Talk:Valerie Plame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Valerie Plame article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
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]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
WikiProject on Penn State This article is part of WikiProject Penn State, an attempt to thoroughly cover topics related to the Pennsylvania State University. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
To-do list for Valerie Plame: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Full rewrite past the intro.
  • Avoid presenting as a list of quotes. Use statements as references; do not use them in place of prose.
  • Ensure the focus is on biographical detail and not on reiteration of Plamegate
  • This list is controversial: see Talk:Valerie Plame#Objections.
Priority 2  
Archive
Archives
  1. /Archive 1: Dec 2003 - Jul 2005
  2. /Archive 2: Jul 2005 - Nov 2005
  3. /Archive 3: Dec 2005 - Jan 2006
  4. /Archive 4: Feb 2006 big thread
  5. /Archive 5: Feb 2006 - Nov 2006
  6. /Archive 6: Nov 2006 - Mar 2007


Contents

[edit] CBC link

I do want to show sources properly. The current video link for the CBC interview is http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/internationalus/valerie_plame_interview.html. However, I think after a time that link ends. Kyle Andrew Brown 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] career section

Could that section be split into smaller ones--it's hard to edit now, and a lot to read. It also seems to me that the newer material in it makes some of the older stuff irrelevant, as more has become known. However, some of the stuff that's wrong may still be relevant as documentation of errors that were made before the most recent disclosures. 64.160.39.153 08:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This article follows a mostly-chronological organization; the material is relevant to the controversy: see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:POV as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I consolidated the material about the hearing and put it in its own section in chronological order of article, adding a cross-ref. under heading "Career" in the article. It is possible to find the updated information that way; that the details of her career are the topic of considerable controversy and disputes in the press coverage of her relation to the Plame affair is very important and, in my view, not to be deleted or omitted otherwise. --NYScholar 05:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What I mean is that a considerable amount of the article text is devoted to presenting arguments for and against V. Wilson's reported status as a formerly covert CIA agent. This issue was very much in question and couldn't be answered definitively, so the article instead gave the best available sourced information on both sides. However, stuff that came out in the recent Waxman hearings (and to some extent in the Libby trial) obsoletes some of the prior uncertain stuff. So I think streamlining is possible. For example, unless someone credible is contesting it, I think General Hayden answered the covertness question once and for all, in the statement he cleared for the Waxman hearing. 64.160.39.153 06:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

24.136.114.216 Inserted a combative and radically WP:POV addition to the House Oversight section that directly contradicted the information regarding Plame's covert status that is documented in the Career section. I removed this entirely as it had no information that was not covered in the Career section. KellyLogan 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Identification

There seems to be some on this page that thinks being a Democrat (or Republican for that matter) is relevant to the story. I don't think you label her as a Democrat above everything else. It's not as if she has ran for office as a Democrat or anything, she has given to a few candidates and identified herself as a Democrat. This, however, does not belong at the top of the article. A new section should be created dealing with her political loyalties. Agreed?

What is the relevance of her being a Democrat? Do we tag every American bio on Wikipedia with their political affiliation if we can verify it?--agr 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It is of some relevance to the article topic. See Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, LA Times Jul 18, 2005. pg. A.1: The Nation; Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson; Rove and Cheney chief of staff were intent on discrediting CIA agent's husband, prosecutors have been told:

