Talk:Marc Thiessen

Do not cite MMFA in this article

Recent editors have inserted negative claims about Theissen, some blatantly false, using Media Matters For America as sources. But Wikipedia requires controversial claims about living people to have high-quality Reliable Sources, and MMFA is not reliable. It is not a fact-checked news source; it is a partisan propaganda outlet.

I have removed all these claims. Do not restore them. It may be possible to find acceptable criticisms of Thiessen which do not rely on MMFA, but nothing from MMFA is acceptable in this article, ever. Best wishes, CWC 16:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what makes MMFA an unreliable source compared to many other media sources. Could you be more specific, i.e. with citations, of where MMFA has made false claims? And someone has made childish remarks about Thiessen's recent appearance on The Daily Show, some of which have an element of truth to them.Turtlens (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's take a look at the attacks on Thiessen I recently removed from the article.

1. Here they falsely claim he is "an unapologetic advocate for torture"; in fact, he explicitly opposes the use of torture. (I know, I know. The key issue here is actually whether waterboarding is torture. MMFA show their dishonesty by never mentioning waterboarding.)

The Wikipedia article on waterboarding says "waterboarding is a form of torture", so why is it controversial to call someone who advocates waterboarding as a method of interrogation an advocate of torture?Turtlens (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Here they quibble with his claim that "al Qaeda has not succeeded in launching one single attack on the homeland or American interests abroad" (my emphasis) since 9-11 by listing attacks made outside the US by Al Qaeda; but never mention that these attackers were affiliates of AQ, not the core AQ group who ran 9-11, planned to hit the Library Tower and indeed have not launched any attacks since 9-11.

The Wikipedia article on Al-Qaeda cites its presence in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen. Why is it controversial to quibble in this manner, when Al-Qaeda is, by design, a conglomerate of local cells with a common purpose?Turtlens (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Every MMFA item I have read has been maliciously deceptive like this: relying on out-of-context of quotes, treating disputed opinions as absolute facts, carefully leaving out important key facts, laser-like focus on irrelevant issues, etc. A key test for WikiReliability of sources is admitting errors; AFAIK MMFA never actually retracted the fake Rush Limbaugh quotes concocted by this guy. Cheers, CWC 15:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• A clear personal attack and a reply are removed per WP:RPA. Mhym (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Theissen vs Amanpour

The Theissen/Amanpour clash caused a stir on conservative blogs, with the YouTube videos linked on Thiessen's web site racking up over 100,000 views. But AFAIK all the YouTube videos of the clash are copyright violations, and Wikipedia is very strict about citing or linking to copyright violations.

Is there a CNN video of that show, or better yet a transcript, that we could cite?

Failing that, are there any reports of the interview in Reliable news sources? (I tried Google News, but all I found was this.) Best wishes, CWC 16:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That smells of WP:RECENTISM. I say wait a couple of weeks. If GoogleNews still has no hits, I guess this was a non-event after all. Mhym (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct. Thanks, CWC 02:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

[1] — goethean ॐ

Main points from book

We should probably recount the main points Thiessen makes in his book. Here's an initial list, based mostly on interviews I've seen.

• He talked to real CIA interrogators -- including the guy who got KSM to talk.
• There is an important difference between “interrogation” and “de-briefing.”
• Why Zubaydah thanked the CIA and told them “You must do this for all the brothers”.
• He says that waterboarding and other techniques the CIA use are "tough, not torture".

More work needed here. Cheers, CWC 16:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. Unfortunately, such summary is still WP:OR. You need to have a WP:RS which spells out these points. Then go ahead. Mhym (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan blog not a RS

I don't mean to get into an edit war, but inclusion of a ref to a Sullivan blog because he is a "widely respected professional journalist of long-standing". This is in direct contradiction with this particular WP policy. User:Gamaliel keeps restoring this ref. Here is my understanding: even though The Atlantic is a RS, whatever Sullivan publishes there is a RS, his blog is not since it is not "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" (see policy). Somebody please remove or change this ref - I don't want to violate WP:3RR. Mhym (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan "highly-respected"? Rubbish. Check out his tireless crusade to expose the most evil conspiracy in all of history: Sarah Palin's claim that Trig is her son. No, I am not making this up. More to the point, his writings on "torture" (he uses an extremely expansive definition of the term) have grown ever shriller and less grounded over the last few years (to the regret of those of us who used to be fans of his writing). So it is entirely predictable that Sullivan will smear Thiessen in every conceivable way. Sullivan is completely unacceptable as a source in this article. Best wishes, CWC 13:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of Sullivan is not sufficient to deem him unusable on Wikipedia. Whatever you think of his preoccupation with Trig, that's not relevant here. The fact remains that he is a highly respected journalist with decades of experience writing for one of the preeminent publications in the US. This meets RS in every way. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, whether he is "respected" is not an issue. The issue is "editorial control" per WP policy. As clearly stated on his blog page (for legal purposes), The Atlantic does not exercise any sort of control; all views and opinions on his blog are his and his only. Mhym (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But they still publish it and both are reliable sources. I fail to see what is remotely controversial about this. Gamaliel (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

