Talk:Michael Scheuer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Michael_Scheuer Imperial_Hubris hubris David_Corn Michael_Isikoff

Michael_Scheuer

"Imperial_Hubris":

"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror".

hubris

David_Corn

Michael_Isikoff

< http://davidcorn.com >:

"Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War".

Hopiakuta 16:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Classified status

The article says:

Scheuer was an analyst at the CIA, not a covert field agent.

Is this the same situation as Valerie Plame? Did both of them have "classified" status? Or is there some difference between their statuses that our readers might be interested in? --Uncle Ed 16:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Plame was a covert agent; Scheuer was not. He was an analyst; his status was not classified. He published his books as "Anonymous" because of an agreement to do so in his CIA contract, not because his job was classified.--csloat 17:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

NO. Plame was a covert OFFICER, not an "agent". Agents are the people officers screw over. Know your role, Jabronie. Plus her friends knew she was an officer, so she wasn't really covert. Still hot, though. I'd put stones to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually claiming that because someones friends know they work in intelligence, that they are automatically not a 'covert officer' despite that person job description?

71.232.16.182 (talk)

Yes. What part of "covert" are you having trouble with?

Revised edition of TOEE

In the revised edition of "Through Our Enemies' Eyes" published this year, Scheuer includes (pp. 134-137) discussion his earlier references to the Iraq-bin Laden "connection", and how he decided that they were mistaken. Having no dog in the edit fight, I'm not going to try to summarize them for the article, but certainly one of the more interested parties should have a look and add something. --Carmelbuck 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That probably makes you better suited to add this info. I am taking a look right now; looks like Scheuer was part of a thorough reassessment of all the links claimed by the Feith report that was ordered by Tenet and that he changed his mind because he was persuaded by the preponderance of evidence (as were the others at CIA who went through this stuff). This is pretty noteworthy information. csloat 09:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Official website

Does he have a website? Robert C Prenic 06:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but he writes articles frequently for the Jamestown Fondation [1] and has columns often appearing on antiwar.com. Twalls 18:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on . . .

From Tapped, the group blog of The American Prospect, [2] refering to a quote made by Michael Scheurer on Beck's show at FOX,

(from the article). . .Michael Scheuer openly hoped for a terrorist attack on the United States, saying, "the only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States..."

R. Baley (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheuer also "apologized" for this comment on Spencer Ackerman's blog. His comments were incendiary but I don't think "openly hoping" for an attack is a fair representation of them; nevertheless that's how they will be portrayed by many. The Daily Kos is making a huge deal out of this; it will be interesting to see where it goes. csloat (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this has attracted enough attention that it should definitely be included in the entry. Chadgeorge (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already there. csloat (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No. We need a separate controversy section for this neocons comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.94 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. csloat (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Violation of BLP

This article is suffering from several issues, not the least is violations of wp:BLP. It is poorly sourced, and much of it is WP:OR quoting from primary sources, and not third party commentary. It also includes too much wp:trivia and wp:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information (specifically #4: News reports.). This article violates all these points. It needs major clean up and trimming. Bytebear (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

In my opinion (as I have mentioned many times), an article should not consist of a series of long quotes. A writing style with long quotes is very hard to read. To provide balance to this article, however, either one of you (preferably Torturous Devastating Cudgel who removed the quotes) or csloat can briefly summarize or paraphrase the deleted quotes. Please keep in mind, that you are writing an article, not preparing political talking points.--CSTAR 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From 2010, the Iraq quote is both amusing and quite an indictment. I'd say leaving it in now is poetic justice. 12.48.88.1 (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Please csloat, could you tone down your language? Both of you please keep in mind the WP:3RR. --CSTAR 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite of the quotes into coherent summaries is preferable. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, feel free to offer rewrites. Blanking out information you don't like is not rewriting.--csloat 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR I'm not sure where my language was offensive but I apologize. I am minding the 3RR but I believe TDC is gaming it; he has several intentionally provocative reverts spaced one and two days apart with little in the way of explanation.--csloat 19:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your quote You are lying again. --CSTAR 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was making a statement that appears to be accurate. I'll try not to jump to such conclusions but it is difficult when dealing with an editor who has shown nothing but hostility to me, and whom I have caught in several lies before.--csloat 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I gave all the explanation I need to justify the removal of the quotes, they belong in and currently reside in Wikiquote. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not enough to justify the removal of the quotes. It would be enough to justify an honest rewrite that summarized some of the quotes, but that does not seem to be your goal at all. Thus any page blanking will be reverted; under the circumstances it is barely distinguishable from vandalism, your wikilawyering on the issue is besides the point.--csloat 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well hop to the re-write, I'll give you a day or two. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have not suggested that a re-write is all that desirable; you did. I've asked you before to stop giving me orders. I have better things to do than "hop to" orders given to me by a known wikipedia troll.--csloat 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You are unwilling to re-write them and I think that side from having dubious relavence, they are totaly unencyclopedic. So I suppose I shall remove them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to issue ultimatums. --CSTAR 03:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TDC to a great extent. However, a few quotes are justifiable. I would suggest keeping the quotes that describe the theses of his two books. Books have a great deal of content and future editors may decide that certain content is more important than the article's stated thesis. By allowing Scheuer to speak for himself on the theses of his books, it will lead to greater stability of the article. Quotes on his views are not necessary to keep as they can be found on wikiquote. RonCram 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My concern about quotes is readability. However, I am not in favor of omitting summaries of Scheuer's statements which are currently included as direct quotes. --CSTAR 19:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

TDC should indicate what quotes he would like changed and we can deal with them one by one. Or he should write summaries himself and make the changes. Vandalizing the page and demanding that others do the work is not helpful to anyone, and I think he is just trolling here.--csloat 19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Change all the quotes to paragraph form summaries. Every single one, except mabey one or two. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do it yourself if you think this is worth doing, but do not hold the page hostage and order others to do it. Why are you here TDC? Have you ever even read Michael Scheuer's work? Either of his books? Do you have some sudden expertise in this topic? Or did you just stalk me here hoping to annoy me, after your phony RfC flopped?--csloat 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, somone is a bit salty today! Tell me, how many other articles have secitons comprised of nothing more than quotes? Its an encyclopedia, not your blog, please try and treat it as such. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop bringing up my blog as it has nothing to do with this. If you want to add commentary to the quotes please do so in a NPOV manner; but stop deleting things just because they are quotes. I find it interesting that, other than calling me "salty," you refuse to respond to the questions -- what is your interest and expertise in Mr. Scheuer's work? Did you even read either of his books?--csloat 23:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Glen Beck quote (""The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States") has become a story in the press on its own, and seems more notable than merely appearing in a list of quotes (major sources criticized both Scheuer and Beck for the exchange and saying a terrorist attack would be good for the US exposes a sort of militancy in the right wing stance). Seems like the edit wars are being won by right wingers here, so I'm not going to bother touching it myself. 75.187.53.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC).