Talk:Plame affair/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Article name

Excuse me for raising a topic that I am sure has been raised before. Probably several times... But I am new to this article and I am baffled by the article title.

Plame Affair sounds like an episode of The Man From U.N.C.L.E.!!!

This was a major scandal of utmost gravity.

A) How was it determined that the article should be named in this way rather than some other way?
B) Why is the article after a person who was a victim in the matter rather than after the type of incident that it was?
C) Even if there was universal agreement that it should be named after her - why the ambiguous, comparatively benign word "affair" to describe a scandal that has resulted in 4 felony convictions and unchallenged testimony documenting White House actions that if not illegal - are certainly ethically questionable?

Articles describing major issues in Bill Clinton's administration have titles such as:

• Lewinsky '''scandal'''
• Whitewater ('''controversy''')
• 1996 United States campaign finance '''controversy'''
• Bill Clinton pardons '''controversy'''
• Travelgate goes to White House travel office '''controversy'''
• Filegate goes to White House personnel file '''controversy'''

Ronald Reagan's administration has:

• Iran-Contra '''Affair'''

George W. Bush's administration has:

• Plame '''Affair'''

This is patently wrong and reflects POV. To be consistent with other Wikipedia articles - this should be officially renamed CIA leak scandal (which currently redirects to Plame affair. A converse re-direct can easily be implemented - with Plame affair re-directing to CIA leak scandal

Comments? Davidpatrick 23:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Further research on Wikipedia indicates that the title as it was ("Plame Affair") was an aberrant title next to the titles of the articles for the vast majority of other political scandals in recent years. Article title has been changed to reflect that. Davidpatrick 03:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle that "CIA leak scandal" is a better, more descriptive, and more balanced title. On the other hand, the "Plame affair" seems to be a far more common title for it in many sources on both the left and right. Google hits for "Plame affair"=322,000; hits for "CIA leak scandal"=53,800. Also, the liberal encyclopedia dKosopedia titles their article "Plame affair". It doesn't take a right-wing conspiracy to understand why it was named that in the first place, since that's what the news frequently calls it, and there is at least a moderate argument for the former title being a better reflection of the neutral point of view.--ragesoss 01:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It's always a balancing act between media catchphrases and popular shorthand for events on the one hand - and being encyclopedic and consistent within the portals of Wikipedia on the other hand. And the Google argument cuts both ways - as of course sometimes Google refects mirrored content. And we're trying to find a balance between encyclopedic and user-friendly. My gut instinct is that the initial tag of using her name "Plame" (rather than a description of what the scandal was actually about) was partly because she was an attractive woman - it humanized complex political intrigue and it made for a glamorous tabloid story! "Pretty blonde spy outed...!" So her name became a central part of the story. But suffixing her name with "Scandal" makes it seem like SHE did something wrong - which no one has implied. And "Affair" is a very bland word for something that has resuted in criminal convictions and gigantic political upheaval. But I did some more thinking - and some more work on this.

Here's what I think swings it for the new title. I did some more Googling - to get a more in-depth read.

"Plame affair" 322,000
"Plame scandal" 96,900
"CIA leak scandal" 54,100
"CIA leak" 1,030,000

So - while it is true that both "Plame affair" and "Plame scandal" get more Google hits than the full wording "CIA scandal leak" - there are an overwhelming number more hits for the words "CIA leak" - of which a large percentage can be safely assumed to be about this matter rather than any others.

In that sense - the words "CIA leak" are the equivalent of the word "Lewinsky" or "Iran-Contra". ie - it is the neutral, factual descriptive - to which the appropriate suffix then needs to be added. It's clearly a scandal. And that's where we are... Davidpatrick 02:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This name is incredibly imprecise. It's not like there has only been one leak about the CIA ever. The name should be something that actually identifies the subject, not something that might happen to describe it or possibly god knows what else. Derex 10:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be just "CIA leak scandal" (see above)

However - as a temp. change I have added "(2003)" to make it more precise.

But it is not necessary: see: CIA leak grand jury investigation

KEY POINTS:

This is a scandal not an affair. And "Plame scandal" is not right either - as the subject matter of the scandal was not the VICTIM - but the ACTION that CAUSED the scandal. I don't know what other CIA leaks led to a scandal. But if the argument is that there have been multiple "CIA leak scandals" - then the "2003" solves that. If not - then it should revert to just "CIA leak scandal"

For precedents on naming articles after the ACTION - and not using weasel words such as "affair" to describe major scandals and controversies - see also:

• Whitewater (controversy)
• 1996 United States campaign finance controversy
• Bill Clinton pardons controversy
• White House travel office controversy
• White House personnel file controversy

Davidpatrick 14:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

First, Why "affair?" The word means, "A matter causing public scandal and controversy: the Dreyfus affair." see: |answers.com. Second, why, "Plame?" It seems self-evident, she was the covert CIA agent whose name was released to the public -- with the subsequent reprecussions. CIA Leak Case is far too generic, even adding the date suffix does not give the subject matter clarity that Plame Affair does. The term "affair" speaks to both public scandal and to public controversy. I think a two word title with a Major subject name, "Plame" followed by "Affair" is more clear and more economical than the more abstract and non-specific, "cia leak case," and other such titles. Rather than debate the article's title, I'd suggest more work be done to improve the content of the article itself. Perhaps in time, when all cases are reasolved in this on-going affair, a new, better title will become evident. Until this, for reasons stated above, I think Plame Affair is the best title choice. Calicocat 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Huffington Post and the Plame Affair

we've had this debate before, as to what this article should be called. and each time the consensus has been plame affair. i was curious as to why it's now a topic of debate and found this on the huffington post [1]. Davidpatrick is using the huffington post's argument verbatim to justify the change of the title to this article. this is not the way to reach consensus, and just because the huffington post finds bias in the "plame affair" doesn't mean the title should be changed. rather than engaging in an edit war, we should debate it once again, and vote for consensus. Anthonymendoza 17:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly open to a debate. I have found the arguments for a change compelling. Let's see what others think. Please can people discuss the merits of the issue. Among the issues I think that are compelling to be addressed are these:

1) What are the titles of articles about other political controversies/scandals affecting controversial presidents such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?

2) Is there any inherent weasel aspect to referring to a matter in which a high-ranking government official is found guilty of 4 felonies as an "affair"

3) Are the titles of articles on Wikipedia about political scandals more commonly named after:

a) the activity that caused the scandal?
b) the name(s) of the protagonist(s)
c) the name(s) of the victim(s)

I think those answers and other thoughts about this would be very interesting to debate. And might help us reach an informed consensus. Davidpatrick 18:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i personally don't understand what is so "weasel" about the word affair. doesn't the word affair imply this was a controversy and a scandal? how does the word affair make this subject appear to be unimportant?Anthonymendoza 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A valid question. Here's the answer. From Wiktionary.

Noun affair (plural affairs)

1) That which is done or is to be done; matter; concern; business of any kind, commercial, professional, or public; — often in the plural. a difficult affair to manage

2) Any proceeding or action which it is wished to refer to or characterize vaguely. an affair of honor, i. e., a duel an affair of love, i. e., an intrigue.

3) (Military): An action or engagement not of sufficient magnitude to be called a battle.

4) A material object (vaguely designated). He used a hook-shaped affair with a long handle to unlock the car.

5) An adulterous relationship. (from affaire de coeur.)

Do you think any of those definitions accurately and full reflect the nature of the contents of the article? Davidpatrick 19:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

according to Merrian-Webster Online Dictionary, affair means matter occasioning public anxiety, controversy, or scandal. and according to the American Heritage Dictionary, affair means a matter causing public scandal and controversy. to me, the word affair is appropriate here.Anthonymendoza 19:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Debate about article title

That is just two dictionaries. In addition to the Wiktionary definition - here are THREE MORE dictionary definitions that DON'T reflect that meaning.

(1) According to Collins Online Dictionary
affair
1 activity, business, circumstance, concern, episode, event, happening, incident, interest, matter, occurrence, proceeding, project, question, subject, transaction, undertaking
2 amour, intrigue, liaison, relationship, romance

(2) And according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
1) affair. something done or to be done; business.
2. affairs Transactions and other matters of professional or public business: affairs of state.
3a. An occurrence, event

(3) And according to the Oxford Dictionary

affair

noun
1 an event of a specified kind or that has previously been referred to.
2 a matter that is a particular person’s responsibility.
3 a love affair.
4 (affairs) matters of public interest and importance.

Even if you disagree with all of those respected FOUR dictionaries - and I really don't think this should be a battle of the dictionaries - at the very least I'm sure you will graciously concede that if there are FOUR respected dictionaries that DON'T give the "scandal" definition - then at the very least there is a lot of ambiguity about how people perceive that word.

And of course the word "affair" is just one of the three questions I raised as pertinent to this debate. Davidpatrick 20:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

data

Let's try to assemble some data.

• The New York Times returns 3 hits for "C.I.A. leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair", over 100 for "C.I.A. leak case" (which we have a separate, awkwardly-titled article for, CIA leak grand jury investigation), and over 200 for "C.I.A. leak".
• The Washington Post returns 3 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 9 hits for "Plame affair", and lots for "CIA leak", most of which are "CIA leak case" and "CIA leak investigation".
• The Washington Times has 6 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 13 hits for "Plame affair" (though most are from Op-Ed).
• Google News archive has 460 hits for "CIA leak scandal", and 1690 for "Plame affair".
• BBC News returns 4 hits for "CIA leak scandal", 10 hits for "Plame affair".

Presumably none of these results (unlike general Google hits) are shaped the fact that Wikipedia and her downstream re-users have been using the "Plame affair" title until recently. However, "CIA leak case" is ambiguous and could refer to either the investigation and legal goings on or the broader topic in general. It is often used in the latter sense, and I think it might be the best title for the article, despite the ambiguity.--ragesoss 19:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting data. Focusing a moment on Google News - we see the following:

Plame affair 154
Plame scandal 17
Plame case 102

CIA leak 3,838
CIA leak case 2,127

This indicates that at some basic level the "CIA leak" aspect has been deemed more newsworthy and less tabloid-y than the naming of this matter about the victim - however pretty, however blonde, however more gossipy, however "sexier" (in media terms) it is to make it be about the victim rather than about some abstract action.

The overwhelming evidence is that this is about the "CIA leak" So the question then is - what is the best suffix?

"Case" implies only the legal aspect
"Investigation" implies only the investigation aspect
So what other word accurately and fairly describes the ENTIRETY of this? Taking into account other articles on Wikipedia about similar events

Affair? (see above)
Imbroglio
scuffle
misunderstanding
storm-in-a-teacup
incident

or...

scandal...

Davidpatrick 20:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

i will "graciously concede" that affair can in fact refer to a scandal, and that, according to the research above, this topic has been referred to as both the Plame Affair and Cia Leak in media outlets. therefore it is up to a consensus of editors as to what this topic should be titled. i will not revert your changes but reaching a consensus on wikipedia is essential to producing good quality articles and i am disappointed that you made the changes without discussion and that your edit is being called courageous on the Huffington Post. there was no conspiracy by right wingers when the name Plame Affair was chosen. it was agreed to by consensus. i personally think that the title Plame Affair is good, but if the consensus is now for CIA leak scandal, i will accept it. i'm not sure how to proceed, but i suggest a vote. Anthonymendoza 22:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have acknowledged that you found two respected dictionaries that DO present definitions of "affair" that have that meaning. You certainly don't have to reciprocate - but I would appreciate it if you would at least acknowledge that there are four respected dictionaries have definitions of the word "affair" that exclude any reference to "public anxiety, controversy, or scandal" or any similar concept.

As stated above - I don't think it should come down to a battle of dictionaries - though it is a little bothering that there is that discrepancy.

I'm sorry that I proceeded without consensus. It was not my intention to create a fight. I absolutely agree that - to quote you - "we should debate it once again, and vote for consensus"

So before we put it to the vote - by which I will certainly abide - I do think we should debate the pros and cons in a civil fashion. So that we can vote after an informed considered debate. I am prepared to accept that there was no political motivation behind the original selection of the article title. However - I do believe that it was an unfortunate choice of title "Plame" that reflects a tabloid emphasis (female victim rather than egregious action) and "affair" that is ambiguous in meaning and/or was appropriate in the early stages before it elevated into a fully-fledged scandal.

I would point out that during the 1970s the "Watergate scandal" certainly started out being described as the "Watergate break-in". And perhaps at one point it became the "Watergate affair". But as more details emerged - it was invariably dubbed "Watergate scandal".

If there had been a Wikipedia then (!!!) - and the original article had been called "Watergate break-in" or "DNC break-in" - would we have then not at some point changed it to "Watergate scandal" as the extent of the perfidy became apparent?

By that standard - a title that was perhaps appropriate way back in July 2003 (before anyone really knew what this matter was about) - might perhaps be changed by April 2007 to reflect the undisputed increased gravity of the events it covers.

I respectfully suggest that that is one aspect we should definitely debate.

And I would also respectfully request that the other three issues I raised be debated. I don't think it will do us any harm. And it may help us reach some consensus.

A recap of those three questions = plus the new one:

1) What are the titles of articles about other political controversies/scandals affecting controversial presidents such as Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon?

2) Is there any inherent weasel aspect to referring to a matter in which a high-ranking government official is found guilty of 4 felonies as an "affair"

3) Are the titles of articles on Wikipedia about political scandals more commonly named after:

a) the activity that caused the scandal?
b) the name(s) of the protagonist(s)
c) the name(s) of the victim(s)

4) When a public event changes in complexion and gravity over a period of four years from its first minor status into a full-blown scandal resulting in felony convictions of a senior White House official - is it appropriate to change the article title to reflect the change in emphasis and gravity of the story?

