse chronological order in order to foreground the most recent and most notable works.

Also, please explain why it is you want to delete the one section that deals with Johnson's comments on intelligence matters? This is a separate issue from the chronological order, you guys keep deleting it but not once has anyone justified the deletion. I also don't understand why you keep changing the headings without discussion.--csloat 16:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I support RonCram 100% on this issue. Merecat 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you have not presented any evidence for your claim. This is most certainly not an annotated bibliography. Even if you could get editors to buy your view, you have not shown that reverse chronological order is standard format on wikipedia. I directed your attention to Wikipedia:Timeline standards. Wikipedia policy does not advocate the use of reverse chronological order under any circumstances. As far as I know, no one wants to delete the section on Johnson's comments on intelligence matters. If that is happening, it is because you keep changing back to reverse chronological order when it is contrary to wikipedia policy. Please abide by wikipedia policy. If some well-sourced element of the article is lost, feel free to restore it. RonCram 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As you guys know, I am backing off the chronology issue. I will continue making changes to this page so it no longer reads as a hit piece, but I won't change the chronological order again. In future disputes I hope you can have improving the article as your goal rather than beating up on an editor who you feel deserves a few kicks.--csloat 17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

CS, nobody beat up on you. Rather, what we did was rebut and reject your arguments as they related to reverse order. And, the fact that none of us 3RR reported you (see below) shows that we would prefer to like you and get along, rather than dislike or fight you. Thanks for yielding. Merecat 20:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I see.--csloat 21:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry about that. I didn't report you. Even so, you should go to the 3RR page, amdit your fault and take your medicine. If you are guilty, you should admit it. Merecat 21:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what happened merecat, but thanks for your input.--csloat 22:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4 reverts by csloat today?

I think there's been a 3RR violation here today. Merecat 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat has had four or five reverts on the Michael Scheuer page today as well. RonCram 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Time for some discipline for this flagrant abuser. Please report him. Thanks.--Mr j galt 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golani Brigade info

I looked at the two links supplied and neither one mentions Larry Johnson. This sort of thing smacks of original research -- I think we should wait until someone publishes something about Johnson's error before hilighting it here. It is not wikipedia's job to research errors made by subjects of biographies and expose them. Why not just drop Johnson an email, or post to his blog pointing out the error?--csloat 08:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and format (notes/reference/ext. links) issues

I tagged this article today after reading it and finding large discrepancies in content and format. I've worked on it somewhat, but have not got the time to do more. I've indicated in editing box comments and internal editorial interpolations in angle brackets what some of the problems are. This article (like so many others relating to the Valerie Plame, Joseph C. Wilson, and the Plame affair) needs work on the notes, references, and missing citations. I fixed the problems of block quotations. Italics are not proper format for quotations (though many editors still use them anyway in W articles). Please use double and single quotation marks or format block quotations. If you don't know how to do that, please check editing help in W:Help. Thanks. --NYScholar 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