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

64.160.39.153 02:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The information was revealed in a high profile forum (public Congressional hearings) attended by the international press. (In fact there was so much coverage that the BBC noted " Representative Lynn Westmoreland...began by saying even the baseball stars who testified about steroid use in the sport had not drawn such a big crowd. [1])
If the information was entirely irrelevant, Valerie Wilson could have refused to answer the question.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, which has no partisan leanings on either side of this case, thought it was relevant to include this information in their overview coverage of the Congressional hearings. Notice that the BBC article did not cover EVERYTHING in the hearings; likewise, the editors of the BBC could have excised that information.
Finally, it should be noted that people who have deleted this information from the article have either provided no reason, or have provided false reasons (eg falsely claiming that this information was never said, or that this information was inadequately sourced). Those edits are considered vandalism, and future deletions of this information will also be considered as such.
TickleMeBilbo 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't see much reason to leave that stuff in the lead paragraph of the article, and there certainly was no vandalism involved in removing it when there was no clear reason to have it. WP:AGF. 64.160.39.153 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Removal of the entry (along with its included citation) using the claim that it is unsourced or that it didn't happen invalidates an assumption of a good faith edit. In addition, the citation from the BBC article was removed again by Wrdmegle, without justification of any kind.
TickleMeBilbo 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it is incorrect. The placement of political identification of someone who isn't an officeholder should not be at the top of their resume. I am arguing that it should be at the bottom, which is where I put it when I created a new subtopic, complete with a reference to the TRANSCIPT of the hearing instead of a BBC article. Examples of political figures who do not have their party identification at the top of their wiki are Al Franken, Ann Coulter, Rob Reiner, Gary Bauer, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, and Karl Rove. Now, if none of those people have their political affiliation listed at the top of their wiki, why do you insist on putting it on Valerie Plame's? Wrdmegle 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrdmegle, the fact that the Wikipedia entries on Franken, Coulter, Reiner, etc are incomplete is no justification that this article should be incomplete as well. If you have sourced information from reliable sources that explicitly identifies their party affilitation, you should add it to those articles. (One should not assume that married couples share the same political party; James Carville, a former political strategist for the Democratic Party, was married to Mary Matalin, a well known Republican, when both were active campaigners for their respective parties.)Wikipedia:Proseline also is a good source to read in general about adding current events info, and needs to be applied to this article (as well as others).
TickleMeBilbo 04:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Tickle, it's obvious that you find it to be relevant to the article for whatever reason, but you are definitely in the minority here. However, after looking at your other editing, and the fact that you only edit on the Valerie Plame article causes me to question your motives. I cannot even believe you are suggesting that Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan may not be Republicans because of James Carville and his spouse. The main point of my editorial question is the placement of party affiliation. Why do you insist on putting it at the top in the FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE OR UNDER THE PHOTO?
75.137.240.236 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's reasonable to put this info somewhere in the article, however, describing the identification as an admission under pressure is original research so I removed that. Really the reason it's an issue is because of insinuations of partisan motivations on either the Wilsons' part or on Rove's, so the Rove quote above should also appear in that section. 64.160.39.153 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but in that quote, Rove was discussing Joseph Wilson and not Valerie Plame. 75.137.240.236 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The thesis behind one side of the uproar was that Valerie was outed because Rove wanted to retaliate against Joseph. Per the LA Times article, Joseph's party affiliation was (at least part of) Rove's motivation for wanting to retaliate. So Joseph's affiliation is part of the outing story, and that story is a big portion of the article. The article desperately needs a big cleanup though, and maybe most of this stuff should be moved to the Plame affair article if it's not already there. 64.160.39.153 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The political contributions by the Wilsons are already in the public record and mentioned in other articles re: Plame affair and Joseph C. Wilson; her party affiliation is not germane at all to her own unintended role in the leak of her CIA covert identity in the press. (She did not make the leak happen; others did. She is the victim of the leak. Who or what she votes for is a red herring. Such factors are not relevant to the encyclopedia article per se; except perhaps to mention that they have been discussed by others. The lone fact of whether or not she is a Democrat would need to be related to a neutral discussion of the contexts for why it is part of the controversy; otherwise, it should not be included.) See the section on the hearing, which covers more relevant aspects of it and gives plenty of citations and the Oversight Committee website as a source, where one can watch the official video of her testimony if one wants to do "original research" on one's own. "Original research" and the points of view and opinions of editors in Wikipedia are not permitted: WP:NOR. --NYScholar 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current party affiliations of a CIA agent

