Talk:William J. Burns (diplomat)

Cable that Burns signed

There's a paragraph about "A cable that Burns signed as ambassador to Russia." The implication appears to be that Burns wrote the cable. That is almost certainly not the case. Every cable released from a U.S. Embassy is officially signed by the Ambassador, if there is one, but Ambassadors almost never write the cables themselves. My recommendation is to delete the paragraph as misleading and, as a commentary on Burns, not notable. NPguy (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• See no reason. He was there (at the wedding). And he is responsible for the document as per the signature. His interpretation of the quoted bit shows the man is utterly unqualified for the position.Axxxion (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say that Burns was at the wedding? Another assertion that seems unlikely. The cable uses the anonymous "we" and does not refer to him. NPguy (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources we have say so. And as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, that is all that matters. I added Burns′ comment on that for balance and he does not say he was not there, moreover he acknowledges his co-authorship. The bit is notable if only because it has become famous, after it was leaked. Whoever the authors are, the text (the way the incident is described) is remarkable in its naïveté of their interpretation (buying the obvious subterfuge of the FSB colonel "being dead drunk").Axxxion (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources I can open still do not say he wrote the cable. Indeed the new one (which seems to barely support notability) largely says the opposite. I have been unable to open the Der Spiegel article, so perhaps you can supply a relevant excerpt. If your point is that the cable's authors didn't recognize that they were being played, that subtext, while eminently plausible, is surely original research and not notable or relevant to an article about Bill Burns. NPguy (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

As for Der Spiegel, perhaps you fail to click on "Continue reading with ads : Accept and continue". Anyway, i have already cited it in my previous edit comment: the top of the article: "The US Ambassador Learns that Cognac Is Like Wine: It was surely one of the strangest parties ex-US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns ever attended. In August 2006, he sent a dispatch to the US State Department describing a high society wedding in the Caucasus -- complete with massive quantities of alcohol, lumps of gold and revolver-wielding drunkards." ( https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wedding-in-the-caucasus-the-us-ambassador-learns-that-cognac-is-like-wine-a-732370.html ; also archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20210111153904/https://www.spiegel.de/consent-a-?targetUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Finternational%2Fworld%2Fwedding-in-the-caucasus-the-us-ambassador-learns-that-cognac-is-like-wine-a-732370.html ). Whatever the actual authorship (I in fact agree with you that ambassadors in large embassies rarely write cables themselves, BUT they nonetheless are responsible for them and normally carefully read those through before signing), the piece has become a part of diplomatic folklore and is known to be under his byline. The "subtext" being mine, the sheer fact of the senior U.S. diplomats being present at length at such event, being virtually surrounded by the adversarial security service personnel, who are attempting to doctor their drinks, is remarkable and notable, given the fact the person in question is reportedly being nominated for such position. Strictly off the record, i can tell you i lived in Moscow during his stint there. And while i had no actual contact with him whatsoever, I did see him a few times on Moscow′s social circuit and what struck me was that he appeared to be without any visible security, or any U.S. personnel company for that matter. He is known for having had rather uninhibited habits when in Moscow (like taking lonely strolls on Lenin′s Hills), which is a very parlous thing to do for a person in his position in an FSB-run Russia, unless you deliberately seek unofficial and unsurveiled contact of sorts.Axxxion (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the text of the Der Spiegel article. I was stuck in a do loop about accepting cookies. I could be wrong, but my guess is that the authors of the Der Spiegel article misread Burns's name on the cable as an indication of his personal presence at the wedding. It seems highly unlikely that a busy Ambassador would spend that much time at a wedding in the Caucasus, and even more unlikely -- if he was there -- that the cable would be written in the anonymous "we" voice that is more typical of Embassy staff. NPguy (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You have a point there, but the way you have edited the text in question pretty much obviates the controversy of Burns′ personal involvement. But i would note for the record that "we" (strictly grammatically) does include "I", which, albeit technically, is Burns in this case. Another remark: we ought not to forget that, thanks to WikiLeaks, we have access to these cables, which is State Dpt communication; but as is well known, intl agencies send their own telegrams, often on the same issues, my point being this is specifically a State cable, for which Burns was responsible in any case.Axxxion (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The use of "we" in a diplomatic cable cannot be interpreted to include the Ambassador simply because the Ambassador was the person to approve the transmission of the final version. Normally an Ambassador's participation is stated explicitly. NPguy (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 February 2021

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. BD2412 T 03:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

William Joseph Burns → William J. Burns (public servant) – Per WP:COMMONNAME - but still unsure on what way to disambiguate is best (see discussion above). Any further thoughts welcome. Connormah (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In a quick search, I found "(public servant)" only used on Wikipedia for Australians. Personally, I have a bit of a problem with that phrase. I think it has an element of WP:EDITORIALIZING, since it implies that the person is serving rather than being served (or simply practicing a profession). — BarrelProof (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• BarrelProof, Yes, that is why I was hoping for more comments. It's a bit of an interesting situation, as he is a career foreign service officer. Earlier on "(diplomat)" might have worked, but I'm not sure that is still the case. Connormah (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, "(diplomat)" was my initial idea, but his nomination as D/CIA makes that less appropriate. Perhaps we should just wait a few days and use "(Director of the CIA)" when he assumes the role. On another note, it appears that many of the recent news reports do not include the "J.", so perhaps we should consider not including it. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• @BarrelProof:, without the J also works fine, I suppose it's just a matter of picking a disambiguator that allows for people to search and locate the article easiest. (CIA director) might work, but some more input here would be appreciated. Connormah (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I don't consider "public servant" to be editorializing, but you could use an equivalent term like "U.S. official." NPguy (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Rename to William J. Burns (diplomat). His clear primary career. CIA director is, sadly, a political appointment, not the culmination of an intelligence career as it really should be, and doesn't invalidate what he's spent most of his life doing for a living. Incidentally, "public servant" when referring to Australians is not editoralising, as it's what they call their civil servants. William Burns (diplomat) or Bill Burns (diplomat) would also be good, as he's referred to using both names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Move to William J. Burns (CIA director). In a quirk of fate (or perhaps there was some intent somewhere?!) the other William J. Burns was also director of a major intelligence agency, except it was the predecessor of the FBI, rather than the CIA. As such, things like "US official" and "public servant" don't really work. I'm also opposed to using "diplomat" - even if he's spent most of his career doing that, it's his new gig as CIA director that is going to make his most well-known - "political appointment" notwithstanding. As such, I think let's just stick with the actual name of the role per the OP's suggestion above.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it should use the formal job title instead: William J. Burns (Director of the CIA), and whether to drop the "J." However, either such move might be premature, since his appointment has not yet been confirmed by a floor vote. — BarrelProof (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Update: He was confirmed in the Senate yesterday (by unanimous consent). Does the House also need to take action? Do we need to wait for a swearing in? — BarrelProof (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
      • No and yes. - wolf 19:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - there is no need to change the title and then add disambiguation because of the change. As already stated, "public servant" is not appropriate, and "CIA Director" is not appropriate, since it will only be a brief stint compared to a 40 year career as diplomat in the Foreign Service. Unless there is another "William Joseph Burns", just leave this as is. Plus this was already discussed just 6 weeks ago and there was no consensus for a change. - wolf 21:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous.67.173.23.66 (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fact or allegation?

Under the heading 'Jeffrey Epstein meetings', it is stated for a fact that "In 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that Burns had three scheduled meetings with Jeffrey Epstein in 2014". This formulation in itself presents not just the reporting by the WSJ as a fact, but also these 'three scheduled meetings' are presented as if they are established facts. However, the WSJ has never disclosed these alleged 'documents' and 'calendars', which makes the newspaper's claims unverifiable. No one can read, verify, authenticate the 'trove of documents' that the WSJ claims to have in their possession. Should Wikipedia blindly believe they exist, and say what the WSJ claims they say? Or should we go for a more careful wording in the way of '... that Burns allegedly had three scheduled meetings...'? Mcouzijn (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the absence of an answer to my question, I will change the wording into the more careful version. Mcouzijn (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)