From legal point of view, they don't "publish", they "host", which is different. Most importantly (for the publisher) is that The Atlantic is absolved of liabilities in case Sullivan gets into trouble. This is set up in the same way as the New York Times or YouTube comments sections - they are also not liable for reader's comments. Same goes for WP btw, which "hosts", not publishes the user-created articles. Mhym (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't a court. From a journalistic point of view, Sullivan is a professional journalist writing for and employed by the publication. He's on the masthead as a Senior Editor. This isn't the akin to a message board or reader comments or a blog aggregatior. The Atlantic publishes Sullivan. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the WP policy (see the link in my first post) is clear: RS require "editorial control", period. Blogs can in principle be RS, but not in this case. Please read the policy again - there is little point of arguing over the WP policy here. Even better, find an alternative, clear RS, and add a ref link to the article. Try to be constructive. Mhym (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what the policy says, if you're parsing it that closely. It says: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists - or - are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." (bolded & ital. text and hyphens mine) So there's basically two independent standards here, not a conflation of the two. Despite the accusations here, I think making an WP:RS claim that Andrew Sullivan is not a "professional journalist" is a tough road to hoe.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Sullivan is currently listed as a "Senior Editor" on The Atlantic's masthead. Looks like a "professional journalist" to me.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, Sullivan is a professional, no argument here, in the field or overall, whatever. Still, there is no "full editorial control" over his blog no matter how you parse it. What he publishes in The Atlantic in printed form does have editorial control, but these two parts of the magazine are separated by a clear wall, both legal and web-structured. Mhym (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, your comments appear to miss the main point I was trying to make. Under the guidelines, Using a newspaper (or magazine, in this case) blog "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists..." The next word is "or", indicating an alternate, separate standard. "Full editorial control" does not apply to "so long as the writers are professional journalists," it applies to the second standard, "are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." In essence, as long as you meet one of those two criteria, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your blog is WP:RS. It appears you are conflating the two to create a higher standard that does not exist. My 2 cents.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify the reasoning: what Sullivan does is not gather sources, makes investigation, etc. His writing is posted directly to the blog website, there is no oversight or independent checking. He uses other news sources and supplies opinions. Neither of these can be considered RS's: the former are preferable in place of his unverified posts, while the latter are POV. I really don't see how his blog can be made into a RS on any issue whatsoever, whatever the status of Sullivan's professionalism. Mhym (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Under the current guidelines, as I am trying to explain above, the blog appears to be WP:RS because a) It falls under the category of what we call a "newspaper blog" and b) Sullivan is a "professional journalist".--Happysomeone (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this part of the guidelines is better suited to the conversation here:

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

--Happysomeone (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec, outdent) Gamaliel, read what I actually wrote, not what you would like to think I wrote. Sullivan is no longer respected by anyone with any clue because of the Trig trutherism. That's what took him from "respected journalist who gets shrill about 'torture'" to "pitiful obsessive". Sullivan was a highly-respected journalist ... not any more. The Atlantic publishes articles by Sullivan a few times a year (IIRC); they only host his blog. Sullivan has been vehemently criticizing the Bush administration for (what he regards as) "torture" since 2004 with increasingly overstated rhetoric and decreasing credibility, so we know he will write with deep, heartfelt hostility towards Thiessen. These are easily-checked facts, not opinions. Therefore Sullivan is not a RS in this article, and citing him in this article is a BLP violation. Do not violate BLP again, please. Cheers, CWC 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, your opinion does not dictate policy. Sullivan's reputation amongst clueful bloggers notwithstanding, his reputation as a journalist remains intact and he remains a paid professional journalist with the title of Senior Editor at one of the US' most prestigious magazines. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what took him from "respected journalist who gets shrill about 'torture'" to "pitiful obsessive". Sullivan was a highly-respected journalist ... not any more.

