Talk:Scott Ritter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: The facts in this biography are incorrect. Here is an excerpt from a 1998 Scott Ritter interview with Elizabeth Farnsworth: ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons? Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability." WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program. In testimony before the US Senate Scott Ritter stated the following: DECEMBER 1998 : (RITTER SPEAKS IN SENATE HEARING) "Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." - Scott Ritter, December 1998 (edit)

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

Archive1

[edit] 2001 arrest

Someone needs to put this information back in. Regardless of your political views what happened in the sting arrest is fact. This is not a Scott Ritter fan page people.

Ok, what factually happened? The records are sealed. I do agree that some mention of the incident should be made, because it did make the news. However, it is really tangential to his source of notability, so a brief summary of the verifiable facts should suffice ... these are quite few. Also, please see WP:AGF; it's not a valid assumption that editors who disagree with you are necessarily "fans" of Ritter, or motivated by politics. Such assumptions are not helpful in achieving consensus. Derex 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I put the section back in, kept it brief, and tried to stick to the facts. Hopefully we can reach some consensus on this. Rustavo 01:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What can be published on Wikipedia is only the facts as published in the newspapers. The fact the court sealed the records is beside the point. The whole story was well-sourced from newspaper accounts. RonCram 06:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Rustavo. Derex 02:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me how to put in "citation needed" ??? The Smear section is full of broken links that go to a generic UPI page. These reference should say "citation needed" but instead show a footnote.Vincent.fx 11:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Talk" person -- should the smear campaign be a separate section then? What is the policy on non-existent links being used as citations? What is the policy of using dubious sources such as WND?Vincent.fx 07:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no "Talk" person, if by that you mean a moderator. Nobody here but us chickens. A citation request is performed by inserting the word "fact" between double curly brackets at the appropriate point in maintext. See Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Inline. In the case of the UPI cite(s) it is more appropriate to use "dead link" - see Wikipedia:Dead_external_links#Repairing and Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_to_do_when_a_reference_link_.22goes_dead.22. The link to WTEN within the WND cite is also dead, but as with the UPI cite its content was discussed on this page before it went dead and there is no serious controversy as to what it contained. Andyvphil (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I misread the data and thought "Talk" was somebody's handle. So Andyvphil, WM, whoever has undone my edits: 1. Scott Ritter didn't have "legal problems", he has smear problems. His legal problems didn't inconvenience him much more than a traffic ticket. It was the leaks from a sealed case designed to discredit him -- exactly as Wolfowitz called it --that he had problems with. 2. The Wolfowitz thing: Wolfowitz said there was a smear campaign against Ritter by US gov't forces due to his failing to go along with the program. This smear campaign continued despite the change in administration. By any standard, the smear campaign is of more note than the "legal problems" of a case that was dismissed, and the "Smear Campaign" deserves its own section. 3. WND as a source? Please tell me how this extremist paper gets to be a reputable source. Last time I checked their site they had an article on keeping Jesus in Thanksgiving. 4. Broken links: You said "The link to WTEN within the WND cite is also dead, but as with the UPI cite its content was discussed on this page before it went dead and there is no serious controversy as to what it contained." First of all this is extremely dubious territory. Things are supposed to be referenced and cited, or else we could all say "we" discussed the content before and so it must be true. Second, there IS controversy about the supposed 2nd arrest, etc. If there is not a single original news source out there on something, the supposition, no matter what it is, stinks to high heaven. I look forward to your answer.Vincent.fx (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Ritter's troubles are considerably more than a traffic ticket. He seems to be pretty radioactive now, in fact.

2. I have no objection to your documenting allegations and rebuttals of a smear campaign against Ritter. But Wolfowitz said nothing in 1998 about Ritter's troubles in 2002, so the issues are separate until you can find a RS making the connection.