Davidpatrick 23:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

we have debated this before though, so i think the best course of action to get others involved is to start the vote now. editors can vote and leave there rationale, and at the end of a week or two, a clear consensus should emerge.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vote on article name

CIA leak scandal

support: I'm new to this article. However I have followed the topic intently for the past 3.5 years. It's not really about whether or not the old title was/is biased. It's about four simple things: A) Is the title consistent with the titles of Wiki articles about other political scandals? B) Is it better that the primary word of the title of a scandal be about the VICTIM - or should it be about the action that CAUSED the scandal? C) Does the suffix "Affair" (which 4 respected dictionaries do not define with any implication of scandal) sufficiently convey the gravity of a matter which led to the Vice President's assistant being convicted of 4 felonies? - or would the word "Scandal" convey that more effectively? D) Is it wrong for Wikipedia to change an article title that may have been appropriate when initially coined - to reflect the considerable change in gravity of the topic as it has unfolded? Just as the "DNC break-in" in 1972 subsequently became the "Watergate scandal" by 1973/4 (and ever after). I respectfully submit that the answers to those 4 questions lead us to confirming this change - with no ill-feeling to those who feel otherwise. Davidpatrick 00:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support subject to using "CIA Plame leak controversy (2003)" as a better option. Samdira 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support: An good article can have several good names. Some people know it as a scandal, as it is a scandal in my view. -Mardus 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

support: see updated sections below; name change proposal needs further discussion and resolution due to related redundancy problems in editing of article? In my view, consistency of the names of the articles in Wikipedia (see current "See also" list) trumps numbers of hits in "Google" searches; similar discussions have been made by editors and other users relating to the name Valerie E. Wilson. (Please see the discussions in the related articles and their talk page archives.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Plame affair

support: i've edited this article for over a year and there has never been any real complaints about the title until the Huffington Post[2] made the claim that it was biased. the title Plame affair is concise, specific and recognizable. i find no POV in the wording.Anthonymendoza 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support That Huffpost article is fascinating. I'm actually the one who produced 5 of 6 of the names she mentions, which had been quite POV before that and I took some heat for softening those. I think this name is fine, simple, and neutral. My problems with CIA leak scandal are multiple. First it is imprecise, even with the 2003 tagged on. Also, the scandal has persisted into 2007. Also, it sounds as if the CIA leaked something rather than someone leaking something about the CIA. Also "scandal" has in implication of wrong-doing, which is debated here — it was on that ground that I softened Whitewater to a controversy. So, while Plame Affair may not be optimal, it's certainly better than this. That the HuffPost thinks this is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy is quite laughable. Derex 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

support It's simple and it works. CIA leak scandal is unacceptable because it wan't the CIA that did the leaking and there have been innumerabl leaks involving the CIA. If anything it should be White House outing of CIA agent Plame, but that seems too long.--agr 04:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support I started this article a long time ago and felt then, as I do now, that "Plame Affiar" is the most neutral and specific title. The program Frontline on PBS also adopted "Plame Affair" in an extensive report on the subject. In dicussing this very complex case Plame Affair provides a clear discriptor that seems in keeping with wikipedia article naming conventions. CIA Leak Contro... are longer and less descriptive. The Plame Affair is one piece of the larger issue of the Iraq War and Occupation, which itself contain many CIA related issues and leaks; so, again, Plame Affair best reflects the issues with this case. The outting of Plame and her front, Brewester-Jennings, exposed and compromised a long-term covert CIA operation of great value to the United States and as such, again, the inclusion of the name, Plame, provides clarity and neutrality. Calicocat 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support per the above/. Arkon 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

support: short and non-ambiguous. -Mardus 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

support per above. Its a more neutral name, shorter, and non-ambigious Vivaldi (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

CIA leak case

support. It's not optimal because it can suggest just the legal aspects, but on the other hand major news organizations (e.g., the CSM, NPR, USN&WR) have used it as a catch-all for the topic, in the Sherlock Holmes sense of "The Case of the CIA Leak". "CIA leak case" has been used consistently as something broader than just a name for US v. Libby, and is a far, far more common media term than "Plame affair" or "CIA leak scandal". This article is kind of sprawling and should probably be broken into separate articles on "Mission to Niger" (covering the story up to and including Novak's column), Journalists and the CIA leak case (for the "other journalists" material plus a brief summary of Novak's role), and more effective use of summary style for the existing sub-articles.--ragesoss 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That name is fine today, because there's only one leak in the news. What about two years from now, when there are no leaks in the news? The title needs some reference to Plame or perhaps to the nature of the leak, but I can't think of anything that is not completely stilted. I'm a little annoyed that we're having to spend time debating what was a perfectly reasonable title that stood uncontested for over a year simply because some blogger took offense. There are plenty of *actual* conspiracies by conservatives on Wikipedia that I could have pointed him to, but this ain't one. Derex 07:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

weak support. Scandal and Plame affair are good enough.

I think that you make some good points. I offer the following observations. First of all - I think we can agree that we should diffuse the political aspects of this and allegations of left/right bias - and address just a few practical issues. We in Wikipedia DO make changes to article titles from time to time - if it is thought that it conveys a fairer or more accurate impression. You yourself "softened Whitewater to a controversy" (presumably it had a different suffix at one time.) Was that change achieved with no debate at all? I don't resent the time spent debating - if it results in an improvement. Isn't that the nature of a wiki - and Wikipedia?

Anyway - the issues you mention HAVE arisen before. Look at these titles:

• White House personnel file controversy

If there is ever another WH personnel file controversy - presumably the article about the next one would get the year added.

• 1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Which was presumably the thinking with that article. A 5-word title - because it was deemed necessary.

Yes, I know. I named both of those as well. Used to be "Filegate" and "Chinagate" and "Whitewater scandal" and so on. The criteria for a good title are non-partisan, uniquely descriptive, and short as possible. There have undoubtedly been many leaks about and from the CIA over the years, which makes some unique tag important. The year is a poor tag in this case, because it lasted 4 years. No wrong-doing has been proven with regard to the leak itself, which may have been entirely legal (or may not). Derex

I respectfully repeat my request that people look at these questions I've raised - and offer their thoughts...

A) Is the title consistent with the titles of Wiki articles about other political scandals?

B) Is it better that the primary word of the title of a scandal be about the VICTIM - or should it be about the action that CAUSED the scandal?

C) Does the suffix "Affair" (which 4 respected dictionaries do not define with any implication of scandal) sufficiently convey the gravity of a matter which led to the Vice President's assistant being convicted of 4 felonies? - or would the word "Scandal" convey that more effectively?

D) Is it wrong for Wikipedia to change an article title that may have been appropriate when initially coined - to reflect the considerable change in gravity of the topic as it has unfolded? Just as the "DNC break-in" in 1972 subsequently became the "Watergate scandal" by 1973/4 (and ever after).

Davidpatrick 14:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A Yes. The same guiding principles applied. In most of those cases (travel office), (personell files), (campaign finance) there was no good short neutral descriptor. In this case there is. B I don't find this a relevant consideration; naming it after the victim in no way implies she was at fault. C "Controversy" could replace "Affair". No wrong-doing with respect to the leak itself has been established, so "scandal" is inappropriate here. Libby was convicted of subsequent offences regarding the investigation. I'm not about to argue Whitewater down from scandal to controversy (as I did), and then promote this up to scandal. That's just not consistent. D Of course we can change names and do it all the time. But usually there is a good reason for it. I don't see one here. Derex

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all - thank you for taking the time to respond carefully to my questions. I appreciate that. You make some fair points but I do not agree with your conclusions.

Succinctly:

A The old title was succinct. But I think that - perhaps by the passage of time and developments - was no longer as effective or appropriate. Not conveying sufficient emphasis of the nature and gravity of the matter.

B I hear your point - but I think there is SOME negativity that accrues. The Lewinsky scandal for example. While she was not entirely blameless in the matter - Clinton acknowledged that (albeit belatedly) - the political scandal was about him not about her. But the matter being named after her victimized her more IMO.

C I disagree with you here. No LEGAL wrong-doing was established relating directly to the leak. Though POSSIBLY (we will probably never know) because as Fitgerald claimed "sand was thrown in the umpire's eyes. But there are other wrong-doings of course. Moral, ethical, etc etc. Bush himself (in 2003) famously declared that anyone responsible for leaking would no longer be in his administration. Not necessarily relating to the LAW. But because Bush made clear that he regarded leaking as WRONG. And not to be condoned. His father had opined (just 4 years earlier): "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999.

Bush Snr. was referring just to "sources" - not even to "covert agents". So leave out the LEGALITY of it. Whether or not it contravened a specific act. The current President Bush - and the former President Bush held that the ACTION of leaking (which there is unrefuted evidence occurred) is wrong-doing. So the word "scandal" is certainly appropriate. And more apt than the word "affair" - which is certainly considered more benign than "scandal".

D As you rightly say - we do change titles all the time. I still believe we need to here.

The benefits of having this debate are manifold. You and others are making some very valid points. I see why "CIA leak scandal" alone could be problematic. I agree that suffixing it with "(2003)" is a poor compromise - for the sound reasons you gave above.

So - in the spirit of compromise - how about the following:

"CIA Plame leak scandal"

It's still shorter than some other scandals/controversies. See these:

"White House personnel file controversy"
"1996 United States campaign finance controversy"

It's snappy. It qualifies WHICH CIA leak became a scandal. Far better than by naming a year. I don't think Valerie Plame is victimized by that choice in the same way as "Plame Affair" does -which MIGHT be taken by some (in the future) to think that she was the CAUSE of the affair rather than the victim or object.

So how would that be as a fair compromise? "CIA Plame leak scandal" Davidpatrick 00:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The biggest problem with the "scandal" title is that "CIA leak scandal" has very rarely been used in the media. "CIA leak case" has the downside of timeliness and apparent vagueness, but it seems like to me that it has a good chance of become a permanent term for it, the CIA Leak Case. After comparing how news organizations have treated it, I think "Plame affair" is a more appropriate title than "CIA leak scandal", if "CIA leak case" is too vague.--ragesoss 17:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"CIA Plame leak controversy" would be acceptable to me. I fought to remove "scandal" from Whitewater on the grounds that no wrong-doing was objectively established on the part of the principals. It is my personal opinion that wrong-doing occurred in this case, but I can see that other people might reasonably differ. Since the logic is the same as Whitewater, I'll not flip that position because of my personal opinions differ on this one. Derex 01:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

First of all - I genuinely appreciate you making a compromise suggestion. We are getting much closer to an agreement. Speaking just for myself - I won't rule your suggestion out. And therefore I am going to think very carefully over the next 24 hours about it. I do think it is a big improvement over "Plame Affair". I am impressed with your reasoning about the Whitewater matter - and not wanting to have a double standard. I really do respect your position on that. Particularly as you personally think there has been wrong-doing on this matter. But you don't want to let your personal position influence you. That is decent and high-minded.

So let me ask you this question: In your mind - what would be the tipping point in this matter at which it would cross over from being a "controversy" to a "scandal"? Does the perception of wrong-doing have to be universal? If there is just one person still protesting that nothing wrong was done - does that mean it is still a controversy till there is no dissent? I'm not sure about the fulcrum here. eg with Watergate it was probably still considered a "controversy" till Nixon had to fire Haldeman and Ehrlichman - at which point it surely became a "scandal." With Lewinsky it was still a "controversy" until Clinton conceded that there HAD been "improper actions" by him - at which point even his defenders had to concede that it had become a "scandal"

Should this be just about our OWN perceptions? And our own noble desire to err on the side of caution as ballast against our personal beliefs? Is it possible that our caution and bending over backwards to be NPOV might lead us to actually be way behind the general zeitgeist? To what extent should external opinions impact that Wikipedia tipping point? What about the news media's perception? The public/media intersect (as gauged by the internet and blogosphere - which has both left and right wing factions)

I thought it would be helpful to follow the example of ragesoss and do some data research on this "controversy" versus "scandal" issue. To see what the media, blogosphere and web-users' perceptions are.

More data: "Scandal" vs "Controversy" vs ""Affair"

I put in the following 3 phrases/words - each in quote marks (as seen below) - To Google Web. To Google Blogs. To Google News.

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy"

"cia leak" "plame" "affair"

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal"

RESULTS

Google Web

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 147,000

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 166,000

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 276,000

Google Blogs

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 379

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 1,260

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 1,770

Google News

"cia leak" "plame" "controversy" = 20

"cia leak" "plame" "affair" = 393

"cia leak" "plame" "scandal" = 1,054

Would I be wrong in divining from that research that a large majority of the cyber-public, bloggers and news media do see this matter as having finally reached that tipping point where it went from "controversy" or "affair" to "scandal"?

(the above data research was updated on Monday April 2nd 2007 to add in the data about the word "Affair" to the existing research about the words "Controversy" and "Scandal") Davidpatrick 16:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Filegate, chinagate, travelgate were also the more commonly used names. Those strike me as partisan talking points, so popular use alone is not sufficient grounds for a name. I would feel comfortable labeling this with 'scandal' if there had been a determination by Fitzgerald that the revelation of Plame's name was illegal — even if he could not determine who revealed it. As I understand it, that is not the case. However, I could be mistaken as I have not followed the case that closely since the election. I do realize that Libby is a felon, but that was not due to the leak itself. Here's the rub: any hint of spin tends to undermine an article. The facts actually speak for themselves much louder if they're not amplified, because a scrupulously neutral presentation has the most credibility. Derex 08:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(other title suggestions)

CIA leak scandal (2003) (temporary title that was suggested as a compromise earlier today)

Consensus

the consensus of editors who have chosen to comment is that the name Plame affair is best suited for this article. i've restored it. if there is still a dispute over this, i suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment instead of an edit war.Anthonymendoza 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Might as well leave a note here as well. A copy/paste move is never an acceptable method in which to move a page from one article title to another so I've reverted the move for now. The reason for this is that one of the important things for wikipedia is the ability to track who made changes and when those changes were made. By copying and pasting a page from one title to another title that edit history is lost. Please see WP:MOVE for how to properly move an article. Thanks! --Bobblehead 03:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

if no one objects, i'll request the page be moved back to Plame affair on WP:RM.Anthonymendoza 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, i've requested the page be moved back since no one objected. any further disputes should useWikipedia:Requests for comment, though it appears the issue may be settled for now.Anthonymendoza 15:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

my request to move the page back to Plame affair was denied at WP:MOVE. the administrator stated "I doubt that the naming of this article will remain stable unless a transparent request is made, and a disinterested party closes the decision." the sad part is that the page was moved to CIA leak scandal with zero transparency. an editor who has rarely, if ever, edited this page decided to carry the torch for the Huffington Post and take it upon himself/herself to change the title name. unless someone wants to start an RFC, i'm guessing CIA leak scandal will continue to be the name of the article. this whole episode has made me realize the shortcomings of wikipedia. consensus can be reached, but it only takes one editor to bring about a dramatic change to an article. personally, i've lost interest in all of this.Anthonymendoza 18:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't need an RFC to make the move. Just recreate the move request in the "Other proposals" section of WP:RM. I believe the admin's concern is that the discussion about moving the article didn't include a posting on WP:RM so wasn't visible to non-editors of this article. --Bobblehead 19:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article should be called "Plame affair" rather than "CIA leak scandal". We should try to maintain a neutral tone while discussing this case and the former name is much better. Vivaldi (talk) 02:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

covert

It's high time to take "alleged" off of the claim that Plame was covert. The CIA has said in no uncertain terms that she was, and in fact even Robert Novak, who convolutes the comments in predictable ways, quotes Hayden and his public affairs officer; Hayden says there is no difference between "covert" and "undercover," and Mark Mansfield, Hayden's public affairs officer, emailed to clear this up for Novak -- "At CIA, you are either a covert or an overt employee. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee."[3] csloat 22:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

i've included Novak's column in the article already. the central issue is not whether she was covert under the CIA use of the term (which was established long ago that she was) but whether she fit the legal definition (which, as we debated above, we'll never know for sure). i find it interesting, though, that hayden told novak and Victoria Toensing that he didn't authorize the use of the word "covert" by waxman, but justified the use by saying covert and undercover are the same in CIA terminology. and the cia told hoekstra that defining plames status has a "considerable legal complexity." all of this just adds to the debate, but doesn't conclude it.Anthonymendoza 18:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does seem to conclude it, and surprisingly enough, or not, we wind up agreeing on this -- she was "covert" as far as the CIA was concerned, but the legal status of that status per the IIPA was "complex," "considerably" so.... :) De jure, at least, though not in fact; if anyone had actually sought prosecution under IIPA, her "covertness" would simply not be an issue, since the legal def is clear enough that it would easily be established (e.g. she was considered covert by the cia and served overseas in the past 5 yrs). But, since nobody has been charged with that particular crime, there is no court decision on the issue, and we have to stipulate that it is a mystery. csloat 09:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move #1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

CIA leak scandal (2003) → Plame affair — The article was originall moved without discussion to CIA leak scandal.[4] The page was then reverted back to Plame affair[5] and then moved without consensus from Plame affair to CIA leak scandal[6] and then to CIA leak scandal (2003)[7] during an ongoing discussion.[8] The move from CIA leak scandal to CIA leak scandal (2003) required the fixing of a double redirect which prevented a move back to Plame affair until discussion could be completed.[9]. All in all, a consensus name is needed. Basically the choices are:

• Plame affair (201,000 hits)
• CIA leak case (363,000 hits)
• CIA leak scandal (43,800 hits)