The fact of her expressing a current affiliation to the democratic party could of course be included. (its not somehow unique of course, after all that has gone on many now express affiliation with the democratic party, and the demons in fact "thumped" the reepers in the last election after all, and many people now support them). Of course one needs some context when expressing her current affiliations, such as "In a congressional hearing Mrs. Plame expressed her current identification with the Democratic party. This is not somehow unusual for a CIA agent to be affiliated with one party or other at some time or another, as the CIA is in fact a team of several thousands of republican leaning and several thousands of democratic leaning professionals, in addition to those who might be affiliated with some other party or that are rather centrist". It is not especially noteworthy, as most CIA people would either have answered that question as being a republican or a democrat, if she had stated some other party besides these two it would be more interesting and noteworthy and unusual or unique, but of course if an editor wishes to include it I dont see why not, and it should likely go in the section about the hearing that she presently identifies herself as a democrat. In fact we have little information from her answer to that question except her current identification, we actually have more info about her husbands political identification and background (upbringing in a republican family etc.), and the question was clearly an attempt to discredit her by suggesting she is somehow compromised by an affiliation to one party or the other, and it wasnt on the list submitted to her either and was somewhat of a low blow it sounds like, her hesitation is of course interesting, but more so for foreign intelligence people I suppose than for wikipedia, to see how a trained CIA reacts to an unexpected low blow hostile (action), of course taken into context with the several other hostile questions from those on the right displeased with this whole situation/incident of the Plame affair and the scandal over the leak of exposing a covert CIA, (and one's own specialized secret team member), for (what turned out to be temporary) political gain and public favor. There indeed was hesitation on this question, on many others she answered or deflected quite smoothly and instantaneously. One gets the sense of an american CIA that is smooth and savvy, generally competent, yet not perfect all the time and that could be momentarily thrown by a novel/unexpected occurence/situation, and that perhaps has its own worst enemies coming from its own country's politicians, with the biggest true threat or hampering to "american intelligence" likely stemming from George Bush and the current executive administration-CrystalizedAngels 10:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Treason?

can any person with legal expertise give an opinion, if people can get arrested for teason for this sort of thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.152.63 (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2007

Treason has traditionally been very difficult to prove... as I recall a trial last year of an al-Qaeda sympathizer has the first treason convinction in over a half-century. It's not a blanket term for "doing something that harms national security". Article III of the Constitution defines "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort". The Supreme Court will demand evidence of an overt, specific intent to betray the US to a specific enemy... Cramer v US, Haupt v US: "innocence of intention will defeat even a charge of treason".LordKadghar 23:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible spelling error for web site

THe article makes note of a site "TMPCAFE.COM" as a source for Larry Johnson's article - I suspect this is supposed to be TPMCAFE.COM, an offshoot of TalkingPointsMemo.com. I can't prove that TMPCAFE.COM was not a valid site at the time of the article so I don't want to edit the main page (if it is in fact editable.) 2liberal 10:55 MST 3/23/2007

[edit] Questionable reliability of source someone added

[Someone had originally added version of this source to the external links section; I moved it to references section (and added a note based on it), but, after consulting the talk page of Brewster Jennings & Associates and due to questionable web location of the source, I now question its reliability and notability with respect to WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm moving it here for that reason. (I will also remove the note citation in a moment (parallel citation).) It adds no valuable information to the more reliable news source(s) already documenting the same points. --NYScholar 19:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Talk archived

So it took about two hours to make the talk archives make sense. Would that it were so easy for this article, which is a pile of rambling, unreadable sludge. Chris Cunningham 21:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Move to "Valerie Wilson"

