Talk:Ray McGovern

Weekly Standard Citations Highly Questionable

Why is the Weekly Standard, a standard-bearer for very conservative elements within the press, cited repeatedly as counters to McGovern's claims? Moreover, why are so many OPINION articles cited and quoted? This is very bizarre behavior for writers of an encyclopedia.

Entries to the Talk page are posted at the bottom of the page and should be signed by added four tildes (without spaces) like this ~ ~ ~ ~. By properly signing your comments, it is easier to keep track of a conversation and communicate clearly. To answer your question, the Weekly Standard is a very well respected journal of political thought and investigative reporting. It has been praised repeatedly by both Democrats and Republicans. While it is true it is published by conservatives, that does not mean it cannot be cited. In fact, because it is so difficult to find conservative press, the Weekly Standard gets cited quite often in wikipedia. The wikipedia policy of NPOV does not mean the encyclopedia does not present any opinions, it does mean that it presents both sides. Presenting both sides is the only way to maintain a neutral point of view. I hope this was helpful. RonCram 06:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

"because it is so difficult to find conservative press" This is an outrageous statement. In what way is it "difficult" to "find" conservative press? Please clarify this statement. Inoculatedcities 13:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the UCLA study, most news organizations are considerably more liberal than voters or elected officials as a whole. The only "conservative press" they studied (that I remember) was the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal and FOX News. Neither of these were as far from the mainstream as the average liberal news outlets, including the news pages of the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post or any of the other network news outlets. If you have not read the study, I would suggest you do so. It is very informative and the manner in which they measured the liberal vs conservative stance of the media outlet was very insightful. RonCram 17:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That is, of course, ludicrous. I don't think we need this much coverage of the Weekly Standard. To say the NYT, WP, and WSJ (!) are liberal is nonsense; they are professional news outlets that report news. Weekly Standard, on the other hand, is an openly biased organ of political discourse. Ron's comment about "investigative reporting" is specious -- the quotes he wants on this page are hardly examples of investigative reporting. And, in fact, the Weekly Standard has been shown to be flat out wrong about several things, often distorting things in ways that seem disingenuous and manipulative (see, for example, their coverage of alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda). Ron's comment that democrats praise the WS is also silly; he has some quotes on his talk page from Democrats saying that they think it is important to read it. That is not the same as praising its accuracy. Overall, I think Ron should take a look at WP:BLP and not try to transform this page into a hit piece.--csloat 18:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I must refer you again to the UCLA study on media bias. Here is the abstract on the study titled A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo.

Abstract: We measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets. To compute this, we count the times that a particular media outlet cites various think tanks and policy groups, then compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups. Our results show a strong liberal bias: all of the news outlets we examine, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with claims made by conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received scores far to the left of center. The most centrist media outlets were PBS NewsHour, CNN’s Newsnight, and ABC’s Good Morning America; among print outlets, USAToday was closest to the center. All of our findings refer strictly to news content; that is, we exclude editorials, letters, and the like. [1]

I have reposted the high praise for the Weekly Standard at the bottom of this page. In it you will see that is praised by people and publications from all over the political spectrum, including slate, NY Times, LA Times, Wolf Blitzer and Abe Rosenthal. If the Weekly Standard was factually wrong or unreliable, the publication would not receive this praise. The Weekly Standard's coverage of the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda is very much in line with news media from around the world, including newspapers in Milan, Paris and Moscow. In fact, it is very much in line with the book Michael Scheuer wrote in 2002 (although Scheuer has since changed his position). It is not my intention to transform this page into a "hit piece." It is my intention to bring some much needed balance to the page. Stephen Hayes is a fine investigative reporter who regularly interviews government employees. Hayes was one of the few people in the press that CIA employees and military folks would talk to about the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents prior to their release. Note well that none of the facts underlying the opinions of Weekly Standard about Ray McGovern have been called untrue. The article talked about the McGovern's link to the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) before I got here. If you think about the name, you will see the leaders of RCP cannot be antiwar since they promote revolution. The obvious fact is that certain editors do not want wikipedia readers to know all the facts about Ray McGovern. This kind of censorship is wrong. It is contrary to wikipedia policy and it is contrary to the principles of democracy.RonCram 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the study; it has no relevance to this page or to this argument. It also does not in any way support the integrity of the Weekly Standard or notorious liar Stephen Hayes. And you're well aware that Michael Scheuer getting things wrong in 2002 has absolutely nothing to do with this page or the integrity of the Weekly Standard. Your claim that this page needs "balance" is ludicrous; the Weekly Standard quotes take up almost half the page. There are no similar quotes on the other side praising Ray McGovern as an American hero. There is nothing in WP:BLP that licenses turning this into a hit piece as you have done, despite your claimed intention, nor do the guidelines suggest that biographies should be "pro/con" pieces where insipid praise is "balanced" with vehement character assaults. And I don't think it would help to pursue "balance" by adding a quote from, say, the World Socialist online news source, which is roughly the equivalent of the Weekly Standard from the opposite political position. Your claim that Hayes was "one of the few people in the press that CIA employees and military folks would talk to about the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents prior to their release" is completely inaccurate. CIA employees and "military folks" spoke to the editors of Foreign Affairs, for example, and of course Negroponte's office communicated with various news outlets. It's just that Hayes is the only one who could be relied upon to present a ridiculously myopic view of the issue focused entirely on alleged ties to al Qaeda, so perhaps he was the only one you paid attention to. None of this, of course, has anything to do with Ray McGovern, so I don't think we should continue to pursue it here. I'm not sure where your RCP comments have anything to do with this either; did someone remove RCP comments? Anyway, I have not removed the Weekly Standard stuff, but I do not see why it should be presented so centrally in this article.--csloat 21:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

sources needed

His supposed suspicion of the 'official 9/11 account' and US involvement in the mosque bombing need sourcing.

Questionable

Someone needs to take a hard look at this. Go to "Should You Trust 'Former CIA Officials'?" one of only two "external" links listed (both pointing to the same site), and you will see that the bio here was copied word-for-word from there. It is also quite clear that Mr. Francisco Gil-White is a crackpot (c'mon, he cites *himself*) and has an axe to grind (against Mr. McGovern).

new poster here:

Having spent time with Ray McGovern at Camp Casey last summer, I can tell readers that he is a hard working, spiritual man of integrity. Find the William Rivers Pitt interview for more insight. I was working along side him for hours without knowing who he was. Told him later "Ray, I liked you even before I knew who you were!" He got a kick out of that. He works with disadvantaged youth through his church in DC, also. He has remarkable memory, and was cut out for intelligence work, which he points out that at its best is "just the facts" not the spin.