--Bobblehead 03:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect - while I think it is useful to look at the number of hits that come up on Google as a general indication - and I have referred to such numbers myself from time-to-time - I don't think that such search results should be definitive. As we all know - Google results have multiple factors - including mirroring. I say this potentially AGAINST my own preference - which is for either of the two "CIA leak" versions. Since the "CIA leak case" gets a greater number of hits than "Plame Affair" (which I think has become overtaken by developments) - you might expect me to be enthused about the Google hits cited - as it outpolls "Plame Affair". But I think that is a false premise on which to base such a decision. Moreover - in offering the three suggestions - I don't the number of Google hits should have beeen listed next to the choices in the way they are above. Davidpatrick 03:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Google hits are just one piece in the overall evidence and the intention was not necessarily to be the end all/be all on what should or should not be used to determine the "common name". If you have other ways in which to determine "common name" then you're welcome to provide them. That's why there is a discussion section in the move request. --Bobblehead 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Plame affair

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

1. Support - This would be my second choice. Plame affair is vastly more common than CIA leak scandal. Additionally, the current name is not a consensus name choice, was made out of process, and was obviously a controversial name prior to the move and salting of the original name. --Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Strongly Oppose - This title may have been appropriate in 2003 when the matter first came to attention. Rather like in the early days of the "Watergate scandal" when it was referred to as the "DNC break-in" by the media. But just as that matter was eventually retitled the "Watergate scandal" when the extent of the matter was revealed - so "Plame Affair" is inappropriate today. Using the name of the OBJECT of the leak as the SUBJECT title is not fully descriptive of the issue. And referring to a matter in which a senior White House official has been convicted of four felonies seems to be something rather more than an "affair" - a word that a majority of online dictionaries defines without any reference to a type of matter involving criminality. Davidpatrick 04:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support Plame is what matters - Everything revolves around her.Valtam 16:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
4. support: i've edited this article for over a year and there has never been any real complaints about the title until the Huffington Post[10] made the claim that it was biased. the title Plame affair is concise, specific and recognizable. i find no POV in the wording.Anthonymendoza 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Weak oppose. This is a precise name, but not the most commonly used, and I am slightly swayed by the line of reasoning that the topic shouldn't be named after the victim (especially since more often that not the media has not done so).--ragesoss 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. The name is precise and contains only two words and just three syllables. It's also easier to type it into the address bar (rather than something consisting of three words and more syllables). I am sure if one person moderately knowledgable in U.S. politics referred to it with this phrase to another such person, then they would both know exactly what the subject matter would be about. -Mardus 10:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Support but Second choice. This is my preference of the original three. I don't like using the name of the victim, but i would argue that the CIA was a victim too. Mrs. Wilson's career was wrecked, but she is still alive and, we hope, has a happy life ahead of her. The leak damaged CIA networks tracking WMD sales, endangering sources and could potentially cost thousands of lives. Maybe we should think outside the box and come up with a longer name that captures the story. To this end, I have added an fourth option.--agr 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My current first choice is "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment"--agr 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Support NPOV title. --Tbeatty 04:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support This title is clear, specific, and neutral. Everyone knows the Plame affair is about this particular incident. Other titles offered are ambiguous. Vivaldi (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support based on Google results below. Joeldl 11:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. "Affair" is ambiguous in the grand scope of history (or in encylopedic usage if you prefer). —  AjaxSmack  02:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

CIA leak case

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

1. Support - This would be my first choice. CIA leak case seems to have become the common name for the scandal once the Scooter Libby trial began.--Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Mildly Support - This would be my second choice. The matter is obviously to do with the "CIA leak". Is it a "case" or a "scandal"? It is certainly a "case" in one regard. The matter became a legal issue - and then became a "case". But it obviously became much MORE than a "case". There were political and media dimensions to the matter that are referenced in the article - and those are broader issues than are covered by the word "case". There is no doubt whatsoever that the matter eventually became a scandal. However - if ithis ended up being a choice between "Plame affair" and "CIA leak case" - "CIA leak case" would be preferable. Davidpatrick 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Not specific enough to explain the topic of the article. There have been lots of leaks in the history of the CIA. Dekimasuよ! 11:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. There were other CIA leaks in 2003. Valtam 16:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Despite that fact that there have been and no doubt will be more CIA leaks than this one, this topic seems to have established itself as "the CIA leak case". Unless or until there is another notable "CIA leak case" that shares the title, I think we should follow the lead of news reports, which most often used this term. With all the redirects we have, and the first line which explains the basic subject, ambiguity is not a serious concern at this time.--ragesoss 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Very weak support. It applies well as an article name, but the Watergate scandal is known as a scandal and not as a case. -Mardus 10:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose I don't think the CIA was actually involved so name is misleading since it's not well known. This is too vague and misleading. --Tbeatty 04:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose: This is confusing and ambiguous. Vivaldi (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose The court proceedings are not representative of the affair/scandal taken as a whole. Joeldl 11:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

CIA leak scandal

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

1. Oppose - This seems to fall under neologism and gets vastly less hits on google in comparison than the other two more common choices. --Bobblehead 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Strongly Support - This matter is about the "CIA leak". The question is - is this an "affair"? A "case"? Or a "scandal"? Is it pejorative or POV to call it a "scandal"? Look at the definition of "scandal". Look at similar matters concerning a Republican President (Watergate scandal) and a Democratic President (Lewinsky scandal). When there is an issue that has legal, political and media aspects - and criminal charges - it becomes a "scandal". This is not an imposition of a POV. There is overwhelming evidence that the media (both liberal and conservative) regard this matter as having (eventually) become a scandal. If you want to consider Google hits - look up the number of Google hits for "CIA leak" + "scandal" (as two wordings on the same webpage) and you get 304,000. Far more than "Plame" and "affair" together. ("Case" gets more hits only because there has been a legal proceeding and consequent massive reportage of the "case". But this is MORE than a legal issue.) This may have started out as the "Plame affair" - but it has developed over 4 years into the "CIA leak scandal". Davidpatrick 05:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Not specific enough to explain the topic of the article. There have been lots of leaks in the history of the CIA. Dekimasuよ! 11:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. If this was a scandal, it was a manufactured one. Valtam 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. It's not up to us to decide the semantics of the issue; "CIA leak scandal" has very rarely been used in the media.--ragesoss 03:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Support on these grounds as a redirect: 'CIA leak scandal (2003)' is specific enough (adding the year was a good idea for future reference, as there may be other CIA leak scandals), while 'Plame affair' is unique enough, as I think there won't be another scandalous political affair related to Valerie Plame anyway.
7. Oppose doesn't rise to a scandal. And the reaction to affirm or deny that statement shows the POV inherent in the term. --Tbeatty 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. The term scandal is obviously expressing a point of view. Since nobody has even been charged with any crime or misdemeanor for exposing Ms. Plame's identity, it seems a little overboard to make this into a "scandal". There are certainly some interesting events to report in this affair but it isn't the encyclopedia to independently determine that the events are scandalous. That's a job for partisan hacks. (And I for one am actually against the Bush administration...I'm saying this because there is no reason to introduce a term such as scandal to explain this situation). Vivaldi (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose 2003 CIA leak scandal would be acceptable, but the Google results below show "Plame affair" is more common. Joeldl 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bush administration leak of a CIA agent's identity

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

1. Oppose since it hasn't been established. --Tbeatty 04:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. While I believe that the Bush administration purposely leaked the name of Ms. Plame as punishment for her husband's actions, I don't believe there is enough evidence to claim this for certain in an encyclopedia. Not yet....not by a long shot. Vivaldi (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose for reasons given by Vivaldi. Joeldl 11:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose" Armitage in the State Department leaked the name, not the White House. Valtam 19:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Plamegate

Not sure how I forgot this one, but ever since Watergate there has been a habit to call a scandal "-gate". While I haven't had much luck finding evidence that "Plamegate" is used by the mainstream media except on rare occasions, it does seem to be quite popular among the internet media and blogs. --Bobblehead 19:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using --~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

1. Oppose Neoligism. And tired one at that. --Tbeatty 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I've never even heard of this term. Certainly Plame Affair is much more neutral. This certainly doesn't rise to the level of crimes that were involved in the Watergate scandal that this is alluding to. Vivaldi (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of Scooter Libby

I threw this out there, not because it has a chance, but because it should put some of the other titles in perspective. This is a valid point of view and is held by a substantial number of people. But it is just that: a point of view. The title should not espouse a point of view.

Survey

1. Oppose as POV as the previous. --Tbeatty 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Poor Scooter! Being found guilty of telling multiple lies makes me feel so sorry for him. "But I was telling lies about a crime that didn't exist!" Ha-ha. Well, I guess the moral is don't lie under oath, Scooter! Anyhoo, despite the numerous calls of the big fat drug-abusing idiot and his loyal dittoheads...this title is clearly trying to push a very distorted point-of-view across. It doesn't even get to the real heart of the matter. Plame's name wasn't revealed just so that Scooter could be found guilty of lying about it. Vivaldi (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment

This is as neutral as I could make it. --Tbeatty 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

1. Support --Tbeatty 04:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - as a second option to just "Plame affair". This is overly long and unnecessary as far as I am concerned, but I agree that it is at least unambiguous and neutral, which are two of the things I want out of the title. Vivaldi (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose, not because there is anything inherently wrong with it, but just because it is unnecessarily verbose when Plame affair (capitalized or otherwise) is sufficient. Dekimasuよ! 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Agree with Dekimasu. Also, "Plame affair" is well attested. Joeldl 11:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - The word "employment" should not be capitalized, however. I prefer this to the option I proposed above. I wasn't trying to imply the leak was deliberate, but clearly it was taken that way. This story is receding into history and I'm not sure "Plame affair" will have much meaning to readers years from now. It's still my second choice, however. --agr 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support as least ambiguous and least POV. —  AjaxSmack  02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Support as my second preference for a name. i still think Plame affair is better. Anthonymendoza 18:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
8. Strongly support as as alternative to the outdated Plame Affair. Davidpatrick 01:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
9. Support as an alternative to Plame Affair. Valtam 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
10. Support. This is a totally neutral title. It's a bit awkward (compared to the most common media term "CIA leak case"), but we have a billion redirects (approx.), so finding it won't be an issue, and the benefit of verbosity is that it isn't ambiguous..--ragesoss 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

i think the votes cast in the previous vote on the article name should be copied and pasted to this new vote. any objections??Anthonymendoza 00:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinions change, so copying the votes from the above vote to this one would not be appropriate. If you want to contact everyone that voted before but hasn't voted so far you can do that, though. --Bobblehead 01:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

i've contacted everyone who voted before. hopefully this will be resolved soon.Anthonymendoza 20:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Why should I have to trot over here and repeat once again what I've said many times before? Hell, my opinion could change the instant after I "vote" in this 4th or 5th round of discussions, so why give it any thing anyone says credence? Here's my opinion: this is a lot of nonsense; there was never any consensus to move it from a perfectly reasonable name; what a fucking waste of time. But, you never know -- I might not believe that by the time you read it, so you should probably just count me as pro-"Bush personally committing treason" for the title. Derex 01:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL. I agree with you here Derex. There was no reason and no consensus to move an important article to its new name where it now rests. This debate should be taking place over at the "Plame Affair" talk page, not this one. Vivaldi (talk) 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Couple of things I should have noted. The above are the ones I came up with off the top of my head. If y'all can think of other alternatives feel free to add them to the list (with an explanation if possible). If you have a different way to organize the discussion, that can be used as well. A different way of organizing that I've seen is breaking the title into multiple segments. So segment 1 could be "Plame", "CIA leak", "CIA Plame leak", etc. Segment 2 could be "case", "controversy", "scandal", "affair", etc. Segment 3 could be disambiguation of some sort, if needed, such as (2003), (Plame), nothing, etc. So if after the discussion "CIA Plame leak" was chosen for Segment 1, "controversy" was chosen for segment 2, and nothing was chosen for segment 3, then the name of the article would be "CIA Plame leak controversy". Also, deciding on a name in the existing discussion does not exclude the addition of a disambiguation. So if CIA leak scandal were chosen, then (Plame), (2003), or some other disambiguation could be added. The whole point of this is to get a discussion going on the naming of this article. --Bobblehead 18:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that these terms get any results on Google anyway, means that all these names should apply: Plame affair is unique (CIA's premise, if you will, and long history by nature alone lend itself for scandals and affairs to crop up) and good to type, CIA leak scandal (2003) is specific and CIA leak case is a phrase a legal professional would be more interested in (but this one is also most ambiguous). -Mardus 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They all do apply, but all of the options can't be the name of the article. The question is, which one is the most commonthat the average Wikipedia reader would be looking up. So the question is.. Which one should be the name of the article and which ones should end up as redirects. --Bobblehead 19:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fourth option

I added a fourth option: Bush administration leak of a CIA agent's identity. I think all the others have serious flaws. As many have pointed out, Mrs. Wilson was the victim here and played no role in the unfolding of the story. Nor was the CIA the perpetrator. We can afford a longer title that attempts to unambiguously capture what happened. Short titles can redirect here. I am, of course, open to improvements on my wording. Yes, there were two Bush administration's but only one leaked an agents name. The option I am presenting for a vote is intended to include other possibilities and is more to represent the notion of a longer, more descriptive title, on the assumption we can later agree on one. --agr 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Google results

It seems the BBC also wondered what to call it. [11] They write this: "The revelation of her identity as a serving agent in 2003 is the basis for the Plame affair, or CIA leak scandal." Since they are explicitly addressing the issue of the name of the scandal/affair, this is a good starting point and I think 2003 CIA leak scandal and Plame Affair are our main choices. I've Googled some, and I decided to target specific mainstream press sites so as to exclude bloggers and other potential partisans. In each case I tested +"Plame affair" +Wilson and +"CIA leak scandal" +Wilson. ("CIA" searches include results with "C.I.A.") I hope my choice of news sources was representative. Generally speaking, "Plame affair" seems more common, although "Plame affair" appears to be more heavily favoured by U.S. sources than non-U.S. ones. Joeldl 11:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

U.S.

• site:npr.org — "CIA leak scandal": 1;"Plame affair": 25.
• site:nytimes.com — "CIA leak scandal": 4;"Plame affair": 599.
• site:washingtonpost.com — "CIA leak scandal": 47;"Plame affair": 396.
• site:latimes.com — "CIA leak scandal": 6;"Plame affair": 8.

U.K.

• site:bbc.co.uk — "CIA leak scandal": 9;"Plame affair":7.
• site:independent.co.uk — "CIA leak scandal": 1;"Plame affair": 5.

Canada

• site:cbc.ca — "CIA leak scandal": 0;"Plame affair": 3.
• site:theglobeandmail.com — "CIA leak scandal": 0;"Plame affair": 1.

Australia

• site:abc.net.au — "CIA leak scandal": 3;"Plame affair": 1.
• site:smh.com.au — "CIA leak scandal": 4;"Plame affair": 3.

Ireland

• site:rte.ie — "CIA leak scandal": 0; "Plame affair": 1.
• site:unison.ie — "CIA leak scandal": 3;"Plame affair": 4.

New Zealand

• site:tvnz.co.nz — "CIA leak scandal": 0;"Plame affair": 1.
• site:nzherald.co.nz — "CIA leak scandal": 0;"Plame affair": 1.

Further research that would be helpful

Excellent work. Obviously such research is helpful but not definitive. Nor should the results be a sole determinative factor. Also, it is does not provide a full reflection to look just for the entire phrase that is the proposed article title. The words "CIA leak" need to be searched for together. In grammatical terms "CIA leak" and "Plame" are the equivalent phrases. And "affair" and "scandal" are the two suffixes. The numbers may not be quite as disparate.