3. I don't see any reason to think Jerry Falwell's site is less reliable than, say, David Brock's, and Media Matters for America is quoted all over this part of Wikipedia. So, what's remarkable about his writing in favor of keeping Jesus in Thankgiving? He's allowed to have opinions that are not yours.

4. What to do about webrot is a problem. Various proposals are made at the links I gave you. Have you tried them? In any case, the "Legal Problems" paragraph was the subject of considerable conflict on this page, and though I was not editing this article then I am reasonably confident that if WND's link to WTEN didn't show what WND said it showed, it would have come up. So I consider the fact to have been verified. If you want a different policy than exists go to that page and edit it in. If it survives, I'll reconsider. Andyvphil (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Ritter's troubles are considerably more than a traffic ticket. He seems to be pretty radioactive now, in fact.

>>>> what evidence do you have of any legal trouble he has at all now? Wouldn't you like to share that with the Wikipedia? Because as far as I know all his legal trouble is wrapped in this one incident. Your charge of that he is "radioactive" is the vague language of smear.

2. I have no objection to your documenting allegations and rebuttals of a smear campaign against Ritter. But Wolfowitz said nothing in 1998 about Ritter's troubles in 2002, so the issues are separate until you can find a RS making the connection.

>>>>Wait a minute, if Wolfowitz said there was a smear campaign against him, that's important info that should be in his bio, somewhere. Could you suggest a place?

3. I don't see any reason to think Jerry Falwell's site is less reliable than, say, David Brock's, and Media Matters for America is quoted all over this part of Wikipedia. So, what's remarkable about his writing in favor of keeping Jesus in Thankgiving? He's allowed to have opinions that are not yours.

>>>> By your methods the Flat Earth Society could edit their entry, take out "discredited" for their theory and put in "proven", and source it to any website they want. Good job, no wonder Wikipedia has little respect.

>>>>About linking that to the later smear campaign, now that I know Wikipedia takes just about any source as a "RS", that won't be hard.

4. What to do about webrot is a problem. Various proposals are made at the links I gave you. Have you tried them? In any case, the "Legal Problems" paragraph was the subject of considerable conflict on this page, and though I was not editing this article then I am reasonably confident that if WND's link to WTEN didn't show what WND said it showed, it would have come up. So I consider the fact to have been verified.

>>>>>Sorry, again, links to real stories don't just disappear. They might break, and then the info can be found elsewhere. In this case, in the bio of a living person, it's highly irresponsible. Source the charge or get rid of it. Vincent.fx (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you add a section on the alleged smear campaign against Ritter, with both allegations and rebuttals. If you can do so in a creditable fashion I will revisit your concerns about the "legal problems" paragraph. Dragging 1998 Wolfowitz into 2002 legal problems was not a good start, but the respect you earn is up to you. Andyvphil (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you still don't get it. The anonymous leaks about the 2002 legal problems was a continuation the smear campaign, which I will show with citations. So since the two sections that you propose will greatly overlap, I suggest you think about how to revisit the issue. Though it must be asked how someone who called Ritter "radioactive" will be a fair judge. Are you the boss, by the way? Vincent.fx (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OWN. Ritter's radioactivity isn't a question of whether he is currently in legal trouble, but of whether his endorsements and views are sought. If he is radioactive because he was sucessfully smeared, so be it. And you will show whatever you manage to show. We'll see. Andyvphil (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Line removed in accordance with Wikipedia policy, "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous."

This is of course controversial material, and very poorly sourced -- one link to an infamously biased and dubious source with a broken link, not found anywhere else on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.151.249 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC) by me Vincent.fx (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with the Wikipedia policy mentioned above, a summary of Ritter's response to the allegations was added.Vincent.fx (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Most recent edits

I would not have thought my recent edit of the arrest section[1] was controversial but it was quickly reverted by another editor who has been active in this article. The person reverting left an edit summary with which I agree, but doesn't seem to bear on my edits: "Examine the source. Ritter was responding to a single arrest - not "arrests" which remain unconfirmed."

