Talk:Mary McCarthy (CIA)

Career

It would be interesting to see this expanded. What was she doing up until the age of 39?

Well, if she's a PhD, she was in college until around 22, masters program until around 25, and PhD program until around 27-ish. That's assuming she went straight through. As for the remaining years, I have no idea. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

She has two masters, from two schools, and a PhD in history can easily take 7 years. We also don't know how long her employment was at the Swiss firm. We should probably source the biographical information and also add the JD she seemed to have gotten at night school. Links anyone? (I believe the bio bits were from a CSIS biography that's cached on Google.) ~ trialsanderrors 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Berger

Does anyone other than DaveThomas, who has on various occasions made clear that he's not interested in encyclopedic accuracy, think a mention to Sandy Berger's conviction should be made? I don't have any serious problems with it, as long as it does not imply that McCarthy has been charged or convicted, or that the two cases are connected. ~ trialsanderrors 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [Inserted by DaveThomas]

Frem NPA: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." ~ trialsanderrors 03:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Left Wing Activist?

DaveThomas, please see trialsanderrors discussion on the topic of the label. Just because I have given money to the Republican party, it doesn't make me an activist. Further, even if she is an activist, you need to cite references to making such an assertion. Where in any of the material does it point to her being an activist? Stop reverting the changes made to the page and start some dialogue. You can definently say that she has contributed to other organizations affiliated with left wing causes but you need to put it in context. I also know that she worked under Richard Clarke, but I can't make the wild assertion that she was somehow involved with his targetting of the Bush administration. We need to let the facts speak for themselves. Based on DaveThomas's same logic, we can just start throwing around the term left and right wing to any Wikipedia bio where they have given donations to a political organization. This is a bad precedent. --User:Unreal128 17:36, 22 April 2006.

I just wanted to immortalize DaveThomas's latest modification: "As the term is used in Jack Abramoff's article it is clear McCarthy is an activist. Unlike Abramoff, McCarthy is a left wing activist." This has nothing to do with the relevance or newsworthiness of this person. MOC is in the news for leaking documents not making campaign contributions. Clearly we are outside encyclopedic territory here and well within the confines of political speech. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC) PS I should note that I'm in favor of listing campaign contributions if they are put into context. So far DaveThomas has failed repeatedly to provide the context between contributions and leaks.

To add to that, I think this whole problems comes from a misinterpretation of what activism is. Activism appropiately describes Abramoff because that is what he was: a lobbyist (being a duty of activism.) Mary O. McCarthy on the other hand was an intelligence analyst. We can't imply intense partisanship (especially to deserve a left-wing activist label) unless there is material to support such claims, not just donation records. This claim implies that anyone who makes donations to partisan groups is an activist. Should I be considered a philanthropist because I have donated to poverty outreach organizations? --User:Unreal128 19:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with POV. Activism does not include giving money to campaigns. I disagree about Abramoff being called an activist, but his political involvement is clearly in a different ballpark than McCarthy's. Add to that the deliberate disclosure of her ZIP Code and we're in smear territory here. ~ trialsanderrors 16:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

She is a "Left Wing Political Activist"??? Sounds blatantly POV. So does the soft language about Eastern European nations "hosting terrorist prisoners" when the article doesn't even mention the fact that these prisons were secret and very possibly in violation of international law. Also it suggests that they are "hosting" convicted terrorists, when in fact they are holding accused terrorists as far as I am aware. Also, it calls the existence of the prisons a "special war time agreement" when it is my understanding that it is not being called a "war time agreement" due to the fact that if it was one, the accused terrorists would be POWs not "enemy combatants." So, it seems the article manipulates, omits, and fabricates vital facts for political purposes. Joe 03:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's no more POV used here than in the article on Jack Abramoff who directed funds to both Republicans and Democrats. McCarthy gave only to Democrats. If the standard is to allow such associations to be revealed as in the Abramhoff article then that standard must apply here as well. "Possibly in violation of International Law?" Since you apparantly need an example of what is POV just read your own text. --DaveThomas 06:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When you add little things such as Samuel Burger later himself criminally sentenced for mishandling classified information, it sounds quite bias, because you are making one side look bad by adding negative events to the article that don't partain to it. If the Jack Abramoff article was this bad, it needs revision too. Macwiki 06:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate disclosure of her zip code (that she gives out publicly) is a smear? Don't worry though. I suspect there will be an AfD on this soon. --Tbeatty 17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Disclosure of ZIP code by itself is not a smear. But if someone adamantly tries to equate contributions to Democratic campaigns with "left wing" and "activism", someone seems to have an ax to grind. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous Jack Abramoff called himself a Republican activist he was the chair of the college Republicans, he played a leading role as a fund raiser and as an organizer before he became a lobbyist. Thats what most lobbyists are, activists who are cashing in on their connections. There is no evidence to suggest that McCarthy ever stood as a candidate, was a party official or even so much as held a sign. If she was doing that sort of thing she would have been a political apoitntee. --Gorgonzilla 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Proof? Abramoff directed money to both Democrats and Republicans. That hardly makes him a Republican activist yet Wikipedia's standards allow that POV description of him. OTOH, McCarthy has given only to Democrats, as such she is even more of an activist than Abramoff. --DaveThomas 01:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

DT, Abramoff shouldn't be classified as a 'Republican' activist, and good work on the fight over there at the Abramoff page. However, McCarthy isn't an activist because she donated a couple times. Anyways, keep up the fight. Macwiki 03:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Donating money to parties is not activism and therefore not listed among the activities considered as activism. Lobbying is. Your term for McCarthy was "left-wing", not "Democrat". There is no evidence that she held left-wing beliefs. It would help if you actually read the entries you link to. As about your disagreement with the Abramoff label, take it there. ~ trialsanderrors 03:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may throw in my two cents here, I think McCarthy is less an activist and more of a patriotic whistle-blower. She found out about the existence of CIA black sites and about the practice of extraordinary rendition, which quite frankly is something the U.S. government would love for us not to know about. But the executive branch cannot, and should not be allowed to engage in such a policy without congressional oversight of some description. There's a reason we have checks and balances in the United States, and it's so that the executive branch can't arbitrarily yank people out of their own country, ship them off to an undisclosed location, torture them for three months and release them without charge because of a case of mistaken identity. Read the article on extraordinary rendition, section "Post 9/11", subsection "Examples" for an incomplete list of people that have been snatched up like that.

I can tell you that if I were a law-abiding citizen whose name happened to be slightly similar to that of a terrorist, and I got yanked off the street, tortured and humiliated for three months and then released without being charged nor getting an apology, I'd be pretty freakin' pissed. Just how low are we willing to go to maintain an illusion of freedom in this country?

So if you ask me, the American people have a right to know about these things, and McCarthy absolutely did the right thing by leaking this information, whether it was the lawful thing to do or not. The fact that she's a supporter of the Democratic Party is inconsequential, though I'm sure the Republicans would love to keep trying to hammer that fact in to make it a political issue and not a human-rights issue. ekedolphin 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The American people did know through their elected representative. Are you arguing that the Government should have no classified information? No Spies? When Congress learned about the leak they wanted to know who leaked it, not the details of the program because they already knew. She is not a "whistleblower." We have "whistleblower" laws that recognize what is whistleblowing and what is felony crime of disclosing classified information. If she wanted to just "whistleblow", she could have contacted her Democrat congressperson and arranged a classified briefing. She used to be Special Assistant to Clinton so she should have known how to do this. Instead she chose to "leak" it in an illegal way. With all the options she had available, she chose the one that would cause the most political damage to the administration. One has to wonder why. --Tbeatty 00:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is patently wrong to confuse the legal doctrine of whistleblowing with the common definition of whistleblowing. Apart from the multitude of cases of whistleblowing which are not put to a legal test, we would have to exclude everybody who blew a whistle before whistleblowing laws were enacted or who is a citizen of a country where no such laws exist. It is especially problematic in governmental whistleblowing, where the government is both judge and defendant. The common definition of whistleblowing is to pass organizational information about misconduct on to outsiders. Also the idea that the right to have classified information is a shield against whistleblowing is nonsense. Similarly companies could and often do claim that whistleblowers violate trade secrets or confidentiality agreements. About the potential self-interest, this is also not an excluding criterion. Important is the act, not the motive. ~ trialsanderrors 05:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