- Gil-White does not cite himself at all. The bio for McGovern has been paraphrased from the larger body of information about people like McGovern and Cannistraro, all of which is taken from publicly available sources such as the mainstream media and government websites. The bio is simply an effort to get the most important facts in one place. Feel free to actually check those facts before you throw around names like 'crackpot'. Ryan4 14:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And you yourself are free to check this page: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot1.htm#_ftn19 and note that he does, in fact, cite himself. Inoculatedcities 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes and Coatracking

To explain my cryptic edit summary:

What does "(→Views - Do not need to soapbox by proxy - this is as clear an example of coatracking as i've ever seen.)" mean?

a) Striver has a history of pushing his conspiracy views by propping up articles of people sharing his views. This is not in and of itself bad, but the manner he's approaching it is highly encyclopedic, and he's leaving crappy articles in his wake. Rather than being an article stating X believes Y, it's X saying Z, basically reproducing his schpiel. You can say Ray McGovern believes there's a 9/11 coverup, thinks Bush should be impeached, and thinks there's ulterior motives behind the Iraq war, without having 500 words of McGovern pitching it himself. That's the soapbox by proxy. Instead of presenting his POV, he's pushing the words of people he agrees with under the guise of encyclopedic content.

b) coatracking is a term another editor coined (my deepest apologies for forgetting who), describing the use of a bio to push a POV. The bio is the coatrack, and the POV is the coat. Rather than being simply a description of the person, the entry consists of a short bio and a inordinately long section describing their political views. The attention is drawn away from the individual and to the pontification of that individual's views, like a coat obscures the coatrack.

E.g. The Bush (to name a prominent politician) entry is not a 1 paragraph bio followed by 3 pages of quotes of George Bush's campaign statements. His policies are a small part of his bio, commensurate with his accomplishments, history, and whatnot. Moreover, they are presented not as quotes, but as NPOV prose. By definition, quoting a politican is NPOV; it's their POV!

Regarding Ray McGovern, feel free to expand the section on his views to further devlop his nuances, but do them with original prose, not regurgitated quotes (those should be cited, not copied). I distilled the included quotes down to their essence, you'd probably know his nuances better than I.

--Mmx1 04:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A) It IS "encyclopedic content" to represent the views of people. Wikipedia is not paper, if you want to edit or even trim down, be my guest, but make sure you dont omitt info. Your latest edit omitted huge amounts of info.

B) Well, i could create Raymond McGovern Views of different matters, but im sure it would be afd'd. As is now, i dont know much about the guy, and not very intreseted in finding out. But there is no such thing as "views can not be expresed if it takes more than the biography" rule. If you truly feel that his views are dominating the article in a improper way, then create Raymond McGovern Views of different matters. But you dont get away from the fact that his views are to be represented, no mater how much his biography contains.

Im not confident in my ability to creat a good prose that would give justice to his quotes, but if you insist, i could give it a shot. When i have tried that, people only got mad at my poor grammar, but if you want, i could do that.

You went to far in "distilled the included quotes down to their essence", i feelt that you just deleted as much as possible without deleting everything outright. And that is no way to present the mans opinions. --Striver 01:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fact is, if you look at Zakir Naik, you see that it is perfectly ok to have long bits on the guys views. The only valid arguement you gave is that i quote to much and write to little. If you truly want more of my grammar, i can try to give original prose instead of quotes. But thats it, you dont get to delete his views or "disstill" them ot 5% content.--Striver 01:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First, the part about VIPS is duplicated from the bio section. Secondly, you shouldn't be quoting people when it suffices to represent their views with third party prose, as I explained above. X believes Y is preferable to X says "Y should happen becase of A, B, C". This is a page to explain what he believes, not an outlet for him to explain them.

We should do this HERE because it's how we did it THERE is not a valid argument. Who's to say that's the right way to do it? GWB was a former featured article, and there a lot of eyes on it from supporters and detractors. Should that page just reproduce his campaign statements? No. If anything, it's an argument that Zakir Naik should have its quotes pared down. --Mmx1 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget 5% content. How about .1%? Because of the pages and hours of published and spoken words McGovern's said and spoken, we're presenting a page. Conciseness is a good thing. I don't want to read through paragraphs and paragraphs of his writings to find out that he wants to impeach bush and thinks there's something fishy about the war. If I wanted to spend that time, his writings are available...and linked. Wikipedia is about summarizing and presenting people's views, not reproducting them. --Mmx1 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to bad, we are getting closer to eachother. How my latest edit? --Striver 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You're joking, right? You just reverted it. You also apparently don't realize that the part about VIPS is duplicated. --Mmx1

No i did not! I acctualy worked on that, i take offence on you saying it was nothing more than a revert! You are right about the VIPS, ill remove that. --Striver 02:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, read the editlog wrong, my apologies. Looks good. Prose can always be improved. --Mmx1 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys

Sup. I see you guys are editing at the same time I am. Ryan4 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, it's a pain in the ass when that happens. My best suggestion is to save often and make small changes at a time. --Mmx1 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Public Statements / Views

My point about the first sentence is that it is paradoxical that he worked for the CIA for 27 years and is great buddies with Bush Sr but has suddenly become an outspoken Bush critic. That's why it makes sense to have everything he says under a heading 'Public Statements', because we don't know what his 'Views' really are. Ryan4 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I take public statements to be statements of one's views, unless you're a politician or a Karl Rove type. Activists typically do not find reason to shelter their views, and as it's now a description rather than a reproduction of quotes, I think "views" or better, "political stances" is a more accurate term --Mmx1 03:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Striver 04:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

missing citation, I think

www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2006/260206mosquebombing.htm

NPOV tag

Can someone explain the NPOV tag on this article so we can address the issues?--csloat 02:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

POV deletions

An editor deleted two entries and their citations with a comment derogatory to the Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard is a highly respected journal of political thought and investigative reporting. Wikipedia does not disallow citations from Weekly Standard and any attempt to delete on that basis is pure POV. RonCram 04:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Standard is not highly respected. Also, it is openly and clearly neocon, so how is its text gonna make an encyclopedia NPOV? -- ActiveSelective 09:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of McGovern's views as being anti-semitic

It is clear wikipedia policy not to exclude information about an individual because of POV. An anonymous editor has deleted an entry on Howard Dean's criticism of McGovern's being anti-semitic. This is clearly POV and was done without any justification. Please note wikipedia policy before deleting information readers have a right to know about. RonCram 04:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the Weekly Standard, it is about Ray McGovern.--Jersey Devil 05:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article is not about the Weekly Standard. Neither is the article about the New York Times or any other publication that may be cited. See comment above. The Weekly Standard is accepted journal. It is contrary to wikipedia policy to delete entries based on POV. RonCram 05:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you are trying to assert your POV into the article by simply stating opinions held on the Weekly Standard as fact as you have also done in the Paul Pillar article. Please stop this and simply cite facts instead of opinions, Deans comments could likely stay as they are factual but "The Weekly Standards thinks..." is POV pushing.--Jersey Devil 05:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Example: The Weekly Standard reports "Not In Our Name is a coalition formed in 2002 by the likes of the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. It is commonly referred to as anti-war, but it's no such thing. Some of its constituent groups profess a deep belief in revolutionary violence--which is to say, they are pro-war, they just want the United States to lose."

Complete POV pushing. Let readers decide what they think about NOIN don't tell them what to think.--Jersey Devil 05:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Editors of wikipedia are not allowed to enter their own editorials on events, concepts or people. However, it is encyclopedic to enter editorials both pro and con on all of these. Your effort to exclude this material is a clear violation of wikipedia policy requiring NPOV. RonCram 06:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard has a history of abusing words:

• Criticism of official Israeli policy is automatically equated to antisemitism.
• By equating anti-war to pacifism it dares say that anti-war groups are actually pro-war groups.