About six months ago this article was hijacked by a small cadre of editors who wanted to turn it into a smear piece against Mr. Johnson. A lot of the stuff added was about that goal, and I tried to deal with such edits by quoting published responses to the smears. But I think a lot of the junk on both sides should go. Occasional quotes from his blog are reasonable, since this is his bio page, but quotes from other blogs talking about him are unnecessary and non-notable. And certainly not every quote from his blog is memorable; a lot of it was added by editors looking for the most embarrassing things he published there (e.g. the comment about Rove's mother) as a means of smearing him. I just don't think this page should be such a battleground -- a simple statement outlining biographical material, perhaps some of his comments on terrorism, the Plame affair, and Mary McCarthy should be enough. I started the process of paring this down by removing the extended quotations about his 2001 editorial on terrorism. It just isn't that notable, and everything that needs to be said about it is said in the section on 2001. But a lot more can go now that that controversy has (we hope) died down.csloat 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say that we ran into some simultaneous editing that lost some changes that I restored. Now that the sources that were left out are supplied, one can see the quotations in their original contexts. There was a lot of twisting of his words out of contexts that was going on in this article, and a lot of lacking citations. There are still a lot of problems of this kind in the way the citations to blogs (secondary sources) are used instead of citations to primary sources, when it is easy to find the primary sources online (e.g., articles in The New York Times, though some are now in TimesSelect, a subscription-based service for the archived articles. Using my TimesSelect subscription, however, I am able to access and to check them. I just don't have time to do more. I leave the references in so that other editors, seeking neutrality, can provide the proper citations and quotations that are not POV-skewed. Thanks. --NYScholar 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is your rationale for restoring the junk I deleted about his 2001 article? It's enough to note the article, note there was controversy, and note his response. There is no need for numerous long quotations from blogs and from partisan sources (e.g. National Review) going over this barely notable controversy, IMHO. csloat 07:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't actually end up "restoring" a long quotation. Ultimately, in the course of many editing attempts, I realized that the same quotation had been originally quoted twice by other editors; in the course of re-organizing the article (shortening it!); the passage is needed once (now in 2001) to refer back to later, because so much else in the article critical of Johnson needs the passage as a referent. It is unfair to quote criticism (out of context I might add), without providing the fuller contexts of sentences--a lot of misleading out-of-context quoting was done in this article by earlier editors. This article requires ongoing vigilance. The tag is necessary due to past attempts to highjack the article and to skew it towards one or another POV. It needs to be neutral. It is also not supposed to be an advertisement for Johnson, his blog, or anyone else's blogs or personal websites. See WP:BLP regarding need to delete potentially slanderous and potentially libellous statements or insinuations about living persons throughout Wikipedia articles. --NYScholar 08:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This was the stuff I deleted; I don't think any of it needs to be in this article. Also, the NPOV tag must refer to a specific dispute, not a general response to past attempts to hijack the article. csloat 08:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You referred to the past attempts to hijack the article in your earlier comment to me; I was simply responding to that reference that you made. In all my editing history comments and all my editorial interpolations (in the text of the article: look at it in editing mode), I make very, very clear the specific ongoing problems of missing citations, misleading quotations taken out of context, false citations, missing notes, wrong formatting of notes, etc. that I address in putting the tags on this article. I still dispute the neutrality of this article in the problematic and misleading or missing citations; it needs more work to fix those problems. It is also tagged throughout for missing citations. That's plenty of reason for the changes that I have been making: all are specific disputes (in the editing comments throughout November 19-20, 2006). --NYScholar 08:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I realize I referred to those past attempts but I didn't say they were grounds for the NPOV tag (although they may be). I'm just saying we need to be specific about what can be improved to get the tag removed -- I agree with your points about misleading quotations and missing cites. What about the material deleted here? I don't see the need for this section myself. csloat 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a part of that final section that seems dubious to include; the other passage in the final section actually presents a more neutral point of view on Johnson (in my view), at least looking at him both positively and negatively (I guess--too tired now to judge all this); best I can do w/ it. I moved it up to be a sub-section (sub-heading) of 2001.

Part removed (at least for time being):

A few weeks later, on 28 July 2006, Stephen Spruiell, a reporter for the "MediaBlog" in the National Review Online posts:

Larry Johnson, the CIA’s blind seer who wrote in a penetratingly insightful op-ed in the summer of 2001 that we had little to fear from Islamic terrorism, criticizes my journalistic standards for allegedly taking Bob Inman’s comments about the Plame affair out of context. Actually, he goes further. He calls me a liar.

Johnson, who learned everything he knows about journalistic standards from adding his commentary to the execrable documentary Outfoxed, calls me “pathetically ignorant” for failing to understand the intricacies of CIA career tracks with the same depth that he does. In so doing, he cites a post in which I report verbatim the remarks of the former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, and add little of my own commentary. . . .

[Concluding:] . . . For someone who has publicly demonstrated such faulty perception regarding the greatest threat of our time, I’m surprised Johnson is so arrogant.^[1]

Sorry; I'm too tired to do any more with this article; I've spent hours editing it. All my comments are in the history; please read them. Please read the comments embedded in the editorial notes that only show up in editing mode too. Thanks. Good night (morning!)!!--NYScholar 09:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[Please add new sections above Notes section, which comes at foot of page. Thanks.]

The article ignores contributions that Larry Johnson made to the terrorism debate while writing for the Counterterrorism Blog in 2004 and 2005. You can access all of his posts there at his Counterterrorism Blog archive page.

Andycdc 21:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

^ Stephen Spruiell, "Larry Johnson, Star of Outfoxed, Attacks My Journalistic Standards," MediaBlog of National Review Online, 28 July 2006, accessed 19 November 2006.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/a/r/Talk%7ELarry_C._Johnson_2dc0.html"

Categories: Biography articles of living people | Start-Class biography articles