Talk:Habbush letter

clandestine service

sorry, i was wrong about this. perhaps someone can add it back in? it was so long ago, i cant remember what part of the article it ws in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.5.140.145 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

godwin, ever with us

who keeps putting the 'reichstag fire' and 'zimmerman letter' in the 'see also' section? i think its funny, but on the other hand, its not exactly the same thing. we know what happened with the reichstag fire and with the zimmerman letter, thanks to countless hours, days, weeks, months, and years of people doing boring research and reading lots of boring documents. the habbush letter, as of august 2008, is shrouded in mystery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.57.199.173 (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

They are both believed to be false intelligence used by a nation state as a pre-text for war. I can't believe someone could even ask how they are related. How silly 97.91.173.58 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger

No one seems to be discussing it, but this thing shouldn't be by itself. It should be merged with all the other unsubstantiated rumors that surround every presidency.Student7 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to wait a little to see how/if Congress purues this. At the moment, that the letter exists, and that it was deemed a forgery is fact. However, that the White House ordered it to be forged, and pulled off a cover up to retroactively create a fact to justify the war in Iraq is currently an allegation (though one that is looking increasingly true). Should links between the White House and the creation of the letter be more clearly defined (through Congressional hearings probably) then I would say we should merge the two together. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

this is potentially a smoking gun piece of evidence, all by itself, that could result in the impeachment of the vice president (err... can the vp be impeached?). for this reason, i do not understand why it should be merged. there is a single article on the dan rather forged document that was put on CBS.... people pored over that thing for weeks. this document is far, far more important than that document, potentially, to the history of the nation. of course im a bit biased since i worked on this article for a few hours... but still i hope it is considered in full context of history first. then again it could all be a giant screwup on the prt of suskind, in which case, at least this page, in full thoroughness, can be a rock against which conspiracy theorists bash their waves of strange ideas.

The correct classification is needed in the first place.. Almost everyone mistakenly calls the Police Action of Iraq - a War.. War was not declared, so it can only be a police action.. The faster everyone can use those words , the faster there will not be 2 korea's because it was also a police action, and american troops are still there after more than 50 years have gone passed...Catweasel (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent editing activity

Out of curiosity, why does the page get changed nearly every day? Do people go back and re-read the book, realizing other stuff that should be here? Is the author on television "remembering" things that he forgot to include? Why wasn't there just the one article with minor changes since there is presumably only one chapter (?) in a book to sustain it? Or is the whole book devoted to this one letter?Student7 (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the so-called Habbush letter (not Ron Suskind's book). Much information remains to be added. Reliable sources dismissed this letter as a forgery in 2003. Furthermore, Lieutenant Colonel Kevin M. Woods discarded this letter in the intelligence trash bin, for reasons only he can explain (a reporter should ask him why). To quote Brigadier General Anthony A. Cucolo on the veracity of Operation Iraqi Freedom documents more generally: "[A] document is a dangerous thing." [1]—eon, 13:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So far the print media (which I trust more than TV) seems to have ignored it pretty much. The people who would be normally expected to scream are strangely silent. If this all changes, fine. But if we don't hear that something has been done about this by say September 15 (?), I suggest it be revisited and merged/changed or deleted. Obviously if true (and people start noticing), this will all solve itself. Student7 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter whether various claims are accurate or not. This is Wikipedia. It's notability is not in dispute, therefore this article is staying put.—eon, 21:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be "notable" somewhere else, but I take a liberal newspaper who would be happy to front page it daily. Nothing. Unless Congress changes things when they get back, this was a one-day wonder. Having half-a-dozen articles on it would not be that useful to Wikipedia IMO. Maybe one article with the "final" result if anything ever gets finalized politically. Student7 (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Having half-a-dozen articles on it would not be that useful..." There is only one such page on Wikipedia.org -- this one. Where are these other pages? Kindly point them out to me.