Many of the Weekly Standard quotes RonCram put in, are either a POVed misrepresentation of facts, or irrelevant. -- ActiveSelective

The Weekly Standard's conservative position isn't why I took it out, it is that its openly POV opinion was being used as fact to promote a POV. I would do the same for anyone trying to insert opinion as fact from any publication regardless of ideological position.--Jersey Devil 10:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that TWS is in fact a magazine of some repute, it is also on the fringes of political opinion and should definitely not be the only source of counterclaims re: McGovern (or anything really). Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz represent an extremely radical neoconservative, Zionist element with very close connections to various administrations. By the same token, they are not "journalists" in any sense of the word, they are editorialists and apologists for powerful interests (see Kristol's praise of Bush's second inaugural address and the subsequent revelation that...he wrote parts of it).Inoculatedcities 12:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is certainly not "on the fringes of political opinion." It is an extremely well respected journal as the quotes below attest. Regarding the comment above by ActiveSelective, the Weekly Standard does not say that anti-war groups are actually pro-war groups. It does say that the Revolutionary Communist Party (note the word "revolutionary") is a Maoist group that supports revolution. It also notes that leaders of RCP are the leaders of an "anti-war" group that McGovern has aligned himself with. It then draws the unassailable conclusion that the leaders of these two groups are not truly "anti-war" but really just want the U.S. to lose. There is no reason to withhold this information from a wikipedia article. It is accurate and relevant to readers.RonCram 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is an admittedly right-wing publication known for distortion and slander, as well as simply for getting things wrong. I pointed all of this out above. These comments about the RCP are irrelevant to any of this. Perhaps we should fill this page with quotes from the Revolutionary Worker to "balance" out the WS quotes? --csloat 16:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

High Price for Weekly Standard

In order to put to rest the claim that Weekly Standard is some kind of fringe publication, I thought it reasonable to reproduce some of the praise the Weekly Standard has received from all over the political spectrum. It is true that many Weekly Standard articles are op-ed pieces, but it is also true that some of the information reported there is the result of investigative journalism in the mold of Jack Anderson. I point specifically to people like Stephen Hayes who is constantly interviewing people in government in the military and government. Wikipedia articles commonly contain editorial and op-ed pieces from various publications, including Weekly Standard.

"The preeminent political journal in America." —Slate.com

"The oracle of American politics" —CNN's Wolf Blitzer

"...The Weekly Standard has become a forceful presence in the world of political opinion...It is the most intelligent, aggressive and well-written publication out there." —National Journal

"Has The Weekly Standard become the most powerful magazine, Mara?" "Brit, it certainly has." —exchange between anchorman Brit Hume and reporter Mara Liasson, Fox News Channel

"The Standard's editors have inaugurated one of the most interesting Beltway debates in years." —The New Republic

"DC's opinion makers are reading The Weekly Standard." —PRWEEK

"[The Weekly Standard] is the magazine I get most grumpy about when it's not delivered." —Abe Rosenthal, former editor, The New York Times

"I don't think you can do without it if you want to know what's going on in Washington." —Robert Novak

"Widespread reaction to the editorial proved that of the roughly 65,000 people who read the Standard each week, many are what you might call important." —GQ Magazine

"The Weekly Standard is required reading up here. You have to see it to be a part of the conversation." —John Kasich, former House Budget Committee Chair

"[One of] Washington's better read political magazines" —The Economist

"The Weekly Standard is a must-read for people in Washington." —Jack Nelson, The Los Angeles Times

"The Weekly Standard [has] the advantage of possessing...editors whose insights and arguments are uncommonly provocative...[They] know Washington, know politics and have demonstrated over the years a rare capacity for civil and unusually sensible argument and analysis." —David Broder, The Washington Post

"...you speak in two very influential pulpits. You're on television a lot of the time...and you're the editor of an influential magazine." —Peter Jennings, ABC News [live interview with William Kristol]

"The Weekly Standard is a 'must read' for anyone interested in American politics and American life." —William J. Bennett

There is no reasonable explanation for excluding comments from Weekly Standard other than your own POV is trying to shape the article. Deletion of material for POV reasons is contrary to wikipedia policy. RonCram 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• No. I for one, did not say it was a fringe publication. Nor did other people do so. It is not a fringe publication. The problem is that it is full of twists and misrepresentations. For example, no dictionary, nor wikipedia, equates anti-war to pacifism (take a look!) but this neocon publication maintains that it is so nevertheless. Even worse, it twists these words and ideas in order to spit on the anti-war movement. This, of course, is utterly POV - far from being objective journalism. It is false and it is POV. It lies in order to push through its POV. How much worse can it get? Moreover, it is not only doing this to an antiwar-movement. It is doing so to almost any subject. It lies about democrats in order to push through a its extremist opinion. Rumours are presented as facts. Historical background about how events came to be, are not told (like decades of US' financial, military, and organizational support for Saddams tiranny). Covering up truth, is also a way of lying.
• About your quotes: most of them are not quotes of praise, only a few are. These are mostly quotes about the importance or notability of the publication, which is different. Therefore, I do agree with most of these: Weekly Standard is very notable, yes, it is setting trends (=POV!) and therefore important to knowing what will be next in fashion in US politics. I don't like the thing, but I have to read it in order to keep up with the new myths and policies. The same quotes could have been made about Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf: not a word in it was true, but you had to read it in order to know what was next in fashion for almost two decades. So, you would suggest we should also take quotes from Mein Kampf when writing an encyclopedia article about Jewish religion?!?
• In conclusion: it is not a fringe publication, but a very notable publication. Quotes from it very often miss truth value. It is also very POVed. This POV is located at one of the extremes of the political spectum, yes, "on the fringes of political opinion". (just like RCP is at the other extreme, but at least they don't lie about being fringe or being POV). It is not mainstream, any anywhere near it.

-- ActiveSelective 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Active, let me address your arguments one at a time.

• You said Weekly Standard is "on the fringes of political opinion." That simply is untrue. If it was true, the publication would be a fringe publication. As it is, the publication is praised as "pre-eminent," "intelligent," "aggressive," "well-written," "powerful," "interesting," "required reading," and "influential." The magazine is said to have "a rare capacity for civil and unusually sensible argument and analysis." By definition, a publication that is "on the fringes of political opinion" is not influential or powerful or required reading. No one has pointed to anything in the magazine as being inaccurate. Regarding the definition of "pacifism," I checked dictionary.com. It defines pacifism as "1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. 2a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes." Now if "opposition to war" is not "anti-war" then I would like to know your definition of "anti-war."

• You are mistaken. Your comparison to Mein Kampf is misleading at best. Are you really saying Wolf Blitzer, David Broder, LA Times, Abe Rosenthal el al could praise Mein Kampf in the same way they praised the Weekly Standard? I don't think so. The magazine is praised for being "most intelligent" and having "unusually sensible argument and analysis." Interestingly, it is "several times described as "better read," "required reading" and "must-read." Why is that so? Because other publications do not provide the point of view or the informed opinion Weekly Standard provides. If it is "must-read" for the important people in Washington, it is also "must-read" for wikipedia readers.

• Again, you are mistaken. Were you hoping to find quotes saying the magazine was the "most accurate?" Surely not. Every publication strives to be accurate. Inaccuracy is the only unforgivable sin in the news business. When publications get it wrong, they publish corrections. Weekly Standard has an outstanding reputation for factual accuracy and intelligent analysis.