May I suggest the following search tests:

Search for "Plame" + "affair" + "Wilson"
Search for "CIA leak" + "scandal" + "Wilson"

[Comments added by User:Davidpatrick]

At this point, I think the pattern is clear, especially as regards the U.S. sources. The NY Times even appears to have made an editorial decision to call it the "Plame Affair", given the disparity. My search was on the exact two names suggested by the BBC webpage, which specifically addressed the issue of the name of the affair/scandal. So I think it is justifiable to conduct a search on exactly those phrases. Also, by separating "scandal" from "CIA leak", we would accept uses of "scandal" which may not be used as part of the name of the affair/scandal, whereas "affair" has a greater tendency to combine with surnames and to serve as the name of an affair/scandal. Undoubtedly, we would find that it was very common for the Plame affair to be regarded as a scandal, but that does not mean that "scandal" appears in its name most of the time. Joeldl 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I could have left out "CIA" and just looked at +Wilson +"leak scandal". In that case, NPR returns 1, the N.Y. Times 324, the Washington Post 65, the L.A. Times 7, the BBC 16, The Independent 2, the CBC 2, The Globe and Mail 0, the ABC 7 (including "the CIA identity leak scandal"), the Sydney Morning Herald 5. (Somebody else can do Ireland and N.Z.) I don't think this changes the results. The N.Y. Times does use "leak scandal" quite a bit, but it's not clear that it's as a name for the affair/scandal. In any case "Plame affair" remains more common. Joeldl 13:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough already?!

one thing is clear from the latest vote tally; there is a clear consensus against CIA leak scandal. only two people support this title, counting the person who initially moved the page. it appears to me that Plame affair and Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment are the top two choices. but seriously, how long is this page going to stay titled CIA leak scandal when there clearly is no consensus for such a title?Anthonymendoza 18:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine it will stay at the current title until consensus is reached on which article title to move it to. Perhaps the discussion should move into round 2 and start discussing which title to use between "Plame Affair" and "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA Employment"? None of the others are even close to having consensus.--Bobblehead 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

that sounds ok to me, but then we may have to contact everyone again and let them know there is another vote. this is getting frustrating.Anthonymendoza 19:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have a consensus. At least 11 people have supported "Plame affair" over the various discussions. I count 3 that have opposed it, 1 weakly. Most supporting the longer title also support Plame affair, but more strongly. This has gone on far, far, far too long. There was never any consensus to move it, and there is a clear consensus to move it back. There is at the very least a resounding consensus that the current title is not acceptable. Enough is indeed enough. Derex 01:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely not a "clear consensus". There are 8 "support" for Plame Affair. And one of those has a "but" after it - suggesting that we find another title. So a total of 7 clear votes for "Plame Affair". But there are 12 - TWELVE votes that support three other choices instead of Plame Affair. 4 (of varying strength) for "CIA leak case". 2 for "CIA leak scandal" And 6 for the recently proposed "Disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA Employment". One thing is clear. There is no "clear consensus." I would like to see some actual rebuttal of legitimate debate points raised rather than reflexive dismissals. So that objections can be debated and real consensus can emerge. Davidpatrick 07:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

then i guess the only way we will really be able to settle this is to have yet another run-off vote between the top two titles. but clearly CIA leak scandal is not one of the top two. as far as debating the topic, others have responded to your points, but i'm guessing that they have not responded in a way you would like. more debate is just beating a dead horse here. Anthonymendoza 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia - not a daily tabloid - and not "American Idol"

"Enough already" ???!!! What is this haste about? Wikipedia isn't a daily tabloid that has to have a headline ready by a certain deadline. We are an encyclopedia. We have the onus of taking time to get things right. And moreover the obligation to be ready to look at changing circumstances. I have seen no rebuttal of one very salient point. I have not even seen the point addressed. Namely that changes in circumstances and understanding of a specific story - causes the perceptions to change over time and to refer to events in different terms. In the first year of what we now call the Watergate Scandal the story was primarily called the "DNC break-in". Then as the story evolved and people gained a broader perception of what it represented - the term "Watergate" was used to refer to the matter. It would be regarded as naive and simplistic to keep referring to the "DNC break-in". And too limiting. When this matter came into view in 2003 - it DID seem to be just about Valerie Plame. And it WAS at that point an "affair". When the matter is still a news story 4 years later... When the matter has resulted in a senior White House official being convicted of four felonies... When there are political, legal and media ramfications... the matter is no longer at the same level as it was when it was dubbed the "Plame Affair". And - some other people have noted that it is not really appropriate for an article about something to be named after the victim in such a way that the victim appears to be the subject and primary protagonist rather than the passive victim in the matter. These points are valid to debate. This isn't an issue to just get out of the way... I am not frightened of honest healthy debate about this. I think that debate - addressing each other's points - will help us arrive at an enlightened consensus rather than just whipping up people to vote for a comfortable status quo. Davidpatrick 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Closing admin's remarks

This is a difficult issue, and a lot of discussion has been had, although it seems to have died down over the last day or two, suggesting that now is the time to make a decision one way or the other. Several of the options received only oppose votes, and can be discarded immediately. Four possibilities remain. Of these, "CIA leak case" and "CIA leak scandal" are the least popular, in terms of raw votes, and the other two, "Plame affair" and "disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA employment" enjoy roughly equal support. However, move requests are not votes, and many supporters of the fourth option still prefer the first ("Plame affair") over it. DavidPatrick's observation that the names given to events can change over time is true, but this seems not to have happened yet. The name used most widely in the media is still "Plame affair". Over time, this may change, and we may have to rename the article in the future if that happens. At the moment, "Plame affair" is the predominant name for the topic, and the one which the greatest number of people prefer.
This article has been renamed from CIA leak scandal (2003) to Plame affair as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 12:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to bring this up again but...

We need a clear statement in the intro that Valerie Plame was covert and we need to weed out the claims questioning that basic fact. Fitzgerald's latest filing makes clear that she was covert and that all the back and forth for the last two years on this issue has been nonsense -- "First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."[12]. And this: "At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."[13] csloat 11:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

support the above statement by csloat, there is no question now (if there ever was). R. Baley 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC) edited to add: there might be a sub-section in the article about nature of the debate which tried to minimize/discredit the covert status of her employment prior to fitzgerald's latest prosecutorial disclosure. R. Baley 18:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree also DMorpheus 18:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

this again? excuse me while i stop my head from spinning before i respond...first, there's nothing new in any of this. if you read the indictment of Libby, you'll read that Fitzgerald was investigating potential violations of the IIPA. so we've known that fitzgerald believed Plame fit the definition for almost two years. the question has never been whether fitzgerald believed she fit the IIPA definition. the question has been 1)why was no one charged, and 2)if he had charged someone with violating the IIPA, could it have held up in court and could he have gotten a conviction. the article cited above states that Libby's defense team is going to respond to this specific assertion when it files its brief, and i'll bet you a million dollars they will argue she did not fit the definition. since there will be no court battle to settle this, it will always remain a mystery. just because a prosecutor says A is true, doesn't make it true. it's why we have defense lawyers and trials. second, the CIA declassification isn't anything new either. the only significant development is that the CIA now officially acknowledges she was an agent, but won't confirm her employment prior to 2002 (this is now the subject of Plame's lawsuit against the CIA with regards to her book). but the other interesting aspect of the CIA letter is that the CIA states she "served" at CIA headquarters and "traveled" overseas. any defense lawyer would jump on this with regards to the IIPA. the letter also states that prior to the leak Plame was given a supervisor role at CIA headquarters. so the assertion by novak that she was a manager when he exposed her isn't that far off. i don't take any issue with the minor edit made in connection with discussion, but i disagree this article needs a rewrite because of Fitzgeralds brief.

and since we are beating dead horses here...how about this article[14]

"In the additional views, the three senators publish for the first time the full text of an e-mail message sent by Plame on Feb. 12, 2002, in which she writes that Wilson "may be in a position to assist" the CIA's inquiries into the Niger reports.

This, they say, is consistent with what Plame told the CIA's inspector general, who testified to the committee that she had "made the suggestion" that Wilson look into the matter for the agency.

"Additional information recently made available to the committee indicates that this information came from (Plame's) own testimony to the CIA inspector general," they write.

But the additional views note that although the e-mail was sent Feb. 12, there is no evidence of any queries from the vice president's office until Feb. 13.

Moreover, she had previously told Senate committee staff that she did not recall whether it was she or her supervisor who had originally suggested her husband's name. Anthonymendoza 22:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

and here is the Libby defense team response to Fitzgerald's assertion that Plame was covered under IIPA. they make all the points a defense team should make with regard to this issue.[15] the bottom line: we will never know if Plame was covered under IIPA because no one was charged with violating the IIPA and, thus, the issue wasn't litigated.Anthonymendoza 00:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Spin spin spin. Youre right her being covert is nothing new, but since the spinmeisters have been arguing for years that plame was not covert based on some bizarre interpretations of Fitzgerald's own words, it's nice to have confirmation from Fitz that she was covert. And the thing is there is no longer any basis for the claim that she was not covert since it was based on speculation that plame had not travelled for five years before she was outed; we now know for a fact that she did travel undercover during that time. You're right that we won't have a court decision saying that she was covert under IIPA, but we don't really need one -- what part of the IIPA definition is left that could even be questioned? We know she was considered covert by the CIA (that has been made eminently clear by now); we know the CIA took affirmative measures to protect her identity, and we know for a fact that she travelled under both official and non official cover about ten times during the relevant time period. I suppose the right wing spin machine won't quit fabricating reality even when it has been completely exposed. The Libby lawyers document makes some interesting arguments, but they don't really help the case that she wasn't covert. They complain that Fitz wants the court to take the government's word about the status of her employment, ignoring the fact that it was the government who employed plame and therefore who would have had the final say about what her employment status was. Ultimately the reason Fitz did not prosecute the IIPA violation is something the defense agrees with - that there's not enough evidence that Libby knew she was covert when he went blabbing to the press about it. The fact that not enough evidence exists to prosecute a crime doesn't mean no crime has been committed, however, and we do know for a fact at this point that a covert CIA agent's classified identity was compromised by people working in the Bush Administration. csloat 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

we do need a court decision saying she was covert under IIPA in order to definitively say she was covert under the IIPA. this isn't a difficult concept. Anthonymendoza 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No; we need a court decision saying that she was covered under the IIPA in order to say that a court decision determined that she was covered under the IIPA. Until then we can certainly acknowledge that she meets every literal aspect of the definition (at least according to the CIA, to Fitzgerald, and to just about everyone except Libby's defense lawyers and the right wing spin machine). Anyway, I'm not proposing any sweeping changes in the article here; I just think it is interesting that for two years the pro-treason wing of the Republican party has been parsing Fitzgerald's words to suggest that she wasn't "covert." It's a good thing that he has finally laid that dispute to rest, IMHO, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that there are quite a few voices still playing that tune. It's odd, and certainly a bit sad from the perspective of the future of the U.S. intelligence apparatus. csloat 19:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

the CIA has never stated she was covert under the IIPA. only fitzgerald has stated this as fact. if you read the transcript of the sentencing today at firedoglake, libby's lawyers told the judge they disputed fitzgerald's claim and wanted a hearing to determine whether she fit the legal definition. fitzgerald objected and judge walton agreed, stating that evidence cannot be entered into proceedings that late into a case. he did say that if the defense had requested such a motion earlier, he would have considered it, and according to firedoglake's transcript, libby's defense realized at that point they made a big legal blunder. in the end, according to the transcript, walton stated we may never know if she was covert under the IIPA, because libby obstructed the investigation and prevented those questions from being pursued. the arguments you make about her meeting "every literal aspect of the definition" are better left for your blog and not wikipedia. for a factual presentation of this topic, it would be improper to state in the article she was covert under IIPA. there will always be questions with regard to this, as judge walton made clear today.Anthonymendoza 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IIPA does not cover whether or not a person is covert or not, so the CIA can not say that her outing was a violation of IIPA. It only covers that it is illegal for a person to knowingly out a covert agent. So it is entirely possible that Plame was a covert agent and yet her outing not be a crime if the person that outed her was unaware that she was a covert agent. Walton's statement does not preclude her from being covert at the time of her outing, just that it is not possible to determine if a crime was committed because Libby lied.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

a covert operative must fit a specific legal definition in order to qualify under the statute. this Salon.com article[16] pretty much sums up my position. the only exception i take with the article is that it states that Walton seemingly sided with the prosecution in believing Plame fit the legal definition. Walton disputed the notion by the defense that the investigation was illegitimate, and thus gave Libby the sentence of 30 months because Libby blocked the pursuance of a legitmate investigation. with regard to the IIPA definition, Walton told the defense "The CIA believes one of its agents was improperly outed....They had a legitimate concern. So they contact the Justice Department and they say this needs to be investigated....And the Justice Department...goes to investigate and they make inquiries....And that person lies. When law enforcement officials...initiate an investigation...it is the obligation of the American citizenry to be honest and forthright." [17] the defense sought a hearing to finally determine if she met the definition, and the judge ruled it was too late for discovery. in the end, Walton cross referenced the investigation to the obstruction count, not the specific charges Fitzgerald was investigating.[18]Anthonymendoza 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that as a 23 year old, I once had sex with a 17 year old. It's really not clear if I am a statutory rapist or not. I guess we'll never know that since it was never determined in court. (the preceeding three sentences are a hypothetical example that never occurred.) 71.39.78.68 16:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In a sense, your hypothetical example is absolutely correct. If I were writing a biographical article about you on WP, I could not write "Mr. 71.39.78.68 is a statuatory rapist who edits Wikipedia." I could write, "Mr. 71.39.78.68 admits that at age 23 he had sex with a 17 year old." The first sentence is not only POV but removes the assumption of innocence, replacing it with a defacto verdict. The second sentence states the facts in a NPOV fashion (that is assuming that I had a source I could cite). Ursasapien (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Raw Story/Shuster

do we still need to include in this article the claim by raw story and david shuster that plame was tracking Iranian wmd activity prior to the leak? this seems to have been debunked, even by plame's own testimony in which she specifically mentions Iraq, but not Iran. Anthonymendoza 23:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

nevermind. CBS has also reported this.Anthonymendoza 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Plame Affair Best Described as a 'scandal'

I think that the Plame Affair is best described as a 'scandal' rather than a political controversy. I believe the word 'scandal' has a proper connotation and is more accurate. This is because the Plame affair is not about getting people elected. In addition, since Scotter Libby's sentence was commuted, this will be remembered in history more as a scandal. Political controversies are about redrawing districts, voting on laws, stances on social issues, etc. The Plame affair is not about any of these. The scandal involves the CIA a non-party affiliated organization and the situation transcends politics since it involves national security. There may have been a political motivation in the actions people took, however, the way things unfolded this fast became a scandal rather than a controversy.

Here is a news story that uses the word scandal: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070703/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_trial "Though the leak investigation is complete and nobody will have to serve prison time, the scandal that has loomed over the Bush administration for years did not subside. Democrats were enraged."

