Talk:Grand Jury investigation of Plame leak nears end

Latest comment: 18 years ago by Psusen in topic removed npov

See also: Wikinews:Story preparation/Special Counsel ends probe into leak of CIA officer's identity --JWSchmidt 14:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

There is a report somewhere that a CIA person mentioned that an operative died as of the result of the plame leak. Not sure how NPOV that is to add though.

What is controversial?


Worked on this article all day. Specifically what is not neutral? --Psusen 22:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply



Article will be a good base, however there is currently very little content but considerable speculation. Wikinews does not speculate; it reports. Please read through Wikinews:NPOV, especially the section "writing for the enemy", and Wikinews:What Wikinews is not.

Examples of speculation or opinion:

  • The new U.S. Department of Justice web site is seen as a precursor to an announcement on the findings by Fitzgerald.
    Ascribe who sees the website as a precursor to an announcement.
  • However, his office will not comment on the timing of any indictments which may be filed.
    Do not attempt to report on events which have not happened. There are no indictments, therefore nothing to report, unless there is a specific quote from someone to repeat, and ascribe, here.
  • Two White House Chiefs of Staff, Karl Rove to President Bush, and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to Vice-President Cheney are part of the focus of the investigation.
    Other persons have been far more scrutinized by this Grand Jury. The choice of these two subjects strongly indicates bias on the part of the reporters.
  • Bush administration critics suggest the outing of the CIA operative Plame was an effort by the administration to prop up the credibility of pre-war intelligence that Iraq possessed WMD and was a threat to security both in the United States and abroad.
    No counter-balance of the opposing view.
  • The Wilson column was written as a reaction to the President Bush 2003 state of the union address alleging that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger, a part of the rationale for going to war. The "leak" sought to cast Wilson as a tainted source of intelligence, because his wife was in a position at the CIA to influence the decision that sent him to Niger.
    Ascribing motive to actions by Mr. Wilson and the alleged leakers. While possibly entirely true, these are opinions - not facts. If you can find someone who states these as their personal opinions, or the opinion of their organization, you may ascribe these opinions to someone at which point they may be reported.
  • The issue of government nepotism...
    This is slanderous, until proven in a court of law, and would also qualify as defamation of character.
  • It is possible that Fitzgerald will not bring any indictments against Rove, Libby or any other White House officials.
    This statement is biased as it does not address the many other people who are more likely to be charged with crimes by this grand jury. It is also speculation because no charges have been brought. Confine reporting to actual facts, not speculation.
  • The emphasis in the story would then shift to whether the Bush administration intentionally created false pretenses for the war, as well as the possible role Judith Miller may have played, intentionally or otherwise, in this strategy.
  • It is also possible Fitzgerald will file one or more indictments against Rove, Libby and/or other White House officials. Criminal indictments might include violations of laws protecting classified information, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury. In this case, the focus would also shift to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, and their knowledge of the crime, what they did, and when. The Bush administration is considering contingency plans as to what to do with Rove and Libby and possible replacements.
    Purely speculative, unless there is a direct quote. This is not reporting, it is op/ed, and that is not accepted on Wikinews. See Wikinews:What Wikinews is not.

I appreciate the effort which has been put into this article, and it is an excellent news topic. But in it's current state it is not within the guidelines of Wikinews, and is in violation of the Neutral Point of View policy. - Amgine / talk 22:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Dang nabbit!! LOL, rufflng for story on that ice cream vendor. -Edbrown05 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

response to npov


I responded to every one of the npov concerns. Under Wikinews policy, who is qualified to remove the npov and change develop to publish? Thanks. --Psusen 23:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are! Of course, if someone disagrees with the removal of the tag, they can replace it. No one has especial editorial powers on Wikinews. We're all equals when it comes to article content (though, of course, some people know more about certain topics than others and I usually defer to them if I am aware of their expertise). --Chiacomo (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Excellent job, though some good prose has fallen to the axe. There is one you missed, or which I was not very clear about:
Bush administration critics suggest the outing of the CIA operative Plame was an effort by the administration to prop up the credibility of pre-war intelligence that Iraq possessed WMD and was a threat to security both in the United States and abroad. The Bush administration has responded that the charge lacks any credibility
This statement doesn't say who is saying this. But at least as tellingly, you do not rebutt the anonymous and unsupported accusations of critics with equally anonymous and insuperable supports. - Amgine / talk 23:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

removed npov


The article is as neutral as possible in my judgment. I added the infobox and changed develop to publish. I plan to watch the story this week carefully and will start another story as events unfold. --Psusen 23:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Return to "Grand Jury investigation of Plame leak nears end" page.