Shouldn't this page rightly be at "Valerie Wilson"? Isn't "Valerie Plame" just bad reporting that we're perpetuating? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 02:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Valerie Plame uses her maiden name professionally, and it seems to me that most journalists have honored her choice. This article is not about her private life, so why use her husband's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realtat (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 July 2007
Used. This is a biographical article, so it should really end up at Wilson eventually. Chris Cunningham 12:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Valerie Plame does not use her maiden name per se professionally anymore. "Valerie Plame" was her classified covert identity. Obviously, however, if her name was listed as "Valerie Plame" (as the person he married) in publications like a Who's Who searched by Robert Novak (and accessible by subscription online), that name was listed in his biography for that publication by Joseph Wilson. Later, documents cited list her name as Valerie E. Wilson (Valerie E[lise] Wilson); but even in the recent Congressional hearing, she was referred to as "Valerie Plame Wilson"; the latter is a legitimate reference to a married woman, though, in this case, according to her husband's book, her name is "Valerie Wilson" or "Valerie E. Wilson" (according to her political contributions name used in an online search site--reference in article). In the past, I have tried to rename this article and/or correct the way her name is presented in line one of it; at times, those changes have been reverted by others. I suggest doing a Google or other search engine search for the prevalent hits on each name. The idea in Wikipedia is for people to be able to find the article. If searching for "Valerie Wilson" is not logical to most people searching for this person, they will not find the article. Right now, in a Google search for "Valerie Plame," Wikipedia is listed first in access results. A few items down, one will find the NY Times index of articles for her listed under the name "Valerie Plame Wilson." Search for "Valerie Wilson" or "Valerie Plame Wilson" or "Valerie E. Wilson" and see what one finds for evidence of prevalent usages in the internet. --NYScholar 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
In Google" "Valerie Wilson": 2,280,000 hits (many of which are probably not this person, given the common names "Valerie" and "Wilson").
In Google: for "Valerie E. Wilson": 2,080,000 hits (though those will include others with the name "Valerie E. Wilson" ("Wilson" is a very common surname; and "Valerie" a common given or first name).
In Google: for "Valerie Plame": 1,840,000 hits (most of which are probably this person). --NYScholar 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Her speaker's bureau official biography (the one that she would have to okay) is listed under the name "Valerie Plame Wilson" last time I checked. --NYScholar 00:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
For notability purposes--Wikipedia concerns?--her name is "Valerie Plame"; I checked and I see that "Valerie E. Wilson" is still in line one; it's clearly the case that Valerie E. Wilson is also known as (aka) "Valerie Plame." In terms of her actual notability, she is notable for being "Valerie Plame" (the classified and once-covert CIA operative named by Novak in his column as leaked to him by Armitage and others) not for being "Valerie Wilson" or "Valerie Elise Wilson" or "Valerie E. Wilson" or Mrs. Joseph C. Wilson IV--at least thus far in her life. --NYScholar 00:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I used to be in favor of renaming the article "Valerie E. Wilson" (to avoid ambiguation problems so as not to have a disamibiguation page, though one might still have one; esp. if it is "Valerie Wilson"), but I did not perceive support from other editors for that. --NYScholar 01:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd support that, absolutely. NYScholar's concern can be addressed with a redirect: the common and imprecise name Latin Mass disambiguates to the correct but more arcane name Tridentine Mass. Since there are no other notable "Valerie E. Wilson"s, it'd be harmless and simple to move it.-- The_socialist talk? 13:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Quickly glancing over the discussion in this section, I don't see any consensus for any particular title; am I mistaken in this? I do see legitimate arguments, however. My personal feeling, without having done any research, is that she is better known as Valerie Plame, whether that is her desire or not. And moving this to Valerie E. Wilson would potentially be slightly confusing to some. It seems logical to me to split the difference and list this at Valerie Plame Wilson, which would both immediately trigger recognition in anyone coming to the article, yet at the same time also recognize her married status. My 2¢. Unschool 19:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the name of the article can stay as is without creating confusion. "Valerie Plame" is an "alias" that is clearly identified as such in the lead to the article. She currently uses two names (as far as I can tell): Valerie E. Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson. I think that her legal name is Valerie E. Wilson, as she is referred to that way in court affadivits filed by Patrick Fitzgerald in the CIA leak grand jury investigation and United States v. Libby, though in Plame v. Cheney documents for the civil lawsuit and in some Congressional hearings, she is referred to as "Valerie Plame Wilson". She uses the name "Valerie Plame Wilson" in her biography in her Speaker's Bureau listing, but she has used "Valerie E. Wilson" in making political contributions (which would appear to listed in her legal name that she used in making them). This Wikipedia article is about the subject "Valerie Plame" as well as the person Valerie E. Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson, Mrs. Joseph C. Wilson, IV. It is an article relating to a living person notable initially and mostly due to the alias "Valerie Plame"; I am still not sure which name Wikipedia favors (if any) in its listing of names for living persons; perhaps "Valerie E. Wilson" is the most proper; aside from the speaker's bureau listing, the civil lawsuit, and some government hearing documents, I have not seen a public government document listing her with "Plame" as the middle (maiden) name; the most format references by Fitzgerald and others refer to her often as "Mrs. Wilson" and not as "Ms. Plame." Perhaps more discussion would help with references to Wikipedia policies on naming of articles on living persons? [Note: When this article is renamed, it seems to be reverted. See Plame affair for related renaming controversies pertaining to related articles: e.g., those with "CIA leak scandal" in title; people seem to edit-war over the naming of those related articles. If one wants to do a new Google search for numbers of hits (prevalence of occurrences), first scroll up to where an earlier editor already did one. Lack of prevalence of items listing "Valerie E. Wilson" in Google and similar search engines compared to "Valerie Plame" and "Valerie Plame Wilson" would argue against changing to it. The change would make this Wikipedia article less likely to come up early in a Google search of the person at least for quite some time. (Keep in mind too that there are many other Wikis that repost this article with the current name.) --NYScholar 20:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The relevant section of the naming conventions policy isn't clear on situations like this, where a woman has been widely identified by her maiden name but prefers to be called by her married name. The Wilson's legal support website identifies her as "Valerie Wilson", SourceWatch calls her "Valerie Plame", the BBC insists it's "Valerie Plame Wilson", and Vanity Fair called her "Valerie Plame". The plurality of sources, certainly, use Plame and Plame alone, but the closer you get to Valerie herself, the more likely it is you'll see just Wilson. There's certainly no case to be made that any name is predominant. In this ABC transcript, Joseph Wilson says "I only have one wife and her name is Valerie Wilson so when he says 'Wilson's wife' he's saying 'Mrs. Wilson,' and as I say, her name is Mrs. Wilson.", and then goes on to say "And her name, again, is Valerie Wilson." The first line of her article and the "wife" part of Joseph Wilson's infobox use "Wilson". There are 32 references to a "Valerie Plame", "Plame", "Mrs. Plame", or "Ms. Plame" in this article, many of which are references to her before her marriage in 1998, and 46 references to "Valerie Wilson", "Mrs. Wilson", "Ms. Wilson", "the Wilsons" or "Wilson", referring to Valerie. The media might not be able to make up its mind, but her legal name is "Wilson", her husband calls her "Wilson", and she asks to be called "Wilson". I see no reason why the page should be left at "Plame", then. A redirect from the less correct name should be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialistesq (talk • contribs)
Two-thirds of the way through your last paragraph, and not knowing who was writing it, it appeared to me that you were building a case for the use of "Plame" in the title. I'm having trouble following the flow of your reasoning, which above appears to me to endorse a use of both "Plame" and "Wilson", such as writing "Valerie Plame Wilson". I'm just puzzled by your arguments. Probably I'm missing something, but I just don't get it. Unschool 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not signing, and sorry for not being more clear about what I was responding to. It's not the best writing I've ever done. NYScholar asked for relevant information from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions page. I found very little, so I decided to do some looking on Google for more useful facts to clarify the situation. I was hoping the phrase "the closer you get to Valerie herself, the more likely it is you'll see just Wilson" would make my POV clear. Oh well. unimportant. -- The_socialist talk? 02:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that you both may be missing reading the comments in the context of this full discussion (prior to your coming along); the upshot is that there is no compelling reason to change the name of this article as you wanted to do. "Valerie Plame" is a reasonable title for this article; every time a user comes along to change it to some version of "Wilson," someone else comes along and reverts it back (redirects it to "Valerie Plame"). Before making a "move" suggestion involving renaming the article, you need to read the previous discussions of the matter and to consult "moves" that may have previously been done (see if there are archived discussions) via the history of the article and its talk page. Without doing any research into the relative prevalence of the occurrence of these names in available literature (publications) and online, there is no way for you or others to know if your proposal to change the name of the article makes any logical sense for readers. I was presenting various points of view on the matter, not just one. Currently, I see no compelling reason to change the title of the article. Doing so would most likely make it difficult for more people to find the article. If "Valerie E. Wilson" or "Valerie Plame Wilson" or "Mrs. Joseph C. Wilson, IV" later becomes better known as those names than as her former maiden name and alias "Valerie Plame," then perhaps at that future time, one might want to change the article for the convenience of readers seeking information about this person. (Cf. Valerie Plame and Mata Hari....) --NYScholar 00:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note the six pages of archived discussions, some of which probably do involve changing the name of the article. One needs to consult such discussions prior to proposing a major change such as renaming/moving an article on a controversial and contentious subject such as this one. "Quickly glancing over" discussion on a current talk page will not suffice when large changes like renaming/moving an article are involved. That is a major change and requires consulting prior discussions to see what consensus thus far has been about it. (Speaking for myself, I was originally for "Valerie E. Wilson," as it seems to be her legal name, but I don't think that is best for Wikipedia's majority of readers at this point in time. I just don't know. I've consulted previous discussion and think it's best left as is as "Valerie Plame" (parallel to Mata Hari). In some ways, Valerie Plame is one of the 21st century's Mata Haris as far as notoriety goes. --NYScholar 00:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