Theroad2kona 13:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Article length

i realize this article is long, but i think it will be easier to break up once this is no longer a current event. it is going to be a monumental project to gather all the pages dealing with this topic and to reorganize them into NPOV articles. some of the subsections of the Plame Affair can become subarticles, such as the section dealing with the consequences of the leak. but since there are several subarticles already that need to be rewritten, i don't think now is the time to start breaking up this article. i would commend any editor who takes it upon him/herself to begin this process. i can only find limited time to edit myself.Anthonymendoza 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

still a current event?

is this article still considered a current event? the only ongoing matter is the appeal by Libby's defense team, which could take years. any thoughts? Anthonymendoza 20:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In December 2007, Libby's lawyers announced that he had decided to drop his appeal of his convictions in United States v. Libby. For more information and sources, please see updated version of Lewis Libby. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fitzmas

Fitzmas relinks here. Why?? There is no mention of "Fitzmas" in the article. --BjKa 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

that article was removed a long time ago. it was deemed unencyclopedic and redirected here.Anthonymendoza 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should have been deleted outright, though, since as a redirect it just seems puzzling (unless you already know the context for the term). Alai (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Damage Assessment

[NOTE: Potential violation of WP:BLP: this section should be deleted on sight in my view. If an administrator or the posting editor does not delete it, I may do so; I am concerned about its veering toward defamation of a living person (Fitzgerald). --NYScholar (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)]

Plame has said there was a damage assessment done, and various reporters have spoken of one, although reporting differing conclusions. why did Fitzgerald tell the court there wasn't one done after Libby's lawyers requested the report?? anyone know?Anthonymendoza 19:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How does this section relate to improving the article? --NYScholar (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The article could be improved by providing more accurate information presented in a NPOV. How is this information not germane to the topic? Ursasapien (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Information in the article needs to be properly sourced (documented), providing "full citations" to sources, according to WP:BLP#Sources and WP:V#Sources. Providing unsourced statements that are speculations with no source citations to support them is not in keeping with either WP:V or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is not a forum for discussing the subject; it's the place to discuss specific ways to improve the article. See the template at top of page. --NYScholar (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice use of condescension. As I understood the previous query, the question was "Does anyone have a reliable source that speaks to Fitzgerald's apparent perjury?" Ursasapien (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no such condenscending; see WP:AGF. There is no evidence of "Fitzgerald's apparent perjury" [not what I understood from the comment first posted in this section; what was intended was just not clear at all to me; this is even worse than what I had understood from that comment]. To state that a living person has ["apparently"] committed "perjury" [(a federal crime)] [without a reliable and verifiable source to substantiate that statement] violates WP:BLP. Fitzgerald is also a living person. If you have no sources for these speculations, don't post the speculations; they are non-expert (non-lawyers')--Wikipedia editors'--speculations about people who are alive and WP:BLP pertains, which prohibits making such undocumented statements in Wikipedia talk space. This whole section should be deleted, if it intends to be claiming that Fitzgerald has "apparently" committed "perjury"; it is not proper to make the statement without a reliable source to back it up. We ourselves are not such sources (unless we have published in a reliable third party publication that we can cite and that others can verify). --NYScholar (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC) [clarifications in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)]

Clean up of formatting of quotations throughout

(edit conflict) I have done a clean up of inconsistent ways of presenting and formatting quotations (short, fewer than 4 lines are to be incorporated in text; longer than 4 lines are formatted as "block quotations"); see Wikipedia:Manual of Style for how to format such quotations in articles in Wikipedia. Often the "cquote" format was being used for one and two-line quotations and seemed to lack neutrality in highlighting some quotations from some sources over quotations from other sources, interfering with a key principle of editing in Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (Earlier, I removed the template, which did not have consensus discussion in talk page: see editing history.) --NYScholar (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I readded the tag, as the article clearly relies too heavily on quotations. Let's discuss how we can edit this article to be less of a collection of quotes. Ursasapien (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that "the article clearly relies too heavily on quotations." That is a point of view on their use, but not a general complaint of editors throughout this talk page; it is one editor's complaint. The article is, however, too long and repeats much information already accessible in other articles. It needs to be reduced in size in a neutral manner and/or split into separate articles. The quotations document the statements. Without the quotations, there would be less neutrality. I do not see it as "a collection of quotes"; but I do think that it got longer and longer as people who did not agree with one another (editors) added more and more to it. It needs pruning, but the quotations are still needed to support statements that otherwise would appear to be undocumented (unsourced) points of view of editors. This is a highly controversial subject, and it needs thoroughly-accurate full citations. See its editing history and the talk pages of articles in "See also"; many are controversial too. All the other talk pages pertaining to articles relating to this subject need to be consulted for the problems affecting editing of articles on this subject. The editing of this article cannot be done in a vacuum: see Valerie Plame and Joseph C. Wilson; Lewis Libby; United States v. Libby; Plame v. Cheney; and so on. --NYScholar (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See the "To Do" list at top of this talk page

That precedes these templates--mentions similar problems. The Plame timeline [(renamed after "To Do" list was constructed apparently)] was poorly sourced in many places last time I looked at it (some time ago); it has problems (used to be quite a mess; may still have them; I don't have time to deal with them anymore, however). Leaving that to others to sort out. --NYScholar (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC) [provided Wiki link to article; it has faulty formatting of most of its citations; needs "full citations" (authors, titles, works, dates of publication, etc.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]

Rename article?/split and/or merge?

[Please see #Article name above and archived discussions for earlier related points. --NYScholar (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]

In keeping with the related articles (all renamed), this article could be renamed "CIA leak scandal": if so, one will see that it is redundant with other articles, some of which also used to have "Plame" in the title, like "Plame affair timeline" (now CIA leak scandal timeline). Consistency in the presentation of these articles could eliminate redundancy in Wikipedia. It appears that some come to one article or another to work on when they are not satisfied with the results of editing disputes in the other; but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view needs to prevail in all articles in Wikipedia, including this one. The complaints about a "lack of neutrality" throughout the talk pages from editors with various points of view does not always mean that an article lacks neutrality; sometimes it means that the editors are not satisfied that their own points of view are not stressed in the article. Duplicating articles on the same topic tends to lead to more editing disputes; it would be better (I think) if Wikipedia offered one entirely-neutral article that presented various points of view as properly documented with verifiable sources in keeping with all of its policies and guidelines, rather than a plethora of articles on basically the same topic with problems of neutrality and ongoing editing disputes. Some parts of this article might be split off and merged into already-existing articles on the same topic (or deleted otherwise if still redundant). One could merge some of these redundant articles into one strong article that meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is a large task that I do not have time to do, but I suggest it as a possible direction for other editors to consider doing (perhaps working in collaboration as opposed to in competition, so as to avoid further editing disputes). --NYScholar (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

See the "closing admin's" ref. to "over time this may change" relating to previous request move change; it is now several months later and the situation in Wikipedia itself has changed, given the change of name of "Plame affair timeline" to "CIA leak scandal timeline"; now changing the name back to "CIA leak scandal" (now a redirect to "Plame affair", which needs reversal) makes greater sense (consistency, greater neutrality, given the arguments about lack of neutrality that are ongoing). --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Request move proposal (renewed)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the [request move proposal]. 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.

Failed request. The proposed name did not uniquely identify the subject. Proposed name was also POV by using the word scandle.--Salix alba (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion and further poll about renaming proposal from "Plame affair" to "CIA leak scandal"

HELP REQ.: Can someone fix the posting of the numbers so that they accrue: 1, 2, etc. I forgot how to do that. Thank you if you can. --NYScholar (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)] [Fixed problem; do not skip lines between your additions in "Support" or "Oppose": remember that this is a "poll" not a "vote" (see earlier poll archived in green above). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]

After consulting previous discussion (scroll up and see archived discussions):

[Please place your brief comment in only one section: either "Support" or "Oppose" below, and please use a number sign (#) (followed by Support or Oppose) prior to your comment. (Please see the "move log" of this article for its history.) Thank you.(If the name were changed, one would revise the first sentence accordingly.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]

[In the archived (in green above) "survey", there appear to be more votes in "support" of the move than "oppose" it; but there is also contradictory information from non-archived (non-green) discussions. Please see earlier comments posted by other editors. I added a comment to the "support" (non-archived) section above the archived (green) section. --NYScholar (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]

Please also see the talk pages of related and frequently-also-renamed articles; e.g., Talk:CIA leak grand jury investigation#Periodic renaming of this and related articles, which contain many cross-references to CIA leak scandal, which are currently being redirected to Plame affair but it used to be the other way around (that "Plame affair" was redirected to "CIA leak scandal"). --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move (archived)

Support

1. Support: I support the name change from "Plame affair" to "CIA leak scandal" due to the name changes of related articles, particularly CIA leak scandal timeline; it leads to both greater neutrality for this highly-controversial article and greater consistency with respect to related articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Support: I strongly support the name change. I advocated this very strongly a few months ago and accepted that there wasn't sufficient support for it then. I was heartened by the wise observation by an editor that sometimes the passage of time affects the perspective on such matters. The consistency among other related articles is one good reason. A second reason is that it would be more consistent with other similar political scandals in history. A third reason is that the focus of the article title should be on WHAT happened (a leak pertaining to the CIA) rather than on the name of the person (Plame) who happened to be the passive victim of the occurrence. Fourth reason is that - with Scooter Libby having elected to not contest his conviction - there is now no doubt that criminality took place involving a high-ranking administration official. And such criminality affecting an administration is invariably described as a scandal. That is not POV. It is a fact. This issue is most definitely more than just an "affair" - a word that connotes a "caper". Davidpatrick (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: 34,000 versus 121,000 google hits, and 9 to 25 in google news. "Plame affair" is clearly the most common name per WP:NC. Boowah59 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose: "Plame affair" uniquely identifies this incident. This was not a leak from the CIA. There have been leaks from the CIA in the past and there no doubt will be in the future. We should pick a name that will last and "CIA leak scandal" isn't it.--agr (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Per Reinhold; someone looking at an article title should have some notion what the article covers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I think NYScholar proposes a good reason to change the name of the CIA leak timeline article, not this one. csloat (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - The scandal is far more pertinent to Valarie Plame, the agent who was outed, than to the CIA as a whole, which didn't have a lot to do with it other than asking for an investigation and accepting Plame's resignation. If the google hits were different, I might be neutral, but even if you add "-wikipedia" to the searches, it's still 99,000 to 32,000. MilesAgain (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on above

On points made in "Support"

Responses to DP in "Support":

To DP: I agree with your first three reasons; in presenting the fourth, it appears to me that you are veering toward POV, lack of neutrality, because in presenting it you make assumptions that are not verifiable (no verifiable source). The reasons why Libby dropped his appeal given by his lawyers conflict w/ your (and others') viewpoints on them. Given that this is a biography of a living person, there are problems with what you post on this talk page as "fact"; it is POV (interpretation), not "fact": the phrase "no doubt" actually suggests doubt [re: why he dropped the appeal]. Lewis Libby was convicted of specific crimes and thus his "criminality" is an established "fact"; but the reasons why he has dropped his appeal are still speculations (they do not come from him directly). Moreover, his lawyers still insist on his "innocence" in their announcement of his dropping the appeal. See Lewis Libby for the sources. --NYScholar (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[Note: I also think that a problem with the word Affair in "Plame affair" is the false suggestion of a sexual affair; for a parallel name in Wikipedia, see, e.g., Profumo Affair, which did actually involve a sexual affair while still being a "Political scandal". --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]

Parallel to that observation: "Profumo Affair" or "Profumo scandal" focuses on the wrongdoer (Profumo) not on the victim (in this case Valerie Plame Wilson): to be parallel, one would call this the Scooter Libby Affair, which raises 477,000 hits in Google, or Scooter Libby Scandal, which raises 380,000 hits, as opposed to Plame affair, which raises 144,000 hits. The CIA leak scandal raises 529,000 hits. (At least today, for all of these.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

(Added later:) Later I realized that I did not use quotation marks in those phrase searches (as people did in previous archived green discussions); so I'm re-doing them with new figures (Please bear w/ me): [[see paragraphs below; please keep together; thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]

• "Plame affair": 121,000 hits in Google [one must keep in mind that some are to Wikipedia articles (not countable) or other sites copying Wikipedia's information verbatim (not countable); same caveat may apply to other such phrase searches; one would have to examine every usage to rule out repeats of Wikipedia's articles with the phrase in title or elsewhere. A Google search cannot be used as raw data for "common" usage. If alternative phrases are generally fairly "common", then one should choose the most neutral name for a Wikipedia article, while still choosing a name common enough for people to recognize and for Wikipedia to come up early in a search (Rule of thumb). --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
• "CIA leak scandal": 35,200 hits in Google
• "Scooter Libby Scandal": 1,410 hits in Google --NYScholar (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Response to NY Scholar

Perhaps I didn't express my fourth reason clearly enough. I was not passing judgement on Libby - but trying to convey that because (for whatever reason) he is not appealing his conviction - the conviction will not now be overturned. Therefore this entire matter will always have a criminal conviction as part of the story. The fact that his lawyers may continue to proclaim his innocence does not affect the fact of there having been a criminal conviction - which will never be overturned. That being the case - this is a political drama that includes a criminal conviction. Such contretemps are usually described as a scandal - even without convictions. With a conviction - it surely is a scandal. There are plenty of reasons why the word "affair" is not sufficiently descriptive. Not least the multiple meanings of the word. Incidentally I would not support it being the "Scooter Libby Affair" or "Scooter Libby Scandal". Libby is only one of the people involved in the CIA leak - albeit the only person convicted in connection to the matter. Multiple people - including Richard Armitage - have some involvement in the matter. Plame clearly was the person whose name and identity was disclosed in the matter. In fact a passive object not an active subject. So it is questionable if it is encyclopedic to use the name of a victim as the primary name of an article about the mechanics of how the person was victimized. Davidpatrick (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification; I do take your points. (I've pointed out in relation to the article Lewis Libby that even if his conviction is "wiped out" by a Presidential pardon, say, by George W. Bush, down the line, and is no longer on his record, the biographical facts still would remain in any account of who he is or was that he was once convicted of the four out of five felony charges in United States v. Libby.) [cont. in next para.]--NYScholar (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not support changing the title of the article to the ones mentioned in red above; just pointing out the inconsistency (as you do) of focusing on the victim rather than the scandal itself (the scandal involving the leaking of a covert CIA officer's name (hence, the "CIA leak scandal"; I don't know of any other "CIA leak scandal" that would be confused with this one at this time; "2003" used to be in the name of the article--both 2003 CIA leak scandal and CIA leak scandal (2003) at various times--those are descriptive, neutral, and non-ambiguous (in my reading of them); "Plame affair" is non-neutral, puts an onus on the victim, and is ambiguous (connoting sexual affair).

