Talk:Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)

Giving this a Clean up
Subject of article meets criteria for noteworthiness; however, this needs sourcing and some changes of tone and POV. Will give it a scrub. Timoleon212 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Timoleon212

As events have unfolded, it would appear Shaffer's claims about the 5 Gitmo detainees and the Bergdahl charges held up remarkably well. Many sources have now reported that the White House wanted, for political reasons, to not have Bergdahl charged but the Pentagon went ahead and did it (albeit slowly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.20.187 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC) NPOV dispute

September 2006
This has a pretty blatant POV, between "combat hardened", that he "has served his entire career at the forefront of this country’s secret intelligence battles in cutting edge, often dangerous, assignments and leadership positions", "daring and innovative" & most glaringly that it serves only one side of a very contentious issue. I'm tempted to just delete it. Scalefree 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ranger scroll
The following sentences are not sourced and look like a hit job: "At the time, Weldon was seeking contributions and was selling his own book, 'Countdown to Terror'. For the publicity alone his patronage of Shaffer was temporarily profitable until the reality of Shaffer professional and personal issues began to surface." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.79.195 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This article states: "While in Afghanistan he also participated in an air assault with the 75th Ranger Regiment during WINTER STRIKE 03 to bring critical information and supplies to his HUMINT team located in a forward combat area with the Rangers in the Hindu Kush Mountains."

Able_Danger states: "he continues to wear the Ranger scroll as a combat patch on his Army uniform, despite never having been assigned or attached to any Ranger unit or otherwise earning that honor. Shaffer's claims of having participated in an air assault with the Rangers have been repeatedly rejected by those who served with him in Afghanistan."

Which is it? --Pascal666 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The former - check out ABLE DANGER blog.com (Mike Kasper)- he has a copy of the certification that shows that Shaffer served with the super-secret Task Force 121. This certification also verifies Shaffer's participation in the nighttime air assault (conducted by the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment) on the night of 11 Nov 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tspooky (talk • contribs) 00:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A link to the Effects-Based Operations (EBO) wiki page seems relevant. It's been a topic not without controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.44.230 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained Issues
Article states "General Shaffer is now currently serving as Assistant Chief of Staff in Afghanistan"

Is this officer really a serving general? Other Wiki pages e.g., Operation_Dark_Heart suggest he is a retired Lieutenant Colonel writing books critical of admin. policy. Apparent contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martello1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Has been edited to become more flattering
This article needs a re-edit to reflect charges and criticisms leveled against Anthony Shaffer. Prior to a series of edits, the controversial and unfounded nature of Mr. Shaffer's 9/11 allegations, in particular, had better coverage. It appears that someone sympathetic with Mr. Shaffer has edited his page to remove this information. Gumshoes (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, now the article is nothing but a series of attacks on him. CsikosLo (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

LOL - the "controversial and unfounded nature" of my 9/11 allegations are not "unfounded' based on multiple witnesses backing up what I've said and ZERO mention of that fact - talk about purposeful ignorance on the part of the posters here...plus the admission by John Crane that the whole DoD IG investigation was designed to discredit, not fact find - and this is also public knowledge left out by clearly bias to only contain negative information and not provide and show the true outcome of the investigation and confirmation regarding the 9/11 terrorist.

Edit request from Tspooky
Hi everyone and, I am copying an edit request from Tspooky from my talk page here for review and possible inclusion in the article:

Tspooky, the IMDB source is not reliable (it's listed at WP:RSP. The MacMillan source is too non-independent. I'm not sure about the Government Accountability Project, but the link goes to a 2012 article which doesn't support the claims regarding 2017 and 2018. Nothing wrong with the reliability of the Wright State University source but the fact that those details aren't covered outside of the university lens is a sign that they don't need to be in this article. I will take a closer look at the fas.org, Peter Lance, Google Books, and Just the News sources over the next couple of days. Thank you for finding all this info. You may want to review WP:RS for more info on what counts as a reliable source as you collect further sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Here we go with the propaganda and double standards from YOU. Yes IMDB is reliable - it is managed by a staff that VALIDATES information - and (duh) you can actually watch one of the episodes and see that, indeed I am a producer. This is why you all have no credibility and people make fun of your 'validation' process. And you are not accurate as other bios DO have the IMDB info on the bio...why are you trying to use a double standard? Next - again - the Wright State University publication is putting out information that (duh) THEY verified for the article - again - it is a "credible" source and I was the alumnus of the year -and yes - duh - this is part of the DARK HEART story as that is why I was given the alumnus of the year award (why don't you try reading the article). The MacMillian source is not supposed to be "independent" - it states the content of the book and outlines what I said in the book. Again - your interpretation is insane. The book was reviewed by DoD - multiple times - so it has been vetted and approved - the MacMillian summary of the book outlines what the Department of Defense validated.