A magazine that few have ever heard of calls Sullivan names, and therefore he is no longer a reliable source? Is that your argument? — goethean ॐ 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No Goethean, that is not my argument. Straw man, much? And Gamaliel, that is not my opinion; Sullivan has destroyed his own reputation as a journalist (while establishing himself as a leading "anti-torture" polemicist). His Senior Editor position at The Atlantic is part-time; he and his ghostbloggers spend much more time writing the Daily Dish, which is not fact-checked. If you want to imagine that Sullivan is still as respected as he once was, feel free ... but keep your opinions out of Wikipedia. Cheers, CWC 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can substantiate using mainstream and respected sources that your opinion is widely held, then we can operate based on that opinion. Until then, we will have to ask you to keep your opinions out of Wikipedia. A reliable source is a reliable source and that does not change because you have a negative opinion of the subject. Gamaliel (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Gamaliel, you sure pwnd that straw man! So how about tackling what I actually wrote, for once? Look, I'll make it easy for you. (1) Sullivan is deranged on the subject of "torture". Thiessen wrote a book advocating acts that Sully calls "torture". Therefore anything Sullivan writes about Thiessen is completely untrustworthy. (2) Sullivan is not just a deeply hostile source, he is a deeply hostile Self-Published Source: The Atlantic has no control over his blog. (3) Claims coming only from one hostile blogger do not belong in any Wikipedia articles, let alone BLPs. If it is important, a genuine RS will make the same point. (4) What kind of editor spends this much time arguing (entirely unpersuasively) about mastheads in order to put hostile POV into a BLP? Are you that kind of editor, Gamaliel? Are you becoming that kind of editor? I sincerely hope not.

Obviously, many leftists will feel an intense psychological need to discredit Thiessen, so I expected to see some of them anonymously vandalizing this article — but not to find myself explaining BLP someone like you. Disappointedly yours, CWC 08:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What's with the weird invective tone?--Happysomeone (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find a mention of this well-known shattered journalism reputation at Andrew Sullivan, but no luck. Maybe you should try adding your ostensibly well-known facts over there before imposing them as an insta-policy over here. — goethean ॐ 03:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This argument, "His Senior Editor position at The Atlantic is part-time; he and his ghostbloggers spend much more time writing the Daily Dish, which is not fact-checked", does not invalidate Sullivan's "The Daily Dish" blog commentary as WP:RS because: a) The guideline says he is a "professional journalist", (see discussion above) b) where is the WP:RS proof that either of those allegations are true. As for the comment about his reputation being "destroyed"... Really? Show us widely held RS that says this, as is required, to substantiate that.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on people wanting to insert hostile POV from a blog to demonstrate that the blogger is a RS. It is those wanting to put the hostile POV in who have to make the case, not those of us adhering to Wikipedia policy. Cheers, CWC 08:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Adherence to RS standards has already been demonstrated. If you wish to dispute this, the onus is on you to back up your position beyond assertions. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Adherence to RS standards has been asserted, based on a facile theory of contagion. The DD is self-published and hostile; BLP forbids use of such. The onus is on those who want to include controversial claims, not those obeying the rules. Cheers, CWC 07:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"facile theory of contagion,""The DD is self-published and hostile". Both of these observations are your opinion and demonstrably false. Further, The Atlantic's blogs are not an equal to a WordPress analog. Maintaining your position that controversial claims may not be permitted because of your interpretation of WP:BLP is a logical fallacy.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you are using "self-published" in a different sense than the rest of the world. The evidence is clear and has been repeatedly demonstrated, you have responded with nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT and complaints about Sarah Palin's kid. Thus I'm restoring the material to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it's not worth the aggravation, and while I'm reluctant to reward your hostile grandstanding, I'm wondering if Mhym's approach of just mentioning the interview and that's it isn't the best approach for the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) By self-published blog I meant a blog that is not subject to [a news organization]'s full editorial control. Sorry for being too terse. (Normally I'm too verbose.) Now that the evidence is clear that the DD is not subject to any editorial control (see below), it should also be clear that tDD is not one of the rare blogs that can be used in a third-party BLP, which has been my main point here all along. (Furthermore, I've just discovered that Thiessen attacks "specious and shameful" claims from Sullivan in his book.) Cheers, CWC 13:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's your point, that's fine, but it would be helpful if you had made it clear (as you are now) that you are arguing a different point than the one it appeared you were making. And this point is not "clear and obvious" as you seem to think, given that many disagree with this "clear and obvious" position. Thank you for clarifying your position. It would be nice if you also discussed the positions and evidence presented by others instead of merely repeating that your position was "clear and obvious" over and over again. Gamaliel (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart interview