So I guess, by your definition, Scooter Libby is a whistleblower because he uncovered wrongdoing at the CIA by disclsoing the inappropriate relationship between CIA operative Plame and Joe Wilson? I think not. There are accepted avenues for disclosure. You can call her a whistleblower, but don't be upset if others call her a traitor for the same action. The important thing is not the act, it's the damage her actions caused. She breached the trust that policy makers put in the hands of executaive branch employees. She can claim anything she wants, if she betrayed her oath for political gain, she should go to jail. --Tbeatty 06:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

by your definition, Scooter Libby is a whistleblower - To my knowledge he didn't disclose wrongdoing, unless Plame being an operative falls under wrongdoing. don't be upset if others call her a traitor for the same action. - Where did I say I was? the damage her actions caused - to U.S. relationships with its allies? So is it the disclosure that caused the damage or the initial act? ~ trialsanderrors 07:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what he/she means is that Plame failed the government. Clearly, Plame should have murdered her husband since he was opposed to the Bush administrations lies which is illegal from what I can gather. I guess ideally she probably she have been executed according to Tbeatty. At least this is what I assume based on comments I've read Nil Einne 09:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Calling the treacherous Democrat operative a "whistle-blower" is preposterous. She is knee-deep and in league with some of the most rabid Bush-haters out there. Merecat 05:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Donations

I don't get it. We might as well have:

Other

McCarthy has made donations to the following organizations:

• Friends of John Kerry, Inc.—gave $2000 on March 14, 2004

• Ohio Democratic Party—gave $5000 on October 15, 2004

McCarthy likes the following things:

• Cute puppy dogs—played with her next door neighbor's Spaniel on April 17, 2002

• Lasagna—had dinner at Luigi's last Friday

Could this be written so it's relevant to the article?

- Aaronwinborn 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's relevant in that she was "Special Assistant to the President", yet donated money to organisations against the President. She worked for and with the President, but donated to his opponents. It could link in with the fact that the information being leaked was damaging to the Bush administration? I could be wrong, however. (Inquisition 15:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC))

It's relevant in the sense that she apparently committed an overtly political act (i.e. to help the opponents of or discredit the administration). Her political affiliation is very relevant in that sense. --Tbeatty 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this as of now. In a different POV her actions can be seen as a form of whistleblowing, i.e. the publicizing of a covert (illegal or unethical) act of an organization by an insider. In this case her political affiliation would be irrelevant. Until we have sourced evidence on her motivation we should refrain from drawing conclusions for the readers. ~ trialsanderrors 19:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

"I think it's relevant in that she was "Special Assistant to the President", yet donated money to organisations against the President. She worked for and with the President, but donated to his opponents." Ah no, she was in the CIA, merely assigned to the President, working for the USA not the President. To any ones knowledge does the CIA, Secret Service, etc have any sort of rules banning financial contributions to one candidate while assigned to another? If not then while it might look a little unusual I can't see anything that was particularly wrong. - LamontCranston 09:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that she was appointed Special Assistant to Clinton, not Bush, and that she left that position in July 2001, i.e. half a year after Bush took over, and that the donations to the Democrats happened in 2004, three years later. Thomas Blomberg 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I (who am not the person writing in the paragraph just above this) put "allegedly" before "terrorist prisoners." It's only fair I think. 72.224.187.170 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. allegedly is generally considered weasel words. Terrorist can be POV. So the easiest thing is to say prisoners captured in the "War on Terror". The reader can decide who and what they are.--Tbeatty 16:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I summarized the campaign contributions in one external link since all listed contributions were easily accessible via that link. All other external links were redundant and are still in the text. This format should allow readers to draw their own conclusions about political affiliation. I also changed the formatting of the "Other" heading from Aaronwinborn's quote above because Wikipedia interpreted it as a Talk site section heading rather than a quotation. ~ trialsanderrors 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Donations are not only relevant information but important to judgements about her character. Otherwise readers may be left to wonder about her motives, and considering that her actions hurt the war effort, partisanship is a lesser evil than some of the alternatives.

-- Randy2063 00:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess, then, it is also relevant to note that X person signed X petition and that proves their communist tendencies? Her character is determined by which political party she tends to agree with in a certain campaign? That sounds pretty loco to me, ese. It tells nothing of her "character" it only tells us that she strongly preferred Kerry to Bush in 2004 and some Democratic candidates in Ohio. Thats it. It has nothing to do with "character." Either way, as if her polytricks were relevant in a country where Democrip/Rebloodlican is essentially the same thing, it is presented in a manner that is as if to say "Here is this lady that did "significant damage" to America's War On Terror, she is a Democrat!" Furthermore, the quote about "significant damage" is pretty one-sided when you could easily find about 500 other quotes that commend her instead of condemn her. Joe 01:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention that reports are that, as an official in the Clinton administration, she often found herself in conflic with some of that administration's policies as well. In particular, she argued against the bombing of the al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 and even wrote an official letter of dissent to Clinton. I think it may be safe to say that she is not "political" so much as she just has a heavy conscience on some issues. Joe 02:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

She flipped, Joe. The report of the 9/11 Commission notes that the National Security staff reviewed the intelligence in April 2000 and concluded that the CIA's assessment of its intelligence on bin Laden and al-Shifa had been valid; the memo to Clinton on this was cosigned by Richard Clarke and Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director for intelligence programs. But I agree. Her $10,000 in political donations in such a short period of time, on a government salary, with no previous history of making such sizable donations, means nothing. Evensong 02:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I also can't help but wonder what they would be saying if during her time assigned to the Clinton administration she contributed to Republican presidential candidates and some Republican candidates in Ohio, always interesting to consider the response when the shoe is on the other foot. - LamontCranston 16:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

$10,000!? As far as I can tell, it was $7,500 in 2004 and $200 in 2002. Considering her position, it was probably not a very significant sum for her. US government salaries for people at her level are not insignificant. Thomas Blomberg 18:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Evensong... You'll have to be more explicit. I mean on your facts not on your sarcasm. Are you saying that it means nothing that she was vehemently against the al-Shifa bombing when it went down? I mean, regardless of what she or Richard Clarke said later, the point is that she had a crisis of conscience over it when it happened. Not that she is right. Whether she was right is irrelevant in proving that she is a willing dissenter. Anyhow, I still submit that whether she has Democrip or Rebloodlican tendencies is irrelevant UNLESS you can tie it in to a motive for the leak (which shouldn't be hard to do) instead of just quoting campaign donatation statistics. Also, it should be done without such an inherent bias. Seriously, that whole "significantly damaged" diatribe is pretty heavy... Some people would call her a hero, so... Just don't make it sound like "She is against America's Patriotic War on Terror and also a Democrat." That is all I'm really asking. Joe 07:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that the facts show that her resolute conscience you describe is not so resolute. Evensong 13:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But I never said that her conscience was resolute, I said it was heavy. Just because she feels strongly on certain issues doesn't mean she can't change her mind. Joe 19:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Black Sites

The link to this article on the main page states that:

"The CIA fires a high ranking analyst, reportedly Mary O. McCarthy, for disclosing the existence of CIA-operated black sites"

However, there is no reference to these "black sites" on this page. Someone care to add the details? Meighan 15:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's pure speculation. It's interesting that it qualifies who was fired with "reportedly" but absolute fact that it was "CIA-operated black sites". It's the exact opposite of the emphasis in real news articles. It sounds to me like this is a POV attempt to justify the leak instead of reporting the news.--Tbeatty 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

umm, whats speculation. The black sites are, its just wheter or not thats the reason she was fired. But it should be mentioned that it has been put forth that the info was about the Black Sites. 12.220.94.199 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the main page sentence? It says unequivocally that was the reason she was fired. Seems pretty irresponsible for an encyclopedia. This article is about McCarthy, not whether black sites exist or not. And an article that Priest wrote is about the Black Sites. That has not been linked by either McCarthy, Priest or the CIA to McCarthy. --Tbeatty 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That would actually be my fault then. "Reportedly" was done by someone else, I put in the mention about black sites. We need to somehow inform the user about what kind of information was leaked by her. How would you guys term it? --Unreal128 18:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