[Note that in the example given in Affair of "Watergate affair" the link goes to Watergate scandal, the current name of that article. --NYScholar (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC); see also the listing of "Plamegate" (one of the redirected names for the CIA leak scandal (now called "Plame affair") in the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. "Scandal" and "CIA Plame leak" seem more pertinent; as suggested much earlier: "CIA Plame leak scandal" might be a good compromise; all refs. to "Plame affair" could be changed to "CIA Plame leak scandal" throughout Wikipedia articles. "CIA leak grand jury investigation" could become "CIA Plame leak grand jury investigation", "CIA leak scandal timeline" could become "CIA Plame leak scandal timeline", and so on, for greater clarity and consistency, as well as greater neutrality. --NYScholar (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]

"Plame affair" is not neutral also because in tone it conveys a point of view: opposition to Valerie Plame Wilson (aka Valerie Plame): as in the degrading names for this scandal involving the leaking of her name (a Political scandal, not an affair, as DP observes), such as Victoria Toensing's "Plame kerfuffle".[19] (cited in Valerie Plame as a source). Those kinds of phrases like Toensing's ("affair"; "kerfuffle" [Scottish: disturbance, commotion, fuss]) are intended to be derogatory toward Valerie and Joseph Wilson by way of deemphasizing and/or minimizing the importance of Libby's (and possibly others') crime(s) [and past and ongoing damage done to the Wilsons, about which there is still an outstanding Civil suit pending (on the appeal by the Wilsons of its dismissal on jurisdictional grounds)]. Wikipedia should not name articles in ways that can be construed or misconstrued as to convey one or another point of view on the subject: neutrality is a core policy and it should not be violated in the naming of articles (see policy links already cited). --NYScholar (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC) [added links; clarifications. --NYScholar (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]

The CIA was a victim too. Networks tracking WMD were presumably blown and its ability to assure confidentiality to future sources was compromised. And "CIA leak scandal" implies the leak came from the CIA, which it didn't. The prototype for X-affair names is the Dreyfus affair where Dreyfus was the victim. --agr (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

On points made in "Oppose"

Responses to B59 in "Oppose":

The reason for the naming of articles in Wikipedia is not based solely on numbers of "hits" in Google (frequency of searches by everyone under the sun); a title has to be "encyclopedic" and consistent with the titles of other directly-related articles in Wikipedia; e.g., "CIA leak scandal timeline", which used to link to this article when it was called "CIA leak scandal"; it was renamed "CIA leak scandal timeline" from "Plame affair timeline" for justifiable reasons. There should be no need for redirection; redirection occurs because "CIA leak scandal" is a very common name for this subject; no one will not find it if this article is called that; everyone knows that the so-called "Plame affair" has to do with this "CIA leak scandal"; most people would search for "Plame" (Valerie Plame Wilson) and in the article on her find the links to "CIA leak scandal" and other articles with "CIA leak" in the "See also" list of this article. --NYScholar (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Naming conflict and WP:STYLE#Naming conventions. --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses to AR in "Oppose":

To AR: But the name is not "unique" ("uniquely identif[ying] this incident"): see Talk:CIA leak grand jury investigation#Periodic renaming of this and related articles, which also provides links to the list of American political scandals, where Plamegate is linked (also now redirected to "Plame affair"); Wikipedia currently lacks consistency in the naming of these related articles and cross-references being made to them in one another. --NYScholar (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean unique in the sense that it points directly to this incident. "CIA leak scandal" could refer to other leaks in the past and, more importanly, in the future. Also I note that you asked for "brief comments", yet you argue at length with anyone who disagrees with your suggestion.--agr (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)"

To AR: I am not "arguing at length with" etc.; I am responding and providing links to related discussions on the other articles that have "CIA leak" or "CIA leak scandal" in their titles. This article does not exist in a vacuum; it is cross-linked to other articles in Wikipedia about the subject: see its "See also" list. WP:AGF re: consistency of names of these articles. --NYScholar (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC) [NOTE: The name was "CIA leak scandal (2003)", but it was renamed various times since then; it used to relate to the 2003 American political scandal aka "Plamegate"; these renamings have been going on over a long period of time, leading to many redirects, back and forth. --NYScholar (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)]

Reply to AR: I don't see how "CIA leak scandal" "implies that the leak came from the CIA"; the phrase is well known enough not to suggest that. People searching it know that the leak involves the leak of a covert CIA officer's name: "CIA Plame leak scandal" is clear enough. The lead defines what the subject is. Given WP:BLP, as editors, we should be more concerned about a misleading name for an article pertaining to a living person in "Plame affair" (which is very misleading about that person) than about the CIA per se, which is linked clearly enough in CIA. --NYScholar (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Responses to CS in "Oppose":

To CS: Of course, I thought of that, but that article has been changed back and forth too after much contentious debate too. What would be good would be if Wikipedia used the name currently most common perhaps ("CIA leak scandal" consistently throughout and changed all the "Plame affair" cross-links in the other article(s) to CIA leak scandal and fixed the redirects as needed. See most recent search of various names cited in response to DP above (in support sec.). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Move logs and revision histories related to move and renaming requests

Please see the editing history/logs of these related articles; e.g. for this article, [20] and [21] and [22]. Thanks. (updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Revision history of Plamegate: [23]. --NYScholar (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Revision history of Wilson-Plame Scandal: [24]. --NYScholar (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Revision history of CIA leak scandal (2003): [25]. --NYScholar (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Where is the administrative action on the request move proposal?

Please see archiving of poll above and discussion [26]; the discussion was not finished, yet the following appears added in course of archiving prematurely: "Failed request. The proposed name did not uniquely identify the subject. Proposed name was also POV by using the word scandle.--Salix alba (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)"

That comment did not show up completely in the green archived box due to two spaces added before it; I have deleted only the two spaces so that the whole comment could appear. Salix alba: Please add a direct link to administrative action on this request move proposal; it began just before Christmas, when a number of editors may have been away, and closing it and acting on the request move proposal appears to be premature; more time is needed for more editors to make comments. Acting upon it after only seven people have commented in a poll is not sufficient time for the proposal to be considered. What administrator has "failed" the request move proposal? Where are the reasons given? As I just wrote in editing comment, "scandal" is a word used for political scandals throughout Wikipedia; there is absolutely no disagreement that Plamegate, the CIA leak scandal, the CIA leak grand jury investigation, and Plame affair are all terms pertaining directly to an American political scandal; "American political scandals" is a category for this article; it is hardly "POV" to use the word Scandal in the name of this article; "affair" is both misleading and ambiguous, as per comments on this talk page and earlier archived talk pages for this article. The move proposal needs additional consideration; the most-recently archived (in green box) discussion was a "poll" not a "vote"; discussion was still ongoing. --NYScholar (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [added link for convenience, since the material referred to was archived since I wrote this comment. --NYScholar (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)]

See "See also" in the article: List of scandals with "-gate" suffix ref. to Plamegate (renamed later "CIA leak scandal" and "Plame affair"); there is no doubt that the subject of this article is an American political scandal. To deny that it is such (in the naming of the article) presents a point of view on the subject. It does not appear that "affair" is more neutral and less "point of view" (biased) than "scandal"; the word "scandal" is definitive; it defines the kind of phenomenon (its class, genre) that is being discussed in the article. --NYScholar (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as it had fallen into the backlog section on WP:RM. The discussion here was not ongoing with no new comments in the four days before closure. The pole clearly showed a majority against the move. In the end of the day CIA leek scandal reads like a tabloid headline. --Salix alba (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Request move proposal (renewed and continued due to holiday break interfering)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

The result of the proposal was not to move --Lox (t,c) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

---

[Please review above archived boxes of discussions prior to commenting; reminder: this is a poll [for purposes of discussion] not a vote. It is here for purposes of further discussion by additional editors. (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)] (Updated further w/ strength of support in brackets.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

After consulting previous discussion (scroll up and see archived discussions):

[Please place your brief comment in only one section: either "Support" or "Oppose" below, and please use a number sign (#) (followed by Support or Oppose) prior to your comment. (Please see the "move log" of this article for its history.) Thank you.(If the name were changed, one would revise the first sentence accordingly.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]

[In the archived (in green above) "survey", there appear to be more votes in "support" of the move than "oppose" it; but there is also contradictory information from non-archived (non-green) discussions. Please see earlier comments posted by other editors. I added a comment to the "support" (non-archived) section above the archived (green) section. --NYScholar (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)]

Please also see the talk pages of related and frequently-also-renamed articles; e.g., Talk:CIA leak grand jury investigation#Periodic renaming of this and related articles, which contain many cross-references to CIA leak scandal, which are currently being redirected to Plame affair but it used to be the other way around (that "Plame affair" was redirected to "CIA leak scandal"). --NYScholar (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

(added subheading for navigational purposes) Proposal is to change the name of this article from "Plame affair" to "CIA leak scandal". Indicate your position below.

Support

1. Support: I [strongly] support the name change from "Plame affair" to "CIA leak scandal" due to the name changes of related articles, particularly CIA leak scandal timeline; it leads to both greater neutrality for this highly-controversial article and greater consistency with respect to related articles in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) (Updated further w/ strength of support in brackets.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Support: I strongly support the name change. I advocated this very strongly a few months ago and accepted that there wasn't sufficient support for it then. I was heartened by the wise observation by an editor that sometimes the passage of time affects the perspective on such matters. The consistency among other related articles is one good reason. A second reason is that it would be more consistent with other similar political scandals in history. A third reason is that the focus of the article title should be on WHAT happened (a leak pertaining to the CIA) rather than on the name of the person (Plame) who happened to be the passive victim of the occurrence. Fourth reason is that - with Scooter Libby having elected to not contest his conviction - there is now no doubt that criminality took place involving a high-ranking administration official. And such criminality affecting an administration is invariably described as a scandal. That is not POV. It is a fact. This issue is most definitely more than just an "affair" - a word that connotes a "caper". Davidpatrick (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: 34,000 versus 121,000 google hits, and 9 to 25 in google news. "Plame affair" is clearly the most common name per WP:NC. Boowah59 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose: "Plame affair" uniquely identifies this incident. This was not a leak from the CIA. There have been leaks from the CIA in the past and there no doubt will be in the future. We should pick a name that will last and "CIA leak scandal" isn't it.--agr (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose: Per Reinhold; someone looking at an article title should have some notion what the article covers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I think NYScholar proposes a good reason to change the name of the CIA leak timeline article, not this one. csloat (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - The scandal is far more pertinent to Valarie Plame, the agent who was outed, than to the CIA as a whole, which didn't have a lot to do with it other than asking for an investigation and accepting Plame's resignation. If the google hits were different, I might be neutral, but even if you add "-wikipedia" to the searches, it's still 99,000 to 32,000. MilesAgain (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - The Palme affair is an adequate name which has attracted wide support over the long history of attempted moves. It has the advantage of providing a unique identifier, (hence it meets Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)) for the incident which is not shared by CIA Leek scandal leeks from organisations happen all the time so a CIA leek cannot be considered unique. Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Scandal, controversy, affair explicitly states: "The term 'scandal' should not be used at all in article titles on current affairs, except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g. Teapot Dome scandal, Sharpstown scandal)"; The caveat does not apply as the incident is too new for a definitive name to emerge. --Salix alba (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Oppose there are so many CIA leak scandals that it is exceedingly ambiguous to rename it such, and highly prejudicial to other ones. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Oppose per the above comments. Also support renaming of the CIA leak timeline article. R. Baley (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Oppose ....again. How many times has this come up now? Arkon (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Plame Affair uniquely identifies the topic. CSears (talk) 9:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

• Reply to Salix alba's comment of January 2 (and action earlier):

This article is categorized by American political scandals; "Scandal" is its definitive name; "Plame affair" is less neutral and more ambiguous. CIA leak scandal timeline is the complementary article name. It is not "POV" either. The subject of this article is a "Scandal" as in American political scandals, wherein Plamegate is listed, with "also known as" names such as "CIA leak scandal" and "Plame affair" given; "Plamegate" (aka "CIA leak scandal" and "Plame affair") is listed as one of those Scandals. To state that "scandal" is not neutral and "tabloid" is not in keeping with WP:AGF; "CIA leak scandal" is in wide usage; if any name appears to be more "tabloid" (thus resulting in its large number of Google hits, including blogs) it is "Plame affair"; "CIA leak scandal" (leaving out Wikis, which reproduce this article) has a considerable enough number of non-tabloid hits in Google and other search engines to be recognizable for those looking for this article. An alternative name: "CIA Plame leak scandal" is sometimes used as well, but not as often. --NYScholar (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Another alternative is "CIA Plame leak scandal" or "Plame leak scandal". (Please see previous archived discussions in green; other comments about the name changes not in green, and previous discussions in archived talk pages for this and related articles. I've given links to the previous request moves from editing histories earlier on this talk page in last now-green archived discussion of people's comments. Reposted the earlier "support" and "oppose" numbered items for greater convenience of new readers.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "Controversy" (following its usage in lead) might be another possible alternative: e.g., "Plame controversy"; "Plame leak controversy", "Valerie Plame controversy", etc. Searching some such names with "controversy" in them might turn up such more neutral and unambiguous alternatives; an ambiguity might arise in using "controversy", however: "which" controversy pertaining to Valerie Plame; so that might be too general and hence too potentially ambiguous in the future. "Scandal" is recognizable; but "Plame affair" seems misleading (espec. in the future, when it might no longer be recognizable). "Plame affair" is not necessarily the most common term among serious newpaper print and magazine journalists, though it might be most common among bloggers and online non-professional writers (whose posts get counted in Google searches, using quotation marks, and who copy Wikipedia and other wiki articles which copy Wikipedia). (One cannot use and/or cite Wikipedia as a source.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "CIA leak scandal" has been used as a name for this subject in reputable international newspapers since approx. 2003 to 2005; one might want to examine the usage frequency of the various proposal name changes in terms of when they have been used. "Plame affair" was perhaps more widely used in 2005 than it is now (or "CIA leak scandal" is used more recently still than "Plame affair"; or vice versa. What is "too recent"? Over two years to three years of historical usage for "CIA leak scandal" (replacing "Plamegate", defined as an "American political scandal" in American political scandals, circa 2005 (October--after Libby's indictment--which occurred in Oct. 2005), shows that it has been used since then. Similarly, the "Plame affair" was in popular usage in 2005; if one checks the dates that show up in the "hits" one found via a Google search, one can see if there are variations in the usage of various names over time. "Recent" is highly variable and not defined. What date is "recent"? Those arguing for "Plame affair" have been citing Google search numbers of hits without making any such distinctions. If "CIA leak scandal" is too "recent," so is "Plame affair" too recent a term, in that both are used interchangeably (sometimes in the same articles yielding the "hits") as synonymous; one needs a descriptive, identifiable, and neutral name for the articles on this subject. At least "Plamegate" has a context in American political scandals to which one is able to cross-link in the "See also" section. But "Plamegate" appears to be dated (rather obsolete). In time, "Plame affair" will probably become (if it is not already) obsolete. [NPR's relatively current timeline (July 2, 2007) is named "Timeline: CIA Leak Case"; the references to "Plame affair" are older than that in CIA leak scandal timeline#External links. (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Originally, I preferred "CIA leak scandal (2003)" when it was named that. My main complaint is, however, now inconsistency of the names for the closely-related subjects of these articles relating to the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA covert identity (this article and the "timeline" relating directly to it: see the names for the CIA leak scandal timeline#External links, as well as "See also" in CIA leak scandal timeline. and the dates that those timelines were compiled for more contextual information re: names. (Updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See historical source "The CIA Leak", by Robert Novak, for "CIA leak scandal" in CIA leak scandal timeline#Robert Novak's column "The CIA Leak"--the stimulus for the entire "scandal" or "affair"; the nomenclature "CIA leak" in "CIA leak scandal" derives from that historical source. For other such usages following that precedent, see the timeline in Wikipedia article and in the external links given. All derives from Novak's initial article in July 2003 and his subsequent retrospective account in "The CIA leak". It is clearly a recognizable name; the U.S. government scandal and federal investigation and federal criminal case United States v. Libby and the civil case against several persons in or formerly in government filed by the Wilsons and still unresolved due to their ongoing appeal are described in or cross-linked via American political scandals and the Plame affair (CIA leak) investigation template. There is no doubt that the subject of this article directly concerns an American political scandal. There is no lack of historical perspective in naming it what it is; the opposite pertains: the use of the word derives from historical usage by international print journalists in sources that meet Wikipedia's policies in WP:V#Sources. --NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems that the need for ease of recognition and the names frequently used may conflict in terms of Wikipedia's own policies pertaining to both naming of articles and neutrality; when there is conflict among Wikipedia's own policies and/or guidelines in the naming of articles, what takes precedence probably is most reliable-sourced, verifiable usage that is still easily recognized by most readers as long as the lead makes clear the derivation of the name. (added thought.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• In further reply, the other side of the comments above: If one consults The Guardian "Timeline", one sees that it is called Timeline: the Valerie Plame affair"; like The New York Times (as mentioned in earlier-archived comments by Wiki editors), The Guardian is a respectable non-tabloid print newspaper, and it seems to use the word "affair" but it does so with "Valerie Plame" as the identifier, not just "Plame"; that full name usage has the advantage of enabling Wikipedia readers to link to the Wikipedia article "Valerie Plame". People have renamed "CIA leak scandal timeline" to "Plame affair timeline" in the past; perhaps both could have in their names "Valerie Plame" (the cover identity): e.g., "Valerie Plame affair" and "Valerie Plame affair timeline". In my view, the companion articles do need to have commensurately-identifiable titles (names) in Wikipedia for ease of cross-linking and recognition, especially for new readers (in the future). --NYScholar (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) [corr. --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)]
• reply to #7: If there are "so many other CIA leak scandals" which might become confused with this "CIA leak scandal" beginning in 2003 to the current date of 2008, please name them, with links to the Wikipedia articles on them, and create a "disambiguation page", wherein these different "CIA leak scandals" may be listed as such. (See template on article page.) Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The first extensive page of links in a "search" in Wikipedia for "CIA leak scandal" turns up mostly articles relating to this subject: [27]. --NYScholar (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to statements made about the NY Times's use of the phrase "Plame affair", the NY Times in Times Topics for "Joseph C. Wilson IV" indicates that "CIA leak case" and other references to "CIA leak" and the related "scandal" are prevalent in that national and international newspaper (not a "tabloid"): Please consult: Times Topics: Joseph C. Wilson and its "Times Topics" features for other principal figures. --NYScholar (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, the hyperlinked NY Times's "timeline" (and related graphics) for the CIA leak scandal is called "Timeline of a leak" (not "timeline of an affair"). --NYScholar (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, a search in that Times Topics site for the "exact phrase" "Plame affair" turns up only 2 articles in that Times Topics file (of 226 articles), and those 2 articles are dated (obsolete) from 2003 and 2004: Times Topics:Joseph C. Wilson index search]. --NYScholar (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