To sum up, wikipedia policy on NPOV does not seek to exclude all POV. Rather, the goal is to allow POV from both sides. Weekly Standard is a persuasive conservative publication that powerfully affects mainstream political thought. It is the magazine's unusually intelligent analysis that makes it so persuasive and required reading. Because Weekly Standard is one of the few conservative publications, it is all the more important that its analysis is included in articles in order to achieve NPOV. For these reasons, the Weekly Standard should be sought out, not shunned, by wikipedia editors. RonCram 15:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong Ron. These are not words of praise; they are words of notability. This has been pointed out to you over and over again. Second, the idea that WS is "one of the few conservative publications" is nonsense. There are many. But that is a non-issue. The issue is that you should not be quoting from the opinion of a WS writer and stating it as fact. You should not be throwing in a bunch of poorly edited WS quotes into an article and claim you are promoting "balance" or NPOV. You are not. You are pushing your POV and hiding behind the "notability" of this biased publication to support your POV. Finally, your claim "Weekly Standard has an outstanding reputation for factual accuracy and intelligent analysis" illustrates just how off the deep end you are. It has a reputation, true, but not for factual accuracy. It has a reputation for distortion on many issues. The fact that people in Washington consider it an important publication or read it often is irrelevant ... I read it often too. But I don't find most of its contributions accurate or encyclopedic.--csloat 16:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you have not added anything to the conversation. Contrary to your unsupported assertion, TWS has an outstanding reputation for accuracy and intelligent analysis. Slate.com, a very liberal news and opinion outlet, calls TWS "The preeminent political journal in America." Will you explain to me how the words "preeminent political journal" are not words of praise? Can you explain how "required reading" describes a political journal that wikipedia readers should not be allowed to read? You have not addressed any of the arguments I put forward. Slate is admitting TWS is powerful and persuasive, the very things Slate aspires to be! Slate is not complaining that TWS is inaccurate or harmful or damaging. Your statements that it is shows how far "off the deep end you are." You and Active are trying to draw too fine a distinction. When you praise a publication for being powerful or persuasive or required reading, then you are admitting it is intelligently argued and written. You are admitting that people need to know the facts and opinions the publication contains in order to take part in an informed discussion. You have a difficult admitting this because you dislike their political position. You do not have to like them to admit they are a part of the political debate and readers need to know what TWS publishes. It is that simple. Refer again to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. RonCram 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(1) The notion that slate.com is "very liberal" shows how far out of touch you are. "required reading" -- so what? I read it too; doesn't mean I agree with it or find it encyclopedic. "powerful and persuasive" (your words) -- sure, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. I also never suggested WS was not "intelligently argued and written" -- that's not the issue. Good writers can write lies and distortions quite well, as we have seen. I'm not suggesting banning quotes from TWS, but they should be treated as what they are -- neocon politicially invested attack journalism. Instead of repetitively citing WP:NPOV, you might try reading it yourself.--csloat 19:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my arguments at all. My point was you have to read the thing in order to keep up with what's going to be next in fashion. You have to read WS today to know what's going to be US fashion, just like you had to read Hitler to know what was going to be in fashion 70 years ago. You want to know the new myths? You have to read it! This notability statement and quote of importance says nothing about the truth value of either WS or Hitler, although you are saying it is, since you call notability "high praise".

I'm not sure whether Blitzer, Broder, and Rosenthal would like Adolf's book. This was not even my point. But since you're asking... they do like conservative politics very much (as was a major part of Hitlers ideas); they like the ideas of expansionism, of getting control over other countries (Irak or Austria, Afghanistan or Poland, Iran or Holland, Columbia or France); they back up the interal break down of privacy and civil rights; they loved the 'shock and awe' tactics (blitz krieg tactics). Yes, you are probably right to say Blitzer, Broder, and Rosenthal would like Hitler's book. I wouldn't dare saying it, though. -- ActiveSelective 05:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

RonCram - I did not say it is a "fringe" publication -- the obvious implication being that nobody reads or takes seriously what TWS writes (notice I didn't say "report"). I said it is an editorial magazine and that the ideological framework it consistently presents is most certainly "fringe". csloat hit the nail on the head by using the example of sourcing blatantly POV items (all those "The Weekly Standard says..." and "The Weekly Standard criticizes...") to analogous publications on the left. I don't object to using TWS at all, it's just that it's essentially the only publication you cite. It's like writing about Douglas Feith and only sourcing The Socialist Worker's editorials about him. And on top of all of that, you keep citing WP:NPOV as if it actually supports your actions...

"The editors of the Weekly Standard appear to believe him to be anti-semitic because he is critical of Israel's influence on U.S. foreign policy." This is coatracking. It and the whole paragraph that follows are blatant POV: You're advancing the notion that because TWS considers any criticism of Israel as "anti-semitic", it is worth noting and possibly true that McGovern does, in fact, hate all jews. Where's the evidence? Why does this belong here? How is that NPOV? Inoculatedcities 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, both sides are off-track here. First, the line about what the editors of TWS think about McGovern doesn't belong where it does. Perhaps it should be in a 'Criticism' section with quotes from critics followed by quotes from supporters, but not as an isolated quote in the section on his views.

Now having said that, TWS is as reliable a news source as most anything you'll find quoted in a Wikipedia article (Newsweek, Atlantic Monthly, etc.), as Ron's quotes show. There is no doubt that one should be allowed to quote FACTS about what McGovern has said and done and attribute a TWS article as the source. And just because a news source does not admit bias does not mean it isn't biased; I can cite a dozen instances from 2004 when the NYT was playing liberal attack dog using page A1 as the weapon. Merzbow 01:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you can't. Well, you can, but you would be wrong. I could just as easily cite as many times they reported things that I could characterize as neocon warmongering (e.g. all of Judith Miller's articles). The fact is that the NYT attempts to report the news accurately. Noone is disputing that bias gets in there or that it sometimes gets things wrong. But the TWS is never attempting to report accurately; it is always advocating a political position, and it is open about the nature of that position. I agree with you that it doesn;t mean TWS can't be used to cite verifiable facts (though other sources are usually preferable) or even that opinions from there cannot be cited, but as Inoculatedcities points out, the particular claim being sourced from there is ludicrous -- McGovern is an antisemite because TWS thinks he criticizes Israel too much? Do we really need this kind of innuendo in an encyclopedia?--csloat 01:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those two paragraphs that deserves to go except for the first line ("The editors of the Weekly Standard appear to believe him to be anti-semitic because he is critical of Israel's influence on U.S. foreign policy.) The rest is simply a direct quote or summary of McGovern's own words (although the punctuation could stand a little cleanup), or Dean's words. And I would argue that it makes sense to keep Dean's response in there since he's a very well-known public figure and since this particular exchange has been pretty widely reported. Merzbow 05:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to lose the first line if you think that improves the article. RonCram 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