A CIA Analyst, later identified as Mary O. McCarthy was dismissed for releasing classified material to persons unauthorized to receive the material.--Tbeatty 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree but isn't there also a pretty solid link between her and Dana Priest as far as the leaking goes? If this is true, then I think it would be needed to mention the type of information leaked and possible link to McCarthy regarding black sites. --Unreal128 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think any of that is confirmed. The connection to Dana Priest is taht it was her article that launched the investigation. I don't know that Priest is the only person that she leaked. It is not clear that she is the only person that leaked or that her leak was the black sites. It has not been released what McCarthy confessed to and Priest has not said who her source or sources are.--Tbeatty 18:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As an "Eastern European", however East-Central European would be a better term, I find a bit disharmonic, that the article mentions the agreement between such countries and the USA after 9/11 according to black sites. However, on the black sites page, it is stated, that every country denied it, the alleged connection exists only in case of Poland and Romania. As an act of good will toward the editors of the article, please consider the situation of a post-communist country, anyone can imagine, that an agreement with the USA would be cannon fodder for every opposition, especially in election times, that it exists, therefore in my suggestion it should be noted, which countries have not supported it (Shinichi1977 16:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

Polygraph

Resolved

The NY Times article dated April 23 said her polygraph 'indicated the possibility of deception', not that she 'failed a polygraph' as stated in the Wikipedia article. --Anchoress 01:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• I made your suggested change.Jeff Fenstermacher 04:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The change is fine, both mean the same thing. The Washington Post reported she "failed more than one polygraph test." [1]RonCram 04:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would put "failed" back in and maybe relegate the more precise terminology to a footnote. ~ trialsanderrors 08:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't McCarthy's leaks be put into historical context?

McCarthy did this during a time in which many CIA officials were (are?) in open warfare against the Bush Administration. I see the leak as related to the actions of Joseph C. Wilson, Valerie Plame, Michael Scheuer, Paul R. Pillar and Richard A. Clarke. Former Senator Zell Miller has called for a new law (the Plame Rule) that would prevent CIA officials from using their spouses to attack the president the way Valerie Plame did.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514509/posts] George Tenet allowed Michael Scheuer (while he still worked for the CIA) to publish a book critical of President Bush in an attempt to affect the outcome of the 2004 election. The fact Tenet approved the book's publication is what got Tenet fired. Scheuer also wrote a book in 2002 that talked about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda but later, after the invasion of Iraq, went on television talk shows to say no evidence existed of the relationship. (Note: You may have to read the Scheuer Talk page for more information on this as one wikipedia editor has been in a censorship mode to prevent readers from this fact). Richard Clarke is guilty of a similar change in viewpoint on the topic of Saddam and al-Qaeda. Paul Pillar leaked a National Intelligence Estimate that he believed supported Pillar's chosen policy path in an effort to criticize President Bush.[2] Newspaper articles and op-ed pieces have been written about the CIA's open hostilities to the Bush Administration and how CIA officials are attempting to control foreign policy through illegal and unethical means. [3] Shouldn't this article on McCarthy reflect that reality? RonCram 19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This article, like others on Wikipedia, should reflect reality as portrayed by authoritative sources. It should not reflect various conspiracy theories that individual Wikipedia editors find compelling.--csloat 08:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Biased

>She reportedly was fired on April 21, 2006, for illegally leaking classified information to The Washington Post regarding black sites and other classified topics.

This is biasedly worded. Black sites themselves are illegal under international law and conventions. Treaties that have been signed and ratified clearly supercede national legislations, this is the most basic principle of international law. Therefore she was NOT illegally leaking the information because the information itself was evidence of a crime under international legislation that supercedes US federal and state laws.

She was legally disclosing information about crimes, in fact she was obliged to disclose the information under international law, else she could be convicted of assisting in crimes against humanity in an international criminal court. Claiming to follow orders is no excuse for crimes as has been clearly established in the Nurenberg. If you are in CIA and know of other outrages against e.g. Geneva and Hague you too should come forward so that you gain future immunity from the UN tribunals. 195.70.32.136 11:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, exactly what she leaked is not known by the public at this time. The Washington Post reported that she "failed more than one polygraph" test, so it quite possible they were asking her about different leaks. The language used by officials speaking on background seems to indicate the same thing. These people are saying the leaks adversely affected U.S. national security and the investigation is not over with this firing. MSNBC is reporting that McCarthy had over 12 unauthorized contacts with Priest and that "information about other subjects... may have been leaked as well." [4] So the firing is not about a single leak but multiple leaks. McCarthy seems to be acting on purely partisan political grounds in an effort to damage President Bush, but in doing so she has also damaged national security.RonCram 15:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's quick followup. The NY Times reported, "Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from a pattern of conduct and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post." [5] RonCram 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall any ruling by an authoritative body that a treaty was violated. Is McCarthy the arbiter of treaty violations such that she can unilaterally decide what is or isn't illegal? As I recall, that authority remains with the president. I don't remember her being on the Presidential ballot. --Tbeatty 17:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There is also no ruling by an authorative body that what McCarthy was doing is illegal. If we employ this standard the word has to be stricken. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Though her actions, or at least what we believe her actions were, are (arguably) illegal under american law, nobody has yet ruled on the matter. Moreover, it is not yet known precisely what she did, so arguments for or against are pointless. Perhaps you could put a footnote saying that she has not been even charged with anything.--CSTAR 17:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's already in the text, under Leak Scandal. ~ trialsanderrors 17:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My language was that she was fired for disclosing classified information to persons not authorized to receive it. I don't think there is any reason to speculate whether it was legal or illegal. I object to the premise that was put forward that this was unquestionably legal for the reasons that were given. --Tbeatty 06:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

There is reason because the word was inserted into the intro paragraph, as copied above. I disagree with the poster who claims it was not illegal, but that does not justify the insertion of "illegal" into the language. As I pointed out in one of my edits, the firing offense was leaking. Legality or illegality has to be determined by a court of law, not the CIA. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Prisons and policies of rendition are clearly 'legal under International Law. --DaveThomas 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is no evidence that rendition is illegal in any way. There is no evidence that she was preventing crimes against humanity or any other such nonsense. Exactly why she did it is unknown. I contrast her leak with the FBUI whistleblower who came forward publicly and with a clear conscience vs. hiding behind a leak. It seems incongruous that someone who would ostensibly think they are preventing crimes against humanity would worry about their job and continue to work for the administration they so opposed. To bring up Nuremburg, as the 2 back previous poster did, the "I would have been arrested if I didn't participate in genocide" defense didn't work either. --Tbeatty 02:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy on reversions

Please note that this change [6] is a reversion. Making a minor change to bypass the 3RR doesn't work. If you are unhappy with this policy then please submit it to an RfC--CSTAR 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

DaveThomas had 4 reverts yesterday, coming off a 12h block for 3RR violation (see my Talk page on it). I have no idea how to report those, but maybe someone else wants to. ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an admin, but I generally prefer to convince people that such behavior gets them nothing, rather than block them. I mean, we don't have to agree on the politics to at least get the facts straight. Other admins will be less tolerant. --CSTAR 04:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be more convinced if DT himself was less quick on the trigger. ~ trialsanderrors 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd just like some edit summaries that tell me what exact he is doing. --waffle iron ^talk 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

These are the ones from yesterday: 1. reinserted the Chapter 115 (Treason) link, 2. reinserted the "left-wing activist" language, 3. re-removed the whistleblower categorization, 4. reinserted the "later criminally sentenced" wrt Sandy Berger. If needed I can dig up the time stamps. ~ trialsanderrors 05:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, no not necessary. Look at the cat and mouse game on the redirect at Mary McCarthy. User:DaveThomas if you are upset by something why don't you try to constructively engage in editing the article by adhering to the NPOV rules? In this case, they're not that complicated, because no one has even been charged with anything. The facts are meager and are reported in the press. --CSTAR 05:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he reads this site. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Analysis of the news reports

Apparently news reporters have gotten the story wrong. The CIA never officially claimed MOM (sorry, her initials are just too inviting) had leaked information on secret prisons. Because MOM had contact with reporter Dana Priest, it seems news reporters and anonymous CIA officials were speculating the leak had to do with the story by Priest about secret prisons in Europe. But recent comments by MOM's attorney and now the CIA say that simply is not true.