One might want to keep in mind that we are still pre-memoir and pre-movie at this point in time; in 100 years is "Valerie Plame" the name one might recognize or "Valerie E. Wilson" or "Valerie Plame Wilson"; one might try to strive for an historically-relevant perspective. This is not the same as a directory like Marquis' Who's Who in America etc.; it is an Encyclopedia; and the entry in an encyclopedia is most often a person's real name (whichever one that is in this case--Valerie E. Wilson, Valerie Elise Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson, probably not Valerie Elise Plame Wilson (as line one reads now). Her legal name appears to be Valerie E. Wilson based on Valerie Elise Wilson, and Valerie E. Wilson is one she and her husband appear to favor, as opposed to the Speaker's Bureau "Valerie Plame Wilson"; but the book author name is Valerie Plame Wilson (to sell books no doubt; to be recognizable to prospective readers [consumers]). One could follow regular encyclopedia in format of living persons names, or the Mata Hari example, which is also likely in printed encyclopedia. One might want to examine this issue with some more examples: someone else with a CIA covert alias and multiple other aliases? Even the court documents vary in versions of the name. "Valerie Plame" is the most recognizable; "Valerie E. Wilson" or "Valerie Elise Wilson" what one might expect to find in a Who's Who or telephone directory, if she were listed. :-) --NYScholar 00:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I've just checked her forthcoming book's presentation of her name as its author, which is "Valerie Plame Wilson" (like her Speaker's Bureau listing); I have added a book-stub for later dev. after the book is released, and I have changed the name in the infobox here to match it: as "Valerie Plame Wilson." I see no problem with this article being called "Valerie Plame" and the information in the infobox and lead. But that's just my view of it. There may be others who have different points of view still. I think that the name that she has chosen as an author is a reasonable name for the infobox in this article, and that is why I changed "Valerie E. Wilson" (which I previously favored as I thought it her legal and preferred name) to "Valerie Plame Wilson," which now appears to be her name of choice for public purposes. --NYScholar 01:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, NYScholar; if you check the history you will see that I reverted this page back to Valerie Plame a few days ago, doing so, indeed, without any review of the discussion, because, like most people, "Valerie Plame" seemed so clearly to me to be the most sensible title for this article. Frankly, my interest in this is minimal, but I leave off of these discussions endorsing keeping the name at Valerie Plame and vehemently opposing moving back to Valerie E. Wilson. Unschool 01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Good point, NYScholar. I've looked, and a move to "Plame Wilson" or "Wilson" was discussed twice before. [[The first time, User:Asbestos proposed a move to "Wilson", which was opposed by User:Anonip. Asbestos never responded to him. User:Kgrr commented in favor of the move. No action was taken.
the second time was in November of 2005. That discussion garnered a grand total of three short comments by two users, one of whom argued for a move to "Plame Wilson". The other argued for "Wilson". No action was taken.
So we're not exactly stepping on the toes of an old compromise here. The issue's come up before and hasn't been solved. I didn't expect Unschool's vehement opposition to the move when I made it, though... If there's that much opposition, I'm content to drop the subject and leave it to future generations to decide. But I still don't see the objection to using her correct, legal, preferred name and making Valerie Plame a redirect. -- The_socialist talk? 02:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for these responses both of you. One rule of thumb re: consensus is that when [an] article or the name of an article stay[s] one way for a pretty long time (months let's say), that longevity is a sign of consensus that it's okay the way it is. That is a main reason why I would just leave as is for the moment at least, until a lot more people with views about one name or another express their opinions (if they have any). Another thing is that a "rename" proposal has a kind of format that editors post (in some kind of box I think)--there may be a template for that--as with a "split" or "merge" proposal. One places the template on the talk page and discusses it in a format. (I forgot the "split" procedure when I moved a section to an article of its own (the Senate Reports sec.) but there was consensus for shortening the article at that time, which that split partially accomplished. --NYScholar 02:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC) [I added the template re: the requested move and altered the section heading to match it so that people can locate the discussion more easily in the future. --NYScholar 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Objections