More information on wikipedia policy of NPOV

Wikipedia describes NPOV as "absolute and non-negotiable." For more information on how to comply with this policy, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. RonCram 15:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You haven't read it yourself, mister! 1. NPOV does not mean you may insert false statements. An anti-war group is not a pro-war group. Criticism of Israeli state policy is not antisemitism. 2. It also does not mean you may write POVs as if it were facts. There is a world of difference between: "Saddam supports Bin Laden" and "WS accuses Saddam for allegedly supporting Bin Laden". -- ActiveSelective 05:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics." For a more complete understanding of this, please refer to WP:BLP. Inoculatedcities 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Active, you are correct that NPOV does not mean you can insert false statements. TWS did not say an anti-war group was a pro-war group. TWS pointed out that the leaders of NOIN (an anti-war group) are also leaders of the RCP (a group that is pro-revolutionary meaning they support armed conflict). TWS has the facts right. The leaders of RCP formed a group to tap into the anti-war sentiment in the U.S. Readers of wikipedia have a right to know that McGovern has aligned himself with that group. Your claim that criticism of Israeli policy is not antisemitism is theoretically true. However, in the real world it is very difficult to find any examples. But that is not really the point. The point is that McGovern has been criticized for making antisemitic remarks by the Chairman of the Democratic Party Howard Dean. That is newsworthy and deserves to be in an encyclopedia.RonCram 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fine to keep Dean's remarks in. The stuff about O.I.L. needs to be sourced better. Your other comments are ludicrous, Ron. I don't know a whole lot about the RCP but I would wager money that they would disagree with their characterization as "pro-war." More importantly, your comment that criticism of Israeli policy is always antisemitic "in the real world" is absolute nonsense. Would you say that all of the Israelis who criticize Israeli policy are antisemitic? Would you say that the members of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom are antisemitic? It is not just nonsense; it is hateful nonsense. If Dean expressed such nonsense (and we need a better source for such quotes), perhaps it belongs here, but I don't think it should be taken seriously by anyone reasonable. It is interesting to see someone like you taking cues from Howard Dean, however; does this mean you'll be looking to the Democrats in 2008? ;) --csloat 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No, here the false statements are made again. 3x!

One: there are a lot of Jews, inside Israel and around the world, criticizing the Israeli government. So you are saying they are either not "in the real world" or "antisemitic"?!?! Now who's on the verge of being antisemitic now, mr. RonCram?

Two: RonCram mistakenly says (again) "The point is that McGovern has been criticized for making antisemitic remarks" by Dean. This is false. The only point is (again!) that Dean only accuses McGovern of allegedly making antisemitic remarks. Can anyone quote McGoverns antisemitic remarks? No. Why not? It should have been an easy find according to the WS, shouldn't it? Simple: there are no such statements by McGovern. Only Dean is quoted. There is only proof of Deans POV. Deans POV is that criticism of Israel is supposedly automaticly antisemitism. Nothing more.

Three: by leaving out McGoverns own defence against these accusations, the whole thing is presented as if McGovern would not or could not deny it. But that is not true. He's just not being quoted. It is covered up by WS. Covering up is a way of lying. Only quoting accusations but not the defence, is (1) backing up and amplifying the accusations, and (2) saying "there was defence."

It is only on POV, and it is all false. This whole shebang should be reformulated for NPOV and truth, or be deleted. -- ActiveSelective 19:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Dean exchange is newsworthy of its own accord, and is a well-known incident having to do with this particular individual. The article would be remiss by not mentioning it, POV or not. Merzbow 07:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The way it is formulated now, is not the real Dean exchange. It remains both false and POV when kept this way. It should be deleted. If you really want it mentioned, you should reformulate it. If you do not reformulate it, you're using Wikipedia to send false info into the world. The policy is: better have Wikipedia lacking some info than transmitting false info. Imagine, Wikipedia could be quoted on it with consequences for how people see Wikipedia as a whole, including all the seriously written articles, just because you want this false and POV thing mentioned. -- ActiveSelective 07:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Innoculated, you are correct. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject and not their critics. That means at least 51% of the material (you can count the lines of text if you wish) should be on the subject and not their critics. I am certain that the critics of McGovern receive far less than the allotted 49% of material in the article. RonCram 13:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:BLP, Ron. Your 50% standard is a reasonable one for making crappy mixto tequila, but it is not a good one for producing NPOV biographies of living persons.--csloat 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

A few comments on RCP, pacifism and anti-Semitism

The Washington Post article can be found here. [2] The RCP is Maoist and has "Revolutionary" in the name. Mao made famous the saying that power comes from the barrel of a gun. It is very difficult to argue these people are pacifists. I would not say that all people who criticize the Israeli government are anti-Semitic, but I would say that anyone who is anti-Zionist is anti-Semitic. Israel's right to exist as a nation is only questioned by anti-Semites. Active's argument that Dean only accuses McGovern of "allegedly" making anti-Semitic remarks is ridiculous. We can quote McGovern and we can quote Dean quoting McGovern saying that anyone who says such things is anti-Semitic. McGovern himself admits that others have called him anti-Semitic. This is getting to be a fairly common criticism of McGovern and is clearly encyclopedic.RonCram 15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• Anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitic. An example: see http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ There is actually a long tradition of Jews against zionism.
• There is also a long tradition of Zionists colaborating with antisemites, like Herzl said: "The antisemites will become our most loyal friends, the antisemites nations will become our allies." (Th. Herzl, One Palestine Complete, p.47) His strategy was colaborating with antisemite bigots so Jews would be chased out of Europe, into the hands of zionists in Palestine. Now you understand why there is a long tradition of Jewish hate against zionism: zionism has betrayed them time and again. Zionist leader Yitzhak Greenbaum said in 1943(!): "One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland." Zionists only cared about confiscating land, not about the Jewish people. There has always been a difference between the interests of the Jewish people and interests of the Israeli state apparatus. The Jewish people was only an instrumental vehicle to the zionists.
• Quote McGoverns antisemitic remarks. That means: find a quote of him saying Jewish people are "inferior" or something like that. The only quotes you'll find are criticisms of Israel; criticisms with which Jewish antizionist organizations agree. -- ActiveSelective 17:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You're playing the common game of claiming that a certain viewpoint about the desires of a group of people (the Jews) must be mainstream because there are at least some members of the group who still hold that viewpoint (anti-Zionism). There are very few anti-Zionist Jews around these days. You are blatantly mispresenting modern Jewry by not mentioning this fact, or perhaps you are just hopelessly confused about what Zionism really means. Zionism means support for the existence of Israel, plain and simple. You would do well to read the article on it. Merzbow 01:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are the one blatantly misrepresenting things. The issue is not whether criticism of Zionism is "mainstream." Also, your claim about what Zionism "really means" may be accurate in a definitional sense, but it is not consistent with what many people believe Zionism "really means," so it is not a very useful measure of whether anti-Zionism is equivalent to antisemitism. There are actually more than "a very few" Jews who criticize Israeli policy. Whether this makes them anti-Zionist is a matter of opinion, and not really relevant to this discussion. Third, even "a very few" Jews who consider themselves "anti-Zionist" will disprove the argument; quantities are really not relevant here. Fourth, you have ignored the evidence of Zionists who collaborated with antisemites, suggesting that anti-Zionists and antisemites represent different groups and different phenomena.--csloat 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

About zionism, Merzbow, it is best and honest to let zionists speak for themselves. "It is essential that the sufferings of Jews. . . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-semites shall be our best friends". (Diary, Part I) not from Adolf Hitler but Theodor Herzl's diary, the founding father of modern zionism. You see, he helped to create and enhance the antisemite atmosphere in Europe and Russia for his own plans. He helped this atmosphere that eventually led to the Holocaust. Not surprisingly, he's a major hero of the more sophisticated antisemites today.

So no, Merzbow and RonCram, you're playing the common game! The game of equating the Jewish people to the Israel state. But the state is not the people: the racial laws, the road blocks, the secret service, the military, the apartheid, the exclusion of the ethnicly unpure from the area. How is all this equal to the Jewish people? Of whom live more outside Israel than inside?