"It may be 'notable' somewhere else, but I take a liberal newspaper who would be happy to front page it daily." Liberal newspapers like: American Thinker, Washington Times, Telegraph, National Review, WorldNetDaily, Newsweek, NewsMax? [2] And more recently: MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, The Times Chicago Tribunem etc? The subject matter is clearly notable. I'm not sure why you would choose to dispute this. [3]—eon, 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See also

Wikipedia Manual of Style says:

Please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so see also sections should only include links directly pertaining to the topic of an article and not large general pieces of information loosely connected (or not at all connected) to the subject.

The addition of Watergate the "see also" list does not satisfy the requirement of "links directly pertaining to the topic of an article", and would be "general pieces of information loosely connected to the subject". Ground Zero | t 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

I realize that, as usual, we don't always have the right picture at the right time. But one of Habbush would seem to be more appropriate. Atta was merely the subject of the alleged letter which is said to be a forgery anyway. Being fictional for purposes of this article, why bother with his picture? Student7 (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

i dont know man, i didnt do it. there are plenty of pictures of habbush lying around the internet. but i am too lazy to fight through the wikipedia red tape to upload one of them to this article. i dont even think that ordinary people re allowed to upload images to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.3.87.34 (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is a specialized area. The reason that I haven't done it! Student7 (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia has so much of red-tape for uploading pictures?--Bugnot (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Because only "free" images can be uploaded, or images that have a good reason for being in an article. More information: WP:FAIRUSE. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki site

Wikinews is listed as a reference. I thought we didn't use wiki sites except where specifically authorized, like Wikicommons.Student7 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Watergate

Again, I think this is overdrawn. Since I don't agree with this stuff anyway, the more exagggerated the claims, the less credible it sounds to the reader - your call. Student7 (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

there are a lot more things that are more related to this thing that should be in the 'see also' section before 'watergate'.

if somebody wants to write a comparative history between watergate and the habbush letter, fine, but since the story has only been out a week, it would be kind of hard to do a very good job. watergate involved a burglary to influence a political campaign. habbush involves a letter to influence public opinion and/or the media. pretty different, and thats just a brief summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.240.97.61 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If true that the white house was directly behind the forgery as a pre-text for war it would clearly be a much more serious scandal than watergate. So yes I agree the comparison is not especially good. Better comparisons would be the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or maybe even something like the protocols of zion document97.91.173.58 (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No2Nerds disruption

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. This edit is totally inappropriate, and the edit summary is a personal attack. Using the Wikipedia article space to whine about Wikipedia rules is totally inappropriate, and using it to encourage readers to do original research is also forbidden by WP:SYN. Please read these policies if you do not understand them, and please do not edit disruptively. csloat (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The anon editor who mysteriously appeared to wage a revert war over this material without discussing it has now reverted four times today. csloat (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really need to talk this thing out here folks. Reading pointless reversions and re-reversions is a pain for the rest of us watching this article. Student7 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If the anon who keeps reverting would please make him or herself known we can discuss the "contribution." csloat (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I have semi-protected the article for two weeks. Please avoid WP:SOAP and get consensus before making important changes. This Talk page is very short considering the huge number of changes people have been making since August 1. Explanation is good, and negotiation is even better. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This will help with the anon reverts. I have reverted one last time since the anon had added a bunch of OR and SOAP violations (among other things, like weird metacommentary complaining about Wikipedia rules, which should never be in article space). Please, folks, if there is something that you think should not have been changed in the last edit, or something controversial you think is missing from the article, let's talk it out here rather than getting in another revert war. I realize I am preaching to the choir; the anon ip that was doing most of the damage was blocked after reverting 8 times in one day. csloat (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Csloat rules this page and many others. If someone puts factual information on it that runs counter to his Prison Planet - Alex Jones - POV (yes he is a plant for ultra anarchist Alex Jones) then he quickly deletes it. Then he says "let's just talk". But he knows full well (and anybody that has delt with this) he will never allow it he will only keep deleting and throwing out absurd claims of violations. Then, since he is funded by Jones and this IS his job he only has to sit on these posts and throw everything out and claim violations all day long. If he finds out who you are and can find email or blog contacts he will follow you there and harrass you. Wikipeia needs to figure out that this guy is a propagandist and is ruining wikipedia. Csloat linked claims by Suskind to have tapes. I merely interjected that he had not produced the tapes. VIOLATION! POV!!!! he runs screaming. I also showed that both CIA agents had denied Suskinds claims with video evidence linked to back it up. VIOLATION!!! POV!!! He screams and the duffuss administrators just giv him what he wants because even they don't have time to argue with this guy interminably because he is getting paid to front for Alex Jones.