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

Oh, "redundant" is definitely a word I would use, yes. About five sixths of the article is redundant. NPOV does not require exhaustive coverage of subjects, and this article must get an awful lot shorter if it's ever going to be readable. This is a biography article.
I assume that your contention with NPOV here is that labelling the affair as "controversial" without pointing out that the controversy is mostly due to an executive which completely ignores the law makes it seem as though something Wilson did contributed to the controversy. This is a valid point of view, but I don't think the correct solution is to drag the whole of Plamegate in here. Rather, we should try to minimise POV issues by leaving difficult issues to articles in which they can be treated to full inspection (there are a dozen articles on this subject) while indicating notability.
I'm not sure what you mean by my "obstructing attempt(s) to make this introduction more economical". That sounds like I'm preventing people from making it shorter. The opposite is true, both in this particular case and in general (I'm somewhat of a rabid minimalist/deletionist). Chris Cunningham 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were not for the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation relating to her husband's NYT op-ed and leading to United States v. Libby, Valerie Plame (Valerie E. Wilson) would not be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about her at all. She would still remain unknown and not a known public figure: WP:BLP#Well known public figures. I believe that the current brief introduction to who she is which defines her current notability (see "current" template as well as WP:BLP template) is appropriate. Each article in Wikipedia needs to be able to convey significant and pertinent information without dependence on other Wikipedia articles; the hyperlinks and cross-references in See also are simply here for the convenience of readers. If one is not interested in her notability relating to the above-mentioned matters, one does not have to read the article. But to eliminate the most significant aspects of her notability is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The introduction currently is brief. In the previous ed's version, there were sentences that repeated the same information (redundancy), and it was unnecessarily vague. Now it is specific. A federal grand jury investigation pertaining to the subject [her very notability beginning w/ the leak of the person's name to Novak and his publication of it] leading to an indictment of a government official (who was forced to resign as a result of it), a federal court case (United States v. ...) in which he is the defendant, his conviction [his sentencing and a presidential commutation of his prison sentence are in the article linked to his name], and an ongoing civil case naming him and other high-level current and former gov't officials as parties go far beyond being mere "controversy"; these are specific events significant enough in the life of Valerie Plame to merit inclusion in the introduction defining her notability; they are significant enough for her to have a website devoted to her legal support. It is reasonable and logical to include the specific references (with sources) to them in the introduction (as it currently is worded). More details are appropriately placed in the main article following the introduction (see table of contents for each section). [updated.] --NYScholar 09:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. That said, we should still aim for brevity in this; we have entire articles on the various parts of the affair. The article as a whole needs to be seriously trimmed. Chris Cunningham 09:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that by now (over a month later), the article has been considerably trimmed. --NYScholar 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