• "Though McCarthy acknowledged having contact with reporters, a senior intelligence official confirmed yesterday that she is not believed to have played a central role in The Post's reporting on the secret prisons. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing personnel matters." [7]

So that makes several quotes in the article appear to be misleading, including the last portion of this one:

• The New York Times reported, "Intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity said that the dismissal resulted from "a pattern of conduct" and not from a single leak, but that the case involved in part information about secret C.I.A. detention centers that was given to The Washington Post."

One quote I believe we can trust is this one:

• CIA spokeswomen Michele Neff is quoted as saying "This CIA officer acknowledged having unauthorized discussions with the media in which the officer knowingly shared classified intelligence, including operational information."

The phrase "including operational information" is a technical term hinting that a criminal prosecution may follow. I am not claiming they will prosecute, but leaking "operational information" is a crime. At the very least, this arrest and official comments are a message to other CIA officials not to leak "operational information."

This clarification of the facts (that MOM did not disclose information about secret prisons) also calls into question the relevance of the comments by Mr. Vivas. I do not see how MOM can be praised for something she did not do.

Someone needs to work on a rewrite and address the fact the initial news stories were wrong. I don't have the time. RonCram 11:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See my comments on Black Sites. I agree with you (actually agreed with you before you wrote it or the MSM figured it out.). --Tbeatty 15:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where the more recent news establish factual incorrectness. If we were to follow the lawyers comments, she did nothing wrong. So far we have three interpretations of facts proffered by different parties: 1. leak, black sites related, 2. leak, not black sites related, 3. no leak (correction: no leak of classified info). I don't think it is our job to pick the ones we like the most, but make sure the viewpoints are properly attributed and put in relation to each other. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw, RonCram, I'm pretty unhappy with the reordering of the Leak scandal section. It breaks up the flow of 1. Factual interpretations, 2. Critical responses and opinions, and leaves the "mixed responses" abstract dangling in mid-air. If you want to break it up, Adding a section on "Responses" would do the trick better. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Trialsanderrors, the factual inaccuracy of the earlier reports is clear in the Washington Post article in my first link above. Here it is again:

• "Though McCarthy acknowledged having contact with reporters, a senior intelligence official confirmed yesterday that she is not believed to have played a central role in The Post's reporting on the secret prisons. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing personnel matters." [8]

The CIA never officially said she leaked information about these alleged sites. According to one report, European countries have said they do not exist. Because MOM had contact with Priest, reporters and even some in the CIA jumped to the conclusion the leaks had to do with these sites. The CIA has said that is not true. I think the article should make that clear. RonCram 15:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

References

Journalist wins Prize

One of the more interesting aspects of the story as I heard it reported on the radio was that one of the journalists that formed the other side of the leak won a Pulitzer prize. I wonder if it would be reasonable to add that somewhere within the article. It's an interesting and related factiod. KellyCoinGuy 23:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Added. ~ trialsanderrors 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I removed the "Accusations/Denials" organizational structure because it is an unnecessary adversarial spin here. No charges have been filed. No direct accusations have been made. The CIA has acknowledged officially only that an officer was fired for having acknowledged talking about classified information to a reporter. Charges are not likely to be filed. In particular, nobody has claimed that she violated the section of Title 18 that prohibits some leaks of classified information. I believe the Accusations organizational structure is inferior in every way. Let's just indicate what has occurred or been reported.--csloat 07:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think it creates an adversarial spin remove the headers. You actually left the Titel 18 reference in (old footnote thanks to DT). The offical CIA language is "knowingly shared classified intelligence, including operational information", not "talking about". The intro summary as it is now (with the "CIA reiterates" part and the "not officially identified" qualifier) is now wordy and contains redundant information. As per her lawyer it is not disputed that MOM is the target. ~ trialsanderrors 08:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "reiteration" is what was quoted in the version prior to your changes. I am not wedded to having the "not officially identified" in the intro; I just took it out. If we can agree that the adversarial headings are inappropriate, let's keep them out. In the body of the article I removed stuff that looked redundant to me in terms of being directly quoted twice; if this is incorrect my apologies.--csloat 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not inconceivable that there were still things that were quoted twice, the whole Leak section is becoming unwieldy, which is why I tried to sort quotes by context and provide introductory abstracts. The headers were an afterthought to split the section into smaller subsections. I don't mind if you take them out or replace them. But I'm not happy at all that you removed all the other bigger and smaller edits, seemingly without careful reading. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, my apologies if this occurred -- can you point to the specific edit you think I should not have changed? (Or simply put it back in). I did look it over carefully before editing but perhaps not carefully enough.--csloat 09:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To me this doesn't look like editing rather than you simply took all my changes from 22:45-23:22 out and reverted back to your own 22:38 version. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I went over each of your changes and found them to be inappropriate; hence I reverted to the earlier version. But I apologize for the third time if I missed something in this process, and I again invite you to restore anything you felt was inappropriately deleted. I really had the most objection to the "Accusations/Denials" framing, but I found the other stuff redundant and/or original research so I reverted it.--csloat 09:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The point which you don't seem to understand is that you essentially revert all or most of others' contributions and then put the onus on them to reestablish their contributions in the hope that they might pass your muster next time. You're on roughly your fifth or sixth revert today. ~ trialsanderrors 10:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's false, of course. I try to be pretty careful about the 3RR. The onus is on those who contribute to establish the reasons for their contribution, so it is not me "putting" it on them. If you make changes, you should expect to at least satisfy a burden of proof. Again, my apologies if you took offense at my changes; none was intended.-csloat 18:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Two wholesale Rv of my entry, at least two partial Rv's of DT's depending on how you count them, not including today's activities. It also took you a whooping 2 minutes to revert my entry, so your claims of careful reading is unsupported by the evidence. It also pretty ironic that you expect me to provide burden of proof but yourself retain the right to revert whenever you see fit. ~ trialsanderrors 19:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith... I apologize again for any consternation I caused you. The "whopping two minutes" was between your last edit and mine -- I had actually been editing the page for about 15 minutes but kept running into the "Edit Conflict" page as you were still editing. I'll try not to be so quick on the trigger next time, especially when editing is in progress. As for the burden of proof, I expect that whoever introduces a change to the article has a burden of proof, usually satisfied by comments in the edit summary. I tried to respond to those comments when I reverted but you are correct that a longer explanation in talk would have been more appropriate.