As bad as Csloat is, I fault the administrators even more for allowing hired, anarchist activists to treat wikipedia like it was a storefront window to be smashed at a G8 summit. Shame on you cowards! He even posts here like he is an admin. You admins are bloody cowards. Stop Csloat now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.221.135 (talk • contribs)

Please. No WP:ATTACK. WP:AGF. These attacks tend to make the victim of the attacks look correct BTW. Student7 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Speaking of references, I thought we weren't supposed to be using blogs. I know people have "agreed" on rules for that sort of thing, but the real problem is how do you determine actaul authorship/ownership on a blog? What is to stop me from copying most of a blog, altering a few words here and there, posting it on yet another blog and claiming that to be the original and the (real) original to be a phony? Student7 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Which blog are you referring to? Juan Cole's Informed Comment? Or do you mean ronsuskind.com? There's an exception to WP:SPS for authors who have already established their credibility in reliable published sources, and Cole and Suskind would meet it. Nbauman (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Con Coughlin's Telegraph blog is also permissible. Coughlin confirmed that Ayad Allawi was the source of the leaked memo. [4]—eon, 14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with blogs by established, notable writers, whose field pertains specifically to the topics or content addressed; (or who are otherwise in possession of informative or useful details). --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No one has addressed the one main outstanding question: How do you know who the author is? With a scholarly reference, we know who the author is of the reference and that author attests to the veracity of the quote (or whatever). There is no intermediary performing that function with a blog. Student7 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that a particular blog mentioned in this article might not be by the claimed author, you are free to raise that as a concern here. When a blog is published on a newspaper's own website, like the one by Con Coughlin, who is well-known to be a writer for that paper, it seems far-fetched to assume it is a fake. EdJohnston (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah blogs of newspapers are generally considered legit from that perspective -- the opinions expressed on them are not always considered notable, but the idea that we don't know who the author is really doesn't hold much water. I think the blogs cited here are all reasonable in terms of your objection, though I could see it being an issue if an unknown blog address crept up with a supposedly identifiable author who isn't publicly taking credit for that blog anywhere. But that's not the case for Juan Cole, Con Coughlin, Ron Suskind, or Rob Richer. csloat (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dropping the identification problem for the time being, I can see two other problems: 1) Why didn't the paper publish it under its own byline? Hardcopy is limited by newsprint available for that issue. Web space has some limitations but can presumably squeeze in a legitimate article? Why hasn't the paper done so? It seems to me that this represents a WP:OR problem here. The paper did not consider it "news" but we do? Isn't that one of the ideas about finding it in a legitimate publication to start with? 2) Publications online or off have a copy editor that is supposed to verify facts. This is missing in a blog. While the quality of writing may not be an issue (you may find this hard to believe) but not everyone remembers things accurately. Or hears them correctly or having done both, records them correctly. The function of a copy editor is missing in a blog. There is no "second opinion." Oversight is missing. And don't think that because it is in a blog for a few days that the publication feels any more responsible for it. Quite the opposite, in fact (Thank God we aren't responsible for that!) Student7 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a policy on this topic at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources. If you disagree with the currently-accepted Wikipedia policy, you should raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Well Written: Pass
Factually Accurate and Verifiable: Pass
Broad in its Coverage: Pass
Neutral:Pass
Images: Pass
Stable:Fail

FONT COLOR=DARKGREEN:Pass
FONT COLOR=ORANGE:Needs Improvement but Passed nevertheless
FONTCOLOR=RED:Failed

Sorry for failing it.Eduhello (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

dont be sorry. this is one article where it really matters that things are gotten right. i mean, this is war.. life and death, millions of refugees... the president, impeachment.... its almost as important an article as the article about Jar Jar Binks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.5.140.145 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)