I'll therefore go over each change I made.

• Changed heading from "legal problems" to "reports of arrest record." I made the change because "legal problems" is vague and incorrectly implies that there is some kind of problem. There is no source cited that Ritter ever had, or has, any legal problems. Even if they did they were short in nature and connected to his arrest. That is not the issue here. The issue discussed in this section is that Ritter was arrested, and that the report of arrests came to light and became a news story. "Reports of arrest record" is much more specific on that point.
• removed "near Albany, NY" - the location of his arrest is a spurious detail and not put in any context. Not a big deal but we try to avoid crime reporting here, we just give the salient facts.
• changed "subsequent news reports state that Ritter had brushes with police on two occasions" to "and according to one source". This is much closer to what the sources say. We have one citation to a source that quotes another source as reporting a second arrest. Also, "brushes with police" is too informal and colorful. We don't know what kind of "brush" we had with police. The point is he was arrested.
• changed "Though he was never charged with any crime" to "but never charged". The first version was logically inaccurate. A brush with police is not necessary a contradiction of not being charged with a crime. Also, we do not know that Ritter was never charged with any crime. He might have been caught speeding at some point in his life. The point is that he was not charged in connection with the one or two arrests. Arrested but never charged is short, to the point, and just gets the facts out.
• changed "involving allegations of intent to meet underage girls after chatting on the Internet." to "in police stings in which officers posed as under-aged girls to arrange meetings." The old version was loosely worded. There were no allegations and no statement of intent leading to his arrest. That's colorful language that's not strictly true. There were not even any underage girls involved. All we know (per the sources) is that there was a police sting in which officers posed as underage girls, he bit the bait, and he was arrested in connection with the sting.
• changed "Ritter charged that the reports, which resulted from anonymous leaks from a sealed court case, were a politically motivated smear campaign with the intent to defame him..." to "Ritter claimed the anonymous leaks of sealed court records of these arrests, which gave rise to these news stories, were a politically motivated effort to distract attention". Ritter's claim was not that the reports of his arrest were politically motivated, but rather that the leak of his arrest record was politically motivated. He did not accuse CNN, the New York Times, etc., all the major media, of being out to do a hit piece on him. Rather, he questioned the timing and the fact of the leak. Morever, he did not (per the sources) accuse it of being a "smear campaign." That language comes from a single source that opines without proving that it was a smear campaign. What the sources report is that Ritter questioned the timing and said it was unusual, seemed improper, etc. We should not put words in his mouth that he did not say. And in any event, saying it is a politically motivated leak to distract attention is enough; we can let the reader draw their own conculsion.

So I think I agree with the reverter. I'm just trying to get to the core relevant facts in the most straightforward, non-sensationalistic way possible. I hope that clears it up. Wikidemo (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the reworking of the page, because if was arrested it should say arrest record, not "reports of arrest record", because it does not make sense, there can't be news reports of a arrest without therea being a arrest.

he plead guilty, it should not make out that he wasn't convicted of a crime, if the record was sealed he, only if he was convicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.130.230 (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's exactly the situation. There is one source that claims a second arrest, and we have a second source reporting only that there was a first source. There is no clear verification that there was a second arrest. This being a WP:BLP, and the matter being an alleged (attempted) sex crime, that is not enough to say there was a second arrest. In the case of the other arrest, the sources do not support that he plead guilty. Even if he did as part of the arrangement, the fact that it is a sealed record means it is a legal non-event, so simply saying he plead guilty is misleading. Wikidemo (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up external links

The external links section looks like it's become a holding tank for additional sources. Per WP:EL we should really work those into the article if they source anything there, and otherwise leave them out (external links are for material that is NOT suitable for inclusion). Or as a light approach, we could just create a new heading called "Additional sources" or something like that. The idea is to organize the news and reference links from the normal type of external links (e.g. an official page, his writings, etc). Any thoughts? Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)