Now, this is I believe the fifth time I am apologizing for this. Can we move on?--csloat 19:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnote format

Could I ask you to use the footnot format instead of direct references. These have numerous advanrages. For instance, you can paraphrase and give the direct quote in the footnote, give part of the quote in the article, the rest in the footnote etc. --CSTAR 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

FOX News video report

Contrary to the claim by McCarthy's lawyer that she never confessed, FOX News is reporting the CIA is reiterating the claim that McCarthy confessed to leaking classified information. The video is available on www.foxnews.com. Unfortunately, FOX uses a javascript method that makes it difficult to link to. If anyone knows how, can you please set a link on the page to the FOX News video report? RonCram 15:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the link. I'm sure it will appear in print soon if the report is indeed true (Note: I believe you about the report, it's just that who the principals are is often not clear in a TV broadcast. I prefer the written word). This is still a very fluid story, though, and I think the only sane thing to say at this point is that "it is a very fluid story".--CSTAR 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The video on FOX is readily available under the "Politics" section, but when I copy the shortcut I get a javascript that will not work as a link. Someone has tried to link to the story and only linked to the jpg image, so I removed that. However, I was able to find a NY Times story that reiterates the CIA's position that she did confess - although the CIA is not saying she confessed (or is even thought to have been the source for) the secret prisons story. RonCram 15:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A big "Thanks!" to whoever took the time to find a way to link to the FOX video clip. The clip is very informative. RonCram 13:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted (and restored) sentence

Re: CS recent edit. The sentence is not properly sourced..By that I mean, with the original source. I have no objection to your putting the quote in, but please make the effort and find the original Newsday reference, with title, date and author. Thanks.--CSTAR 18:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The original source is no longer online. I will get it off lexis/nexis and add that information. But it is easily verified, since it is also quoted in a number of other sources. Anyway, I'll add that info shortly.--csloat 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Title 18

What happened to this section? It's absolutely relevant. I saw it here the other day. Why was it removed? If I don't get a satisfactory explanation I'm going to find it and put it back. Censorship of well sourced relevant fact should not be tolerated here or anywhere else. --Kirby Morgan 16:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re It's absolutely relevant. Really? To what? She hasn't been charged. Do you know she will be? DO you know with what she will be charged?--CSTAR 16:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

To the investigation she has reportedly been referred to the Justice Department on. DOJ does not or should not investigate anything w/o the potential to bring charges and they are not investigating McCarthy w/o the potential to charge her, either. Wether or not she will be charged is irrelevant to whether the section should be included. --Kirby Morgan 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I (gasp) actually agree with DT that the Title 18 link is relevant. Even if there is no formal charge it becomes relevant in the context of opinion quotes that want to see her prosecuted: "I'm absolutely shocked that this woman is not sitting in jail right now awaiting trial". It is encyclopedic to give the readers the tools to judge those claims themselves. Please discuss here instead of playing Rv/Rm cat and mouse games. ~ trialsanderrors 19:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point trialsanderrors, I agree the reference is not unreasonable, but I don't think it is appropriate to have lines in the text like the one I originally deleted about leaking being a federal crime under title 18, at least until such connections are made by authoritative sources.--csloat 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well sharing federal intelligence is a federal crime, and since the exact words have been used by CIA spokespersons this might also have libel implications. We should make clear that the CIA alleges two different things, which have different legal implcations, and that the lawyer takes different positions on those. It is better to put the link into context than just have it dangle in the references, but it should be followed with a qualifier that no charges are pending/quote that charges are unlikely, etc. ~ trialsanderrors 22:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this as long as an authoritative source is cited as the link between title 18 and McCarthy. Otherwise it is WP:NOR. And of course that section of Title 18 does not outlaw all such leaks.--csloat 22:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is your criterion? Someone saying she should be sued for Title 18 or is sued for leaking class info enough? ~ trialsanderrors 02:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If nobody else brings up Title 18 (or whatever other law), it is not up to wikipedia editors to do it. That is not my criterion; it is Wikipedia's, as I understand it.--csloat 18:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I know NOR. That wasn't my question. The official title of § 798 is "Disclosure of classified information". So do you think NOR applies until some public figure actually mentions "§ 798"? In any case, I'll leave it up to you to enforce it. ~ trialsanderrors 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not here to play the enforcer, but I don't see the point of adding this if it is something that no authoritative source has seen fit to mention. Certainly we can wait for newspapers or scholars to mention it before putting it into an encyclopedia? I am sure the meaning of NOR is debatable, but I don't think it's that unclear in this case. If this is really that relevant, why aren't news commentators or pundits mentioning it?--csloat 20:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to come back to this, as it's such a minor point, and it has been appropriately relegated to a footnote, but it still bothers me. Why do we need an explanation of parts of the USCode that she has not been accused of violating? In particular, why is Sec. 794 even mentioned? Will someone please enlighten me as to which foreign government McCarthy has been accused of aiding?--csloat 02:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just from reading the first paragraphs I agree § 794 is complete bunk. I'm sure some fruit loop will argue that some of the EU countries investigating the CIA flights are "enemies" but we should still kick it off. ~ trialsanderrors 03:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is unbelievable

The people who sacked her are the ones who make people hate America enough to die for the chance to kill an American. They should all be locked up as traitors, but so many Americans are just too insular to get it. 62.31.55.223 23:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an article talk page is to discuss the content of the article. You are entitled to your opinions about the events, but this isn't the place to express opinions. It would be encouraging if we can get people who obviously disagree on the politics, to at least agree on facts.--CSTAR 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to DT. Could you please use less incendiary vocabulary? You may have a point about excluding blogs (see note above) but you could please tone down your language? What may be crap to you may not be to other contributors. For better or for worse you have to work with them. Thanks.--CSTAR 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Newsday article

Companies: Central Intelligence Agency (NAICS: 928110, 928120 )

Author(s): KNUT ROYCE. WASHINGTON BUREAU

Section: NEWS

Publication title: Newsday. (Combined editions). Long Island, N.Y.: Nov 14, 2004. pg. A.06

Source type: Newspaper

ProQuest document ID: 735774481

Text Word Count 667

Document URL: :http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=735774481&sid=6&Fmt=3&clientId=24448&RQT=309&VName=PQD

--CSTAR 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to second CSTAR's comment regarding dead links. If an article link is dead, look for another copy. If you doubt an article exists because the link is dead, look for quotes from it online, or visit a library and look it up. Wikipedia may be an online project, but it does not refer exclusively to the online world.--csloat 02:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Error in the Intro

At this point in time, the Intro reads "However, the CIA has not yet officially confirmed McCarthy as the dismissed employee." I believe this is an error because of the NY Times piece that reads:

WASHINGTON, April 25 — The Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday defended the firing of Mary O. McCarthy, the veteran officer who was dismissed last week, and challenged her lawyer's statements that Ms. McCarthy never provided classified information to the news media.

But intelligence officials would not say whether they believed that Ms. McCarthy had been a source for a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles in The Washington Post about secret C.I.A. detention centers abroad. Media accounts have linked Ms. McCarthy's firing to the articles, but the C.I.A. has never explicitly drawn such a connection.[9]

I rewrote the Intro to clarify the fact the CIA has confirmed that McCarthy is the fired official and to clarify that the CIA is not accusing McCarthy of leaking information on the secret prison story. Unfortunately someone has reverted my Intro and included this incorrect line that the CIA has not confirmed McCarthy as the fired official. This is a fluid story. Perhaps something has come out that I am not aware of. But this appears to me to be a sloppy edit by someone who did not bother to read the links in the reference section.

Can we please come to agreement on this issue? RonCram 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I thought that as a matter of policy (privacy protection) the CIA wouldn't officially reveal any information about the dismissed person. Until I see an official communiqué (or an official from the CIA speaking on the record), that Ms McCarthy is the dismissed individual, I think it should sdtay the way it was. What the NY Times said is consistent with this interpretation, I think.--04:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS Note further down in the article

A C.I.A. spokeswoman, Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, said: "The officer was terminated for precisely the reasons we have given: unauthorized contacts with reporters and sharing classified information with reporters. There is no question whatsoever that the officer did both. The officer personally admitted doing both."