I removed much of the explanation what happened. If you have RS which describe somehow the relevance of this interview (in which mostly Stewart spoke) to Thiessen's bio, please post them here on the discussion page. Otherwise, I see this as nothing but violation of WP:RECENTISM. Mhym (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems obvious given the previous discussion above that an opinionated RS did make an observation about how the interview is notable. If WP:RECENT is an issue, then place a tag on the section after the fact and open a new Talk page section on it to review the specific passage. It is OK to have criticism of a living person if it is given appropriate balance. I don't see that as an issue here and the cite should be added back, identified and briefly explained. There is no deadline.--Happysomeone (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will give you the same answer I always give. Come back to this page in two weeks. If you still remember what part of the interview revealed something new and important about Thiessen's life and/or views, and you have RS to back this up, feel free to add this. Otherwise, I see no point. The guy gives dozens of interviews, maybe hundreds, and as far as I understand, says very little new that is not in the book. This means that the book is notable, but neither of these interviews are relevant enough to his WP bio. But if you have RS which say some particular interview is notable, ok let's see it then. Mhym (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the same RS that's under discussion above. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/stewart-vs-thiessen.html "Stewart vs Thiessen". From WP:IRS, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author."--Happysomeone (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also observe that WP:RECENT isn't intended to work as you describe. It shouldn't be used to preempt content, it should be used after the fact. As stated at the conclusion of the RECENTISM guideline, "Just wait and see. Remember, there is no deadline. Editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and they should not pretend to have a crystal ball."--Happysomeone (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, if Thiessen did or said something during those interviews which is notable, there will be dozens of RS which discuss that. If all you have is a questionable source, this probably shouldn't be in WP. Remember WP:NOT - not a repository, diary or whatever. Some TV interview which upset one journalist is not notable, and usually recentism. Since you clearly disagree, you don't have to reply - I understand your point already. Mhym (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will reply, but mostly in an effort to continue a productive discussion. Let's set aside the question of whether or not the source is "questionable" or not (I think we clearly disagree on that). Citing the WP:NOT guideline (and not WP:NOTE, as we seem to agree) seems to be relevant here, and in particular this passage in WP:INFO: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." That's a good point. But is this simply a "routine" news event? I suppose that is why the WP:RS question is raised, because someone did find it notable and commented on it. Nonetheless - it should still stay in there until some time has elapsed and it's weight could be measured per WP:RECENT.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(starting anew) There is really not much to debate, as we are on separate sides of this old debate. When in doubt about recent events, I almost always vote for deletion, since recentism skews up a general understanding what's notable. In fact, given that the article is in its stub stage (I started it like two weeks ago), one has to be very careful about WP:DUE, which are hard to evaluate. So again, when in doubt about recent events, I make sure Google News has hundreds of hits on the event in question. You seem to believe that one (in my view still questionable) RS is good enough for inclusion, and the history will resolve whether this is notable. So you are inclusionist. I will wait for (dozen of) other sources, as I want WP to be more than poorly sorted archive of data. Take a long view and think about the WP reader 10 years from now will read the article. How exactly what a comedian said to Thiessen is relevant to Thiessen's bio article, the section about his book? This could potentially fit a "controversy" section (compare with Avigdor Lieberman), but how exactly this is a controversy if only one person found it to be so and mentioned in a blog among 100 other items on the same day? IMO, this is not even a closed call. Mhym (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to read the first two sentences of this: [2]. I think the case for non-RS of Sullivan's blog (and Goldberg's blog for that matter) is pretty clear. Mhym (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I note with some interest your recent edit attributing Thiessen's profession as a "journalist". I wonder how you would therefore describe Sullivan?--Happysomeone (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

He's Trig's biographer. — goethean ॐ 15:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another critical review of Thiessen's book. They appear to be trickling in, but the sources of the commentary IMHO remain notable.--Happysomeone (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Meyer review and Thiessen response