And the same kind of search for the "exact phrase" "Plame affair" in the Times Topics file for "Valerie Plame" (of 331 articles) turned up only 6 articles, only two (2) of which are dated after 2005 and only one (1) of which is dated after 2006: Times Topics:Valerie Plame index search. --NYScholar (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See also the use of the word scandal in the abstract for the 2006 op-ed on Plame by David Brooks (one of those 6 given): "Op-Ed: A Guide for the Perplexed". --NYScholar (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Query

Isn't this proposal closed? Why is material still being added? Boowah59 (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a renewed open proposal; the section heading (scroll up) explains why [a brandnew admin. acted on it during holidays; it was "renewed and continued due to holiday break interfering"); also see this talk page heading link to Request props. page; it was reopened on January 3, 2008 (dir. link) here in Request props project page. A poll is informal; the purpose is to get additional discussion, espec. from new editors. I have been responding to people's brief poll comments in the previous sec. (also archived, but added to later) in this "Discussion" section; others can too. --NYScholar (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your call for discussion, but the consensus seems to be leaning heavily toward keeping the current title for this article. I hope you are not continuing with an eye toward exhausting efforts to avoid the change. Perhaps, this discussion should be closed until others pick up the campaign for change. Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we should open a call for renaming the CIA leak scandal timeline article, instead. Boowah59 (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think it would, but it let me rename it. Boowah59 (talk) 15:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and then NYScholar just moved it back. Andrewa (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That renaming of the other article had no consensus, was not done on its talk page following a request move proposal/discussion, and was reverted by another editor. This request move proposal is still active. --NYScholar (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[Note: Just added the bold type font; Andrewa incorrectly states that "NYScholar just moved it back"; I did not change the name of CIA leak scandal timeline after Boowah renamed it (without first making a prior request proposal on its talk page); please see its editing history; another editor did that (we were coincidentally editing at around the same time; I was not aware of the name being restored (to "CIA leak scandal timeline") by another editor at the same time that I was working; I ran into an "edit conflict" due to the name change by that editor and had to start all over with my edit of the text of the lead. The other editor and I agree, however, that "CIA leak scandal timeline" is an appropriate name for that article (given its content, its sources, its see also section, its external links, and the categories pertaining to it). --NYScholar (talk) 23:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]

Please see the tagged notices on the top of this talk page, prior archived discussions on this talk page and previously-archived talk pages, and Wikipedia's policy re: consensus: WP:Consensus. Consensus takes time; the results of an informal "poll" over a few days are not necessarily an indication of the reaching of "consensus" in Wikipedia, especially with regard to the naming of controversial articles with a contentious history of name-changes: Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles. The very naming of this particular article (and those related to it) has been the subject of much controversy and name changes back and forth over an extended period of time. The request move proposal discussion is an attempt to reconsider a name ("Plame affair") that now appears to be obsolete in such sources cited in the article as the New York Times (scroll up for evidence given and links). --NYScholar (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only active because you have reverted the closure, for no reason I can see (other than that you disagree with the decision of course).

Yes, there's a lot been said. But there's no reason not to close this requested move. There's a rough consensus not to move, which is more than we need for closure, all we need for that is that no consensus to move is likely. Andrewa (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As there seems to be some dispute over the closing of this request I've now mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Plame affair. --Salix alba (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisting

I have relisted this at WP:RM. We'll see what happens in another five days... unless another admin wants to speedily close it in the meantime, which I would support. We have wasted enough time. Andrewa (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Dispute resolution

I think we need to consider Wikipedia:dispute resolution here. If NYScholar won't let us close the latest RM any other way, then sadly, eventually blocks and perhaps page protection will be needed.

In order to raise a request for comment, at least two users should have contacted NYScholar on his talk page to attempt resolution there. I'll be the first. Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar has moved my attempt at resolution from his talk page to below. WP:RFC reads in part Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem.

It's obviously futile to comment further at User talk:NYScholar, so I'd welcome comments here to satisfy that requirement. The reason is that I'd like to remove this from WP:RM, so I and my fellow admins can get on with some useful work. I'm reluctant to leave the poll open when it's not listed on WP:RM (as when I last checked) for procedural reasons, it's just plain messy. Discussion can and no doubt will continue here, and if a consensus to move is formed, then come back to WP:RM then (and preferably (;-> not just before a public holiday).

The dispute simply concerns this edit. Andrewa (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this comment from my talk page here: I've already explained many times:

<<

Requested move (moved from user talk)

Please give your reasons for this edit. The edit summary reads not closed by an administrator; non-consensus move of other article. In fact I am an administrator (not that I think I needed to be one to do this, but that's irrelevant, because I am one), and all that is needed to close the discussion is that no consensus to move seems likely after five days, which is I think true - in fact there's a rough consensus not to move.

This is of course the third listing on WP:RM. The first moved to this name. The second, which you initiated just recently, confirmed this decision, as does this one. Please accept it. Andrewa (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC) >>

I am not the only one disputing the name of this article; see the other editor who expressed position in support of this move. One needs to look at the reasons given in support and opposition and to weigh them as well as to look at numbers. There is no procedure for "votes" in a request name proposal. Consensus operates over time and takes time; the current usage of "CIA leak scandal" is more prevalent (in terms of dates of usage) than "Plame affair", which appears by now to have become obsolete. Scroll up for previous discussion. There is no attempt on my part to [rename] (move) this article [without prior discussion!]; someone else renamed another article contrary to Wikipedia policy (no request move proposal, etc.; another editor undid that change, which was not in keeping with policy and which was done by a user who has edited Wikipedia for only about a month, given log on id). I have not been "edit warring" and have not changed the name of this article; I have been discussing reasons that others have given which do not appear to me to be convincing. There is no role for "dispute resolution" here; there is no editing warring except for the person who changed the name of the other article w/o consensus in that article's talk page. The editing history comments are clear. --NYScholar (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC) [clarified further in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]

You need to look at the full editing history (over years as well as recent months) of the move logs pertaining to this article and to the other related articles. This request move [proposal] has a longstanding context. See the links to the logs and editing history. I do not find an "administrator" identity on the user pages that I checked. When discussion is ongoing (as on this talk page), and it is simply discussion, there is no edit warring or need for "dispute resolution." No harm occurs in discussion. Harm was, however, done to CIA leak scandal timeline by the non-administrator, relatively-new user id. simply jumping in and changing that article's name, referring to this article's talk page. There is no request move proposal there (on the other article's talk page), and the lead (currently, which I revised appropriately to match its subject, which is not "Plame affair" but the whole "CIA leak" and "CIA leak scandal" matter (as major U.S. news sources refer to it most recently in their own timelines). The move to change that article to "Plame affair timeline" failed--see the log/history, for appropriate reasons. --NYScholar (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully endorse NY Scholar's position about keeping the dialogue open. There is no edit war going on. And there is no harm being done by continuing the discussion. And - not to argue the merits of the actual issue in this particular comment - but I do notice that very few of the people opposing the change seem to offer reasoned refutations of the numerous specific points offered by those in favor of a change. Anyway - that's for a separate place.

The key thing is that - in the past (pre-internet) - matters like this frequently had changes in the names given to the issue by the media. The better to reflect the greater perspective that time and information brings to an occurrence. eg - for several months what later became known as the "Watergate Scandal" was initially referred to as the "DNC break-in" or the "Watergate break-in". As time went by - other related matters came to light - legal convictions and political embarrassment became part of the story - and lo and behold - it was seen as what it was. A SCANDAL. Not an "affair" or a "controversy". Once there were high-ranking political operatives resigning from the White House and being convicted in a court of law (does that ring a bell?)- it was undoubtedly a scandal. Any other word would have been considered a weasel word.

Incidentally - the specific office that was the object of the Watergate break-in was the office of the DNC Chairman Larry O'Brien. Under the peculiar logic underlying the current name of this article - we would be calling the Watergate Scandal "The O'Brien Affair". Point made... Davidpatrick (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have relisted the request at WP:RM. So now you two have another five days to get some arguments and support together, and then I'm afraid I think we should close it. Is that fair enough?

Closing the requested move doesn't prevent further discussion. It just gives us a baseline for further discussion, and allows us to clean up WP:RM.

But surely, you have better things to do? There's no support. Face facts. Andrewa (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine w/ me. Thanks. True that I do have "better things to do"!

Re: "There's no support. Face facts": There is, however, some support if you read the whole discussion previous to this proposal (the at-least two before on this page) and comments by the two of us posting in "Support" in the context of the previous proposal comments. If there were "no support," this proposal would not keep coming up and coming up again filed by a variety of editors over time; plus, the relevance of one name v. another does change over time as well. --NYScholar (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if NYScholar really feels strongly about this, the move can be relisted. However, that doesn't mean that Andrewa's admin close should have been reverted. The expiration/closure of the RM request is a separate matter from the continuation of discussion on the general topic of renaming. The fact that there is a continuous low-level support for changing the article's name does not mean that a move request should stay open indefinitely. The current (past?) proposal is clearly not going to be successful. Dekimasuよ! 07:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By way of explanation, when I removed the archiving in this edit Diffs, I did so too quickly without seeing the comment by Andrewa (just didn't see it there in the online green box version I was reading). I did not see Andrewa's reason for the green box archiving; I just was trying to enable others to add their comments to what I had intended to be an ongoing "poll" for purposes of discussion (by others, to whom I was responding at times). I did not intend to step on an administrative "closing" of the request proposal (I hadn't seen any notice about its closing on the request move page where the request move was posted on Jan. 3, 2008--now accessible in history of that page). So I apologize to Andrewa--I just hadn't seen the explanation of "closing" the request proposal. I still think that it is useful to enable people to add their # comment to "support" or "oppose" for purposes of discussion. Again, there is no edit war going on here, just a discussion of the pros and cons of the names being suggested. If someone still wants to add comments, it is currently still possible to do so, thanks to Andrewa's reposting the req. move prop. notice, but I do understand that eventually (in a few more days) it will be acted upon again. I urge people reading this page to consider the most recent references in mainstream news accounts to this subject and to see what it is named by them. A Google search is not sensitive to dates of postings and one has to look at dates of usage to see currency of usage as well. Again, sorry to Andrewa. --NYScholar (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As of today (Jan. 10, 2008), a Google search for "CIA leak scandal" (with the phrase in quotation marks) yields 34,000 hits, many of which are recently dated post 2005-2006) items; a comparable search for the phrase "Plame affair" in quotation marks yields over 100,000 [102,000] hits, but many are to posts dated from 2003-2005 [and to Wikipedia itself and Wikis, which should not be counted], and thus suggest a name that is or has become (more) obsolete and that will now and in time be less recognizable. If one needs "(2003)" added to "CIA leak scandal" (as it had been before before an earlier renaming/move), then that resolves any problem of "ambiguity". Articles are often renamed when their earlier names become less current usage (have less "currency" of "usage"). --NYScholar (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC) [Addition. --NYScholar (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)] [added exact figure. --NYScholar (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]

As of today (Jan. 11, 2008), a Google search for "Plamegate" (phrase w/in q. marks), which is listed in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix, yields 216,000 hits (though, as stated above, dates of entries need checking and refs. to Wikipedia articles and other Wikis, etc., based on them, need weeding out re: "current usage". --NYScholar (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That inclusion of Plamegate in a "List of scandals...." should put to rest any argument that the "CIA leak scandal" (aka "Plamegate" and "Plame affair") is not a "scandal". Any reading of sources given throughout this and related articles makes very apparent that it is a "scandal," specifically an American political scandal, but not a sex scandal, which the word "affair" misleadingly and ambiguously implies. --NYScholar (talk) 04:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On the model of "Watergate scandal" a more consistent, less ambiguous, and more neutral name for this article (instead of "Plame affair") is either "Plamegate scandal" or "CIA leak scandal (2003)." --NYScholar (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to say that I find this explanation inadequate. When did you realise that you had made a mistake? Where did you get the idea that I'm not an administrator? Why didn't you bother to check? And what are you going to do about it now?

Nothing is stopping you from restoring my work. It would take you a little more time than it took me, but I would regard that as justice. Nobody is likely to revert you on the grounds that you are not an administrator; For one thing, the poll has already been closed by an admin, and for another, there is no policy preventing a non-admin from closing a poll, provided the conditions for closing it have been met (they have) and no admin powers are needed (they aren't). And if they did, welcome to the club.

I don't expect that, although I think it would be the right thing to do. But I think we at least now have an undertaking from you that you will accept the closure of this move request, and thank you for that. I would hope that this also includes not immediately raising another. It has IMO been obvious since before Christmas that no consensus to move was possible. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The request has already been relisted, by me. NYScholar left it in a half-closed state, and it seemed better to relist it than to risk a revert war.

But if this behaviour were to become common, no contested move request would ever be closed. Note that before the closure was reverted, this was already the second identical move request. It was raised immediately after the closure of the first, with the (IMO false) claim that the admin who closed the first request had done so in error.