That anonymous reference suggests to me that the CIA has not officially confirmed who the dismissed official is.--CSTAR 04:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. MOM's attorney admits she is the fired official. The attorney denied MOM leaked or that MOM confessed. The CIA responded to the statements made by MOM's attorney reiterating that she did confess. There is truly no question regarding the identity of the fired official. Also, according to a FOX News report, the case has been referred to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. It is not known if the Justice Department will choose to prosecute or not but this is the first time I have heard the case was referred. RonCram 04:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is no doubt that she is the fired official. The question is whether the CIA has officially said that she is the fired official. These are two different things, I believe. Perhaps the intro should be more clear about this: Though the CIA has not officially said she is the dismissed employee, there is no doubt she is the fired official (or some such thing). In other words, no one should expect that someone else will indeed be announced to be the fired official.--CSTAR 05:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the issue has been moved from "disputed" to "tacitly acknowledged" after the lawyer's statements I would remove it from the intro line (along with the CIA reiteration which doesn't add anything new) and make a note in the text that the CIA is prohibited by law from naming the dismissed employee. ~ trialsanderrors 05:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

CSTAR and Trials, I agree that is reasonable. I haven't reread the article just yet but feel it is important to include the CIA's reaffirmation that she did confess whereever the lawyer's denial is placed. If the Intro is better off without it, that is fine by me. RonCram 13:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

yellowcake

The Yellowcake Connection Merecat 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting, but I don't think the American Thinker is considered an authorative source. I'm just surprised none of the MSM have picked up on McCarthy's area of expertise. Slate pretty much had it right in front of their noses. Time to research her West Africa credentials. ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, any outside confirmation that her former employer was BERI, S.A.? ~ trialsanderrors 07:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Yellowcake community"? Hmm. Check out the "network of ties" link; that is hilarious, but it really does show how vapid conspiracy thinking can be; unexplained lines "connecting" figures ominously to political figures as if it were proof of some vast left wing conspiracy... fun stuff, but hardly encyclopedic (or even merely newsworthy).--csloat 07:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Just finished the article. That is some twisted stuff. So, according to the author, Mary McCarthy, Joe Wilson, and other members of Clinton's "yellowcake community," were making bank off of yellowcake sales, and that's why they tried to bring down the president, so they could keep making money off of yellowcake, and somehow Tuwaitha has something to do with this (even though the yellowcake there was under seal until "discovered" by Marines), and a document that Ray Robison found that shows the Iraqis trying to find a hiding place for a computer somehow shows how sinister this all is. Am I missing anything?--csloat 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I browsed through it. It sounded conspiracy-ish, but the main thrust -- McC is an expert on West Africa, and in her role at the IG had no connection with black sites -- is noteworthy. It's all speculation though. ~ trialsanderrors 09:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that she was an expert (or held to be one) on West Africa was known; after all, she wrote a book (I suspect her U of M PhD thesis) on Ghana.

The fact that a former employer of hers was Beri, should be checked and mentioned in the WP article.

Nevertheless the following conclusion drawn out of thin air is laughable (also note the bad grammar -- American Thinker needs an editor) "If one had advance access to economic intelligence and had fostered close business ties over the years with uranium producers, huge financial gains would be possible. Could the Wilson-McCarthy-Africa connection may indicate another instance of US intelligence and Foreign Service personnel taking advantage of regulatory loopholes and lax security in third world countries for personal gain?" Well, yes, it's possible in the sense that it's logically consistent. --CSTAR 14:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't laugh too hard. When more digging is done about this person, the fact that she is a Democrat operative will become more clear. Hers was no ordinary "leak". She had the specific aim of hurting Bush under the current Dem marketing plan to boost votes in 2006 election. The aim is to minimize Bush's ability to help incumbent Pubbie congressmen/women in 06. If you don't think that's true, well, what can I say. I am going to keep looking for details about m.o.m. and after pasting the links here to see if the citations pass muster, I am going to start making sure that this article is up to snuff. So far, I am just beginning my research. Merecat 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:"She had the specific aim of hurting Bush under the current Dem marketing plan to boost votes in 2006 election." Yes, of course it's possible that she "had this specific aim" and if you want to believe this, that's fine. To use your own phrase "What can I say?". We differ, and that's part of the WP process. But could you give some thought on how you would prove that statement, particularly since you are talking about McCarthy's motives. I would urge you to think of WP as a repository of facts, useful to anybody regardless of their political thinking. One's biases inevitably creep in (for everyone, I'm not singling you out), but if you manage to pinpoint where they do, it might have some benefits. --CSTAR 16:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this is a talk page and I am giving fair warning of what I think about M.O.M. If I can find reliable source proof of what I think, it will go in the article, subject to NPOV mandate. Merecat 16:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a threat. We already know what you think.

Re: "If I can find reliable source proof of what I think". You'll win the Pullitzer.--CSTAR 16:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"The Democrat Mole In The CIA Fired" Merecat 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Mary McCarthy is a big Kerry campaign and Democratic Party contributor" Merecat 19:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nice Freudian Slip for you "Democrats Suggest Double Standard on Leaks" Merecat 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"The allegations against CIA officer Mary McCarthy over leaking sensitive operational intelligence information to the press are deadly serious." Merecat 19:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see; she contributed to the Kerry campaign, she is also probably a Democratic party member (or in your terminology a Dem Hack). That's legal isn't it? --CSTAR 19:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not if she break the law - Here's Cal Thomas calling her a "traitor" - He's a reliable source. Merecat 19:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if she broke the law, it is still legal (and non-notable) to contribute to the Democratic party.--csloat 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? His Opinion? He also seems to suggest that Dana Priest might fall into that category with this quote: "In previous wars, traitors were shot or served lengthy prison terms. Now they get fired and the reporter who prints the secrets, possibly damaging her nation, wins prestigious journalism awards. Morality and patriotism appear to have been turned upside down." Again you are entitled to believe this. However, Merecat, you cannot claim on WP somebody is a traitor that hasn't been even officially accused of anything (as in indicted), much less tried. --CSTAR 19:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please tell that to the anti-Libby and anti-Bush editors who keep mucking up Plame affair by deleting various "alleged" qualifiers. Merecat 19:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Since when are NPOV edits based on reliable sources threatening to you? I don't understand your point. I've stated here on talk (not in the article) that I think M.O.M is a DEM hack - why is that so terrible? I suppose you think she's Mother Teresa? Merecat 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"I think M.O.M is a DEM hack"

Thanks for letting us know where you stand. ~ trialsanderrors 17:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute -- I thought Mother Teresa was a hack! Now I'm really confused.--csloat 18:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to User:Merecat:

Re: If you open a sentence, "I am giving fair warning of what I think about M.O.M.", that sounds to me like a threat. But I take your word that it wasn't meant as a threat. Thanks.

Re: "I suppose you think she's Mother Teresa?" How do you know what I think of her? A common view of people that have had contact with her is that she's insufferable; maybe Mother Teresa was also. Other than that, all I know is what I read in the paper.--CSTAR 18:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me precisely what it was that you thought was being threatened? Merecat 19:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the protocol on archiving some of this stuff here? The talk site is getting a bit long. ~ trialsanderrors 22:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not too long yet, in my opinion. But as far as protocol, I don't think there is one. So just announce you will archive, and if no one objects, go ahead. I don't object. --CSTAR 22:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I have move this page to Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) as she no longer works at the CIA. Merecat 00:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was she moved in the first place? Googling for "Mary O. McCarthy" CIA gives me 89,100 hits. Next thing we know someone will move her to Mary McCarthy (unjustifiably terminated CIA employee) or Mary McCarthy (traitor) ~ trialsanderrors 01:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some while ago, the "O" was causing confusion. There is a Mary McCarthy disambig page. The move I made tonight related to CIA status only. Merecat