User:Chris Chittleborough have gone back and forth a bit on how to treat Jane Meyer's review of Thiessen. I recently reverted [3], putting back this phrase (in italics here) abuot Meyers claiming the book got the facts about Heathrow plot wrong and [...] His edit summary explains the reason for removing it: rm Mayer's claim Theissen "got the facts about Heathrow plot wrong" -- we need to report T's (strong) defense or omit M's claim, latter is easier). I don't think that's a good enough reason. I'll need to check back with Thiessen's response (I assume it's the one in "National Review Online" that we already link to). I don't recall that he specifically responded to that, but if so, I'll add the response (within 30 hours). The Mayer review was widely noticed and it's worth some more space in this article (it may be the most prominent criticism Thiessen has ever received). Both of us agree that it's better to have both the criticism and response in the article. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a bio article, so I think a lengthy discussion of a back and force between Meyer and Thiessen is inappropriate. Traditionally, the way to deal with this on WP is to keep a couple of factual lines (M wrote a negative review, T disagreed), while moving the discussion (and Hayden's anecdote) to a page dedicated to the book. It seems notable enough, so go for it guys. Mhym (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit different. I don't want to create a long section or anything, but because it's probably the most prominent criticism Thiessen is likely to have ever received, and it's about such a major aspect of his life (an NYT bestselling book he wrote), and because the review has been noticed by quite a few others, it's worth more detail. Mayer didn't just review, by the way, she got on the phone and talked to sources and quoted what they told her. This deserves fuller treatment, and his response deserves it, too (he also provided new information in his response -- the stuff about the former CIA director using the review in his class). This is more than a very minor debate. A review by a widely known journalist who says his book is full of holes is worth more than a couple of factual lines. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I said in my edit comment, dropping those words was easier than summarizing Thiessen's response on that issue ... and I was feeling lazy just then. But JohnWBarber is right (again!): the Mayer-Thiessen dispute does deserve fuller treatment. In his NRO article, Thiessen summarizes what he wrote in his book about information gained indirectly from KSM helping "British authorities" spot a terrorist plot, then gives us the following paragraph:

Mayer quotes an official from Scotland Yard (headquarters of London’s Metropolitan Police) who says this account is “completely and utterly wrong.” When I asked one former senior CIA official what to make of this, he laughed and asked: “How would he know?” The CIA, he explained, has no liaison with London’s Metropolitan Police — it deals with MI6 (the Secret Intelligence Service) and sometimes with MI5 (the Security Service). An official from the Metropolitan Police, he said, would have no way of knowing what intelligence the CIA shared with MI6 or MI5, much less the ultimate source of that intelligence. Another former intelligence official agreed with this assessment, telling me: “The British deserve a great deal of credit for this operation, but a significant portion of the ‘back room’ was comprised of American intelligence information and operations.” That includes intelligence provided by KSM.

Here's my initial attempt to write this up:

Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, a book which Thiessen says has fundamental errors of fact,^[CD] heavily criticized Courting Disaster, claiming it is "based on a series of slipshod premises."^[JM] In a long response to Mayer, Thiessen defended the accuracy of his book, listing many claimed errors of fact and omissions in her review, and added that "The week her article appeared in The New Yorker, former CIA director Mike Hayden handed it out in his class at George Mason University’s School of Public Policy as an example of all that is wrong with intelligence journalism today."^[MT] (Hayden had earlier written a positive review of the book for The Daily Caller.^[MH]) For example, Mayer quoted an official from London’s Metropolitan Police as saying the book's account of the Heathrow plot is “completely and utterly wrong”;^[JM] in reply Thiessen quoted a former senior CIA official as saying that the CIA liaises only with MI6 and MI5, so the Metropolitan Police official "would have no way of knowing what intelligence the CIA shared with MI6 or MI5, much less the ultimate source of that intelligence".