IMO no new material has been added since. There is lots of discussion, but it simply repeats the same arguments in slightly different terms. And note also that NYScholar has in several places demanded that any editor joining the discussion read all the (extensive and repetitive) archives first. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

These kinds of insinuations are unnecessary; what happened to WP:AGF? I already explained that I did not see Andrewa's comment in the once-green box (it was hard to see in the green online) and that I realized that when I wrote the comment above as such; There is nothing inappropriate about discussing a controversial move proposal; in fact, that is what is recommended for controversial move proposals. The move proposals for this article are recurrent and always controversial. The article itself is a controversial article. Re: administrative status: I did (as I state more than once already) look at andrewa's user page when I saw the green box added [via the user name link in editing history: I did not actually see the comment about "closing" the proposal then in the talk page then-green box, and I had not clicked on "diffs" either at that time], and did not see there [on Andrewa's user page] an "administrator" user box and thought the person not to be an administrator. [Since then and reading the ref. to "another administrator" in his/her comment later,] I have apologized in good faith, and I expect what I state to be taken as posted in good faith. The opposite is being done and that is not in keeping with Wikipedia editing policy on WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Etiquette. My main point, however, is that there has been extensive discussion of moves of this article for a very long period of time and anyone entering this debate does need to familiarize himself or herself with the previous discussions. That is what Wikipedia recommends not merely what I am suggesting. Words like "demanded" etc. are not neutral and an administrator needs to maintain neutrality. Administrators, like any other Wikipedia user/editor, are still subject to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines. The desire to close a proposal simply because there is a backlog so as to act on them (without consulting prior discussions) is really not sensitive to those who are making such proposals in good faith. This talk page is not the place to attack editors for making proposals; editors should not be attacked personally [or] their motives impugned for good-faith edits or [for] apologies for having made a mistake. That is unacceptable behavior in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [tc. --NYScholar (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]

If one is interested in the naming of this article and in the many editors' positions on supporting and/or opposing various names over these many months and years, there is an extensive editing history and talk page archive of arguments to examine. Some of the reasons given in opposition do not seem both well considered and convincing and do not hold up in the context of current searches of common usage of various names. All reasons are not equal in weight; some are more convincing than others. If one is to make considered decisions, one has to consider the reasons more carefully in the context of previous discussions. Otherwise, the talk page header about improving the article (including names of articles) is being unheeded. --NYScholar (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [added some bracketed clarifications; it is hard to reconstruct when I thought what, but I do know that when I saw the green archiving, I did not see any comment about the closing of the proposal, and reacted quickly (too quickly, as I say above in my apology). It is offensive to me that what I state in my apology itself has now been called into question, in effect, calling me a liar. That is just plain wrong. --NYScholar (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)]

There is no "work" to be "restored" here. In reply to Andrewa's earlier question about "when" I realized that he/she is an administrator: it is not clear to me on his/her user page that he/she is (no user box that I am familiar with says "administrator"), and I had looked at the user page after the reference he/she made to "another administrator" around January 10, 2008. I have been busy with other things (and not even at home at times or near a computer) and dealt with constructing the apology above when I had time to do so. I do not want to restore a green box archiving to the ongoing "support" and "oppose" polling area because I want to enable others to be able to add to it (using the # sign first and no skipped lines between comments) if they want to do so. There have been some opposition #'d comments added since I removed the green archiving. Green-archiving an ongoing poll was undoing what on Jan. 3 was a reopened proposal. The administrator who had previously closed the request move proposal was a brand-new administrator who had not read the prior discussions before doing so and who has taken a position him/herself in opposition to the move, saying that the "CIA leak scandal"/"Plamegate"/"Plame affair" is not a "scandal," which is absolutely incorrect and contrary to the sources cited in this article (now called "Plame affair"). There is no support in the 3rd-party published sources for the viewpoint that this subject is not a "scandal"; it is listed with the category "American political scandals" ("Plamegate", "CIA leak scandal") still--as said before too, see the "See also". Given what the newly-minted administrator had done, I objected to it, and still do. (Andrewa came along later, and I did not until he/she identified him/herself as such [via the phrase "another administrator" in a comment] know that he/she is an administrator when he greenboxed the discussion without apparently having consulted the previous green-boxed archived discussions or seen the point that it had been closed by a newly-appointed administrator over the Christmas/New Year holiday before enough others would have been able to comment on the proposal. If one scrolls up or looks at the editing history, one can see that there is nothing nefarious going on [in reopening the request move proposal], just a concern for enough editors after Christmas/New Year's holiday to consider the proposal. Another editor, who supports the move, has expressed concerns too that one be able to discuss reasons for it without being shut down. Again: See WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC) [additions in brackets and ref. to AGF]. --NYScholar (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've not replied to your extensive comments because there is very little new to say. I have looked through the past comments to all discussions and there is no indication of consensus to move. I have looked at the title used in other media coverage and again these seem very mixed with various combinations of palm/wilson/niger - case/incident/affair/scandle/gate. Your own evidence suggest a higher raw number of google hits for Palme affair/Palmegate. I have explained why the word scandal raises problems with POV, it is not wikipedia job to make assertions especially in article titles, and there are specific guidelines against it. If there was a clear case that media coverage had settle on this term then it would be fine to use the term, however this does not seem to be the case.

This discussion now seems to be draining attention, endless reopening of the case does not seem to be taking us anywhere. WP:CON states

It is very easy to create the appearance of a changing consensus simply by asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people will discuss the issue.

and this seems to be what is happening here, yet each time it is reopened a few more oppose votes accumulate. WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point' is also worth a read.

Hopefully when the next admin closes the case we can all respect their decision. Maybe it will be worth reconsidering again in a year.--Salix alba (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not taken into account the dates of usage. This naming/renaming proposal relates to time of usage; whereas some names were more common usage in the past, other names are more common usage now. Your re-statement above (of points that in some cases you say that you have not read and, without reading them, judge repetitive) is inaccurate. --NYScholar (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In turn, I refer you and others back to the WP cited above: WP:POINT#Refusal to 'get the point': That reference pertains to "bad-faith editors", which insinuates that I and David Patrick are editing or discussing "in bad faith", which is incorrect. Both of us are editing and discussing this matter in good faith. It is offensive to suggest otherwise by linking to "Refusal to 'get the point'." The "point" being made by David Patrick and me [which others appear not to be "getting"] is that people are looking at numbers of Google hits indiscriminately, without looking at the dates of the articles referred to via those hits and currency of usage; common usage also must take into account currency (what something is currently called by most people if that term is neutral and correct--a "scandal" is used throughout Wikipedia names when the names are accurate. In this case, as reading the sources for the articles will show, it is currently still common usage to refer to this subject as an "American political scandal." The point is made throughout many people's comments above (not just my more recent comments). --NYScholar (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [added clarifications in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]

On January 10, 2008, Andrewa wrote (scroll up): " all that is needed to close the discussion [I think s/he means request proposal] is that no consensus to move seems likely after five days"; the five days go through January 15, 2008. It is now only January 13. I suggest that we just take a look at this situation on January 15, and allow the "five days" given to occur prior to the acting on the request move proposal. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[We can discuss whatever we want to discuss pertaining to the "improvement" of this article; one does not close a discussion; one closes the request proposal by acting on it. Anyone is free in the future to address the issues if he or she wants to. [added brackets --NYScholar (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)]

Speaking for myself, I don't have time to deal with this anymore. I have work-related deadlines to meet and they are during this five day time period. So that's it for me. I addressed the non-good-faith assumptions because they are unfair and demeaning [and should not have been made, espec. by administrators!]. Please just comment on the actual issues of the proposed name(s) of the article, not on contributors making the proposals. Thank you. WP:NPA. --NYScholar (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC); --NYScholar (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already undertaken not to close this (third) listing until five days have expired since the relisting, and I will stick to that undertaking. I am pleased that you appear to have undertaken not to again revert a valid closing. I am hopeful that you will also wait a decent interval before listing this move once again.

I think it's worth waiting in view of that undertaking. But I'd also point out that the five days expired before Christmas, and that there have been no new proposals or arguments in favour of the move since then.

This section is headed "dispute resolution". It is not part of the move discussion, although it arises from that discussion. It is about your behaviour, and in particular seeking an outcome that does not indefinitely delay closing this move request. At the risk of repetition, I point out that this does not prevent further discussion, it just baselines the current (rough) consensus not to move.

I'm still inclined to the view that your mistakes are genuine, in accordance with assuming good faith and despite the obvious observation that they would serve as effective tactics to frustrate the process if that were your intention, and if they were unchallenged. But if you're that fallible, frankly this makes your lectures on policy and procedure pointless. It is the blind leading the sighted, or attempting to. Worse, both they and your repeated insistence that any newcomer to the debate first wade through the repetitive archives discourage both new contributors and new ideas.

And continued discussion without new ideas is also pointless. Food for thought? Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My reply in my talk archive 17, which was not restored via revert by admin.

I find this discussion of me, a contributor, useless. The focus is supposed to be on the proposal. If you want editors who have not encountered you before to know that you are an administrator, please add a clear(er) identification of yourself as such on your user page. Thank you. (I have not intentionally "reverted" any closing of this proposal; it was clear that I proposed it and that I intended to be taking a poll on it (from when I first proposed it); the new administrator who archived my poll while I had intended to have it be ongoing for at least several days or more did so by introducing a typographical error in the archiving process; that person added two spaces which made it impossible to read the comment he/she posted in the archiving box. I simply deleted two spaces so that I and others could read the whole comment: please see the editing history. [See Talk:Plame affair#Where is the administrative action on the request move proposal?.] Andrewa came along after that and, despite the clear statement that the holidays were intervening in the ability to gain comments, re-archived the box. I did not see Andrewa's comment about closing the proposal in the green archived box. That is the only "mistake" for which I have apologized, and it was an inadvertent error, since I did not at the time realize that (a) the proposal had been "closed"; or (b) the one who "closed" it was an "administrator"; that is why my editing history comment says that the archiving had been done by someone who appeared not to be an administrator. I had simply clicked on a user box in the name in editing history (not in the green archived box) and had not recognized anything about the person being an administrator. After realizing what had happened, I apologized. There is nothing more to it. I accepted Andrewa's (Andrewa's, I repeat) decision to allow the discussion to go on for five days. Please scroll up. Enough said about this. No "food for thought." At this point, rehashing this over and over had been a further waste of time. The focus needs to be on the merits of "support" and "oppose" reasons for the request move proposal, not on Andrewa and not on me, or on any other individual contributor/user/editor/administrator. These appear to be red herrings. Please focus on the proposal itself and the responses (reasons given). Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC) [added sec. link. (cont., next para.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC) It is entirely appropriate for me and others interested in the name of this article to expect newcomers to familiarize themselves with prior proposals and prior discussions of them on in the archived sections and archived talk pages. Generally, controversial articles refer to such prior discussions and alert people to consult them--Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; see top of this talk page for related links. --NYScholar (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]

[Note [in my talk archive 17]: I have moved material previously on my current talk page and then in Talk:Plame affair to this archive page 17. ... I was away from any computer from December 27 through December 31st, 2007; in the U.S., for many people, espec. for academics, the "Christmas and New Year holiday" begins before Christmas and goes for a few days after January 1st; many academics are on their "holiday break" from just after exam grades are due (for some before, for others after Christmas) until their second semesters or trimesters begin; for some the third week [or] end of January, for others February 2008. I will be busy with non-Wikipedia work for most [of] January and February 2008, at least. --NYScholar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]

Please focus on the proposal and not on the contributor. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please follow the procedures, and then we won't need to discuss your behaviour. Continue to flout them and push them beyond reasonable limits, and I'm afraid it will happen again.

I'd suggest you think carefully, for example, about the notice on your user talk page. If people aren't encouraged to post there, then it's simply not serving its purpose. It makes it harder for everyone to follow procedures, which assume that a user's main talk page is a place to contact a user, and that they will read what is posted there. That's what it's for, and why you get a message telling you whenever it has changed. By all means have a notice there saying when you're busy, or away.

And as for archiving live discussions from article talk pages, and in your own user space rather than in the normal talk namespace, and with a couple of pages of last words from you immediately archived thus making any response inconvenient... I hope you won't do that again.

It's not my fault that you didn't realise I was an administrator. It's no secret who is and who isn't an admin, and no big deal. Assuming good faith means assuming that a person acting as an admin is an admin, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Lack of a user box is not evidence either way, see argument from silence. If you have doubts, then the first place to look is Wikipedia:administrators, which links to several reliable lists. If you act on no evidence, then expect to make mistakes.

And reverting was questionable even if I hadn't been an admin. It was not supported by any policy or procedure. The five days were up. No consensus to move was likely. No reason that the discussion can't continue, with the failed move request(s) as a starting point.

You don't seem to be very familiar with WP:RM procedures. That's OK, be bold and have a go anyway. We're happy to clean up after beginners, we have all been there. But on the other hand, if you're going to criticise and/or revert the actions of experienced hands or even new admins, then I strongly suggest you first do some research into the procedures we follow. Learn what the green boxes mean and are called, for example. Again, they are not secret. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes on the heading to this section

Heading reads My reply in my talk archive 17, which was not restored via revert by admin, and was posted by NYScholar. Just to clarify several points it makes:

1. The reply was removed from this page by NYScholar, not by me.

2. I did not request for it to be restored. I pointed out that NYScholar had apparently reserved the last word by immediately archiving their reply without waiting for comments, and left it at that.

3. I was not acting as an admin in reverting. I did use an admin-only shortcut to do it, but no admin priviledges. Anyone could have done exactly what I did, even the edit summary if they wished to, it would just have taken them a little longer.

I hope that clears any misconceptions. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

I have reverted edits by NYScholar in order to restore sections he had archived to his personal user space. These sections should be added to the archives of this page, not those of his user page. And it's a bit strange to archive current discussions. Agree that some of the early sections of the page need archiving!

I regret very much that work has been lost by this action, and time wasted. Perhaps had there been more meaningful edit summaries, I could have located the precise edits that I wished to undo. But my time is limited too.

NYScholar has requested on his talk page Please do not post any more comments on my talk page. I wish to respect his wishes regarding his user pages, while noting that even those belong to the project as a whole, not to him personally.

He has also replied to some of my comments, and immediately moved his replies to User talk:NYScholar/Archive 17. I'm sure he doesn't want replies added to his archive page, so I guess he gets the last word there.

But please, if you wish to archive this page, use the normal techniques. Andrewa (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[Please use gender neutral language; not all scholars are male. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)]

Agree, will do. Apologies. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Omitted material due to prior reversions of my comments

<<

Requested move (moved from user talk [and back afterward])

[I am moving this section back to my talk page: it will be archived there. It is taking too much attention away from this proposal. Please consult my talk page archive for this discussion, which is being archived there intact, with my comment that I added prior to moving it. That comment can be found there too. Thanks very much. ---NYScholar (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)] [The previous full discussion of the question initially posted by Andrewa on my talk page is now in archive 17 of my talk page. It is linked there. --NYScholar (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)][updated heading after archiving on my own talk page, where the section heading "Requested move" was posted originally by Andrewa. --NYScholar (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)]

...

>>

[The above bracketed comment clearly explained what I was doing and why I was doing it. The comment posted by Andrewa had originally been posted on my talk page. It focused not on the proposal but on me; it was clearly continuing to go in that same direction. That is why I restored it to my talk page and archived it from the current talk page to archive 17. Since Andrewa reverted that, I have simply placed the material from my talk page archive 17 that he/she omitted back here above. --NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)]

It's he. I respected your decision not to have discussion on your talk page, although I think it was unwise, and a line call as to whether it's contrary to Wikipedia:dispute resolution. But subsequent posts were to this talk page. Agree your actions were explained to your satisfaction. That doesn't necessarily make them acceptable to others. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Update

After January 15, 2008, if no one else wants to add material to the "support"/"oppose" comments not yet archived in green, I have no objection to the green archive-box being placed around that informal "poll" and acting upon the proposal, as Andrewa says would occur as a result of administrative action (if no administrator does so before that). --NYScholar (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC); restored section deleted by Andrewa in previous reversion. --NYScholar (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)]

Since there was no consensus for a move, I have archived the discussion --Lox (t,c) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, what a God-awful mess. This talk page has become some personal battleground and I am not sure that much of the discussion actually moves us closer to improving the article. Ursasapien (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) agree. I'm happy to accept constructive criticism for my part in it; It takes two! What a waste of time. Perhaps my talk page, or email (andrewa @ alder dot ws) if you want it to be private. And thanks Lox for closing the RM, I didn't want to do it again, but after the treatment one admin got for closing the original request I wasn't sure anyone else would be game. Andrewa (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No probs Andrew --Lox (t,c) 19:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I couldn't do the reversion more selectively. The undo function might have enabled me to leave this section, had there been good clear edit summaries. But without them, it would have taken ages to sort it out. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Since this article is so lengthy, someone that is well-versed in the topic should lengthen the lead a bit. It should be three to four paragraphs, given the length of this article. lesthaeghet (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

proof of yellowcake

Reliable source:

http://seattlepi.com/national/1107ap_iraq_yellowcake_mission.html

216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)