Talk:Frank Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
This page should probably mention the "Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area" which is supposedly the largest contiguous wilderness in the 48 lower states. Kaszeta 19:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- So mention it! Heh. -Joseph (Talk) 19:46, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
- Done -- Kaszeta 14:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"...and is known regionally as "The Frank."" Does anyone have a source for this? I grew up right next to it, and never heard it called anything except "The wilderness area". Dalrymple 09:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm from southern Idaho, but I've never heard called that, either. --Faustus37 18:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Controversial figure"
The following was re-added to the article by Joseph:
- Frank Church has become a controversial figure, particularly after the September 11th attacks, as his 1970s investigations are blamed by some for reducing the ability of the CIA to gather human intelligence.
I know Frank Church has never been popular with conservatives, but what's new? This looks like a not-so-veiled attempt to blame Church for September 11, which really needs a citation of a reputable source for inclusion here. -- RobLa 08:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was restoring a section which an anonymous editor deleted. In any event, does an accusation by John E. Sununu count? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- When I look for "conservative" charges made against Church, I do not find any that address the reduction of "the ability of the CIA to gather human intelligence." Kissinger (whose clandestine activities were exposed), Sununu, and James Baker have all made some comments that the Church Committee "hurt" the CIA. I don't think a NPOV editor would necessarily conclude that three opposition political figure's charges constitutes a "controversy" - it would be nice to see a citation from a refereed serial which shows a "neutral" segment of opinion is undecided about a particular issue. The Church Committee did not enact any restrictions, just aired dirty laundry that motivated the House and Senate to set up oversite committees. I think that acknowledging that proponents of secrecy and unrestricted executive power oppose and denounce the Church Committee's actions would be acceptable and it might even be appropriate to show the post-9/11 context of this opportunistic epiphany. -- Cronos1 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to butt in here, but I agree completely that the accusation that Church and the so-called Church Committee's work is now "controversial" and considered by some to share "blame" for 9/11 needs further work. Current citations or no, it has an accusatorial air about it, and ignores that others equally are in favor of the changes the Church Committee wrought. As others have noted above, to claim that somebody is "controversial" just because somebody doesn't care for the work they did borders on spurious. One can likely find somebody that dislikes any given public figure for any number of reasons, but that doesn't mean that the reasons carry any sort of heft or that their dislike and arguments are in any way reasonable. At the very least, I'd like to see some balance here, especially in light of ongoing revelations about warrantless NSA spying (and even possible physical breakins) on US soil and involving US citizens. --Dh100 14:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Understand that I did not eliminate the 'controversial figure' statement. I could not, in good conscience, restore the eliminated paragraph authored by you as I feel that it overstates the scholarship blaming Church and uses weasle words to describe his critics. Peer reviewed reviews of Knotts books tend to be like Johnson's critique (paraphrasing)...The work is both good and original, unfortunately, what is good is not original and what is original is not good. You did not engage and were not req'd to engage in last March's conversation above. Now would be a good time to address these issues.Cronos1 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- As-is, this article reads like a Frank Church love-fest. His effect on the U.S. intelligence community was rather deep, and the tone of this article makes it sound as if it was 100% necessary and progressive. Regardless of whether good came out of this effort, or not, the article must equally present the viewpoint that some changes may not have been positive. Otherwise it's a bunch of PoV nonsense. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- The article does not have to show that ‘some changes may not have been positive’ simply to provide another viewpoint, meaning that there is no obligation for dualism in articles. I do not think you mean to imply any such thing. I do not mean to imply that F. Church is above criticism.
- Sorry to butt in here, but I agree completely that the accusation that Church and the so-called Church Committee's work is now "controversial" and considered by some to share "blame" for 9/11 needs further work. Current citations or no, it has an accusatorial air about it, and ignores that others equally are in favor of the changes the Church Committee wrought. As others have noted above, to claim that somebody is "controversial" just because somebody doesn't care for the work they did borders on spurious. One can likely find somebody that dislikes any given public figure for any number of reasons, but that doesn't mean that the reasons carry any sort of heft or that their dislike and arguments are in any way reasonable. At the very least, I'd like to see some balance here, especially in light of ongoing revelations about warrantless NSA spying (and even possible physical breakins) on US soil and involving US citizens. --Dh100 14:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- When I look for "conservative" charges made against Church, I do not find any that address the reduction of "the ability of the CIA to gather human intelligence." Kissinger (whose clandestine activities were exposed), Sununu, and James Baker have all made some comments that the Church Committee "hurt" the CIA. I don't think a NPOV editor would necessarily conclude that three opposition political figure's charges constitutes a "controversy" - it would be nice to see a citation from a refereed serial which shows a "neutral" segment of opinion is undecided about a particular issue. The Church Committee did not enact any restrictions, just aired dirty laundry that motivated the House and Senate to set up oversite committees. I think that acknowledging that proponents of secrecy and unrestricted executive power oppose and denounce the Church Committee's actions would be acceptable and it might even be appropriate to show the post-9/11 context of this opportunistic epiphany. -- Cronos1 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is inaccurate to call Kissinger, Baker, & Sununu’s charges a ‘controversy’. ‘Some’ critics is a weasel phrase when we have 3 specific critics. The charges are rather general in nature; they do not say that the Church Committee initiated a specific act that had specific consequences. In my opinion, logically, the HUMINT charge is rather spurious. The Committee is known for exposing Covert Operations, not for exposing sources and means of developing agents in target nations. Why not say something to the effect that two former Sec of State & whatever-you-want-to-call Sununu have said that Church's Committee has weakened the agency? You've got the sources. Robert Baer (for instance) puts the responsibility for lack of agents on the risk averse (as in expense/results) administration of the agency with some blame going to prohibitions on employing criminals/violators of human rights…don’t believe it would be accurate to blame Church for either of those, do you? If so can you provide documentation? Personally, I do not see the article as a Love-Fest, just a series of statements of facts and opinions. Do you really think Church’s Committee has had any lasting impact on the CIA? Look at the various scandals since Church. No one is writing that ‘on Comrade Church’s initiative, the CIA became a tool in the People’s arsenal to rid the world of Capitalism’ or some other expression of rapturous love. I don’t particularly want to debate, just express areas of concern that you might be able to address with a revision to your edit. Thanks for thinking about it.Cronos1 23:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Late political career
A large amount of material in this section actually talks about activities from Church's early career, not late career. Section needs a rewrite. Proxy User (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