References:

[CD]	Courting Disaster, chapter 2
[JM]	Mayer, Jane (March 29, 2010). "A curious history of the C.I.A." The New Yorker. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
[MT]	Thiessen, Marc, "Jane Mayer’s Disaster", National Review Online, April 14, 2010, retrieved April 20, 2010
[MH]	Hayden, Michael (February 15, 2010). "Former CIA Director Hayden: Thiessen's 'Courting Disaster' a must-read". Book Review. The Daily Caller. Retrieved April 20, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

This is just a rough draft. I tried to err on the side of putting in too much detail, so we can look for stuff to take out. Shorter wording would be better for article balance, and more readable besides. Can someone find a way to not mention MI6 and MI5 twice each? All suggestions, comments and rewrites gratefully received ... cheers, CWC 13:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's good. I'd make a few minor changes so that it would look like this:

Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, a book which Thiessen says has fundamental errors of fact,^[CD] heavily criticized Courting Disaster in a book review, claiming it is "based on a series of slipshod premises."^[JM] In a long response, Thiessen defended the accuracy of his book and said Mayer's review contained many factual errors and omissions For example, Mayer quoted the head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism branch in 2006 as saying the book's account of the Heathrow plot is "completely and utterly wrong";^[JM] in reply Thiessen quoted a former senior CIA official as saying that the CIA liaises only with MI6 and MI5, so the Scotland Yard official "would have no way of knowing what intelligence the CIA shared with MI6 or MI5, much less the ultimate source of that intelligence". Thiessen added, "The week her article appeared in The New Yorker, former CIA director Mike Hayden handed it out in his class at George Mason University’s School of Public Policy as an example of all that is wrong with intelligence journalism today."^[MT] (Hayden had earlier written a positive review of the book for The Daily Caller.^[MH])

I moved the Hayden material to the end of the paragraph, changed "an official from London’s Metropolitan Police" to the description Mayer gave, "the head of Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorism branch in 2006", and made some very minor wording changes. Otherwise, I'm good to go with it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnWBarber, and thanks for putting your improved version in the article. Good stuff. Cheers, CWC 06:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

About wikileaks

I think it would be worth to include some facts related to Wikileaks like... Marc is using his position as columnist in The Washington Post to attack the Wikileaks organization and influence the USA government about it. For example, suggesting to censure their website. --PabloCastellano (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/08/time_for_obama_to_shut_down_wi.html
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080202627.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by PabloCastellano (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is written like an advertisement.

This article is written like an advertisement. This must be corrected. --Grandscribe (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is perfectly fine to present criticism to Thissen's positions in the article. Some is already presented in the article. However, you need to follow standard WP policies such as WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:WEASEL. Please read them before restoring your "criticism" section. Mhym (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc Thiessen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGY4NDdlODFkNmEzZDcyYmQxNDYyMDc3MWQyMmNjMzE%3D
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418215115/http://article.nationalreview.com/431280/jane-mayers-disaster/marc-a-thiessen to http://article.nationalreview.com/431280/jane-mayers-disaster/marc-a-thiessen

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Trying to add in some valid criticism

Dear fellow editors, I'm trying to add in some criticism of Thiessen that appeared in major newspapers across America including but not limited to: The Denver Post, The Greensboro Gazette, Bangor Daily News, the Omaha Tribune, the Miami Herald, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the State Journal Record, etc. This was the entry I put in:

After writing a 2017 Washington Post column that attacked the John Birch Society using false information and then refusing to issue a full correction, Thiessen was criticized for dishonesty and ties to white supremacists by members and Jewish leaders of the Society in letters and op-eds published in almost a dozen major newspapers across the country.

References

Would really appreciate some help from other editors to make sure this cannot in any way be interpreted as defamatory under Wikipedia rules, but I think it's very important to mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimSmith12345 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Poor Photos

Why are the photos primarily of other people, the photos don't even show his face clearly. It is like the page is trying to inflate his importance by showing Marc near important people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.48.114.224 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Photographs used on Wikipedia must be free-use, or otherwise must meet all the criteria listed here. For U.S. politicians or government officials, Wikipedia articles often use an image created by a federal employee in the course of performing their official duties; these fall into the public domain. If Thiessen was never photographed for an official portrait (there wouldn't seem to be any reason for him to be), a free image showing only him may be somewhat difficult to come by. Since the current images are free alternatives (even if they're not very good), any non-free images would fail to meet the first criterion. WP Ludicer (talk)

Political Appointee?

If he was not confirmed by the Senate, he was not a political appointee. And, even if he was, he should be listed as a former political appointee. 204.111.130.97 (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

New Miss America from Alaska.

Mark, No sure you are correct about the first Miss America in State of America. The first person to hold the title is my good friend and classmate Leslie Griffith from Bartlett High School in Anchorage, Alaska in fall 1977. You have some people who still read papers a little miffed. I am so happy for the young lady. 2600:387:F:481B:0:0:0:6 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)