I have no idea why that has been done and it hasn't been discussed here. I vote for reinstating the O. version. The author will be remembered long after this affair is forgotten. ~ trialsanderrors 01:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with trialsanderrors; the O. version makes the most sense. The dab page can include a description ("For Mary O. CcCarthy, former CIA employee").--csloat 01:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with csloat and trialsanderrors. The page should sit right where it is. --Mr j galt 02:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with csloat and trialsanderrors. This should have been discussed before a move. --CSTAR 02:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, the common practice seems to be to use redirects; if it becomes clear that a more suitable name exists, then that will become clear time. --CSTAR 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Galt is right. Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) is the most appropriate title. Merecat 02:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK I have no problem with the title, given that's indeed what she is. Frankly, I had no problem with Mary O. McCarthy either. I don't know what the naming policy is, although at this point I don't really care too much.-CSTAR 03:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with assertions that lack evidence. I'm sorry, but "Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) is the most appropriate title." does not give a reason. Galt and merecat seem to me to be responding based on who they want to argue with rather than based on the merits of the argument. We have a concrete reason why Mary O. McCarthy is the most appropriate title. We have nothing on the other side but assertion.--csloat 10:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CSTAR. I have no problem with this title and I had no problem with the earlier title. If someone could reasonably consider one title or the other as POV, that would bother me. Or if it was determined that a longish title might reduce the number of readers, that would bother me. But since most people click links to go to articles, I don't think that is a concern. If I am wrong or if there are other issues to consider, let me know.RonCram 03:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I mostly care about not seeing the title for this entry become a political pinball for various drive-by editors, which is what any kind of CIA-related qualifier will promote. And also, Merecat, if you feel the change was necessary you should put the burden on yourself and change the redirect at Mary McCarthy (author) as well. In particular I would appreciate if in the future you announce such things beforehand. ~ trialsanderrors 04:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What's done is done. You can always help too, you know. Merecat 04:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What's done is done. You haven't been on Wikipedia for long, have you? If you click on the "move" tag, you'll encounter the following advice: please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding.. Internalize it. It means something. ~ trialsanderrors 05:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you saying the move was a disaster? Why? Merecat 06:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No it means that it makes it harder to assume good faith if the only defense you can offer is What's done is done. ~ trialsanderrors 07:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Espionage acts

The article states:

The relevant parts of the Espionage Act of 1917 is in U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37. Deliberate disclosure of classified material for which one is entrusted access fall under Section §794 and Section §798.[8] [9] The laws carry penalties of up to Capital Punishment or up to 10 years imprisonment, respectively.

Relevant to what? Relevant to McCarthy? There is no supporting evidence for the claim of relevance, since McCarthy hasn't been charged with anything. Please provide a reference. Note the refernced NY Times article does not discuss what parts of the espionage act is applicable.--CSTAR 05:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It's redundant because the same passage already pops up in the Leak Scandal section (preceding current footnotes 11 and 19). It's also original research beyond a link (internal or external) to Espionage Act of 1917. ~ trialsanderrors 05:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no consensus, slightly in favour. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 09:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (name change survey)

Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) {more accurate - helps people find the article; she's in the news because of "CIA"} → Mary O. McCarthy – {less unwieldy, more consistent with what one expects to find at that page; focus on CIA employment seems too caught up in POV issues of the moment} (please note these are the reasons for the proposed move as noted on the Requested move page).

(comment is meant to suggest the reasons for the proposed change, as per WP policy on requested moves. Please do not delete this again as it is essential for whatever admin looks at the requested move. Please do not change the heading again either. Thanks).-csloat 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop trying to hijack this survey with a biased framing. Merecat 19:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC) Issue resolved. Current framing is now ok. My apologies for saying "hijack". That was too harsh. Merecat 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; this isn't really the way the move request policy suggests it be done, but I understand your concern about balance, and you have found an appropriate solution. I've bolded the names so it's clear what's going on.--csloat 20:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks bro. Peace, out. Merecat 20:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Like the tone. Thanks.--CSTAR 20:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The question is: "Do you support or oppose a name charge to this article at this time"?

The current name is: Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) - vote oppose to keep this.

The proposed name is: Mary O. McCarthy - vote support to go to this.

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose as per discussion above. This Mary McCarthy shares her name with a very famous author. Merely adding an O. to her name will not help wiki readers distinguish her from the author. How the move was done is irrelevant. One complainant has attempted to connect this title discussion with the controversy over the Plame Affair title. That controversy should not be brought here. Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) accurately describes the subject of this article and the title should remain as it is.--Mr j galt 12:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per discussion above. The move to Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) was done without consultation or warning and with a bare minimum of explanation, and then was treated by the mover as a fait accompli. What is worse is the editor who moved the page pulled the same thing recently at Plame affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs)
• Support--Anchoress 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Current name of Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) is best for now.Merecat 18:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the current title disambiguates McCarthy--Tbeatty 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Reasons elaborated below: Mary O. McCarthy seems to be her professional name. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support --waffle iron ^talk 03:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose --Current title provides disambiguation Ed 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. AjaxSmack 07:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Is this survey really necessary?

Although I prefer the name article's original name "Mary O. McCarthy", I had the impression the new name "Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee)" was also generally acceptable, for now at least. If someone raises a WP policy issue, then we may have to revisit that. The name seems to be completely neutral, although if someone believes (and is willing to argue) that it isn't, please speak up. I would just request that in the future any large changes be discussed here first. That seemed to be an issue above. Thanks. --CSTAR 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What CSTAR said. FWIW, her 9/11 Commission testimony was as MO.McC, while her book publication and her Georgetown facebook photo have her as MMcC. So the O. usage is at best ambiguous. The earlier claim that she was never known as Mary O. was wrong though. I guess that means I'm on the opposed side unless people continue fiddling with it. ~ trialsanderrors 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Responding to myself, after some googling it seems that MO.McC was indded her professional name. From the CSIS bio: Prior to joining CSIS in August 2001, Mary O. McCarthy was a senior policy adviser to the CIA's deputy director for science and technology. 9/11 Commission testimony: Statement of Mary O. McCarthy to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, etc. I guess that means I'm changing my vote to Support ~ trialsanderrors 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Undiscussed name changes.

You may wish to bring on RFC if you believe you have a case of serious and persistent abuse. However, RFC's generally are protracted and in my opinion (definitely a minority opinion) a waste of time.--CSTAR 17:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Is that directed at me? I'm quite certainly on the minority side here too. ~ trialsanderrors 17:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, although "directing" sounds a little too beligerent. --CSTAR 18:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Mr j galt objected to the initial non-neutral nature of the framing of the question (posted by another editor). I have re-framed the question in a neutral manner. There was no way to effectively save Mr j galt's comment on this page, as it was out of context after I relocated it due to the repair of the question. References to "directing" above are in reply to Mr j galt's concerns and are now too, out of context. Please disregard this SNAFU and focus on the question. Mr j galt's initial objection has been deleted by me as it's not possible to trim the SNAFU correctly if that's left in, as it would appear that Mr j galt was complaining about the current format of the question, which he was not. Merecat 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Meecat says: The current name of Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) is best. This woman's name is now linked to this scandal and to the CIA in the mind of the reading public. We need "CIA" in the name to help with those who google and yahoo their way to the wiki. I am the one who made the most recent name change here. I changed it from Mary McCarthy (CIA employee) to Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) a few days ago. I did this for the obvious reason she no longer works at CIA. In my view, going to Mary O. McCarthy would be a step backwards. Anyone searching for "Mary O. McCarthy" will find this article as that name already re-directs here. Merecat 19:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you changed the question on this survey. Please only edit or remove other people's comments on a talk page if they are prohibited by WP policy. --CSTAR 19:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Cstar, please don't start with that angle. The question as framed before was way off kilter. It even had argument for one side built into the question itself. The question is now clear. Let people vote and stop complaining. Merecat 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Re Cstar, please don't start with that angle. You mean to request that you don't edit or remove other peoples comments? Are you suggesting that is unreasonable? I'm making an effot to keep the dialogue here civil. If you believe the question was off kilter, then by all means say so, and reformulate it below yourself, but without deletion of someone else's post.--CSTAR 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat, you deleted the reason the move was proposed in order to bias this debate, to make it seem like no reason was offered. Please consult WP policy concerning page moves -- something you should have done before moving the page in the first place. The person requesting the move is supposed to include the reason for the proposed move.--csloat 19:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed they are - in the "discussion" section, not built into the question itself such as "Will you vote for George Bush (who is a dickhead) or for John Kerry?" That's how the question was framed and I corrected that to a neutral question. Please stop complaining, it makes you look bad. Merecat 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat I am only suggesting the use of WP policy on this, which requires the reason for the suggested move be given along with the request. It is not meant to bias the survey. The reason WP policy requires that seems to be so that the admin, who is likely not a regular reader of this page, can easily find the main reason for the requested move by looking at the "Requested move" heading. You have a lot of nerve even suggesting that I did this to bias the survey, given that you made the name change without even stating a reason or consulting anyone else here! Please don't worry about what makes me look good or bad, it's really not your concern. Thanks.--csloat 19:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin intervention is only required on "article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators" (see Wikipedia:Requested moves). The name change I made to this page (see my comments above) was innocuous and did not cause any trouble. Those who suggest otherwise are making up stories. Please stop over-reacting. The current name of Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) is very good for now. Perhaps later we should drop the CIA stuff, but now yet. This is a current event and CIA helps people find article. Merecat 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This move requires the assistance of a WP admin, thanks to you having moved it here in the first place without discussion. Page moves should not be done on a whim. I don't agree that we need CIA in the title for people to find the article -- I've said before we should put CIA on the disambiguation page, so that if one types "Mary McCarthy" they will have choices that include the (former CIA employee) designation. But the title should not be so unwieldy if it can be avoided, and at this point the simple O will do so.--csloat 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't on a whim and "CIA employee" was already in the name. The only change I made was to add "former". And I disgree with you; the name Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) is best for now - see my reasons stated above. Merecat 20:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Google test