And - another article about the original lawsuit regarding the censorship of DARK HEART: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/21/court-case-challenges-dod-cia-authority-to-delete-/

As for the Peter Lance issue - "take a look"? He is a published investigative journalist more credible than half the sources you already have listed -

And you can actually put a copy of the current (active) lawsuit that covers the range of issues in my bio: https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/0001%20-%200000%20-%20suppressed.pdf

And the John Crane actual affidavit that outlines the fact that the DIA IG investigation of ABLE DANGER was flawed and directed by DoD leadership to NOT find the truth:https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-09/Affidavit%20draft%20John%20Crane.pdf

And - this article from GAP outlines the specific retaliations and IS factual: https://whistleblower.org/uncategorized/operation-dark-heart-a-case-study-for-needed-whistleblower-protections/

What is interesting that you all pretend to want full information then work hard to avoid full and balanced information when it is presented. It appears that you and others have an "agenda". Why is that?

And you may want to include the newly released transcripts of hearings I participated in regarding the DIA retaliation, back in 2006: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg28171/html/CHRG-109hhrg28171.htm

Either you all want to improve Wikipedia for accuracy or you want to pander to a political cause...you need to decide which it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tspooky (talk • contribs) 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am ignoring the combative behavior, but can only continue doing so for a little while longer. In order to effect change to this article, you are going to need the support of other volunteer editors; gaining it is more likely if you interact with me and others in a civil way. I disagree with you on IMDB, WSU, and MacMillan, and feel I have stated my case as much as I care to. Other editors may show up and agree more with you, in which case I'll bow to consensus. Having looked at peterlance.com, it's a self-published source, and we shouldn't include it here per WP:BLPSPS. Lance is an accomplished journalist and if his reporting were published by a reliable source it would be highly likely to merit inclusion in the article. You have now provided more sources, but not language that you are proposing. It is sometimes helpful to drop sources off at the talk page, and other editors may view them and make their own edits. If you are looking for more specific additions, you might instead draft your own language and then list it here for inclusion using Template:Request edit or use the Edit Request Wizard. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"I am ignoring the combative behavior" - joke. YOU all permitted an anonymous source to post material FALSE information - and you STILL have it up to this minute. Why is the demand for "factual" corrections "combative"? As for the language - if you review the links and state what they say in accurate language that is all that is needed...I am ambivalent to the language as long as it is "fair" in that it reflects the facts not opinions or flat out inaccurate posts from anonymous sources.

I am comfortable with what you've proposed, as a start, and allow for others to review the factual links.

What is intersting that you all as editors have taken no interest in discovering the links or posting updated and accurate information on your own... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tspooky (talk • contribs)

Unused reference (NYT)
This source about the Pentagon's purchase and destruction of Shaffer's book is currently unused in the article. I removed it, and here it is for later use.

False and defamatory material violating NPOV and BLP removed.
Removed false, partisan, defamatory claims, "sourced" by Media Matters, an openly leftist organization known for their "War on Fox News," and USA Today, an openly leftist publication which broke their non-endorsement policy to oppose Trump and endorse Clinton in 2016.

These are not unbiased sources, and publishing such false and defamatory claims on Shaffer's Wikipedia article violates both NPOV and BLP. If such defamatory material is repeatedly re-inserted, a report will be made on the BLP Noticeboard 67.42.97.177 (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming from the BLPN, there is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters per WP:RSP. Further, there should be multiple RS documenting the allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)