Saying "the state of Israel has to go" is completely different from the antisemite "Jews should be locked up" or worse. But it is the same as saying the South-African apartheid state had to go (its racial laws, the police brutality, the manipulated justice system, supposed white superiority). That state was finally broken down and replaced by a completely new state of cultural and racial equality, bringing racists to justice. Saying that the apartheid state had to go never had anything to do with the ethnic cleansing of whites. The apartheid state continually prophecied that the white people supposedly needed 'their' state because they were otherwise massacred by the black racists etc etc. Nothing of the sort ever happened.

Back to McGovern. He never said anything about the Jewish people. Accusing him of antisemitism is a blatant lie. He critized an apartheid state's foreign policy. How's that racist? It is a state with much and much more non-Jewish support than Jewish support. How's criticizing this state antisemite? He never even questioned the existence of the zionist state, so if at all "antizionist" (according to RonCram) then he is quite a softy at that.

My point is clear. Overtly false rumours whipped up by politicaly POVed nonjournalism should not be in this article. -- ActiveSelective 06:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Active's defense of McGovern is non-sensical. You cannot argue "the state of Israel has to go" is not an anti-semitic remark. Where is the country supposed to go? Do you want to push the country into the sea the way Ahmadinejad does? Or would you also accept his proposal to relocate the country of Israel in Europe? Comparing criticism of an apartheid government to the country of Israel is ridiculous. The anti-semites do not hate Israel because they are racist. They hate Israel because they are Jews. Howard Dean has recognized McGovern's statements as anti-semitic and so have many other people. Anyone who does not accept Israel's right to exist is by definition an anti-semite. RonCram 05:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read what he argues? He says: the Israeli road blocks, Israeli bomber planes, the Israeli annexations of land, that Palestinians may not vote there, the Israeli "apartheid" law that Palestinians may not learn Ivrit, and that they may not marry Israelis, all that is called the "state", that should go. That's not anti-semite, but anti-apartheid. A state is not the same as a country. The country and the people do not have to disappear, only the state repression and official discrimination. Just like the former state of RSA.

McGovern is not recognized as anti-semite. He's been called anti-semite. It might mean he is anti-semite, but it might also mean (as McGovern himself explains) that he is slandered. Now, slandering someone is of course one of the most effective ways of making him shut up, of making potential audience not want to listen to him. The technical term is character murder. Unpover 06:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron, wanting the state of Israel "to go" is no more anti-semitic than wanting "regime change" in Iraq is anti-Islamic. Of course there are people who will interpret it that way, but it is quite obviously inaccurate. One thing has nothing to do with the other. I don't particularly agree with those who want the state of Israel "to go," but I would not endorse charges of antisemitism against someone unless they have actually made statements against Jews for being Jewish. In the case of Iran's president, while I disagree with your interpretation of his remark about Israel, I don't think it is unfair at all to state that he has made other remarks that are obviously antisemitic. You simply can't say the same of Ray McGovern, whatever else you may think about him. --csloat 22:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, that is complete and utter hogwash. The U.S. and its allies did not want Iraq "pushed into the Sea." Nor where they trying to wipeout Iraq as a country. Bush and Blair wanted Iraqis to experience freedom and democracy. These are hardly the same goals as Ahmadinejad or McGovern wants for Israel. When they want Israel "to go," they mean they want Israel gone from the map... at least from that part of the world. Howard Dean has called McGovern an anti-semite and this is one of the few things I would have to agree with Dean about. RonCram 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you about Ahmadinejad Ron, but your claim that McGovern wants israel "pushed into the sea" is what comes across as "complete and utter hogwash." If you have such a quote, produce it Ron. Otherwise drop this ridiculous line of argument, and stop citing Howard Dean's ridiculous comment as if it were meaningful. We have cited Dean already in the article, what more do you want? Sorry, but you're not going to convince anyone who isn't already on your "side" here that there is something "antisemitic" about opposing Israeli policy. And let me add that the claim itself is totally insulting since it trivializes real antisemitism for cheap political purposes.--csloat 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitic garbage

I've cleaned up the section on the ludicrous and offensive allegations of anti-semitism and added McGovern's comments about his interaction with Woolsey on the matter. It's pretty obvious both Woolsey and Dean are off the deep end on this matter, but whatever. There is the matter of the other TWS quote, which calls McGovern a "wild-eyed leftist." It seems to me more than enough to say TWS called him a "wild-eyed leftist" rather than having a couple sentences that refer to something "above" that isn't quoted. It makes no sense. Unless the "above" are the various claims about what McGovern "believes" (to which I added the fact tag). I'd be in favor of deleting that whole paragraph and perhaps replacing it with documented information about McGovern's published views rather than suggestions about what TWS claims he "believes."--csloat 19:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The "wild-eyed leftist" TWS sentence can probably go as well. Honestly, Ray McGovern convicts himself of anti-semitism via his own words better than the TWS could ever do. It's fine to criticize Israel, but there's a point at which reasonable analysis leaves the building and off-the-wall conspiracy theory enters. Merzbow 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you know of a quote from Mr. McGovern where he talks of an international Jewish conspiracy? Or perhaps evidence of Mr. McGovern painting swastikas on a shul, or marching alongside the Klan? Please do feel free to add it to this page; as it is, there is no such quote here. And again I think the implication that criticizing Israeli foreign policy (or criticizing, as McGovern did, the ways in which U.S. foreign policy is influenced by Israeli foreign policy) is horribly offensive. Besides shutting down rational debate on American foreign policy, it also trivializes real anti-semitism.--csloat 02:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Israeli foreign policy is not anti-semitic, and I never said it is. It's when that criticism crosses the line to implying that Jews (of which half the world's population are Israeli, and overwhelmingly Zionists) are the prime movers or the primary reason for all of the nasty things that have been going on the Middle East lately. This sort of talk ascribing to Jews vast powers to influence world affairs is the same language that has been used for hundreds of years by blatant anti-semites (see Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's code language, and all well-educated people recognize it as such. If guys like Ray McGovern are really not anti-semitic and don't want to appear as such, they're free to express their concerns in a different way. But they don't, and that gives me pause. Merzbow 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, if you have evidence of Mr. McGovern making public statements to such effect, that would be interesting. I am well aware of the Protocols, and if you know of McGovern endorsing them, that would certainly be notable here. But I haven't seen evidence of any such arguments coming from him, and his critique of the war in Iraq on the basis that it is part of a desire to advance US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East is not that sort of conspiracy theory, nor is it really that controversial; in fact, neocons themselves make that argument. So I'm really not sure I understand your claim.--csloat 07:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely Merzbow's libelous claims about Ray McGovern should give one pause. And the state of Israel does have "vast" powers to influence world affairs -- that's a fact, not anti-semitic in the slightest. And JINSA and AIPAC, through their influence on U. S. foreign policy and the funding of Israel, have significant power to influence world affairs. As a Jew concerned about anti-semitism, I find the sorts of transparent misrepresentations and false equations of folks like Merzbow quite alarming -- treating legitimate references to the influence of Israel and Americans supporting Israel as if it were anti-semitic "code language" serves to legitimate real anti-semitism. And as a member of the Jewish community, I am distressed that so many of my brethren act so badly, here at WP and elsewhere throughout the internet, where these false charges of anti-semitism are flung around for the purpose of demonizing those who have legitimate criticisms of Israel and its supporters. -- Jibal 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Methinks Jibal doth protest too much and is a rabid supporter of this "wide-eyed leftist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.54.22 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Change article name

This article should be renamed to "Ray McGovern" because of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) policy. See www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/010606iranstrike.htm for TV screenshot captioned with Ray. StraussianNeocon 22:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

McGovern was NEVER an Operations Officer

I have deleted the paragraph attributed to the Boston Globe stating that McGovern was an operations officer at CIA; he was not and never would have been given his views of operations officers as stated to me, and his general attitude. Notwithstanding a possible rotational tour with a combined Center such as the Counter-Terrorist Center where he would have remained an analyst likely assigned to do targetting studies in more direct support of the DO (Directorate of Operations in his time, now the National Clandestine Service). His area of expertise is the Soviet Union and Russia, not the Middle East, not terrorism, not counter terrorism and certainly not operations at CIA. One might also question his lack of politicization as an analyst given his general publicly opinionated activities since retiring; where were his protests hidden during his career?