Btw & jfyi, on the offered rationale Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee) {more accurate - helps people find the article; she's in the news because of "CIA"}: If I do a Google search for Mary McCarthy former CIA employee wiki I end up on the MMcC the author page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialsanderrors (talk • contribs)

A Google for mary mccarthy cia, returns 2,080,000 hits.

A Google for "mary o mccarthy", returns 106,000 hits.

Frankly, unless we are saying that the CIA aspect of her career is not notable, then there is no reason to take "CIA" out of the page title. And if are saying that, then why are there 20 times more hits for Mary McCarthy + CIA than without?

Merecat 05:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

A Google for mary mccarthy cia Cut down to 585,000 if you actually include the quotes, but that doesn't mean much because most news articles that start out with the formal O. will refer to her later without the O. Better do a search of public documents. ~ trialsanderrors 05:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are included with "Mary O. McCarthy" to get only exact matches for her name when used like that. This search shows that her name with the "O" included is not that widely used. However, the quotes are not included in mary mccarthy cia, because this search is set to retrieve all the pages that have mary+mccarthy+cia. Merecat 05:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't even make sense. If you do an unquoted search for MMcC+CIA they automatically will include all finds that spell her name as MOMcC. Plus a variety of "John McCarthy & Mary Miller" finds. How is that supposed to be a relevant result? Plus, 106,000 finds = Not widely used??? ~ trialsanderrors 06:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See Yahoo test below. Boolean logic at Yahoo excluded the false positives such as John McCarthy & Mary Miller. Merecat 06:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo test

Google does not support full Boolean logic, so I am re-running a test with Yahoo instead:

Search for cia "mary mccarthy" OR "mary o. mccarthy" returns 1,050,000 hits.

Search for "mary o mccarthy" returns 238,000 hits.

This test is much more accurate than my Google test, but there's still 5x more with CIA included.

Merecat 06:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, it seems to me that to compare the two proposed titles, the proper searches would be:

• "mary o. mccarthy' -> 197,000 finds
• "mary mccarthy" "former cia employee" -> 62 finds

Even "mary o. mccarthy" former cia employee does only marginally better. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You are mis-stating the disagreement. The current vote, if it passes, will remove "CIA" from the title of this page. And it's generally agreed here the public, if they are looking for information about this woman, will already know she has a CIA connection to her. Typical searchers, going on that information, would search for her name + CIA. We are not trying to replicate the exact expected searches with these tests, rather we are trying to determine the prevelance of hits that match the citeria of the name of the page, that being +CIA or -CIA. Some might search for "Mary McCarthy" CIA, some might search for "Mary O. McCarthy" CIA, some might search for Mary McCarthy CIA, some might search for Mary O. McCarthy CIA, some might search for "Mary McCarthy" and some might search for "Mary O. McCarthy", etc. We can't predict what the searches will be, but we can measure the pools of available hits. And from those pools, we can align our name up with the most likely hits. The mostly likely hits will be from the largest pools. This is why CIA needs to stay in the page title. The largest pool resulted from the Yahoo Boolean search I did which covers both variants of the name and includes CIA. That Boolean search shows that her name, spelled either way and including CIA, is 5x times more likely to return a hit. We can extrapolate from this that 5x times more media reports mention CIA than don't, so it's 5x times more likely that her name is associated with CIA than not and therefore 5x times more likely that searches will include the term CIA. Leave this page name alone and it will soon be at the top of most searches. Merecat 06:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense because this would mandate that the two drummers named Roger Taylor would be listed by their musical affiliations rather than by their full names. And I have no problems googling both of them via RT Queen or RT Duran. ~ trialsanderrors 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also complete nonsense because a user looking for "Mary mccarthy CIA" will land on this page whether or not CIA is in the title. It is highly unlikely someone will think to type out "Mary McCarthy (former CIA employee)" exactly, so they will land on a search results page whether or not the title includes the "former CIA employee."--csloat 06:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the other fellow introduced Google testing 1st. My arguments on that point were rebuttal. My case in chief says merely that CIA affiliation at the top of the page has recognition value. Merecat 06:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly in your posts rebuts my original point? Btw, I didn't introduce this as a "Google test" but only as an oddity which will in time be fixed by Google, no matter what the title is. Hence, the Btw & jfyi qualifier. ~ trialsanderrors 07:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, you introduced Google results here 1st. Until you concede that, this dialog is lame. Have a nice day. Merecat 12:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's leave it at that then. ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Crank corner

Wasn't it a rule of thumb to keep blog entries off WP? To quote one of DT's editorial comments: (Keep the extreme LW blog crap out or I'll add conservative blog crap for balance. Wikipedia's policy is to be neutral.) ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed DT (an d a few others) periodically removing what they call "blog crap" or "blog nonsense". My contribution to this most recent edit was limited to copyediting (and correctly spelling Hinderaker). I'm sure Joshua Micah Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo might have something to say about Mary O. McCarthy.--CSTAR 19:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We already got a link to Larry Johnson's blog entry at TPMCafe. Unlike Hinderaker he actually has personal experience with McC. I didn't consider his position worth summarizing since it's a blog entry, but if we're turning the Opinions section into a dumping ground for partisan conspiracy theories, we should give equal time to cranks from both ends of the spectrum, is all. ~ trialsanderrors 20:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Time magazine story with 4 viewpoints from former CIA officials. Worth summarizing. ~ trialsanderrors 23:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Another opinion ~ trialsanderrors 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Move request

The move vote seems unfortunate. The move was made by a sockpuppet without any consensus, and then the sockpuppet participated in the vote. I believe the default should be for the page to be moved back to Mary O. McCarthy, and the sockpuppet's vote should not count towards the consensus.--csloat 19:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The move was a good one.--Tbeatty 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So you support letting pages be moved by known sockpuppets of banned users without consensus, and then allowing the banned user's sockpuppet to vote against moving the page back?--csloat 21:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So who do you think is the sockpuppet? User:Merecat or User:MZMcBride? Evidence for sockpuppetry? ~ trialsanderrors 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merecat. I don't know McBride.--csloat 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. McB moved the article from O. to (CIA e). ~ trialsanderrors 21:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I see; then Merecat moved it again; merecat's move was last. I do not see why his vote should count here or why the page should not revert to the default (O.) title before the undiscussed moves. It's a minor issue, so I'm going to let it go, but it raises significant procedural questions.--csloat 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Mary McCarthy (CIA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424100544/http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/lawsecurity/events/arewesaferbios.html to http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/lawsecurity/events/arewesaferbios.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423184027/http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098 to http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427141307/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502041120/http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB8Y25FBME.html to http://news.tbo.com/news/nationworld/MGB8Y25FBME.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506072821/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1114-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1114-01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512035954/http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4534_0_3_0_C/ to http://www.aim.org/aim_column/4534_0_3_0_C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427141307/http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466719/site/newsweek
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060423184027/http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098 to http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29098

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary McCarthy (CIA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527102415/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)