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

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

[edit] Considering proposing for deletion per WP:PSEUDO

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

[edit] Opposition to the above section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "B" rating relates to a previous version of the article; it is a blanket rating that was possibly occasioned by a "clean up" template no longer on the article; the rating calls for more development, additional sources of the kind now supplied, and so on; not for deletion based on lack of notability or "pseudo" article status! If the article were newly rated, it would perhaps get a higher (not a lower) rating based on the criteria included in the earlier rating. --NYScholar 01:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I've spent considerable time attempting to cooperatively edit this article with you. For you to boldly state that "The user apparently does not want to see a biography of Mrs. Wilson in Wikipedia" after this (again I can only assume you're talking to me, given this approach of addressing your comments to thin air) shows a suprising lack of good faith on your part. This article is exemplary of the kind of thing WP:PSEUDO is for; it is entirely based on information uncovered in the Plame affair, the content overlaps with that of the other articles to an enormous extent, and you previously stated "If it were not for the Plame affair and the CIA leak grand jury investigation relating to her husband's NYT op-ed and leading to United States v. Libby, Valerie Plame (Valerie E. Wilson) would not be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about her at all."
As for "singling you out", we have been the primary contributors to both discussion and article editing over the last four months. The talk page in particularly has been practically untouched by other sources in this time. it is difficult to engage in constructive discussion with editors who are not actually present. Chris Cunningham 09:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; until two or so days ago, I did not have awareness of the above user. I did not notice that he "has been" among "the primary contributors to both discussion and article editing over the last four months" regarding this particular article. I am not focusing on the contributor; I am focusing on the content of the article. I see no reason for the user to turn this into a personal dispute. As I said, I did not notice his contributions until I saw very recent deletions of reliably- and verifiably-sourced material that I had provided. This article is not one that I have had listed on my "watch list"; it only was listed when I made some corrections to and updates to it recently. I stand by my comments above. It is not I who have proposed that the article be deleted for bogus reasons; it is he. I suggest that other editors carry on editing this article following Wikipedia policies and guidelines and that they not be misled by the (what I regard as misleading) references to WP:PSEUDO. In my view, it does not apply to this article, as he claims above. Please see WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:OWN. I have been editing this article in good faith and no one is justified in making any claims otherwise. [This article is not on my current "Watch list"; there are only two items on it currently, and neither one is an article.] --NYScholar 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] revisions for style and clarity

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

[edit] Images

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

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

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

[edit] Valerie Flame

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

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

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

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

[edit] Early Family Life

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

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

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

[edit] Terrible chart

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

I disagree. It's a useful illustration from Wikipedia Commons. There are not other free illustrations that relate to the section. --NYScholar 07:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the chart is interesting. I redid a graphic based chart based on this which I feel is much less confusing. Maybe gone from retarded elephant to drunk monkey. Trying to find out how to upload it for review prior to posting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Check out this graphic chart. Changing to full version will improve clarity. If an editor likes it or suggests modification, let me know. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Plame6.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.78.207.135 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Trying the revised graphic chart. (Would it be possible to upload a version with darker print to make the full version easier to read?) Thank you for the work. --NYScholar 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] high school

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

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

[edit] Fair use review

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

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

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

There I write: "I've now found the "free photo" in the request move link and edited the article accordingly, placing the "free photo" ("free image") in a more appropriate place in the article; the infobox image is, however, still justified, as I explain in response in the request review section. It illustrates content in the lead and in a detailed section of the article (where it used to appear [also] but was deleted by another editor some time ago). The rationale for its use in Valerie Plame Wilson, the author of the book, remains; it is used within fair use, due to the discussion of the book in the article on her (aka Valerie Plame, Valerie E. Wilson)." --NYScholar (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I see that another ed. has moved the "free photo" from where it was placed (in the section on the book and her lecture appearances (about the book) to the infobox, replacing the book cover photo previously there. It works okay for me (though I preferred it the other way). --NYScholar (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)