The Globe just has it wrong. Where it got this information is unknown, but before Wikipedia perpetuates this falsehood and attributes by implication expertise that does not exist, it should either check with McGovern himself (surely his email address is plastered all over some web site or other he supports; he loves publicity) or the Globe for its take on the reliability of their source's access and knowledge of McGovern's assignments. My guess is that they just interpolated something the source may have said, and misunderstood. The Washington Post would be a more reliable source for this sort of detail.

How do I know this? I was a Prep schoolmate of McGovern's and we went to the same college (although at different times); I know him personally; I was myself an operations officer for 31 years, 25 of which overlapped McGovern at CIA. Henrymj 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry, I do not doubt the accuracy of your statements. However, wikipedia has a policy against "original research." Articles are supposed to reflect only what is published. I would suggest you contact some of your friends in the media and ask them to correct the record. If you don't have anyone you can readily ask, I would suggest you go to a group like Vets For Freedom who do have contacts with the media and ask them to help you set the record straight. RonCram 13:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Do you think the Boston Globe is going to bother to print a retraction at this late date just to ensure Wikipedia's rules can be honored-- which in this case seems to put policy before truth? There are plenty of articles in other papers at other times that do not erroneously assert that McGovern was an operations officer or in the Clandestine Service, sufficient it would seem to simply leave out the Globe's error. Why not use them? Or, as I suggest, just leave it out; even journalists require three sources before publishing a controversial fact. And, you do not publish every other publicly printed bio statement on him. Or, is someone insisting on this specific inclusion to try to add credibility to McGovern's opinions? If you are interested in the truth of his past which in this case is meant to distinguish his rants from the rest of the world's opinionated chatterers, then I suggest you publish only what you can verify is fact about him, not what some sloppy journalist printed and the individual who added the para in Wikipedia interpreted from it. If the entire concept of an edited encyclopia is to have any credibility, it needs to be more circumspect about what purports to be fact. Otherwise, it seems a playground for anyone with an agenda to play loose with reality. Henrymj 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Henry; let's just leave out the disputed sentence. It is a short aside in the Globe, not the product of an investigation, and probably the product of a journalist who didn't know the difference between different CIA jobs. There's no need to use the quote to editorialize for or against McGovern; just leave it out and quote other sources.--csloat 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is not the main focus of the article and the Globe will probably never issue a retraction. RonCram 15:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Methinks thou doth protest too much; wikipedia puts policy before claims of truth. Policy is intended to keep this from being "a playground for anyone with an agenda to play loose with reality", which could be you just as soon as it could be someone else. -- Jibal 04:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

RCP Nonsense

The nonsense Ron keeps inserting about the RCP does not belong here. The Weakly Standard point is BS -- we have a link to NION already, if people want to learn more about that organization, they can click the link. McGovern was not a member of RCP to my knowledge; the fact that NION was started by people who included RCP members is a strange guilt by association argument that has no place here. Beyond that, to claim NION is not "anti-war" because some of its members may belong to a Maoist group makes no sense. NION opposed the war, did they not?--csloat 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, I do not agree with "guilt by association" but I believe including this information is different than putting someone in jail for being a communist because that person had lunch with a communist. We are not talking about "guilt" in the judicial sense. The founders of RCP also founded NION. People have criticized McGovern for joining forces with Maoists who have a hidden agenda. That criticism is in the public domain and should not be censored and kept from the readers of wikipedia. RonCram 15:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is different from putting someone in jail but it is not different from accusing someone of being a communist because they had lunch with a communist. Anyone interested in NION can click the link to learn more. It was founded by some members of RCP as well as other people not involved in RCP. Its key documents were written by people who are not RCP members. NION does not use any RCP information in their propaganda, and they do not advocate communism or Maoism. There is no "hidden agenda"; most NION members are simply not Maoists. "People" have not criticized McGovern for this; there is one single quote to this effect and its logic is feeble. There is no need to reproduce this non-notable quote in wikipedia just so you can have your moment of pique about Mr. McGovern.--csloat 19:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

PS take a look at the list of NION NION#Signatories on the wikipedia page. Are you telling me that the following people are Maoists? Bonnie Raitt? John Perry Barlow? Brian Eno? Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Oliver Stone, Studs Terkel, and Casey freakin' Kasem?? Some of them are millionaires, I doubt they support the forcible overthrow of the US government and redistribution of wealth (as your quote suggests NION members do). The claim that he is not anti-war because he supports a group that opposes the war and happens to have been formed by some maoists is nonsense and I think you know it.--csloat 19:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Need a Jennifer Glaudemans article.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perle & Wolfowitz : The Crazies

Jentzsch: You have been the personal briefer of Bush senior, 81-85, what do you think goes through his mind when he sees what his son is doing in matters of intelligence?

McG: I often wonder. You see the folks who are running the policy towards Iraq and the war in the Middle East, these are a strange breed of folks. It is not as though they arrived just last week. They have been around for a couple of decades and ironically enough in the eighties they were widely referred to as "the crazies", the real crazies. When you referred to the crazies you knew who was meant: it was the Wolfowitzes, it was the Perles,it was folks that had gone way out on the limb, espousing policies that ducktailed very much with the Israeli leaders for whom they also worked. And so for the first President Bush to be looking at this son, hiring on wholesale the crazies, not only hiring them on but being susceptible to their suggestions and their policies, that must be a very hard pill to swallow.

Jentzsch: Do you have any hope that anybody will come forward?

McG: Well, it's already happening. Folks are coming forward in London.

Jentzsch: How about Langley [CIA headquarters]?

McG: I think that the American intelligence analysts, the good ones will recognize that they have a patriotic duty to speak out, that transcends the cult of secrecy and sensible loyalty and going throughout the channels that usually only delays things for years.

Lots of citations that point back to Ray McGovern's work.

Lots of the citations here point back to Ray McGovern's work, which is fine for establishing what RM believes, but does nothing to establish the notability of this particular activist. Further, there are a lot of links to either RM's articles or somewhat marginal cites, giving the appearance of advertising. I will be trimming this article down in the near future, please feel free to discuss with me here. Bonewah (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

2011 Clinton speech arrest - changed language a bit

First, I should bring to everyone's attention a video that shows the entire encounter in the auditorium at the Clinton speech. It's by the GW student newspaper, and it shows much more than the video being commonly embedded in articles: http://vimeo.com/20089928

Second, I'm noting that I made a change to the section on his arrest at the Clinton speech. I found out about the incident through this article and when it said "Beaten, Arrested," I imagined something even worse than what actually happened (which was already pretty bad). I pictured him on the ground, getting pummeled. At least some hits being landed.

But reading and listening to his remarks, it sounds like they roughed him up in a different way. It sounds like the worst stuff is how they lacerated his wrists with the handcuffs, enough to bleed everywhere. And in the Vimeo video you can see how they were just generally manhandling him in the auditorium. But it sounds like punches were lacking. So I changed "Beaten" to the more general "Assault" to give a better impression.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I made some further changes to the article. First, I removed the extensive quote as the source doesn't seem reliable. I also removed the word "violently" as that label has only been used by him. We need reliable sources to agree it was such to include it. Lastly, I removed the topic of her speech as it really isn't relevant, and there isn't any indication that she had anything to do with the occurring, it is being used simply to WP:COATRACK her in my opinion. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well I don't disagree that this article is pretty WP:COATRACK-y. But it's hard to argue that there wasn't a pretty rough and ironic arrest at a speech by the Secretary of State.

I should add another source that's informing my knowledge of this event: the quoted remarks by McGovern in this Huffington Post article. Those, plus the embedded video, plus his videotaped statements in the DemocracyNow interview, plus the GW Hatchet video in their article all report a rough arrest. Even the text of the pretty-damn-impartial Hatchet article mentions him being "dragged out" of the auditorium. We could at least report that he and others accuse the authorities of a rough arrest, rather than making a conclusion.

It seems correct that the topic of Clinton's speech was coincidental. As McGovern says in the interview, it was just an opportunity to confront her about unrelated things. But one of the most significant things about this event is that very coincidence. Even if you see it as just some old kook staging some random protest, you have to acknowledge the irony of a peaceful protester being roughed up and jailed at a speech reprimanding other countries for suppressing peaceful protests. It would be disingenuous not to at least acknowledge that irony.

By the way, even if you're highly suspect of DemocracyNow's news reporting (I'm usually suspicious myself), I don't think they can be called unreliable in supplying video evidence of McGovern's opinions. We should be able to use it to at least report the stated intention of his protest and his allegations of violence.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

ACLU National Civil Liberties Award

His website says he received it a year after Coretta Scott King.[3] We do not have information on such an award neither in the ACLU's article nor in King's nor can I find any such information anywhere else. Can anyone help? Galant Khan (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ray McGovern/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I don't believe the photo at the top of the entry (of the bald gentleman) is of Ray McGovern and it should probably be removed. Below are links to a couple of pictures I took on April 19, 2007 at a lecture McGovern gave at Grand Rapids Community College in Michigan if anyone would like to use them (I'd be happy to release them under the GFDL). http://web.grcc.cc.mi.us/Pr/socialscience/2007/mcgovern04.jpg http://web.grcc.cc.mi.us/Pr/socialscience/2007/mcgovern05.jpg Also - the lecture he gave is available as streaming video in two parts at the links below: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktwHqPpncrQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWrySLWXKbQ

Last edited at 14:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Allegations Published By Duncan Campbell Are Unfounded & Based On His Speculation And Opinion

The new section added on August 1st by a user who already seems to have a controversial editing history and that references a "pro-Kremlin disinformant" references an article that actually fails to demonstrate disinformation or that the person targeted is demonstrably a proponent of the Kremlin. The article itself is grossly misleading and contains several pieces of disinformation. It has already been discredited to some extent, some claims have already been countered by Bill Binney and others involved (showing they were not being accurately represented) and many of the assertions in Campbell's article will be debunked within 24-48 hours of this comment being posted. Campbell's article is demonstrably misleading and falsely labels independent researchers as "pro-kremlin" simply because their discoveries don't support what Mr. Campbell believes in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.213.19 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply 13-AUG-2018

   Clarification needed  

• If an alternate wording of the information is desired, or if you are able to better rephrase the information above, your help in redrafting it would be most appreciated. Please feel free to propose any rewrites here on the talk page that might help convey the information better. Regards,  spintendo  18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply 12-APR-2018

I rephrased that section as the language used does not belong in an encyclopedia. It's not the role of the encyclopedia to express opinions and assign labels to people. I retained reference to the article in order to illustrate that McGovern's views are controversial. ~Julek Kopczewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.115.200 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"Russian election interference" section

> McGovern was persuaded by a pro-Kremlin disinformant that the theft of the DNC emails was an inside job, and not the work of Russian agents (contrary to the findings of the US intelligence community). The disinformation agent manipulated metadata in the files released by Guccifer 2.0 (whom the US intelligence community identifies as a Russian military intelligence operation) to show that the documents came from a computer in the Eastern United States, not Russia. McGovern subsequently released a VIPS report, which many VIPS members did not sign, that claimed that the DNC email hack was an inside job

Is this one source really enough to plainly state this as fact? I'm not familiar with the source cited (ComputerWorld.com), so I'm not really sure how much credit to give it, but I'd doubt that the man himself would agree with this description of events.

Overall, the "views and activism" sections seems to just be a series of controversial episodes, but it didn't give me much picture of what McGovern is about or what his general worldview is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.147.77 (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify what is wrong with the cited source? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Well apparently whoever added this into the article can't read (assuming good faith here). "Many of the VIPS members however... expressed a view that the inside job theory itself is a disinformation campaign run by a pro-Kremlin hacker Tim Leonard." is not at all supported by the source. Nobody in VIPS has claimed this, that's entirely speculation by this source of dubious quality.98.127.81.62 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Ray McGovern mentioned in Darya Dugina article

Comments are welcome :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by May1787 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Darya_Dugina#U.S._Believes_Ukrainians_Were_Behind_an_Assassination_in_Russia_-_New_York_Times

As I believe Ray McGovern stated recently on YouTube, these are planned leaks. None of these leaks to the US puppet New York Times are always sanctioned by American intellegence agencies. Note how CNN does not mention the SBU. Security Service of Ukraine The Russian government states that the SBU was responsible. There was a woman with 3 license plates that came up through Ukraine then planted the bomb then passed through (previous) Fascist Estonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_in_World_War_II

May1787 (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Non primary resource needed?

It's about the Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden section. Personal opinion about something IS a primary resource. If a personal opinion is published by independent on the person media, then such media IS non primary. Bocin kolega (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong date

"In 2003, together with other former CIA employees, McGovern founded the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which is dedicated to analyzing and criticizing the use of intelligence, at first concerning the Iraq War.[13]

In the same year, McGovern confronted Donald Rumsfeld on a live CNN broadcast about his statements concerning weapons of mass destruction, an interaction later called the "vivisection of Donald Rumsfeld" by Keith Olbermann.[14]"

CIA McGovern pretended to confront Rumsfeld in 2006, not "in the same year" of 2003, as it states. That's a big difference. I don't work for the CIA so I don't edit Wiki but someone else should fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.84.247 (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"I don't work for the CIA so I don't edit Wiki": not all Wiki editors are connected to intelligence agencies.

You appear to be correct about the date. The interaction from 2006 is available on YouTube.[4] Burrobert (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

"Not all Wiki editors are connected to intelligence agencies." Nice. I see what you did there @Burrobert

I just did some basic cleanup on this article. Multiple irrelevant passages were included, seemingly for the sole purpose of highlighting the US intelligence agencies' point of view on various issues - which is irrelevant in a BLP. Would like to know if you agree with the edits I made. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems fine. Keep up the good work. Burrobert (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)